Brad Lander Calls for Pause on BMT Process

BQE Admin on March 23, 2026

Brad Lander, the former city comptroller and now congressional candidate, speaks last week at a forum on the planned redevelopment of the Brooklyn Marine Terminal (BMT) in Red Hook.

By Jack Delaney | jdelaney@queensledger.com

CARROLL GARDENS — Red Hook residents may have gained a powerful ally in their fight against the Brooklyn Marine Terminal (BMT) redevelopment — but he’s not making any promises yet.

On Wednesday, March 11, nearly 100 locals gathered in the bowels of Sacred Hearts & Saint Stephen Church by the BQE trench. The meeting was ostensibly an info session about the BMT’s environmental review process, and kicked off with a presentation by Hilary Semel, director of the Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination (MOEC).

Once the Q&A arrived, however, attendees went on the offensive. Axel from the Columbia Waterfront District posed the essential question: Could the environmental review lead to any meaningful changes to the existing plan, which would see approximately 6000 homes built along the decrepit piers south of Brooklyn Bridge Park?

Semel’s answer — that the review’s findings were non-binding — triggered a muffled outcry. Local activist John Leyva argued that the process was simply meant to appease residents, while the New York Economic Development Corporation moved ahead without alterations to its original proposal. (“This is BS. Quote me on that,” Leyva would say after the meeting.)

A Red Hooker named Lou agreed: “The preamble makes it seem like the mostly-port alternative has no legs,” he noted, referencing a master document called the draft Scope of Work. “It’s a foregone conclusion that there will be housing.”

Other residents raised what they view as fundamental issues with constructing high-rises on the waterfront. Maria LaRocca pressed officials about a recent study published in Nature, which found that scientists have been severely underestimating sea level rise. Lisa Baustead, a veteran business owner from Carroll Gardens, added that buses were already gridlocked at the intersection of Atlantic Ave and Columbia St — what would happen with thousands of additional cars? And Pablo Garcia highlighted the 10 tons of waste that would need to be removed daily, to which an EDC rep replied that they were in contact with DSNY.

As part of the review process, known as CEQR, the MOEC is required to study the environmental impacts of alternative plans. Yet despite soliciting applications from potential port operators, the city has thus far signaled it is unlikely to tweak the core proposal.

These are familiar concerns, ones which failed to scuttle the BMT project when it passed a task force vote last fall. But a new face was in the crowd on Wednesday: former Comptroller Brad Lander, who joined the line to ask his own question.

“Why are we moving forward with one fleshed out plan, and a vague sense of another?” said Lander, pressing Semel. “Sometimes there’s urgency. Here it just seems like — hit pause, and let the alternatives develop.”

Semel replied that the city “had to start somewhere,” leading to a brief back-and-forth. The meeting wound to a close, and locals chatted with Lander, who said he was still researching and considering his position on the BMT. But even that was significant — Though the forum was a reminder of residents’ frustrations with the engagement process, it also introduced a curveball into an already tumultuous contest over the future of Red Hook.

State to Owner of Toxic Gowanus Lot: “Time’s Up”

BQE Admin on March 23, 2026

The Gowanus Oversight Task Force hosted an info session on Thursday, March 12, to discuss the polluted land that’s earmarked to become a mixed-use development called Gowanus Green.

By Jack Delaney | jdelaney@queensledger.com

GOWANUS — One of Gowanus’ most controversial sites is finally seeing some movement.

For years, state regulators with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) have struggled to enforce the cleanup of a huge — and massively polluted — chunk of land along the banks of the Gowanus Canal.

From the 1860s until the 1960s, the Citizens MGP site off Smith Street was home to a manufactured gas plant that provided energy to the neighborhood, but left coal tar and other toxic byproducts in the soil. Today, the zone slated for remediation has been divided into four parcels, each with their own roadblocks.

Parcel 4, or 424 Hoyt St, has frustrated DEC officials for a simple reason: They can’t get in. Since 2019, the owners of what is now a commercial parking lot for food trucks have ignored regulators’ attempts to test the property and formulate a cleanup plan.

The state’s patience has finally worn thin. Last week, at a meeting of the Gowanus Oversight Task Force on Thursday, March 12, DEC representative Andrew Guglielmi announced that his team had issued a “record of decision” document for Parcel 4, and will be entering the site — “Whether or not they want us to” — later this summer.

Along with the move to confront Parcel 4’s owners, Guglielmi added that seven years of stop-and-start remediation have removed approximately 66,000 gallons of pollutants from the site. And he dropped another piece of good news: The dispute resolution, a lawsuit by National Grid in 20 that argues it should not be the only gas company on the hook for remediation, “is very close to being over.”

At the end of Guglielmi’s presentation, the auditorium broke into applause, a rarity for meetings in Gowanus about remediation efforts.

But other aspects of the cleanup continue to face local scrutiny.

Andrew Guglielmi of the DEC said his office will be taking action on Parcel 4 this summer.

At an info session last summer, DEC regulators announced that the Citizens MGP site would be handled under New York’s Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP), rather than the stricter framework of a State Superfund designation. Residents immediately called foul, arguing that the BCP is insufficient given the high level of toxins in the soil and that it would result in superficial remediation.

Yet Guglielmi pushed back against a similar line of questioning at last Thursday’s meeting. In response to a resident wondering why only Parcel 4 was placed under the Superfund program. “No one approached us,” Guglielmi maintained that his office would have transferred it to the BCP — which incentivizes outside companies to take on remediation in exchange for tax breaks — if an applicant had materialized.

