Near Coyle Street, around the intersection of U Avenue in the Sheep’s Head Bay area of Brooklyn, a homeless shelter project at 2134 Coyle Street has recently sparked strong backlash from the community. Beyond the controversy of the “bait and switch” from affordable housing to a homeless shelter, as well as the developer’s accusation against Chinese neighbors for denying access to construction crews into their backyard as a “breach of contract,” this case involves more than just the issue of passage rights. It also reaches into the confusion of land rights structuring, improper building divisions, and the legality of construction permits, leading to a series of legal and procedural challenges.
In response to the “bait and switch” controversy, Rafael Salamanca, the chairman of the New York City Council’s Land Use Committee, expressed at a housing and construction budget hearing on March 25th:
“I have been involved in activities with Councilwoman Narcisse from the Sheep’s Head Bay area. The handling of the 2134 Coyle Street project has been unfair and irresponsible to her. We originally approved an affordable housing project, and she worked hard to garner community support and successfully pushed for a change in land use. However, the owners and developers deceived her by flipping the land and converting it into a homeless shelter, which violated the trust of the community.”
Salamanca called on the city government’s entity responsible for constructing and maintaining affordable housing, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), to “investigate the lobbyists, developers, and general contractors involved in this case because it did not go through HPD channels. It may be subject to MIH or 421A policies, but it is not a project subsidized by HPD, but rather a discretionary program. They engaged in a ‘bait and switch’ deception against the councilwoman and the community.”
In addition to the budget and policy concerns at the municipal level, it remains unknown when HPD will initiate an investigation. There are significant disputes regarding the practical legal aspects of the case as well. The developer of the homeless shelter, “2134 Coyle HDFC,” accused neighboring Chinese homeowners of refusing access to construction workers through the backyard, resulting in project delays. As a result, they filed a lawsuit under section 881 of the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) seeking court-mandated temporary access rights.
The case had a hearing on April 2 at the Brooklyn Supreme Court; the judge ruled that Chinese neighbors could submit rebuttal documents by May 7, questioning the validity of the agreement and the developer’s claims of authority, but until then, they cannot obstruct the developer’s access through the front entrance.
The developer claims that construction delays caused by the blocked access have led to timeline disruptions and impacted the contract, resulting in financial losses. However, public records from the Department of Buildings (DOB) indicate that the fundamental issue in this case is not about access rights but rather the substantial controversies surrounding the land rights and construction permits of the entire real estate project.
According to DOB records, 2134 Coyle Street and 2114 Coyle Street (now the location of a DOLLAR TREE store) were originally part of the same property and building. 2114 was used for retail purposes while 2134 served as a warehouse space. In 2023, the original owner, Coyle Properties LLC, divided the entire property into “Lot 10” (the current location of DOLLAR TREE) and “Lot 11” (the current site of the homeless shelter). Although the land division received approval from the DOB in early 2024, the building on the land has not yet completed the legal or physical separation.
Moreover, on September 24, 2024, the DOB issued a building division and partial demolition permit, specifying the address as 2114 Coyle Street (the current DOLLAR TREE store), but the construction actually targeted the old warehouse at 2134 Coyle Street. This move has been criticized by the community as a “bait-and-switch” tactic, using a misplaced address to circumvent the scrutiny process for the demolition application concerning the warehouse at 2134 Coyle Street.
As of now, the HDFC owner of 2134 Coyle Street has not obtained formal demolition approval for that site. On November 7, 2024, the DOB even issued a stop-work order for 2134 Coyle Street, which remains unresolved to this day. If construction proceeds under these circumstances, the community believes that the developer may be engaged in illegal activities.
Community members also point out that despite the land division, since the building itself has not been fully separated, 2134 and 2114 are effectively part of the same structure and should be considered jointly owned. If HDFC suffers losses due to delays, they should first negotiate with the other interested party, COYLE REALTY LLC, to complete the structural separation and jointly take responsibility for the construction progress instead of immediately resorting to legal action against Chinese neighbors.
Furthermore, while section 881 of the RPAPL permits developers to apply for access rights in special circumstances, the precondition is that the rights of the owner are undisputed. In a case involving multiple property owners, land divisions, property transfers, integrated construction, and other complex issues, it is crucial to meticulously clarify the legal responsibilities.
Currently, although the developer has obtained several permits related to front entrance construction from the DOB, such as building fences and scaffolding on the sidewalk and permits to demolish another nearby warehouse (numbered 2150), and has issued a notice to the community and neighbors to commence construction within ten days, protesters continue to demonstrate on-site daily, obstructing the entry of construction crews and escalating tensions.
The subsequent developments of the incident will depend on whether the court accepts the rebuttal documents submitted by Chinese neighbors by May 7. This controversial homeless shelter project involving tangled property rights, permit procedure uncertainties, and community opposition pressures poses a major test for public trust and policy transparency in New York City in recent times.