Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karlen

New York City, working with HUD, amended a 1960s urban renewal plan for the Upper West Side to designate a site for a 160-unit low-income high-rise, prompting a nearby developer to sue to enjoin construction; Karlen and others (plaintiffs) intervened alongside the plaintiffs and Strycker's Bay Neighborhood Council (defendant) intervened as a defendant. After the district court sided with Strycker's Bay, the Second Circuit affirmed except on the NEPA claim, finding HUD hadn't adequately studied alternative sites; on remand, HUD's follow-up environmental report acknowledged the site raised "valid questions" about social and environmental impacts but found them not serious enough to make the site unacceptable, especially since any alternative location would delay construction by roughly two years. The district court again sided with Strycker's Bay, but the Second Circuit vacated, holding that HUD could not treat construction delay as an overriding factor and ordering HUD to address the low-income housing shortage while avoiding concentrating it at this site.