The DEC rep also noted that a sub-slab depressurization system (SSDS) will block any toxins from seeping into the apartments planned at the western wing of the parcel, a project known as Gowanus Green. (Building A is set for completion in 2029; the developers shared that over 120,000 people recently applied for only 45 affordable units in the neighborhood, highlighting what they say is an urgent need to expand the local housing stock.)

Only some of the crowd was convinced. Jack Riccobono, a member of the grassroots advocacy group Voice of Gowanus, blasted the DEC for using the BCP — a decision he said would endanger future residents, given that some evidence suggests toxins may be migrating off-site.

“You’ve been misleading the public about these two programs, and we’re sick of it,” he told Guglielmi. “It’s about money, not about health.”

Monitor Point: Reynoso’s a Yes

BQE Admin on March 20, 2026

Union members hold signs in support of Monitor Point at a public hearing at Brooklyn Borough Hall on March 11.

BY COLE SINANIAN

cole@queensledger.com

This is part of a series on the Monitor Point development. Read our previous coverage here and here.

A controversial plan to build three mixed-use towers, new open space, and a museum on the Greenpoint waterfront has earned the Borough President’s support.

In a 23-page letter, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso recommended the approval of the Monitor Point development, though urged developers to boost affordable housing and called for the full funding of the unfinished Bushwick Inlet Park, which sits adjacent to the site of the proposed towers.

The Monitor Point development — set to be located at 40 Quay Street and 56 Quay Street next to Bushwick Inlet — would transform Greenpoint’s last undeveloped waterfront property with its completion in the 2030s.

But since its Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) began earlier this year, Monitor Point has pitted several highly vocal community groups against each other in what has brought bitterness and spectacle to each public meeting. Activists both for and against the development show up armed with signs, while “boos,” cheers and catcalls have regularly rung out during public testimony. Critics of the plan — which includes City councilmember Lincoln Restler and local groups Save the Inlet and Friends of Bushwick Inlet Park — have raised environmental concerns and called it a land grab that would take what was once designated park land and turn it into a playground for the wealthy.

Meanwhile, building maintenance and construction workers with the Local 79 and SEIU-32BJ unions have supported the project, arguing it would bring good jobs and much-needed affordable housing to the already gentrified neighborhood, and have accused “no” activists of being gentrifiers more concerned with saving wildlife and greenspace than housing working class people.

“The quality and quantity of testimony, engagement, and public participation speak to the fact that the implications of this land use application reach deeper and stretch wider than the Project Area’s literal boundaries,” Reynoso’s recommendation reads.

The towers, set to be developed by the Gotham organization in partnership with the MTA, would rise 21, 41 and 56 storeys. The development would add some 3,000 residents to the area, as well as a museum to showcase the history of the famous Monitor battleship, public plazas, retail space, and a network of meandering public walkways that developers say would finally connect the Williamsburg and Greenpoint waterfronts for pedestrian access. Twenty-five percent of the towers’ 1,150 units would be permanently affordable at 40-80% Area Median Income (AMI), while the developers have applied for City subsidies that would fund additional affordable apartments, raising the total percentage to 40%.

The West Building — to be located in the western half of 40 Quay St. — would include the two taller towers, while the East Building would sit on the eastern portion of the same property and rise to 21 stories. Both buildings would front Quay Street, with the West Building set to be separated from the street by a 60-foot wall. An old MTA mobile wash facility currently occupies the property, which developers would relocate to somewhere within the North Brooklyn Industrial Business Zone (IBZ).

The adjacent property — 56 Quay Street — would house the Greenpoint Monitor Museum. The project would require both an upzoning for the 40 Quay St. property from medium to high-density and a demapping of 56 Quay St., which is currently designated park land on the City Map, though it is owned by the Greenpoint Monitor Museum.

A Gotham rendering of the proposed “portal” to Bushwick Inlet Park.

To critics, Monitor Point represents a betrayal on the City’s part. The park land at 56 Quay was set aside by the City as part of the 2005 Williamsburg-Greenpoint rezoning for the future Bushwick Inlet Park, though in 2026, only a small portion of the promised park is open.

“This was the central jewel of the Greenpoint Williamsburg rezoning,” Restler said at a January public hearing. “And 20 years later, we do not have a fully funded park.”

In his recommendation, Borough President Reynoso took care to recognize the significance and historical context of the project. He described the application as a “proxy for the continued outcomes of the 2005 Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning.”

“The Borough President recognizes the frustration of Greenpoint and Williamsburg residents who bristle at the prospect of a separate, adjacent project breaking ground before the park is finished, particularly considering the housing development that has taken place in North Brooklyn since 2005,” the recommendation reads.

Reynoso’s recommendation proposes several modifications to the developers’ plan, including that City planners “identify a parks and open space acquisition and development strategy for Community District 1” in order to fully fund the completion of Bushwick Inlet Park.

Regarding affordable housing, Reynoso suggests that developers “maximize affordable housing” via multiple strategies, like increasing the floor area of the East Building to accommodate more affordable units, and to increase the range of affordability to allow access to moderate income households making 90-120% AMI.

In line with recommendations from both Councilmember Restler and Community Board 1, Reynoso’s recommendation also suggests upping the total percentage of affordable units from 40% to “at least 50%.”

