« The Word on the Fort Greene House Tour: Eclectic FGHT: Culture and Commerce Mix at One Hanson »
May 8, 2006
DDDB Signs On Brooklyn Star Power for AY Fight
The group most widely associated with the fight against Bruce Ratner's proposed Atlantic Yards project just made a big move to broaden its public appeal by putting together a 33-member advisory board studded with such high-profile Brooklynites as Steve Buscemi, Heath Ledger and Jonathan Safran Foer. Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) is hoping the addition of the celebs will make it harder for Ratner and others to portray the group as some fly-by-night lightweight organization and provide some counter-balance to the starpower Ratner himself has enlisted to sell his vision to the borough. One new board member, actress (and Ledger fiancee) Michelle Williams, isn't too keen on what the development would mean for her newly adopted neighborhood of Boerum Hill: "His vision will increase traffic, pollution and asthma," she said. "If Mr. Ratner lived here, he would understand what we love about it and why we want to preserve our open skies." "It's very frustrating to realize that something with such a massive scale can be imposed upon from people who don't live here," said author and Fort Greene resident Jhumpa Lahiri. Maybe all these stars can pool some funds together to offer Bertha Lewis more money to sell out to them than Ratner did. Heck, Heath could even throw in a kiss that would top the smacker Lewis gave Ratner last year!
Celebs Join Ratner Foes [NY Daily News]
Announcement of Advisory Board Formation [DDDB]
Comments
This is smart from a fundraising perspective, but, in reality, it will make little difference. Ledger and Buscemi are genuine celebrities, but the others on the list are relatively minor (the writers, religious figures, and community activists) or past their prime (e.g. Rosie Perez).
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 9:51 AM
what an absurd statement Anony-mouse.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 9:57 AM
Franzen lives on the UES. I think you mean one of the other author-Jonathans in the area.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 10:06 AM
Jonathan Lethem, undoubtedly.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 10:21 AM
why undoubtedly. isn't Jonathan Safran Foer a much bigger name?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 10:29 AM
If you read who those people are, they are committed well respected people in just about every field under the sun, they are hardly minor - they are celebrites in their respect fields, if you will. Writers, activists and religious leaders are the community leaders that have historically lead the way to winning fights like these, hardly a minor issue. Their knowledge, reputation and passion is action based unlike the photo ops given by Ratner's show pieces.
Posted by: Deb Goldstein at May 8, 2006 11:05 AM
Let's save all the Ratner suck-ups the effort. "Nothing will make any difference - it's a done deal. It's better to rush a crappy development than to work out a good one. Corruption is simply the way things are done and it's silly to think it could ever be otherwise."
Posted by: Gruntled at May 8, 2006 11:07 AM
What is so sad about our culture is that our newspapers quote someone like Michelle Williams as a psuedo-expert when the sum total of her education is a H.S diploma and her collective time living in Brooklyn is probably less than 300 days.
Maybe if Heath and Michelle were so worried about pollution and asthma Heath wouldnt be driving Michelle all over the city in their "hulking Blue BMW":
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051204/LIFESTYLE01/512040325/1031
Posted by: David at May 8, 2006 11:24 AM
at least they live in the fricking borough while they pollute it.
Posted by: Divad at May 8, 2006 11:28 AM
Isn't this too little, too late?
Posted by: Pietro at May 8, 2006 11:50 AM
Unfortunately, now that Heath & Michelle are Brownstone Brooklyn's official spokespeople, its official that our borough and lifestyle have jumped the shark...
Look for huge upcoming anti-Brooklyn backlash...
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 11:51 AM
The Three Stooges were from Brooklyn. What about digging them up for the advisory board.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 11:59 AM
This is a losing strategy. I'm sure the majority of Brooklyn celebrities (along with their corporate endorsers) will actually want an affiliation with the Brooklyn Nets. How many games into the Nets inaugural season will it take before we catch Heath at courtside smiling for the cameras and rooting for the home team? Given the abysmal state of her career, Rosie should probably join him too. She could definitely use the publicity and uptick in profile.
