No Jails Or New Jails: Brooklyn Plan Debated At Borough Hall

DOWNTOWN, BROOKLYN — The city's controversial plan to replace Rikers with borough-based jails has divided Brooklynites between those those who argue it's the only guarantee the island complex will close and those who say "No new jails."

Dozens of New Yorkers came to a Brooklyn Borough Hall hearing Thursday, hosted by Borough President Eric Adams, to testify about the city's plan to expand the detention center at 275 Atlantic Ave. and build a new 40-story Brooklyn jail, one of four that will replace Rikers.

The more than 30 speakers were split, though, between those urging Adams to shoot down the plans and those arguing that voting yes would be the only way to ensure Rikers' infamous complex will close.

"Rikers is a human rights crisis," Darren Mack, an organizer with the #CLOSERikers campaign said. "I support the plan to go from 12 jails across our city to go to four jails. Any delay to move forward with this plan is a vote to keep Rikers open."

Mack was among the dozen or so speakers from the #CLOSERikers campaign who said the borough president should vote yes to the plans — which call for new jails in Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Manhattan — although with a series of conditions.

Several speakers told horror stories about conditions at Rikers to argue that the complex needed to close immediately. Shutting down the city's proposal, they argued, would not only delay closing the jail, but give no guarantee a plan to do so would come around again.

But other speakers, most from activist group No New Jails NYC, cited Rikers Island conditions as evidence that there should be no new, borough-based jails. Despite promises from the city's Department of Corrections for new training and updated facilities, activists were doubtful that the "toxic culture" at Rikers wouldn't just continue in the new facilities.

"You cannot make a jail humane," No New Jail advocate Justin Cohen said. "We need to close Rikers tomorrow...but you don't have to build 6,000 new cells for our neighbors in its place. We do not believe that we will replace Rikers Island with something better."

The No New Jail advocates, who argue "if you build it, they will fill it," represent a growing number of New Yorkers who fear the new jails would be too big for the city's supposed goal of cutting down its jail population.

De Blasio's administration has said that the ultimate goal of shuttering Rikers' eight-jail complex is to reduce the incarcerated population from its current 7,500 to, most recently, 4,000. But most advocates, including those with #CLOSERikers, contend that even this number is too high, especially considering recently-passed criminal justice reform.

The 4,000-person number is a recent reduction to the city's original 5,000-person estimate, on which the borough-based jail plans are based.

Some of Thursday's speakers said that these ongoing changes to the plans should be a reason in itself to vote no to the proposal.

"The size and circumstances of the jail keep changing under this administration so you don’t know what you are voting for," Brooklyn resident Lucy Koteen said. "The ULURP application is premature and should be withdrawn."

The current proposal for Brooklyn would expand the Brooklyn Detention Complex from 815 beds to 1,437 beds. The new detention facility would create 1.2 million gross square feet, including the space for detainees, support space and community or retail space, according to city documents.

The Brooklyn plans include changes to some nearby streets, which will be used to take detainees to and from the detention center — where inmates await trial — to the Brooklyn Central Courts Building on Schermerhorn Street.

The city has said it would need to rework parts of State Street to create pedestrian bridges and tunnels to connect the jail and court building.

Adams did not say at the hearing exactly when he plans to decide his vote on the plans, but he has 30 days to do so before the proposal will head to the City Planning Commission.

The Brooklyn plan previously faced Community Board 2, which failed to take a position for or against the proposal. The borough president and community board votes are both advisory.