In February Community Board 1’s Land Use Committee voted unanimously to reject the project unless developers could guarantee 75% of units are affordable. The full board, however, contradicted its Land Use Committee the following week and recommended the project’s approval, albeit on the condition of at least 50% affordable housing units.

Developers and architects with the Brooklyn-based FX Collaborative Architects presented the proposal at the March 11 hearing.

At a public hearing at Brooklyn Borough Hall on Wednesday, March 11, union workers, environmentalists, and pro-housing advocates fell along familiar battle lines over the fate of Monitor Point.

During their presentation, developers argued that 40% affordable housing is the best they can do while preserving financial viability, and that the 2005 park designation is outdated.

In response to questioning from Reynoso’s representatives, Kelly said that affordable housing developments around the city with 50% or more affordability are often developed on land given to the developer at no cost. As Gotham will be paying rents to both the MTA and the NYC Parks Department, anything higher than 40% affordability could compromise the economic viability of the project, Kelly said.

“We’re open and receptive to ideas on how to increase affordability,” he said. “But that can’t be done at the expense of the viability of the development. We want to do more affordable housing if it’s feasible, but we won’t commit to doing things that we can’t deliver.”

David Lopez, a North Brooklyn local whose family emigrated from Puerto Rico in the 1950s, testified in support of Monitor Point, cited the importance of permanently affordable housing for keeping working class New Yorkers in the neighborhood.

“The area has changed drastically over the last 25 years,” Lopez said. “Bodegas have been replaced by cafes, mom and pop businesses have been replaced by high-priced bars, boutique hotels, and Michelin-rated restaurants. A major way to keep families in the neighborhood is to create permanently affordable housing, and this project is offering that. Turning down 460 affordable apartments is a privilege that many working class New Yorkers don’t have.”

Greenpointer Laura Treciokas, meanwhile, spoke out against the Monitor Point towers, raising concerns that they could “turn what should be shared public space into an amenity for luxury tenants,” and significantly boost the neighborhood’s population without adding infrastructure to accommodate.

“In exchange, the community receives very little, essentially a narrow walkway and a street extension, while nearly 3,000 additional residents are added,” Treciokas said.

Stephen Chesler, who sits on Community Board 1 and has been a vocal critic of the project since the outset, criticized developers for neglecting to show detailed renderings of the towers.

“The community board specifically requested that from them, and they refused to provide it,” Chesler said. “Which is very telling that they know that there is huge community opposition, because of the density and impact this project will have on Bushwick Inlet Park.”

A petition against the Monitor Point development launched by Save the Inlet has 5,460 signatures.

The public hearing and Reyonoso’s recommendation marked step two of the project’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), which guides development in New York City.

Developers presented the application before the City Planning Commission (CPC) on Wednesday, March 18, before Reynoso’s recommendation was made public. The CPC now has 60 days to review the application before making its recommendation.

Red Storm Enters 2026 NCAA Tournament as East’s 5 Seed

BQE Admin on March 19, 2026

St. John’s blows out UConn in BIG EAST Final to claim back-to-back conference titles

By Noah Zimmerman

noah@queensledger.com

Earlier this season, it seemed like back-to-back BIG EAST regular season and tournament championships were out of the question for St. John’s. The UConn Huskies sat comfortably in the nation’s top-10 all season long while the Johnnies struggled against a tough non-conference schedule before faltering against the Friars in early January.

However, after their defeat to Providence the Red Storm went 18-1, culminating in a conference tournament championship tiebreaker against UConn. St. John’s defeated the Huskies in the first matchup of the year, 81-72 at MSG. When the Red Storm visited Hartford for the return game, UConn responded with a 32-point win to snap their 13-game winning streak.

The contest in Connecticut opened the door for the Huskies to win their second outright regular season title in over 20 years, but two late conference defeats to Creighton and Marquette allowed St. John’s to claim a consecutive BIG EAST crown on the final weekend of action.

The St. John’s Red Storm went back to back in both the BIG EAST regular season and tournament for the first time in program history! Photo by Noah Zimmerman

Red Storm v Huskies III

The Red Storm didn’t trail for a moment in their first two BIG EAST Tournament matchups, winning a season series tiebreaker against Providence before taking down the Seton Hall Pirates. They carried that momentum into the championship game, opening with a quick 10-0 lead.

That advantage ballooned as large as 17 in the opening half. Zuby Ejiofor was dominant on both ends, Dillon Mitchell was searing through the air for dunks, and Bryce Hopkins kept scoring as the trio once again dominated the floor.

UConn was able to keep the deficit to 13 at the break, going on to mount a 2nd half comeback. A 9-0 run cut the lead to just 7 points but Ejiofor knocked down a three to help the Johnnies maintain control.

The battle of the bigs was terrific as UConn’s Tarris Reed Jr. took on Ejiofor. The Huskies senior scored a team high 17 points, also leading the team in rebounds with 7. Ejiofor finished with 18 points, tied with Hopkins for the game high. He brought down 9 rebounds, picked up 3 steals, and recorded 7 of 8 Red Storm blocks.

St. John’s pulled away in the final minutes, winning 72-52. For the second straight year, the Red Storm conquered the BIG EAST, and for the 4th straight season the regular season winner repeated as conference tournament champions.

The Red Storm have been on fire in 2026. Their only losses this year came in early January against Providence and in late February at UConn.

