This video story explores the struggle to protect the Graniteville wetlands on Staten Island. It shows how the land was devalued by developers, how the community understood the ecological importance, and how residents mobilized to defend their neighborhood against environmental injustice.

• Introduction

In April 2021, hundreds of Staten Island residents gathered together, marching down Forest Avenue, along the North Shore of the Island, protesting the BJ’s Wholesale development that was proposed to be built on the Graniteville Wetlands. These protesters wrote messages on cardboard signs that read “Save Our Wetlands” and “Anyone Remember Sandy?”1 Members of the Staten Island Coalition of Wetlands and Forests (SCIWF) walked up and down the streets, handing out flyers to commuters, in an effort to raise awareness among fellow Islanders. Some protesters even hung sheets on their cars with messages along the line of “Staten Island, NO BJ’s, Save Wetlands,” hoping to catch the attention of anyone walking by.2

To the protesters, the vast area of forest and swampland they were trying to protect is a precious green space that helps protect the land from flooding during heavy rainfall or natural disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy. Despite the necessity of the wetlands, several politicians and real estate scions have proposed to be rid of two-thirds of the wetlands, so that they could build the BJ’s, a supporting gas station, and a parking lot that could hold over 800 vehicles.3 To those who showed up that day, this wasn’t just a regular old “Save the Trees” protest; this was a march to protect the area that had saved them from natural disaster. This isn’t the first time an area on Staten Island has been deemed unnecessary and wasted, nor the first time certain groups of people, similar to those in Graniteville, working class and people of color, are recipients of health disparities caused by developments such as these. 

Why were the wetlands in Graniteville targeted, and how does this event fit into the wider history of environmental injustice in postwar America? This paper will acknowledge the multiple contributing factors behind the selection of the Graniteville wetlands, including the devaluation of the wetland community, which led to suffering from air toxicity and an increased risk of flooding damage. Knowing this, the community had no choice but to resist and try to fight against the development of this.

This paper will start by exploring the history of Staten Island, focusing on the past usage of land on the island, the causes and effects of the actions taken by those in positions of power, and the common notion behind the idea of the wetlands. The paper will then focus more specifically on the history behind the proposal, what enabled it, and the opinions of the developers and government officials. Afterward, the paper explores the burdens that the people in Graniteville already face will be discussed, describing the different environmental factors that make the wetlands actually necessary, and the community’s demographics and class, showing how many of the residents are dependent on their careers to continue living. Finally, the paper delves into the community’s mobilization to protect the wetlands, the injustices faced by the protestors, and the methods employed to portray the wetlands as a necessity and not a replaceable chunk of land.

• Historical Context

Staten Island has a long history of redevelopment proposals and land usage, outside of the Graniteville wetlands, as it has been repeatedly selected to take the brunt of many difficult decisions with respect to the five boroughs. One of the most popular misuses of green land on Staten Island is the creation of the Fresh Kills landfill, which required the use of thousands of acres to become the largest waste disposal site in the world by 1955, receiving 29,000 tons of trash per day at its peak.4 Although this landfill most likely didn’t start the trend of devaluing the land on Staten Island, it is most definitely one of the central defining pieces that molded how New York residents outside of the island viewed the island itself. As Melosi wrote, “The creation of Fresh Kills Landfill in 1948, however, defined Staten Island for many years … the overwhelming sense that the island had been unfairly pegged as a central location for New York City’s refuse (and unwanted people) is older than that.”5 Allowing such a large landfill to manifest on the island reinforced the idea that it was okay to treat Staten Island like it was meant to be used for dumping, filling, or other industrial uses, only supporting the common thought that wetlands are empty spaces.

It truly didn’t help that, after World War II, the country focused mostly on industrial and urban growth, building many bridges and highways all over the country, hoping to rapidly suburbanize neighborhoods all over the nation. As more people migrated to these new urban cities, especially to New York City, government officials and planners kept using Staten Island as land that could be transformed into waste transfer stations and homes for large infrastructure projects. They continued to justify decision after decision that deserved resistance, yet never received any due to the “sparse population.”6 Such a large number of compromises were made in regards to the land of Staten Island because of the belief that it was less valuable, which was ingrained into the people’s perspectives. 