When the arena gets built and the hype surrounding the Brooklyn Nets gets into full swing, any DDDB supporter, celebs included, can't ever show their face at a Nets game. They are going to look like quite the idiot wearing a team jersey, drunk dancing on the huge Jumbotron and shaking their pom poms behind the backboard! Trust me, this will come back to haunt them. Moreover, I hope Heath's kid will understand the foolish reason why mom and dad can't take little Matilda to the Nets game!
DDDB pack it in. The arena will be built and the Brooklyn Nets are going to be the hottest ticket in town. The place will be sold out every game for the next ten years. I can't wait to get my season tickets! Yahoo!
Posted by: BrownBomber at May 8, 2006 12:20 PM
Since when do people in Brooklyn give a crap what celebrities think about anything? Isn't that why we don't live in Manhattan?
Posted by: linusvanpelt at May 8, 2006 12:33 PM
Great point Linus! Hilarious! LOL!
Posted by: BrownBomber at May 8, 2006 12:44 PM
"I'm sure the majority of Brooklyn celebrities (along with their corporate endorsers) will actually want an affiliation with the Brooklyn Nets."
Are you crazy? It will attract a totally Bridge and Tunnel crowd. No class at all.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 1:17 PM
Isn't Bklyn already attracting the Bridge & Tunnel crowd?
Posted by: archer at May 8, 2006 1:28 PM
"It will attract a totally Bridge and Tunnel crowd. No class at all."
What a stupid statement. Anon 1:17 is clearly not a sports fan. Ever go to a Knick, Ranger or Yankee game? What does class have to do with anything? We're talking about grabbing a beer and watching a freak'n basketball game, not Yo-Yo Ma at Carnegie Hall!
Posted by: BrownBomber at May 8, 2006 1:31 PM
Folks, you are all media savvy, aintcha? so what does media LOVE? celebrity. right, great. so they focus on Ledger/Williams. who can blame them, clearly it catches your attention.
go learn about the advisory board. come back here then and tell us how its a bunch of celebrities so who gives an f. just go do it. learn a thing or two.
you can start here:
http://tinyurl.com/owbvo
or go here:
http://blogs.nydailynews.com/iteam/archives/2006/05/ratners_heavyweight_opponents.php
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 1:56 PM
Say what you will, but there's no way Heath Ledger will ever have more credibility than Bertha Lewis on any subject. Including acting (Bertha's better at it).
I have mixed feelings myself about the project, but am sick to death of hearing pompous white yuppies call Bertha Lewis a "sellout." For the work that she and ACORN have done in this city, she doesn't deserve that kind of treatment from anyone who doesn't have the guts and decency to say it to her face.
Posted by: southbrooklyn at May 8, 2006 2:22 PM
Oh yes your right Anon @ 1:56 (or would you prefer I call you D. Goldstein), its not just a couple of celebrities...
it also a tired retread of old Ratner opponents (like Rev Dennis Dillon); people who dont live in Brooklyn (Salle-Sagopanack and Zirin - Washington DC); people no one has ever heard of and surely have no expertise in RE development (Nelson George, Dan Zanes and Pheeroan akLaff) and a 911 widow who opposses all skyscrapers to name a few.
Dan either have a diversified "board' of people who actually have some expertise in RE, infrastructure and urban planning or a board made of 'real' Brooklyn residents (you know the ones who dont have websites and have to get up and go to a real job each day) - otherwise please STFU.
By the way I hope I'll see you at the big Dan Zanes concert - May 19th @ Concord Senior high in Concord New Hampshire
Posted by: David at May 8, 2006 2:42 PM
Um, we are the bridge and tunnel crowd.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2006 3:24 PM
get a clue david. it is a diversified board, in race and in areas of expertise. just because YOU personally are clueless on who these people are doesn't make what you say so.