A Top-10 Ranked 5 Seed?

The Red Storm were one of a few teams handed brutal draws on Selection Sunday. Despite coming in at #10 on Monday’s AP National Rankings, St. John’s were given the #5 seed in a brutal Eastern Region.

Atop the region is the #1 overall seeded Duke, who the Johnnies would face in the Sweet 16 should they win their opening two rounds. If they’re somehow able to unseat the top team in the nation, a fourth matchup against UConn could await St. John’s with a place in the Final Four on the line.

However, the focus must remain on opening weekend. While the #5 vs #12 matchups are famed for dramatic upsets, St. John’s were drawn against a Northern Iowa team that doesn’t have the physical presence to stop the Red Storm’s three-headed frontcourt monster.

The Johnnies fell in the 2nd round in 2025 to John Calipari and #10 Arkansas, and it will likely be another 2nd round battle between Hall of Fame coaches as Rick Pitino faces Bill Self and the #4 Kansas Jayhawks.

All three matchups between the Red Storm and Huskies have been thrilling, even though two of them ended up fairly lopsided. Will they meet again in the Elite Eight?

Dance, Johnnies! Dance!

The second half of the season has been nothing short of magical for St. John’s. Now it’s time to see if Pitino can help the Red Storm carry that magic into late March.

Tip-off in the opening round against Northern Iowa is slated for Friday, March 20 at 7:10pm in San Diego. The winner advances to the second round to play either Kansas or Cal Baptist on Sunday the 22.

The East Regional matchups (Sweet 16 and Elite 8) will be held at Capital One Arena in Washington D.C. on March 27 and 29 with the Final Four and NCAA Championship tipping off at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis on March 4 and 6.

A Brief Tour of Irish Greenpoint

BQE Admin on March 18, 2026

James McAllister, an Irish immigrant, ran a successful tugboat company. Photo via Wikimedia.

Spotlighting some of the neighborhood’s lesser-known historical gems.

GEOFFREY COBB | gcobb91839@Aol.com

Author, “Greenpoint Brooklyn’s Forgotten Past

Though most people associate Greenpoint, Brooklyn with its Polish community, for over a century and a half the area has had a strong Irish presence. Let’s take a look back at Greenpoint’s rich Irish history, which started in the mid 19th century.

The Irish roots of Greenpoint are intimately tied to its waterfront, which started to develop shipyards in the 1850s, not long after Ireland was devastated by famine in the late 1840s. Twelve shipyards once lined the East River shoreline and the 1855 census revealed about a hundred and fifty Irish-born Greenpointers working as ship’s carpenters and in other shipbuilding related trades.

These shipbuilders were among the first Americans to play baseball and an Irish American Greenpoint shipwright, Frank Pidgeon, founded an amateur team in 1855 called the Eckford Club, which twice won the equivalent of the world series during the Civil War. Today a trophy case in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown honors these local heroes and contains 168 gilded baseballs won by the legendary Greenpoint team at the start of baseball history.

In 1864, James McAllister left Cushendall, County Antrim, and came to Greenpoint, where he began to work on ships. His brothers Daniel and William soon joined him, allowing James to open his own shipping business. James began with a single-sail lighter (a vessel that moves cargo between pier and ship) and called it Greenpoint Lighterage Company. Expanding into towing, McAllister’s first tugboat began operating in 1876, when his firm started hauling materials for the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge. His firm became one of the largest tugboat companies in America. Many friends and relatives from Cushendall came to work for the McAllisters, and today many Greenpoint Irish families trace their roots to Cushendall.

The Irish needed a church for their growing community. In 1865, Bishop Loughlin bought the land on Manhattan Avenue across from Milton Street for St. Anthony’s, which is perhaps the finest work of the Irish born architect Patrick Kiely, the builder of some six hundred churches around North America, but none more beautiful than his Greenpoint masterpiece. The huge church boasts the highest steeple of any church in Brooklyn with a cross standing two hundred and forty feet above the sidewalk. Its elegant façade features pressed Philadelphia Brick. In its heyday, St. Anthony’s had 10,000 parishioners, most of them Irish Americans.

Greenpoint’s other Catholic church, St. Cecilia’s, also has strong Irish roots. Though he did not start it, Irish American Monseigneur Edward McGoldrick was its dynamic pastor for fifty years. When Fr. McGolrick arrived in Greenpoint in November of 1888, St. Cecilia’s had a crumbling wooden church and a badly leaking roof. A visionary, McGolrick envisioned a Romanesque Basilica in limestone. Luckily, Hearing of a shipment of limestone mistakenly shipped to New York, McGolrick bought it far below cost and hired architect Thomas H. Poole and the firm Byrne and Perry to build the beautiful church, which today is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Fr. McGoldrick was pastor at St. Ceclia’s church for decades. Photo via Wikimedia.

The Great Depression, though, cemented Greenpointers’ love of Fr. McGoldrick. McGoldrick became a champion of the poor in the fight against local hunger. Although an old man, he performed herculean efforts to feed his many hungry parishioners. Local people were so grateful for his work feeding the poor that they had Winthrop Park renamed McGolrick Park in his honor.

