In Brooklyn’s Sheepshead Bay area, the homeless appeal case on Coyle Street faced a setback on Monday (August 10) as the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) did not support the residents’ request to revoke the building permit after nearly 5 hours of hearings. Following the hearing, residents prepared written “summary statements” as requested by the BSA while also beginning to assess new rounds of BSA challenges and legal avenues.
Residents pursued the path of “procedural justice” during this hearing, but Andy Wong, a resident representative involved in the process, felt a bias and favoritism in the administrative procedures. He pointed out that when ordinary citizens apply for building permits with missing information or lack of ownership qualifications, they are often directly rejected, while developers are given leeway by the Department of Buildings (DOB) and BSA under the pretext of “irrelevant” or “actual ownership interests.” This raised questions about whether the regulatory agencies are upholding credibility or finding excuses for the DOB.
State Senator Steve Chan expressed concerns after the hearing, stating that the BSA showed excessive favoritism towards the DOB and failed to fulfill its duty of independent oversight. He planned to write to the BSA expressing his doubts, while City Councilor Mercedes Narcisse also echoed similar sentiments. In response, the BSA chair reiterated that the BSA must act within the established legal framework.
Despite the hearing not meeting the residents’ expectations, Sheubin Zhu, a resident of 86th Street who attended the entire hearing, believed that the hearing was not a failure or futile, but rather an important step in legal proceedings for the protest. He emphasized that the community should not be discouraged by this setback, noting that the shift from traditional street protests to legal and administrative processes in the Chinese community is a crucial breakthrough. The BSA’s request for residents to establish a legal chain based on regulations and precedents actually indicated a direction for reinforcement.
“The BSA set a high legal threshold, essentially telling residents what kind of legal reasons and evidence need to be provided to have the committee revoke the permit,” he said.
Zhu pointed out that while residents currently have a wealth of information, facing highly professional administrative agencies may require more than just residents researching documents and regulations on their own. He suggested that the Chinese community should further seek building professionals familiar with zoning rules and lawyers adept at courtroom debates and cross-examinations to assist in translating identified issues into legal arguments that the BSA cannot evade. He also urged bipartisan elected officials to join forces in voicing concerns.
Blogger Fei Ling noted that for ordinary residents to appeal is not easy, and the current legal arguments appear insufficient as a complete legal “chain of consequences” has not been established. Analyzing that the likelihood of the second case being rejected is high after the first case closed, residents should learn from the experiences of the first two cases and prepare for a third case. From the hearing process, it is evident that the BSA, as a professional administrative agency, tends to respect the industry experience and administrative judgments of departments like the DOB. Thus, it is advisable to avoid resorting to the New York State Supreme Court as judges there would similarly highly respect the BSA’s professional discretion.
Ling analyzed that the U.S. common law system heavily relies on precedents, differing from the way of thinking in continental legal systems. To persuade the BSA, residents must not only prove “something is wrong” but also find relevant court or BSA precedents to demonstrate the legal consequences of such errors, showing fundamental defects that cannot be remedied retroactively rather than common administrative flaws.
He particularly highlighted an in-depth study of the “zero” ratio issue of ADA accessible housing raised by Western residents during the hearing. If the related requirements are mandatory regulations for supportive housing, and the current design cannot be easily corrected to meet the requirements, possibly requiring redesign or reapplication, it may align with the BSA’s standard for “irremediable” revocations.
Regarding concrete plans for the next steps, Eddie, a resident representative involved in the appeal work, stated that the community is deeply researching new BSA appeal cases focusing on “supportive housing violations converted into homeless shelters” and challenging related review mechanisms and supervisory agreements.
The residents’ WeChat group has begun mobilization efforts, considering that funding support is needed for subsequent supplementary documents, application submissions (costing thousands of dollars), and material printing. Discussions within the community have started on fundraising plans to consolidate resources for the upcoming legal battle.