"Dan either have a diversified "board' of people who actually have some expertise in RE, infrastructure and urban planning or a board made of 'real' Brooklyn residents (you know the ones who dont have websites and have to get up and go to a real job each day) - otherwise please STFU."
you mean like Frank Gehry, Jay Z, Bernard Kind, Darryl Dawkins, and Bruce Ratner?
or do you mean like most of the people on the board who have lived in Brooklyn for decades, contributed more to the borough than you or i ever will, AND many are natives.
right, boards of orgs are always made of people who have narrow areas of expertise. right.
and, if you hadn't noticed, Atlantic Yards has serious issues for everyone, in all areas, and how dare you talkl about Marian Fontana in your close-minded pinhead manner, spouting your BS.
STFUYSYF.
Posted by: deg at May 8, 2006 3:25 PM
Hey Deg what was said about Fontana that was close-minded or wrong - she said:
As a firefighter widow, we cannot overlook the myriad issues concerning the safety and security of the Ratner project. Not only have skyscrapers been proven unsafe, but terrorism preparedness is a key issue the development review process has not addressed.
Sounds like she is against skyscrapers
Posted by: Annoymous at May 8, 2006 3:42 PM
David- you would be speaking about Sally Reganhard who lost her son, not her husband, on 9-11. She is not against all skyscrapers- she is against them not being built to NYC fire codes, which is exactly what the Towers were. They didn't have to follow the more stringent NYC codes because they were built by the Port Authority, and they weren't up to code in many aspects. She has been objecting to allowing the Port Authority again bypass the fire codes when they rebuild at Ground Zero. That is certainly not opposing all skyscrapers.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at May 8, 2006 3:48 PM
Marian was speaking as a supporter of Sally's work. Again- they are not against skyscrapers, just against those that don't come up to fire code.And of course, to build for evacuations in terrorist attacks. The Towers had stairwells too narrow and no real emergency evacuation plans. There were other structural details that made the evacuation more difficult.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at May 8, 2006 3:54 PM
So Fontana is against high rise development in Brooklyn. Does that mean that she's thumbs down on the entire island of Manhattan too? In a city of 8 million plus where should people live and work? If we can't build up what's the alternative?
Posted by: BrownBomber at May 8, 2006 3:56 PM
Brownbomber- She is not against ji-rises. Their intent is not to stop hi-rise development but to make sure hi-rises are built to codes and safety issues.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at May 8, 2006 4:00 PM
So all Ratner has to do is build AY to NYC fire code to satisfy everyone? For some reason, I don't think that's what DDDB is aiming for..... :-/
Posted by: BrownBomber at May 8, 2006 4:02 PM
I said that safety was Marian's issue. As far as what would satisfy everyone, is there any such thing?
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at May 8, 2006 4:06 PM
I was soley speaking about Fontana who is apparently a member of D.Goldsteins "blue-ribbon' panel of 'experts'.
The statment DDDB is attributing to her is pretty clear, she considers skyscrapers unsafe. Which of course is an opinion she entitled too and I certainly sympathize with her anquish; but being oppossed to skyscrapers doesnt exactly make you capable of looking at AY development objectively in 2006. But it sounds like Bx2Bklyn you are saying that DDDB is misquoting her (or at least mischaraterizing her position) which if true is very sad.