Similar treatment of green areas, such as wetlands, occurred throughout the nation. They were thought to be a cause of stagnation, blocking any urban development, rather than an essential part of the country. An environmental historian, Chris Wilhelm, explained that the wetlands were thought of as obstacles to progress, needing to be changed and reused to further the country’s economic state.7 Even though opinions started to shift because of grassroots activists and science, the history and common practice of treating the wetlands as worthless continued throughout other planning and development instances. This historical context shows why the wetlands seemed expendable and why they weren’t valued highly enough to be kept preserved, allowing for government officials and private developers to take action in enabling the proposal to pass.

• Policy, Zoning, and Government Decisions

Just because a development proposal was formed doesn’t mean anyone can act as they wish. The proposal has to go through planning, multiple meetings, public notification, and presentation, before being approved and finally working. The Graniteville proposal followed this same path and went through many stages. The New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) released an environmental review statement, often using terminology such as “undeveloped wetland areas” and “underutilized site,” implying the fact that the reviewers saw this area as wasted potential that could be transformed.8 Attached to this same report is an appendix that holds the comments from the locals who responded to the statement, often quoting the impact the wetlands have. They brought up historical events, Hurricane Sandy, for example, and brought to light the risks that will come with the removal of the land. Despite 111 pages of objections from the common people, the DCP continued to revise its statement, emphasizing the wrong criteria, like parking capacity.

Additionally, developers, including Josif A. LLC, had a part to play in the approval of their proposal. In their own section of the report, the developers use terminology that emphasizes the “demand in this area of Staten Island” and “the demand for retail uses … local demand.”9 Repeatedly mentioning the demand for a new wholesale warehouse, which is clearly not reflected in the responses from the people, only reveals how the developers are focused on the amount of money this project will make them and not the wishes of the people who live near the area. By doing this, the developers were able to put these wetlands in the light of wasted ground when it’s truly a protective barrier.

There were also responses from members of the government that reveal their true position regarding the proposal. The New York City Comptroller at the time, Scott Stringer, wrote a letter to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) expressing his opinion on the matter. Scott explicitly states, “I categorically oppose any development that would compromise Graniteville’s thriving wetland ecosystem.” Additionally, he recognized the environmental risks that would come with the development on the North Shore. However, despite the urging of a local government official supported by plenty of evidence, the NYSDEC approved the permits needed for the project, allowing the development to continue. NYSDEC seemed to disregard the trustworthy words and experienced words of a fellow member of the government who was closer to the issue than they were, and followed through on the hopes of financial gain for the state of New York.10

The actions that were taken by the government officials, the developers, the various departments, and many more influenced how the wetlands were portrayed and revealed the motivators behind all actions that were taken. The wetlands were called a waste and were underprioritized. Instead, those who approved the permits needed and the overall proposal ignored the various warnings from those who would be affected and from those who were knowledgeable in the subject. They invited the environmental risks, including the increased damage that would be caused by excess stormwater and flooding, all to add another money-generating facility to the borough.

• EJScreen Analysis: Environmental Conditions

The Graniteville wetlands have been working hard to ease many burdens that were afflicting the people living around the North Shore of Staten Island, helping ease financial and health problems. As mentioned before, the wetlands acted as a buffer during Hurricane Sandy, preventing extensive damage to the working-class neighborhoods surrounding it, saving them from having to pay for repairs on their homes and vehicles. On top of that, the wetlands were essential in dealing with high pollution levels and dangerous land uses that existed long before the proposal was formed. EJScreen data helps put numbers to these risks and reveals how important the presence of the wetlands is, especially when put side by side with the area’s socioeconomic status, which will be seen a little later.

