Jan 8
2026
Buffalo sued over East Side police training facility
- Share on
A notice posted this summer outside the site of a proposed police training facility on Buffalo’s East Side. Photo by Adam Smith-Perez.
An activist organization and four East Side residents have sued the city, the Common Council and the police department to stop the conversion of a former community center into a police training facility and shooting range.
The organization Liberation For One, Liberation for All, also known as LOLA, filed the lawsuit on Dec. 23, arguing that the rezoning violates several state and local laws. Much of the suit is based on the city’s alleged violation of state environmental law and its failure to properly complete the required environmental review process evaluating the potential harms of the site.
The Matt Urban Hope Center, which provided housing assistance, a food pantry, youth services and other programs, was located at the site until 2023.
The lawsuit also claims the site sits on city-owned parkland that was never legally alienated, or transferred, for another use.
Furthermore, the suit states that all bonds were approved before any environmental determination, and that $535,000 was not authorized for the new site by the state legislature.
Brian Borncamp, Robert Tuttle, Tamora Gibson, and James Vance — LOLA’s co-litigants in the case — all live within close range of the site, located at 379-385 Paderewski Drive. All claim that the proposed facility would cause a range of harms, including increased noise and air pollution, traffic, as well as “diminished community services in an area … in need of such services.”
LOLA’s leadership says the group spent a year organizing opposition to the project and in recent months raising money to retain an attorney and sue the city.
“We knew that a lawsuit may have to be something that happens, especially if the city did some improper things,” Alia Williams, co-founder of LOLA, told Investigative Post.
“We would like to see that space turned back into a community center … a community space,” Williams said.
Donate to support our nonprofit newsroomBorncamp, one of the co-litigants who lives blocks away from the site, has worked closely with Williams to organize residents against the project.
“City Hall broke the law. City Hall needs to follow the law,” Borncamp said.
“When city officials willfully violate the law, they need to be held accountable.”
A spokesperson for the city was not immediately available for comment.
City’s environmental review “fatally flawed”
Investigative Post reported in September on the city’s lack of outreach to nearby residents and its failure to follow the environmental review process required for the facility.
Under state law, a lead agency must assess and consider a broad range of environmental impacts, including traffic, air quality, noise and the character of the community.
In this case, the Common Council served as the lead agency. The city then approved the rezoning of the site from residential to mixed-use on Sept. 2.
According to the city’s Green Code, once an applicant submits an environmental assessment with a zoning map amendment application, the city clerk must certify that the application is complete before the planning board issues a recommendation.
The city clerk certified the application as complete, even though the environmental assessment form was missing information just two days before the Council vote, according to the lawsuit.
“The SEQRA Review for the Project was fatally flawed because Respondents failed to take a ‘hard look’ and evaluate potential environmental impacts of the Conversion and proposed use of the property,” the suit claims.
The lawsuit also cites CDC guidance warning against lead and noise exposure attributed to shooting ranges, and argues that the city’s zoning code does not allow for the construction of a shooting range under its current law.
“The UDO [Unified Development Ordinance] definition of a ‘public safety facility’ does not include a ‘shooting range’ or a firing range,” the suit states.
Site should be returned to parkland
The lawsuit also calls for the site to be returned to its original use as a community park.
LOLA cites a 1914 legal opinion by the city’s then-corporation counsel stating that the land’s original use as Polonia Park was never legally changed. As a result, the lawsuit argues, repurposing the site for a police facility would require approval from the state Legislature — a step the city did not take.
The lawsuit was filed as an Article 78 proceeding, meaning there will be no jury. State Supreme Court Judge John David Sampson will preside over the case, who has set the next court appearance for Feb. 11, 2026.
A spokesperson for the police department told Investigative Post that it does not comment on pending litigation.
Chris Hawley, a neighbor and president of the Central Terminal Neighborhood Association, has long advocated for revitalizing community spaces and helped craft the city’s Green Code.
Hawley, who has worked for the Office of Strategic Planning since 2010, would not comment on the argument that the site should be reclaimed as a park, but said his block club is “generally satisfied” with how the police department has addressed their concerns.
Hawley shared the list of 11 concessions that his block club asked for from the city and the police. One of the remaining concerns to be addressed is written confirmation from a professional that indoor shooting range noise will be undetectable to neighbors.
“We are aware of the lawsuit, and the concerns of our neighbors,” Hawley said.
“We wish them well.”
Adam Smith-Perez is a Report for America corps member.