Posted by: David at May 8, 2006 4:19 PM
I honestly can't say that about DDDB- what I am saying is that considering 9-11, and her support and work with Sally, I would say Marian's main concern is the safety of any hi-rise. I don't know of any of the families who oppose the building any skyscrapers, but they are pushing for buildings to be built with fire and terrorism needs addressed. I know very few people who are unrealistic enough to think they can stop skyscrapers.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at May 8, 2006 4:28 PM
Her real views are sort of immaterial... how does being a 9/11 widow give your AY opinions any more weight than the next person. And I am not picking on her b/c I have the same question for virtually everyone on this so called "panel"
Posted by: David at May 8, 2006 4:53 PM
9/11 families are very concerned with infrastructure issues and emergency services. Marian became rather an expert on emergency servies, building issues and terrorist response over the last 5 years. She also lived in Park Slope for years where her husband was with Sqd 1. I think DDDB stands by their mission statement which is not opposing development, but fighting for more responsiblity and scale. Other than that, my guess is that DDDB wants her name recognition, as they do with Ledger, Williams, etc.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at May 8, 2006 5:04 PM
you know what most (average) brooklynites care about? jobs and sports. mainly jobs. how shocking that these super-wealthy celebs would be so disconnected from their less fortunate neighbors. the area was already gutted for a stadium in the 50's-- that's where the "blue skies" or whatever come from. it just took this long for someone to have the $$ (and for brooklyn to have the appeal in the eyes of rich people) to actually lobby effectively to put something there.
Posted by: anon at May 9, 2006 2:13 PM
I don't understand why people keep insisting that DDDB want no development, which is not the case. They want RESPONSIBLE development. Why do you keep putting words in their mouths?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 9, 2006 3:07 PM
DDDB's "Responsible Development" = no development
evidence
please list any/all developments currently in planning, construction or completed (this criteria would exclude Extell's rejected bid) that DDDB has supported, advocated for, or actively praised.
Posted by: David at May 9, 2006 3:16 PM
why shouldn't Extell count? You need to do better than that to prove your point. Stacking the deck isn't the way. If you were a professional researcher your data would be suspect because you set your parameters to prove your data, instead of using objective data to draw your conclusion.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 9, 2006 4:10 PM
B/C Extell isnt a plan that has any chance of being realized (MTA decided this, not me) - but if DDDB is truly for development (that can actually get built) clearly they must support something that has been built, is being built or is in plan to (actually) be built.
Posted by: David at May 9, 2006 8:46 PM
They're focussed on AY- as they make very clear. That criteria for belief is yours. Extell had a good plan- it was politics that made the MTA give it to Ratner.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 9, 2006 9:12 PM
DDDB is reactive, not active, and is focused soley on AY. They didn't exist until Ratner unveiled the AY plan and the only developments they've approved are mere intellectual exercises (the UNITY plan) or were drummed up in opposition to Ratner (the Extell plan). Otherwise, they don't seem to care about any other developments, but if they did, you can bet that it would be only those in "brownstone Brooklyn".
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2006 8:13 AM
And your point? What's wrong with trying to preserve as much of brownstone Brooklyn as possible? I don't notice people like you or David rushing to move into one of those huge hi-rises. Very Do As I say, Not As I do, isn't it?
BTW are you an architect or engineer? How do you know if the UNITY or Extell plans are unbuildable? Because they don't have an arena? Soooo sad for you.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2006 10:46 AM
Most of the so-called "private land" in the footprint (much of it owned by Ratner) is NOT comprised of brownstones or any buildings worth preserving. The only stretch that could be seen as somewhat scenic is the North side of Dean Street, between 6th and Flatbush, and even part of that is ugly and commercial. The rest of the footprint is as follows:
Pacific, between Fifth and Sixth: all ugly warehouses (commercial and residential).
Pacific, between Carlton and Vanderbilt: all old warehouses and 3-4 decrepit apartment buildings.
Dean, between Carlton and Vanderbilt(only the North side is in the footprint): all old warehouses.
Vanderbilt, between Pacific and Dean (west side): decrepit apartment buildings, a restaurant that's been closed for years, and a vacant lot (SW corner).
The rest: train yards.
If the footprint contained block after block of gorgeous brownstones like the type found in Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights, or Park Slope, then I might concede your point. But anyone who has taken time and explored what is actually in the footprint knows damn well that it's hardly worth saving.