Perhaps the most infamous chapter of local Irish history occurred in the 1880s when a group of Greenpoint Irish rebels tried to bomb London. They set up a school locally to train members of a terrorist cell how to use dynamite. The group of bombers was led by a local physician Dr. Thomas Gallagher, who was arrested along with four other conspirators in London before they could begin to start their bombing campaign. The conspirators were sent to prison where Gallagher went insane as a result of the torture he received while incarcerated. One of the bombers, Thomas Clarke, would later return to Greenpoint and play a prominent role in organizing armed resistance to British rule. Clarke returned to Ireland where he took part in the famous Easter Rising of 1916 and was later shot by the British, making him a famous martyr for the cause of Irish independence.

Quickly an area of Greenpoint from Ash to India Street started to be called “Irish Town,” later renamed “Danger Town.” It produced tough characters, none of them tougher than Irish American bare-knuckle boxer Jake Kilrain who fought for the world heavyweight championship against the legendary “Boston Strong Boy” John L. Sullivan in 1889 outdoors in temperatures reaching 100 degrees. Sullivan finally defeated Kilrain when Kilrain’s manager, Mike Donovan, threw in the towel at the start of the 76th round to save his fighter’s life. The bout, which lasted approximately 2 hours, 16 minutes, and 23 seconds is regarded as one of the greatest matches ever and the fight that helped make prize fighting a major American sport.

One important landmark survives from nineteenth century Greenpoint, Murphy’s Bar, which has changed little, but its name, since it was opened in the 1880s. Today, it’s called, the Capri Lounge. Its gorgeous mahogany interior goes back almost a century and a half. It’s a great place to have a drink and celebrate Greenpoint’s long, rich Irish history.

FHA vs. Conventional Loans in 2026

webadmin on March 15, 2026

By Dan Rose,

When people ask me whether they should go with an FHA loan or a conventional mortgage, my answer is always the same. It depends. That’s not a dodge. It’s the truth. Both loan types have clear strengths, and choosing the wrong one can cost you tens of thousands of dollars over the life of your mortgage. Choosing the right one can be the single best financial decision you make this year.

The difference between these two programs isn’t just about down payment size. It’s about credit flexibility, insurance costs, long-term strategy, and what kind of buyer you are today versus where you expect to be in five years.

The Down Payment Divide

This is where the conversation usually starts, and for good reason. FHA loans require a minimum down payment of 3.5% with a credit score of 580 or higher. Conventional loans typically require at least 5% down, though some programs accept as little as 3% for first-time buyers.

The real difference shows up in how each program treats that lower down payment. FHA loans may carry a lower interest rate, but they come with higher upfront fees in the form of mortgage insurance premiums. Conventional loans might have a slightly higher rate, but if you can put down 20%, you avoid mortgage insurance entirely.

For most first-time buyers, that 20% threshold is a fantasy. On a $400,000 home, that’s $80,000 in cash. FHA’s 3.5% requirement drops that to $14,000. The accessibility gap is enormous, and it’s the primary reason FHA remains so popular with buyers who have limited savings.

FHA Minimum: 3.5% down with a 580 credit score
Conventional Minimum: Typically 5%, though 3% programs exist for qualifying buyers
The 20% Reality: Most buyers don’t have it, and FHA doesn’t require it

Credit Score Flexibility

FHA’s approach to credit is fundamentally more forgiving than conventional lending. FHA borrowers can qualify with credit scores as low as 580 for the 3.5% down payment option, or 500 with 10% down. Conventional loans generally require a minimum score of 620, and borrowers below 740 will see noticeably higher rates.

This matters because credit scores don’t always tell the full story. A borrower who went through a medical bankruptcy three years ago might have a 620 score that gets penalized heavily on a conventional loan but treated fairly under FHA’s more holistic underwriting approach. FHA guidelines allow lenders to consider the circumstances behind credit issues, not just the numbers.

I’ve helped plenty of buyers who were told by other lenders they couldn’t qualify, only to find that FHA was a clear path forward. The program was literally created to expand homeownership access, and its underwriting philosophy reflects that mission.

FHA Credit Floor: 500 with 10% down, 580 with 3.5% down
Conventional Credit Floor: 620 minimum, with significant rate penalties below 740
Underwriting Philosophy: FHA considers context and circumstances, not just the score

The Mortgage Insurance Showdown

This is where the comparison gets nuanced. FHA requires both an upfront mortgage insurance premium of 1.75% and an annual premium that most borrowers pay at 0.55%. That annual premium stays for the life of the loan if you put down less than 10%.

Conventional private mortgage insurance, on the other hand, only applies when you put down less than 20%. And it cancels automatically once your loan balance drops to 78% of the original property value. For borrowers with strong credit, conventional PMI rates can be significantly lower than FHA’s MIP.

The bottom line: if your credit score is 740 or above and you can put down at least 10%, a conventional loan will almost certainly save you money over time. If your score is below 700 or your savings are limited, FHA frequently wins the total cost comparison in the early years of the loan.

For the complete breakdown on how FHA loans work, including current rates and 2026 loan limits, I covered the topic in depth in my recent guide to FHA lending for today’s homebuyers.

FHA MIP: 1.75% upfront plus 0.55% annual, stays for the life of most loans
Conventional PMI: Varies by credit score and LTV, cancels at 78% loan-to-value
Break-Even Point: Depends on your credit profile, down payment, and how long you plan to keep the loan

Which Loan Type Fits Your Situation?

There’s no universal winner here, and anyone who tells you otherwise is oversimplifying. The best loan depends on a handful of personal factors that only you and your lender can evaluate together.