I generated a report of the environmental factors that were affecting the neighborhoods within a mile of the wetlands, and it revealed a few concerning things. One of the first things that stands out is the level of toxic particles in the air. On top of the levels of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, which aren’t unnecessarily high, there was the presence of Diesel Particulate Matter and Toxic Releases to Air, which had high levels compared to the average. To be more specific, the DPM had 0.390 ug/m3, which put the area in the top 91st percentile of the country, and the Toxic Releases were counted to be 1500, amounting to 3.3 times the average amount in the entire state. These high numbers are likely due to the area’s proximity to major highways and roads, like the I-278 and the 440, which enable large amounts of traffic for both normal commuters going to work and large trucks that transport goods to the many businesses in Staten Island and the surrounding areas. These are numbers from the last census, and the addition of a new warehouse, with a large parking lot, would incentivize the increase of commuters in the area, as well as add new 18-wheelers that have to deliver supplies to the warehouse consistently. This would, in turn, cause the residents to face an increased level of health risks in the air as well as decrease the greenery that could take the DPM and other Toxic releases and transform them into clean oxygen for the people nearby.

This leads to the next concerning index, the High Traffic Proximity and Volume. As mentioned before, the proximity to the largely used roads to the neighborhoods and communities leads to a high level of traffic and various pollutants, including air and noise. EJScreen has given a number to the daily traffic count with respect to the distance to the road, which is a shocking 4.3 million. This puts it nearly in the 90th percentile of the country, with a volume that is 2.5 times greater. As mentioned before, the development of a new wholesale club with an invitingly large parking lot and a gas station will bring in more commuters who need to shop for their families and need to fill up their cars with gas on the way to work, as well as bring in different types of vehicles delivering different goods to be sold, including the gas that is being used by the gas station and the various goods and produce that BJ’s might sell. This will only increase the overall traffic in the area, increase the levels of pollutants that are created daily, as well as raise the risk for vehicular accidents to occur, none of which is good for the environment or the people in the area who already deal with a large amount of traffic as is.

Last but not least, the proximity of various industrial sites that have been deemed hazardous or unusable. The EJScreen report gives a number for the amount of Superfund, RMP, and Hazardous Waste facilities, and Underground Storage tanks near the area. The numbers are reported to be 2.25, 1.45, 10.9, and 8.8, respectively, each of which puts Graniteville in a really high percentile in comparison to both the state of New York and the entire nation. The number of Superfund facilities is higher than 96 percent of the areas in the country, and the number of RMP facilities is a whole 7 times greater than the average in the state. These sites contain dangerous chemicals and contaminated parcels that are all harmful if ever absorbed or ingested in high enough concentrations. Replacing the wetlands with a BJ’s Wholesale Club will only decrease the buffer that reduces the levels of harmful and toxic substances produced in the area.

All these large numbers and high percentiles only further support the need for the wetlands, and don’t even focus on the usefulness when stopping rising sea levels during hurricanes and absorbing excess rainwater during rough storms that would otherwise flood the streets, all of which can be seen in the FEMA map that visualizes the buffer against the river nearby. The wetlands, which absorb large amounts of water and help to get rid of a huge amount of harmful toxins, ease the troubles of the residents, and the removal would be the cause of greater levels of harm and inconvenience.

• EJScreen Analysis: Socioeconomic Statistics

In addition to the environmental factors that are seen in the report are many indices that relate to the demographics, social and economic status, and more. The report reveals that about 73% of the population in Graniteville is people of color, which is more than 70% of the various communities in both the state and the country. To be more specific, in Graniteville, about 34% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, 24% are African American, and the remaining 12% are Asian. This doesn’t include the number of people who are also Middle Eastern, which was not an option on the most recent census, only puffing up the percentage of the people who report themselves as white. These high percentages reveal that the environmental burdens present fall disproportionately on communities of color.

On top of that, the people in Graniteville are reported to be vulnerable economically and educationally. As can be seen by the report, about 28% of the Graniteville residents have low income, which is more than over half of the areas in the state, meaning that more than a fourth of the people in Graniteville face financial hardship and are limited in their ability to recover from any harm. Related to this, about 7% of Graniteville residents are reported to be unemployed, and 16% don’t have any education higher than High School, placing this area in the 70th percentile and above when compared to the entire nation of America. These indices only show how difficult it may be for the community members to navigate regulatory processes, access political power, or obtain care for illnesses that result from the high pollution around them.

