The real estate industry representatives argued reversal of the building permit decision would set a bad precedent. They said developers must be able to rely on permits being granted or this could undermine construction in New York City, including obtaining capital. They warned injecting uncertainties in as-of-right developments would unnecessarily raise the costs of real estate, cause delays, and result in the loss of projects that create good jobs and fuel the economy.

Frank Chaney, an attorney at Rosenberg & Estis, representing the Committee, argued that the developer's proposal violates the Zoning Resolution's definitions of a zoning lot because instead of being complete adjacent lots, the transfer of development rights was based on isolated bits and pieces of lots strung together. Chaney also says zoning lots must be defined by tax lots as shown on the city tax map. But the proposal is made up of bits and pieces of different tax lots that were never on a tax map.

William Raudenbush, VP of the Committee, said the organization is not trying to stop the entire construction, but is looking for a scaled-down version of the building, that legally complies with the Zoning Resolution. He added, “It's terrible public policy to subdivide tax lots.” Other community members also spoke about possible confusion in the context of the opaque, multi-layered governmental process already involved in zoning.

Michael Zoltan, assistant general counsel, New York Department of Buildings, had written a memo to the BSA, which clarified the definition of “zoning lot.” The department had approved the zoning lot for 200 Amsterdam. The memo explained on May 18, 1978, the acting commissioner of the buildings department, Irving Minkin, issued a memo known as “Zoning Lot Exhibits,” which stated “a single zoning lot, which may consist of one or more tax lots or parts of tax lots…”