Stryker Court Residents Demand That Their Parking Returns To Normal

Stryker Court before the parking was removed. Photo screenshot from Google Maps.
Stryker Court before the parking was removed. Photo screenshot from Google Maps.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) struck a chord with Stryker Court residents when they removed parking from one side of the Gravesend street.

It happened three weeks ago in the dead of the night. Both sides of Stryker Court were alternate side parking for roughly 75 years, according to resident Ronald Sartini, but now one side is “no standing anytime.”

“This change to ‘no standing anytime’ on one side has developed this new traffic pattern,” said Sartini in an emotional speech made to Community Board 15 last week. “Stryker Court has now become a speedway for trucks and cars making it a thoroughfare. This is a dangerous result for everyone, especially children playing and elderly people crossing the street.”

Sartini, with the support of 497 residents who signed a petition to get the parking back, reached out to the DOT to get answers, and this was their response:

“Thank you for your message of concern in the change of parking regulations on Stryker court. The DOT Brooklyn Borough Engineers Office evaluated conditions on Stryker Court in response to a request of a member of the community and determined that the street is too narrow for parking on both sides. As a result, the parking regulations were changed to remove parking on one side of the street in the interest of safety.”

According to Community Board 15 chairperson Theresa Scavo, emergency vehicles were having trouble navigating through the narrow street, so the DOT conducted a study and decided parking had to be eliminated on one side to accommodate larger vehicles.

“How did Stryker Court alone become too narrow overnight in a city with hundreds of street much narrower and still have parking on both sides,” asked Sartini at the CB15 meeting. “99 percent of the people who live on Stryker Court have signed this petition and are protesting this no standing anytime rule.”

Sartini, and the other Stryker Court residents who advocate for bringing the parking back, believe that the complaints were made simply because someone’s driveway was blocked by a car parked on the street, which, according to Sartini, calls for an increase in law enforcement, not a drastic change to the street by the DOT.

Sartini also claimed that collusion between government agencies may have occurred to enact such a swift change to the street.

“We believe the complaint was made by a member of the community who may be an employee of a New York State government agency and used their position to possibly influence an employee of the DOT to change the parking in their favor,” said Sartini. “If so, this is a crime.”

The DOT would not disclose who the complainant was, nor the nature of the complaint. They did, however, provide this comment:

“DOT enacted the changes along Striker Court in response to community concerns. The changes were made after a thorough review and analysis of the stretch. Five parking spots in total were removed. Parking still remains on the opposite side of the street. If residents have concerns, they should reach out to their local community board or 311.”

At the CB15 meeting, Sartini’s moving speech incited applause from the crowd as well as outbursts such as, “we want it back!”

“Stryker Court homeowners and everyone that parks there votes and pays taxes and have nowhere to park,” Sartini said to close the speech.

share this story

Sean Egan

Sean Egan recently graduated from Brooklyn College, where he studied journalism. You can find him around the neighborhood, snapping photos and taking notes, probably with a coffee in hand.


  1. Typical damn the community response from DOT and this is all because Mayor DeBlasio last year gave DOT carte blanche to ignore any community when DOT believes safety is an issue even when DOT response makes the street less safe as is the case here and also as Woodhaven residents feel with the proposing of median bus stops there.

    DOT also typically revises their story when homes are found in their logic. The original story was that an emergency vehicle gas trouble exiting the street. Since an appropriate response to that problem would have been to remove only one or two parking spaces, DOT changed their story to now say the entire street is too narrow. As a resident stated why isn’t parking banned in the hundreds of other streets that are just as narrow? Why here? It is because DOT believes they can get away with it.

  2. DOT also typically revises their story when homes are found in their logic. The original story was that an emergency vehicle gas trouble exiting the street.

    Did autocorrect get you again?

    As a resident stated why isn’t parking banned in the hundreds of other streets that are just as narrow? Why here? It is because DOT believes they can get away with it.

    That doesn’t explain why DOT would focus its attention on this little street.

  3. Yes it did. It should have said “holes are found in their logic.

    It does explain why they would focus their attention here. Summit Street is narrower. So narrow that I would only drive at 10 mph down it although the speed limit is 25 mph. They would never try eliminating parking there because you would hear the uproar in the Bronx.

  4. It also should have read “…an emergency vehicle has trouble exiting the street” instead of “…gas trouble exiting the street.”

    You still haven’t explained why DOT would bother to expend resources on this little street. “Because they can get away with it” is not an explanation for that; they can get away with any number of things that they don’t actually do.

  5. They want to make owning a car in NYC as inconvenient as possible in the hope people will give them up, What they are not considering is that this may be the last straw for middle class people already thinking of moving to greener pastures.

  6. Again, this still does not explain the focus on this particular street. There are much more effective steps the DOT could take if their objective really were what you say it is.

  7. Yes, like eliminating travel lanes by instituting bike lanes wherever they can; or by striping off lanes like on Pennsylvania Avenue to increase travel times, intentionally putting signals not in sync to increase travel times so that as soon as a signal turns green, the following signal turns red; eliminating parking unnecessarily, constantly increasing meter fees and fines, cameras and unfair tickets, etc. I heard someone complain he received a ticket for driving in a bus lane when he had to cross one just to get out of a parking space and a camera caught him in the lane. Need I go on?

  8. Yes. I’m still waiting for an explanation for the focus on Stryker Court. With all this other evil to perpetrate in places where it would have a lot more impact, why would DOT bother with this street?

  9. Why do you insist they are only focusing on this street? Do you read every local news blog and newspaper to know what is going on with every small street in this city. It is just one of many. They are implementing daylighting all over the city. There is nothing wrong with that because there are places where it is needed because you need the extra visibility to improve safety.

    The problem is they do not only eliminate parking near the 20 feet closest to the corner which is all that is needed. They just place a no parking sign on the closest sign post nearest the intersection and many times eliminate two or three extra parking spaces because they do not care how inconvenient they make it for drivers because they want parking to be as inconvenient as possible.

    This adds up to hundreds or maybe even thousands of parking spaces being eliminated unnecessarily.

    They never look to see where they can increase parking unless they are prompted by the politicians to do so like where Councilman Deutsch got DOT to add angle parking recently on one block of Avenue P adding 16 extra spaces. This should have been done 30 years ago. DOT should be doing this wherever they can all over the city. But they only look to decrease parking, not to increase it. And please don’t tell me that everyone wil now run out and buy a car because of these 16 extra spaces because that is just nonsense. The real effect is time saved and less air pollution by less circling around the block looking for a parking space.

  10. They made changes to this street, didn’t they? Isn’t that what we’re here talking about? Why would they even pay attention to this street?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *