The developers behind the Elizabeth St. Garden affordable housing project are rebuffing a call to drop their lawsuit against Mayor Adams and his top aide, Randy Mastro, who have in their final days in office been trying fervently to block the long-stalled housing plan.
The developers, Pennrose Properties, Habitat for Humanity and RiseBoro, filed the suit last month to challenge the Adams administration’s decision to designate Nolita’s Elizabeth St. Garden as “parkland,” a move that’d make construction in the space close to impossible. The designation struck a serious blow to “Haven Green,” a project the three developers were first picked for years ago and which involves building 123 affordable apartments for senior citizens on the site of the city government-owned garden, while retaining some of the green space.
Adams was for years a big supporter of Haven Green, but reversed himself and came out in opposition to it after naming Mastro, who has ties to prominent opponents of the development, as his first deputy mayor in spring 2025.
Earlier this week, Mastro sent a letter to the developers saying Adams’ administration was willing to offer them another city government-owned site to develop housing on, at 22 Suffolk St., if they agreed to drop their lawsuit by noon Wednesday, the mayor’s final day in office.
But in a response letter to Mastro shared exclusively with the Daily News, Dylan Salmons, an executive at Pennrose, rejected the first deputy’s offer, writing the 22 Suffolk St. offer made “in the waning hours of the Adams administration is not sufficient for us to abandon litigation that we believe is in the public interest.”
For instance, Salmons noted the Suffolk St. site would need to undergo an entirely new land use application, a process that can take years, before shovels could hit the ground. By contrast, construction could start immediately at the Elizabeth St. Garden site.
Perhaps more importantly, Salmons wrote his team hopes Zohran Mamdani, who was set to be sworn in as mayor at midnight Wednesday, will try and rescind the Adams administration’s parkland designation and allow the original Haven Green project to proceed.
“Ultimately, the new administration should have the opportunity to determine whether to issue a designation letter, how to address the legal issues surrounding the Elizabeth Street site, and how best to accomplish a feasible, sustainable, and trustworthy affordable housing plan for the city,” the letter stated. “We remain committed to working collaboratively with the city to deliver high-quality affordable housing in an appropriate and legally sound path forward.”
In response to Salmons’ missive, Mastro assailed the developers for pursuing “a frivolous lawsuit over a site that has already been designated parkland and that they have no chance of reversing.”
“Shame on them,” he added.
In addition to Mastro and Adams, the developers’ suit names several city agencies, including the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, as defendants.
During the mayoral campaign, Mamdani promised to reverse Adams’ blockade of the Elizabeth St. Garden development and move forward with building it. After the parkland designation, though, Mamdani said such a move had become “nearly impossible.” A spokeswoman for Mamdani didn’t immediately return a request for comment on Salmons’ letter.
Opponents of the Elizabeth St. Garden redevelopment say it would ruin a cherished green space.
Supporters, including Adams himself at one point, have noted the Haven Green project would still leave some of the garden intact, while making room for much-needed senior housing in a neighborhood that has produced little of it in recent decades.
In their pending lawsuit, Pennrose and the other developers allege the parkland designation isn’t legitimate for a number of reasons. For instance, they allege Mastro undertook the effort to block the development on behalf of “well-heeled private interests,” citing reporting from The News that a number of Adams allies, like his confidant Frank Carone, have been advising celebrities who are opposed to the garden redevelopment.
