“I tell you one thing, we’re going to get a new boardwalk,” the Brooklyn Democrat said, stomping his foot last week on the decaying wooden planks of Coney Island’s signature walkway.

In early November, the city unveiled its grand plans to remake Coney Island, imagining a bustling 15-acre base of rides and games surrounded by year-round amusements, hotels and thousands of new apartments.

The path to realize this dream seemed simple: rezone the amusement area and designate it parkland, thereby forcing the major private landowner, Joseph Sitt, to sell his land or leave it fallow.

“One assumes that Mr. Sitt is rational and trying to do what’s right for his bottom line,” Mayor Bloomberg said at the time.

The city drew countless supporters for its plan—advocates of the struggling historic amusement hub and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz included—but Councilman Recchia, who represents Coney Island, was not among them.

In a city where major land-use decisions require approval of the City Council, Mr. Recchia’s resistance meant the plan as presented was all but dead on arrival, as the majority of the Council is expected to follow his lead.

As such, the Brooklyn councilman, who has aligned himself with the interests of Mr. Sitt and other Coney Island landholders, holds a seat of more power than perhaps any other figure involved with the historic amusement center’s future right now. When Mr. Recchia was joined in his criticism by State Senator Diane Savino, Assemblyman Alec Brook-Krasny and U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler, the city was forced to substantially alter what it saw as a workable plan in order to mitigate the councilman’s concerns.

Mr. Recchia’s support for the city’s latest proposal—which allows for more privately owned hotel rooms and entertainment-related retail while cutting down on the city-owned amusement area—is crucial. City officials, who have indicated the newest plan is their final offer, said they are looking to Mr. Recchia to help broker a deal with Mr. Sitt; without such a deal, the whole redevelopment initiative of the amusement hub could collapse.

Mr. Recchia, 48, talks with a booming voice marked by a thick Brooklyn accent. An attorney who lives in Gravesend, he grew up in the area, and seems in his element on the streets of Coney Island.

In a recent stroll around the area, he was busy waving to a constant stream of familiar faces of mostly workers in the amusement district, stopping to chat with the ride inspectors and managers.

“Look at this ride,” he said, gesturing to one of the many children’s attractions at Astroland. “This is a great ride right here.”

Like most of the other 30-plus members of the City Council who are termed out at the end of 2009, Mr. Recchia is looking for a new job in elective office, seeking to be the dragon slayer that ousts New York City’s one Republican congressman, Representative Vito Fossella. The district does not encompass Coney Island, but if he is able to portray himself as a man who brokered a deal to revitalize the amusements, it could be a nice feather in his cap come November.

Throughout Mr. Recchia’s two terms, the redevelopment of Coney Island has been a priority, and he has been talking with the city about its plans for the area since the start of the Bloomberg administration. His vision for the area, as he has noted repeatedly, is essentially the same as the city’s—a thriving amusement zone bordered by dense residential districts to the west and the north.

“We want to make this an all-year-round destination—not just a summer destination,” he said.

The differences with the Bloomberg administration lie with the treatment of the private landowners, who control the vast majority of the land in the Coney Island amusement district.

The city initially worked to craft a rezoning with Mr. Sitt, who owns most of the amusement area, but officials became frustrated after he demanded a plan that allowed for housing or time shares.

Sometime in the late spring and early summer, the city opted to turn the central amusement area into parkland, then buy the land from the owners. Once purchased and rezoned, the city could contract out the amusements to an operator to take over the 15-acre area.

The change was an aggressive one, and while it did not employ eminent domain, the parkland designation would have rendered the private landowners’ property mostly worthless, prohibiting profitable development. A land swap was also proposed that would give Mr. Sitt developable property to the west.

In the eyes of many in the community, Mr. Sitt was far more a villain than a victim, and advocates rushed to support the city’s plan after it was announced in November.

“I think their plan was spectacular,” said Dianna Carlin, a local souvenir shop owner who has spearheaded the “Save Coney Island” movement.

But the plan for the central amusement area was at odds with Mr. Rec chia’s vision for the district, and in the land-use process, only the City Council and the City Planning Commission have binding votes; not the community board. Adding to the political complications for the city was the resistance from the state legislators, Ms. Savino and Mr. Brook-Krasny, who would be needed to change the designation of a large parking lot that is critical to the land swap.

Mr. Recchia’s clash with the city’s earlier plan sprouts from a concern that the parkland plan would be expensive and likely dragged out in protracted legal battles—to ignore that fact is being unrealistic, he said.

“I know what can really happen and what can’t, and you have to be realistic in this whole redevelopment,” he said. “You don’t work with the landowners and the landowners don’t work with you, you’re going to wind up in court.”

Further, Mr. Recchia said he is troubled by the notion of leaving behind the private landowners given the investments they’ve made in the area. Top on that list is Mr. Sitt, whom Mr. Recchia called a longtime friend.

“Joe Sitt was the only developer that put these parcels together. If Joe Sitt didn’t do the accumulation, the city would be having to do that, and that would be very difficult,” he said. “So when people say, ‘Joe Sitt this,’ ‘Joe Sitt that,’ and they just want to knock Joe Sitt, I’m just telling you no other developer wanted to do this, and I t
hink people have to recognize that.”

Mr. Sitt has contributed a total of $3,750 to Mr. Recchia’s campaigns, though the last time he gave was in 2005, according to campaign finance records. Other landowners are frequent contributors as well, and taken with money from Mr. Sitt’s lobbyists, Capalino & Company, those involved with the redevelopment at Coney Island have given at least $18,000 between Mr. Recchia’s city and federal campaign accounts since 2006, records show. Mr. Recchia has raised about $350,000 for his Congressional race, making such donations seem relatively minor.

Whatever Mr. Recchia’s reasons for opposition, the Bloomberg administration is certainly in need of his support as it tries to work out the details of the latest iteration of its plan.

Mr. Recchia said the plan is workable as a concept, and now the landowners, particularly Mr. Sitt, are negotiating with the city to determine the uses for the type of retail allowed adjacent to the amusement area. The city seems to want to limit the land to entertainment-related retail, often with themes like those seen in Times Square storefronts: ESPN Zone, tattoo parlors, and the Hard Rock Cafe are mentioned as examples.

How exactly that can translate into agreeable zoning language is unclear, as is whether Mr. Sitt will go along with it; and if he doesn’t, whether Mr. Recchia will support the plan. It also doesn’t seem to help the city that many Coney Island advocates, once solidly in the city’s court, said they have reservations about the newest plan given its smaller publicly owned amusement area.

Jesse Masyr, a lawyer for Mr. Sitt, said he was “guardedly optimistic,” noting that winds could shift in coming days given the pace of talks. “Time is an extremely precious commodity right now,” he said.

Robert Lieber, the deputy mayor, said the city could proceed without reaching a deal on the amusement area, as its plan to rezone the areas to the west and the north for dense residential are far less controversial.

“We’re still going to do the rezoning—we’re still going to do what we’re doing whether we buy Joe or leave him in there,” he said.

Getting Mr. Sitt to agree to a deal is clearly Mr. Lieber’s end goal, and in that, he credited Mr. Recchia with being effective, saying he is “optimistic that Domenic can help us make a deal.”

And what if Mr. Recchia blocks any action that the Bloomberg administration finds palatable?

Perhaps the city could hope for victory in his Congressional campaign—should Mr. Recchia win in November, his Council seat would be free by January, with plenty of time left for the rezoning to come up for a vote.