If you’re a first-time buyer with limited savings and a credit score in the 580 to 700 range, FHA is almost certainly your best bet. The lower down payment, gentler credit standards, and competitive rates make it the most practical entry point into homeownership.

If you’ve been saving diligently, have a credit score above 740, and can put down 15% or more, conventional financing will likely save you money in the long run. The mortgage insurance costs are lower, the cancellation rules are more borrower-friendly, and the overall cost of the loan drops faster.

And if you’re somewhere in between, which many buyers are, the only way to know for sure is to run both scenarios with real numbers. That’s exactly what a good loan officer should be doing for you.

Contributed by Dan Rose, A Senior Local Business Guide Specializing in Residential Mortgage Comparison and Homebuyer Strategy.

Not Sure Whether FHA or Conventional Is Right for You?
We’ll run the numbers on both options so you can make a confident decision.
Visit us at https://rjcmortgage.com/ or call (855) 355-7696 to speak with a mortgage specialist who can walk you through the comparison.

Get Directions Below!

R&J FHA Mortgages of NYC, 147 Prince St, Brooklyn, NY 11201, (855) 355-7696

BPL Hosts NYC History Day Competition

BQE Admin on March 13, 2026

Two students’ presentation on the ‘Battle Of Blair Mountain,’ for the prompt “Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History.” (Photo: Jack Delaney.)

BY JACK DELANEY

PROSPECT HEIGHTS — For Brooklynites feeling pessimistic about the state of society, the quickest cure last weekend might have been a trip to the library.

On Sunday, March 1, nearly 500 students, parents, and volunteers from all five boroughs converged on the Central Library for New York City History Day, an annual competition where young New Yorkers — split into middle and high school divisions — show off the presentations and performances they’ve spent months preparing.

Inside the high-ceilinged lobby, teams of ones and twos stood dutifully in front of towering poster boards. This year’s theme was “Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History,” and their topics ran the gamut: A display on the Compton’s Cafeteria riot, a precursor to Stonewall in San Francisco, offered judges a tiny cup of tea. Another on the “Down to the Countryside” movement in China featured a fuzzy diorama of a farm. Elsewhere, a garlanded thesis on Hawaii’s annexation sat beside a deep dive on Barbie subtitled “Awakening the #GirlBoss.”

One of the most exhaustively researched presentations was by Tsz Lun Qin, who examined how NYC’s Metropolitan Board of Health “revolutionized public health management by establishing the nation’s first permanent, centralized sanitation authority.” She said she’d arrived at the idea after wondering how dirty the city was a hundred years ago.

Sonya Ochshorn coordinates the event for the Center for Brooklyn History, which assumed responsibility in 2021 after the Museum of the City of New York handed off the baton. “They get to choose their own topic, and so they can really dive into the thing that interests them,” said Ochshorn. “So if you’re a student who loves fashion, and you’re like, we never learn about fashion in school, this is their chance.”

Upstairs, parents Yusuf Cross and Alexia Infortunata watched as their daughter waited to perform. Her school in Staten Island placed second last year, so getting selected for the roster had been a competitive process in its own right. Then there were the lunch periods spent working, instead of hanging out with friends, and the rehearsals over Zoom in the final weeks.

“It’s phenomenal,” said Infortunata. “It teaches kids two things: public speaking and research. Plus setting themselves aside from the rest of their classmates and being so dedicated.”

NYC History Day is the regional contest for National History Day, which boasts 600,000 participants each year and which — contrary to its name — has become a global event.

For Ochshorn, the event is meant to leave an impact that transcends rankings and accolades: “How do we get students in Brooklyn and New York City as a whole into these archival spaces,” she wondered, “and show them that history isn’t just something in a book someone else wrote, history is all around us?”

Twelve NYC teams were national finalists, with a duo from PS49 in Queens landing in third for a piece on the Kent State Massacre. This year, the state competition will take place at SUNY Oneonta on Sunday, April 26.

Kent Peaker Plant Could Become Park Built Over Battery Storage Facility

BQE Admin on March 12, 2026

BY COLE SINANIAN

cole@queensledger.com

WILLIAMSBURG — A public park built atop a battery storage facility could come to the River Street waterfront in the near future.

Brooklyn Community Board 1 voted on Tuesday to recommend a proposal by real estate developer Two Trees to repurpose the existing peaker plant at 49 River St, also known as Kent Peaker Plant.

The proposal would convert the plant — already set to be decommissioned by 2030 as part of New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) — into a “fire safe” battery storage facility. A 1.3-acre park, funded and developed by Two Trees, would be built on the roof of the battery storage facility, providing a waterfront greenway that would connect Domino Park to the immediate south with the proposed River Ring park and development to the north, both of which are owned and operated by Two Trees.

“Two Trees has a vested interest in having a park there because of their other properties around it,” said Second Vice Chair Del Teague at Tuesday’s meeting. “They don’t want to just see a battery storage plant adjacent to the park land that they’ve invested so much money in.”

The project would require collaboration between Two Trees, a third-party energy consultant, the New York City Fire Department, and the New York Power Authority (NYPA), which would remain the landowner. Two Trees’ proposal described new technologies that “allow battery cells to be encased to prevent ‘thermal runaway,’”which would “eliminate any risk of explosion.”

Because the land is state-owned, a rezoning and Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) would not be required if Governor Hochul approves the project.

