Forest Hills Board Spends $1 Million Battling Stadium as Residents Question Payouts and Priorities

An internecine legal feud in a leafy Queens enclave raises questions about transparency, governance, and the real price of peace and quiet in New York City’s neighborhoods.

In Forest Hills Gardens, a meticulously preserved private neighborhood in Queens, a sizeable sum has vanished into the pockets of lawyers: nearly $1 million over three years, all to contest the raucous reality of open-air concerts at Forest Hills Stadium. The price of this quietude, it seems, is anything but paltry. At stake is not only the quality of life for 4,000 residents, but also the governance of one of the city’s rarefied enclaves—and, more subtly, the meaning of accountability among New York’s homeowner associations.

The board of the Forest Hills Gardens Corporation (FHGC), the group that stewards this gated community’s affairs, embarked on its campaign against the stadium with gusto, waging lawsuits without wider community consent. Legal bills ballooned last year alone to $439,425, up from an annual norm of $10,000 just a few years prior. This year, the board is again asking residents to approve a $300,000 legal budget—described as “relatively modest”—while simultaneously launching fresh litigation in federal court. To critics like Jeff Mitchell, a 26-year resident and candidate for the board, this is less prudent stewardship than a costly crusade in which transparency is notably lacking.

Those opposed to the board’s approach may share the desire for a modicum of peace, but are shocked by the drift toward managerial opacity. Board decisions, they contend, have been taken unilaterally: lawsuits are filed without notice, budgets overrun agreed limits, and the homeowner majority is misled about the scale—and necessity—of the campaign. Residents learn of new legal action not from board meetings but from subpoenas or investigative journalism. “There is no accountability,” Mitchell gripes, suggesting that support for the stadium fight is far less universal than the board claims.

The FHGC’s legal marathon, residents note, has brought with it unintended side effects. The cash cow of concert revenue has dried up, leaving the neighborhood’s coffers depleted. The group’s ability to fund parks, amenities, and local services has diminished, provoking yet more friction among homeowners. For some, the well-manicured lawns now come with a whiff of penny-pinching.

Nor is the board’s leadership universally secure. A slate of seven “anti-lawsuit” candidates is campaigning for a place on the 15-member board, promising to restore financial sanity and end the internecine wrangling. Their opponents, led by Matt Mandell, the longtime law committee head, paint this as a “hostile takeover.” The board, for its part, maintains that pre-litigation secrecy is essential—“Litigation is never discussed in advance,” Mandell argues, as if legal combat were a foregone conclusion in suburban stewardship.

The second-order effects extend far beyond the Gardens’ shingled homes and lamp-lit lanes. The suit against the NYPD, which was filed in October, challenges the city’s prerogative to commandeer private streets during concerts—ostensibly to maintain order and ensure public safety for throngs of music lovers. Depending on the outcome, the case could establish an expensive precedent for other neighborhoods where private ownership of streets bumps up against public necessity.

Legal experts reckon these disputes are emblematic of a broader tension in New York between parochial privilege and civic obligation. “The city will almost always press its authority in matters of public safety,” notes one Manhattan land-use lawyer. But with costs heading north of $1 million, even well-heeled neighborhoods may blanch at the price of such confrontation—especially when the supposed “enemy” is, in effect, the broader metropolis that sustains their property values.

Legal bills, political divisions

Neighborhood strife over concert venues is nothing new in the United States. But the scale of litigation in Forest Hills stands out. Many American cities have seen similar culture wars over nightlife, live music, and street closures—Nashville’s Broadway, Austin’s downtown, San Francisco’s Haight. Yet New York’s density, property values, and propensity for legal recourse give such disputes a particularly Manhattanite edge. The Gardens dispute also mirrors a national trend of homeowners’ associations throwing their weight—and residents’ money—into high-octane legal battles, often with only patchy democratic input.

The economics are equally revealing. A war chest of $1 million spent not on streets or landscaping but on barristers and court fees is hardly trivial—even by the standards of private neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the absence of concert revenue bodes ill for the Gardens’ financial health, with maintenance costs mounting and reserve funds dwindling. This is no minor squabble over a garden gnome.

A cynic might suggest the Gardens’ malaise exemplifies the NIMBYism that has long plagued municipal progress in New York. Yet the fact that a majority of residents reportedly tolerate, or even appreciate, the concerts complicates the tale. If anything, it is the secrecy and at-times ham-fisted governance—not rock bands or bureaucrats—that most enrage the community. As Brittany Russell, a resident and trial lawyer, points out, “They actively misled us” about pending litigation mere weeks after promising otherwise.

From a classical-liberal perspective, the Forest Hills saga illustrates the perils of unchecked committee power. Shareholder democracy, after all, works only when constituents are well-informed and empowered to direct their representatives. The Gardens’ quasi-feudal style of management—insular, defensive, inclined to spend other people’s money—would not impress fans of open societies, nor lovers of prudent accounting.

New York, ever the stage for outsized conflicts, may yet serve as a cautionary example for neighborhoods nationwide. Transparency, fiscal discipline, and a bit of old-fashioned neighborliness may not sound as exciting as litigation—but, as Forest Hills Gardens is learning, they might offer a far less costly form of peace.

■