Note:   Website NYC10044 and The Main Street WIRE have requested copies of the RIOC and Hudson/Related papers in the Southtown case; they have not yet been supplied.

RIOC's September 22 approval of the Hudson-Related design for Southtown is based on its conclusion that the new design is substantially the same as the earlier Ramati plan. While the Ramati plan is generally considered a dead letter, it was the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). RIOC's acceptance of the current plan therefore relies on a contention that no new environmental review is necessary - that the two designs are environmentally equivalent.

The two petitioners challenge that, saying the new plan is significantly different from the plan that passed environmental review. They submit the shadow diagrams linked here to demonstrate that contention, pointing out that the new layout would place shadows on Blackwell House and other recreational areas. Both Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development (RIRSD) and the Alternative Southtown Design Committee (chaired by Robert Chira) contend RIOC should have conducted a fresh environmental review before accepting the new design.

To view alternative sizes (depending on your modem speed and screen configuration) of aerial photos and the comparative shadow diagrams and building layouts of the Ramati plan (which was current in 1990) and the Hudson/Related plan (approved by the RIOC Board September 22, 1999), select using the table below, then use your browser's BACK button to return bere. Aerial photos are part of the court record and are used courtesy AeroGraphics Corporation.

Another claim of significant difference has to do with the actual space occupied by the two different plans: The approved Hudson- Related plan situates some buildings farther north – nearer Northtown buildings – than did the Ramati plan.

A key issue to be decided, perhaps at the start of Wednesday's court session under Justice Harold Tomkins, is whether the Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) will be allowed to present its case against the current plan. RIRA seeks to participate as an "intervenor" in the cases.

A key legal point being pressed by RIRA, along with the petitioners, is that RIOC may not allow construction on a park area of "approximately six acres" required by the General Development Plan (GDP). The GDP is part of the Lease under which the State is developing the Island, which is City property. In 1990, when RIOC asked the City for several amendments to the GDP, language that would have reduced the park requirement was rejected.

RIOC and the developers contend that in the '70's during Northtown construction, the park had already been reduced, and that the City Board of Estimate's 1990 decision to keep the park at six acres had no practical effect.

RIRA sees the GDP issue as important as a precedent in future development.