“They [Two Trees] will do this philanthropically, and they will commit to maintaining in perpetuity the park land that they’ve invested in,” Teague continued.

Peaker plants are powered by fossil fuels and are notorious polluters, used to provide backup power to the electrical grid during emergencies and extreme weather events. The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has moved to decommission them for greener alternatives after the passage of CLCPA in 2019, with some 15-20 left in New York City as of 2025.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Greenpoint City councilmember Lincoln Restler praised the proposal, and added that it would take local pressure for Hochul to move forward with the plan.

“The governor’s office just hasn’t made this a priority yet, and we need to keep pushing them,” Restler said. “Community board support helps, every single elected official who represents the north side supports this project, and we’re gonna keep pushing until we get it done.”

Exclusive: Brooklyn FC Prepares for First Match in Men’s Club History

BQE Admin on March 6, 2026

By Nicholas Gordon | news@queensledger.com

As Brooklyn’s only professional men’s soccer team, Brooklyn FC, readies itself for its home opener on Sunday, March 8 at Maimonides Park in Coney Island, the Star caught up with three key players to learn more about the squad and what fans can expect of the team’s debut in the USL Championship league.

The Players:

What are you looking forward to about playing in Brooklyn?

Obregón: As a Brooklyn native born and raised here, it’s a full circle moment for me. Being able to represent the borough is definitely exciting. I’m looking forward to playing in front of friends and family. There’s immense pride here in Brooklyn.

Latinovich: New York is a big sports city and I think people will be excited with the new team here in Brooklyn. We hope to have a lot of fans attending a lot of games, and we want to make our home games a strength.

What’s the Brooklyn FC team culture like so far?

Latinovich: We have chemistry and we’re getting stronger as a unit, building our identity as a gritty and hardworking team that backs each other up. We’ve shown that identity throughout pre- season, and it’s going to get stronger as season goes on.

Obregón: It’s interesting how quickly we’ve been able to gel as a tight-knit group. It’s been a unique experience with everyone being new.

McNamara: I’ve really enjoyed the opportunity to connect and meet new players and learn about their families.

What can fans expect from Brooklyn FC this season?

McNamara: Togetherness and also a real pride and intentionality of representing Brooklyn and the fans playing in an exciting and aggressive way that is similar to the culture of the borough. The group is going to be fighting for Brooklyn, and hopefully over the course of the season, continuing to strengthen and deepen our relationships between the fan base and the players.

How would you describe your role on Brooklyn FC?

McNamara: I think I’m the most experienced guy and the oldest guy on the team. So it’s about bringing that experience to the group, about trying to be a reference point to everyone of what being a good professional is, what being a good teammate is. And, you know, trying to help connect the group and keep everyone together.

Latinovich: As a veteran, I want to be a positive influence on everyone in the locker room. There will be some ups and downs throughout the season. We’re not going to win every game. The important thing is for us to keep level heads whether we’re winning or losing, and have a positive mindset.

How has your pre-season training prepared you for the opener?

McNamara: Marlon (LeBlanc) as head coach had a clear message about our team and about who we want to be as a group. It’s hard to bring 25 new guys and 4-5 coaches together, and have everyone prepared in just six and a half weeks. It’s a credit to the staff and players. As a new club you’re dealing with a lot of change, but everyone came together to make it happen.

What personal goals are you setting for this season?

Obregón: I want to help the team gel completely as we try to win that first match in Brooklyn FC history. I want to try to score as many goals as possible and create as many goal-scoring chances as I can for my teammates. Ultimately, we want to make the playoffs and have a run at the championship.

Do you have any pre-game routines?

McNamara: I like to keep a set routine with meals, and meal times and getting prepped. I also like to watch one or two of the opponents’ recent games.

Obregón: One big thing for me is a morning walk.

Latinovich: My go-to pre-game meal is pasta with marina sauce marina and chicken.

How would you describe the USL Championship to people unfamiliar with it?

Latinovich: It’s a pretty physical and demanding league. A lot of teams play an aggressive style, we have a lot of technical and strong individuals — together we’ll be able to add a lot and score a lot of goals, that’s the hope!

Obregón: It’s a very competitive league with strong fan bases. Any game could go either way. That’s the beauty and the fun of it.

What will be some of the keys to Brooklyn’s success this season?

McNamara: Building depth and being on the same page. We need to rely on everyone on the roster, guy 1 through 24, so that even if injuries happen we can stay strong as a group.

What are you looking forward to the most heading into the season?

Latinovich: We’re all ready to go for the home game on March 8, we’re geared up for it, and we want to give fans a result that they can go home happy with.

Obregón: The first match is going to be special. We’re excited for it and I’m counting down the days.

The Hidden Legal Rights of Injured Brooklyn Construction Workers

webadmin on March 5, 2026

By Dan Rose,

Brooklyn is in the middle of a building boom that shows no signs of slowing down. New residential towers, commercial developments, and infrastructure projects dot the skyline from Williamsburg to Coney Island. That growth brings jobs, but it also brings danger. Construction remains one of the most hazardous industries in New York City, and Brooklyn workers bear a disproportionate share of the risk. Falls from scaffolding, struck-by incidents involving heavy equipment, electrocutions, and trench collapses happen far more often than they should, and the consequences can be life-altering.