The report goes on to provide data on language that further highlights vulnerability. About 6% of residents live in limited English-speaking households, nearly half of which don’t speak English, 23% speak Spanish, 7% speak an Asian language, and 11% speak other Indo-European languages. This shows that language access, like translations of public notices, public hearings, and reports, is a barrier to participation in decision-making for some members of the community, not to mention the 11% of the population who have a disability, the 19% that have a low life expectancy, and the 13% that are below the poverty line, further revealing that Graniteville is underrepresented.

The presence of the environmental and socioeconomic data reveals a clear pattern where the locals, who are mostly working class and people of color, are exposed to high levels of pollution and hazardous facilities. The high levels of toxins in the air already burden the community heavily, with about 11% of the adults in the area already dealing with asthma. The percentage will only rise with exposure to a pollution level higher than 91% of the country. Furthermore, the facilities nearby reveal a landscape filled with environmental risk that surrounds the racially diverse neighborhood. Having high percentiles for all types of facilities means that Graniteville is one of the few communities in the nation that is surrounded by a large number of dangerous sites. The pattern reveals that the resulting harms that come from the high number of pollution and facilities are not distributed evenly and are focused mostly on marginalized communities.

Destroying the wetlands would only intensify the burdens that exist on the disadvantaged community, removing the various services that they provide, like buffering against flooding and cleaning up the air. The EJScreen data support the various claims and disapprovals that were seen in the DCP’s environmental review and give evidence to their claims. The Graniteville case fits a common pattern where land is devalued, and that land is located near a politically and socially marginalized community, causing the community to absorb any resulting harm to further economic gain. EJScreen visualizes and quantifies the inequality behind the decisions that were made regarding the land.

• Community Resistance

As seen before, the people of Graniteville did not just stand around and accept the coming changes; they voiced their disagreements and their opinions, and not just by writing letters. The residents formed a large coordinated movement in Staten Island, quoting their lived experiences and their scientific knowledge to assert the need for environmental protection. Despite the various institutions that drowned out their concerns, the movement demonstrated that opposition should always persist, no matter how bleak the situation may seem.

A group by the name of Protectors of Pine Oak Woods was fighting against any development or zoning changes regarding the Graniteville wetlands. Back in 1987, when the current owners of the land sought to gain relief under a hardship provision because of their protected land, to allow economic development. In opposition to this, to protect the land from possible development, the Protectors contested the claims with the DEC, successfully burying the issue in court proceedings for years. Unfortunately, they agreed to the claim and allowed ten acres for development. Years later, when the DEC was asked to accept the permit requests necessary for the development of BJ’s, the Protectors continued to contest with the DEC by countering the Environmental Impact Statement, which also led to the issuing of the permits.11

Separately, after hearing about the proposed development, members of the local community came together, formed the Coalition for Wetlands and Forests, and started fighting for two years. They’ve been attending to, photographing, and fighting to preserve the land for over two years before the approval to develop on the land. They even collected large storm maps and collected data about Hurricane Sandy, as well as gathered public comments to prompt a hearing. Some members of the activists with legal knowledge hoped to go to court over the environmental impact statement, claiming that it was insufficient.12 The members of the coalition did whatever they could to counter the developers’ claims and permit requests, trying to show those with decision-making power that approving development would bring more harm than good. 

Even after the approval of the permits, the people continued to protest and march. In April 2021, nearly 500 people met together on Forest Avenue and marched for about an hour, continuing down Forest Avenue until settling on the corner of Forest Avenue and Morrow Street. Once there, the crowd continued their protest by giving speeches and playing music for hours. On top of that, many people continued their protest online through social media.13 Furthermore, there were government officials who also voiced their positions on the matter. As mentioned earlier, the comptroller, Scott Stringer, had voiced concern about inadequate measures being taken and concerns not being taken seriously.

The residents came together to defend their neighborhood, highlighting the uneven power dynamic. Despite the presence of all this pushback from multiple organizations, large communities, and people in established positions, the DEC approved everything necessary to start the development, showing that the DEC may have heard all the opposition and concerns but didn’t actually consider them.