No, I'm not an architect, nor do I need to be one in order to have a a valid opinion on this topic. The UNITY Plan never had any financial backers, hence my labelling of it as an intellectual exercise. I never denied the legitimacy of the Extel Plan, just mentioned that it originated in response to Ratner, rather than being generated on the part of DDDB out of a genuine desire to see "responsible development".
FYI, I own in Prospect Heights and have no plans to move, AY or no AY, and that is why I won't be clamoring to live in the towers once they are built. But if I were in the market for a new home, I'd definitely be open to living there.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2006 1:31 PM
DDDB came up in response to Ratner. They felt a need, so your point about Extel being generated in response and not out of a genuine desire to see "responsible development" flies out the window. They do have a genuine desire to see responsible development, and the issue goes beyond eminent domain (which, in this case I object to). It has to do with the size and scale of the development, tax abatements, infrastructure issues, etc. You may not like what DDDB is doing but then again, they don't like what Ratner is doing. I guess you're all about even.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2006 4:22 PM
The original point was that DDDB is concerned solely with Atlantic Yards and cares nothing about other real estate developments. David challenged everyone to name any project other than those related to (i.e. opposed to) AY that DDDB supported; thus far, no one has named a single development. That's the case because DDDB cares about
"responsible development" only as far as it affects them personally. That's why their representatives were absent from the groundbreaking of the condo towers near Flatbush and Tillary - something that Marty Markowitz made a point of highlighting. If they truly cared about "responsible development" on a broad scale, then it would be easy to compile a list of projects that they support. Classic case of NIMBY.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2006 4:51 PM
They never claimed to be a broad scale advocate. And since they are a neighborhood group, why should they be going all over Bklyn? They have a huge battle on their hands as it is and I'm sure they are stretched to the max.So the only point being made is to make DDDB look bad by any means necessary (no, David I am not DG btw). To me, it seems like people are worried DDDB can stop the project because they are actually raising legitimate questions that Pro-AYers can't answer. So you find it easier to denigrate and demonize them.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2006 6:06 PM
That's a laugh! DDDB is holding bake sales, gardening events, and flea markets to raise money. Clearly, they lack the funds to win a battle with a billionaire who enjoys the support of the city's and state's most powerful politicians. They have absolutely no chance of stopping this project.
Now, maybe if Dan Goldstein, Patti Hagan, or Lumi Rolley sold their real estate assets and donated them to the fight, then they could be contenders...
Posted by: Anonymous at May 11, 2006 8:53 AM
what's so funny about it? That a guy who can buy and sell Brooklyn a thousand times over can push his weight around while you, dumb taxpayer, get to foot a lot of his bills? You know what they say- you don't get to be that powerful by being a nice guy. Wonder how many others he's screwed while ninnies like you sit there and applaud.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 11, 2006 10:32 AM
At this point there are only a few property owners left in the footprint, and one of them is D. Goldstein, whose financialy security is well known. Everyone who has sold to Ratner has been paid well above the value of their property. Renters will get relocation assistance, which is far more than other renters get in NYC after being forced out of apartments (i.e. by rising rents). And eminent domain has NOT been used.
It boggles my mind that someone actually believes that a small, powerless group of yuppies could stop AY from being realized. It's just my opinion, but that's why I said it was "a laugh".
Posted by: Anonymous at May 11, 2006 11:38 AM
freesianrdcorealityrn reality hardcore sex cialis online discount buy cialis www.cialis.com young love bbs wet and young fat bbw sex free sex thumbnails & videos of fat women mature fucking mature plump ladies
Posted by: Isiah at May 14, 2006 11:36 AM
I can't be bothered with anything these days, but such is life. I don't care. So it goes. More or less nothing seems worth thinking about. I've just been hanging out waiting for something to happen, but that's how it is.
Posted by: Sten35068 at December 27, 2006 11:02 AM
I just don't have much to say these days, but so it goes. Today was a total loss. I guess it doesn't bother me.
Posted by: TramadoL63112 at December 29, 2006 12:25 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.