How New York’s Labor Laws Tilt the Field Toward Injured Workers

New York is one of the few states that imposes strict liability on property owners and general contractors when a construction worker falls from an elevated surface. This is the essence of the state’s Scaffold Law, formally known as Labor Law Section 240. It means that if you fall because of an inadequate safety device, such as a missing guardrail, defective scaffold, or unsecured ladder, the property owner and general contractor can be held liable regardless of whether you were partially at fault.

That’s a powerful protection, and it exists because lawmakers recognized that construction workers have limited control over the safety conditions at their job sites. The people who own the property and manage the project are in the best position to ensure proper safety measures are in place. When they fail to do so, the law holds them accountable.

Labor Law Section 241(6) adds another layer. It requires owners and contractors to comply with specific safety regulations laid out by the New York Industrial Code. Violations of those detailed rules, everything from ladder placement standards to hard hat requirements, can form the basis of a negligence claim.

Scaffold Law Protection: Property owners and general contractors face strict liability for gravity-related injuries, making it easier for workers to recover compensation after falls.
Industrial Code Violations: Specific safety rules create a concrete standard against which a contractor’s conduct can be measured.
Multiple Avenues of Recovery: Injured workers may pursue both workers’ compensation benefits and a separate personal injury lawsuit against negligent third parties.

The Most Dangerous Conditions Brooklyn Construction Workers Face

Falls are the leading cause of fatal construction injuries in New York City, and they’re preventable in the vast majority of cases. Unsecured scaffolding, missing safety nets, improperly erected ladders, and open floor holes all create conditions where a single misstep can cause catastrophic harm.

Beyond falls, workers face dangers from heavy machinery, falling objects, electrical hazards, and confined spaces. Trenching and excavation work carries its own lethal risks when proper shoring and protective systems aren’t used. And repetitive stress injuries, while less dramatic, can end a career just as effectively as a sudden accident.

What makes these cases particularly complex is the web of parties involved. A single construction site might have a property owner, a general contractor, multiple subcontractors, equipment rental companies, and material suppliers. Determining who is responsible for which safety failures requires careful investigation and a deep understanding of how construction liability works in New York.

Fall Hazards: Scaffolding failures, ladder defects, unprotected roof edges, and open elevator shafts.
Struck-By Injuries: Falling tools, unsecured building materials, and heavy equipment collisions.
Electrical and Confined Space Dangers: Exposed wiring, improperly grounded systems, and oxygen-deficient environments.

Workers’ Compensation Is Only Part of the Picture

Many injured construction workers assume that workers’ compensation is their only option. It provides medical coverage and partial wage replacement, but it doesn’t compensate for pain and suffering, and the wage benefits often fall well short of what workers actually lose. For serious injuries, the gap between what workers’ comp provides and what a worker truly needs can be enormous.

The critical difference is that a personal injury lawsuit against a negligent third party can recover the full range of damages. If a subcontractor created the unsafe condition, if equipment was defective, or if the general contractor ignored known hazards, a separate legal claim can pursue compensation that workers’ comp simply doesn’t offer.

Navigating both systems simultaneously requires an attorney who understands how these claims interact. Filing one incorrectly can jeopardize the other, and timing matters in both. An experienced attorney who understands the critical steps that lead to full compensation from a serious injury can coordinate these parallel tracks and maximize your total recovery.

Workers’ Comp Limitations: Covers medical bills and a portion of lost wages, but excludes pain and suffering and caps benefits well below most workers’ actual losses.
Third-Party Lawsuits: Allow recovery of full economic and non-economic damages from negligent parties beyond your employer.
Coordinated Strategy: An experienced attorney manages both claims together to avoid conflicts and maximize total compensation.

What to Do If You’ve Been Hurt on a Brooklyn Job Site

The hours and days immediately following a construction injury set the trajectory for everything that follows. Report the injury to your supervisor and make sure it’s documented in writing. Seek medical attention immediately, even if you think you can push through. Get the names and contact information of any witnesses. And photograph the conditions that caused your injury before the site is cleaned up or altered.

Then talk to a lawyer before you talk to anyone else about your claim. Your employer’s insurance carrier is not looking out for you, and neither is the general contractor’s. The sooner you have independent legal counsel, the better positioned you’ll be to protect your rights and pursue the compensation your injuries warrant.

Immediate Documentation: Photograph the hazard, save any equipment involved, and get witness information on the spot.
Medical Records: Prompt treatment creates a clear link between the accident and your injuries, which is essential for both workers’ comp and a lawsuit.
Legal Consultation: An early conversation with an attorney helps preserve evidence and ensures you don’t make statements that could undermine your case.

Contributed by Dan Rose, A Senior Construction Injury Legal Analyst.

Hurt on a Brooklyn Construction Site?
You may have more legal options than you realize.
Visit us at https://www.mrinjurylawyerny.com/ or call 347-292-7353 to discuss your construction injury claim with an attorney who knows New York’s labor laws inside and out.

Get Directions Below
Ribowsky Law, 333 Stanley Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11207, 347-292-7353

Ribowsky Law, 3602 E Tremont Ave, Bronx, NY 10465, 718-846-2081

Ribowsky Law, 109-12 Jamaica Ave, Queens, NY 11418, 718-659-5333

Ribowsky Law, 10-31 Neilson St Suite 3, Far Rockaway, NY 11691, 718-846-3034

Ribowsky Law, 75-25 141st Pl, Flushing, NY 11367, 718-846-3081