• Conclusion

The opening scene of this paper, when placed in the full context, has more of an impact than just another protest. The protest, as well as the other evidence provided in the paper, shows that this is part of a much larger struggle. The march was not a spontaneous protest, nor was it a single event; it was part of a long resistance movement, starting in the 1980s with the Protectors of Pine Oak Woods. The people in the march were not just carrying various cardboard signs; they carried the years of organizing, research, and opposition against the DEC and various development companies.

The pattern is very apparent across the paper, where Staten Island is continuously treated as a place to dump waste and continue development that harms the environment, conforming the view of the wetlands as another site similar to the ones they had built on before. The overall opinions regarding wetlands have become apparent in multiple documents, using terminology to imply that the wetlands were meant to be transformed. These opinions influenced the decisions, disregarding the many voices of opposition. Additionally, the EJScreen data revealed that this didn’t occur in isolation, affecting most of the minority, working-class citizens in the area.

The community’s resistance shows how the movements to fight back can come from vulnerable communities when they recognize the environmental damage that will result from the development. The locals fought back because they had lived through and experienced firsthand how necessary the wetlands were to their health and safety. The actions show that environmental justice doesn’t just have to focus on those who are directly harmed, but also those who raise their voices to be heard and those who have the expertise to lead and organize more movements.

In conclusion, the Graniteville struggle is one of the many examples of environmental inequality in postwar America. It also shows how the devaluation of green land often comes with the devaluation of the people who are near it. It goes further, demonstrating the need to fight to protect the environments that benefit the community. The Graniteville struggle shows that wetlands are not wasted land and that no community is indispensable. This is a local fight, but it is also a reminder of what is needed to fight for environmental justice.

Endnotes

1. Joseph Ostapiuk, “‘It Does Not End Here:’ Hundreds March to Protest BJ’s Development on Graniteville Wetlands,” SILive, April 24, 2021, https://www.silive.com/news/2021/04/it-does-not-end-here-hundreds-march-to-protest-bjs-development-on-graniteville-wetlands.html.
2. TheEnvironmentTV, “‘It’s Not Over’ Flyering Graniteville Staten Island,” YouTube, February 28, 2018, https://youtu.be/rUMuKdcZ9Jg?si=uQdLiUCIe5jn8yYA.
3. Alexis Sottile, “Vital Staten Island Wetlands About to Get a BJ’s Wholesale Club,” Gothamist, August 28, 2019, https://gothamist.com/news/vital-staten-island-wetlands-about-get-bjs-wholesale-club.
4. NYCGov Parks, “Freshkills Park : NYC Parks,” NYCGovParks, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.nycgovparks.org/park-features/freshkills-park/about-the-site.
5. Martin V. Melosi, Fresh Kills: A History of Consuming and Discarding in New York City (Staten Island, New York: Columbia University Press, 2020), 69.
6. Martin V. Melosi, Fresh Kills: A History of Consuming and Discarding in New York City (Staten Island, New York: Columbia University Press, 2020), 79.
7. Chris Wilhelm, From Swamp to Wetland: The Creation of Everglades National Park (Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia Press, 2022).
8. New York City Department of City Planning, South Avenue Retail Development: Final Environmental Impact Statement (New York: City of New York, 2017), 1-7.
9. New York City Department of City Planning, South Avenue Retail Development: Final Environmental Impact Statement (New York: City of New York, 2017), 1-7, 1-8.
10. Scott M. Stringer, Letter to Tamara A. Greco Regarding Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit for 534 South Avenue, Staten Island (Application ID: 2-6401-00287/0000) (New York City Comptroller’s Office, August 29, 2019).
11. Admin, “A Brief History of Our Efforts to Save the Graniteville Wetlands,” SIProtectors, June 14, 2021, https://www.siprotectors.org/post/a-brief-history-of-our-graniteville-wetlands-preservation-efforts.
12. Alexis Sottile, “Vital Staten Island Wetlands About to Get a BJ’s Wholesale Club,” Gothamist, August 28, 2019, https://gothamist.com/news/vital-staten-island-welands-about-get-bjs-wholesale-club.

13.  Jacqueline Caruso, “What Started When Hundreds of Islanders Marched to Save the Graniteville Wetlands,” Plea for the Fifth, June 5, 2021, https://www.pleaforthefifth.com/coming-together-to-save-the-wetlands/.

Primary Sources: