Skip to content

Arbitrary and Capricious

December 20, 2012

Here are two key passages from the decision handed down yesterday by the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The project was designed in response to, inter alia, a request in 2007 by Brooklyn Community Board 6 to the NYCDOT to “study traffic calming measures on PPW, including the possible installation of a one-way or two-way Class I bicycle path on the eastside of PPW.”

The proposed project was the subject of numerous public meetings, and modifications to the plans were made by the NYCDOT in response to community feedback.

This seems to undercut one of NBBL’s longest standing complaints, that the bike lane was installed in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner.  It also counters Norman Steisel’s frequent assertions that “We’re not opposed to bike lanes. We’re opposed to this one and the way it was done.”  I’m no legal expert, but the above passages seem to suggest that “the way it was done” was on the up and up.

While it is every citizen’s right to exhaust all available options provided under the law, it’s unfortunate that NBBL’s quest to undermine a community-driven process will continue.  As my suburban, car-dependent mother said last year upon seeing the PPW bike lane and pointing to the curb, “What’s the big deal? They used to park there and now they park here? Who cares?”

About these ads

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 102 other followers

%d bloggers like this: