« Monday Links Joshua Guttman: The Real Slim Shady »

May 15, 2006

Local Pols Want to See Ratner's Shrinkage

view The Daily News reported this weekend that a group of six local politicians wants to cut back the size of the Atlantic Yards project by about a third. Led by Assemblyman James Brennan (D-Brooklyn) Assemblyman Roger Green (who's been a big supporter of the project thus far) are introducing a bill that would reduce the project to 6 million square feet. In exchange for the 3 million-square-foot reduction, they're offering to cut the amount Ratner has to pay to the MTA from $450 million to $140 million; in addition, under the proposal, the state would subsidize the 2,000 affordable apartments that have been proposed--the logic being that therefore Ratner wouldn't have to build as much to clear a profit.
Pols Try Cutting Ratner's Yards by a Third [NY Daily News]

Comments

enough already with the anti-Ratner hooey! it's going to happen folks, deal with it!

Posted by: Anon at May 15, 2006 9:05 AM

i hate ratner and all he stands for. greed is destroying america.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 9:16 AM

I guess we are dealing with it by working through grass-roots organizations and politicians (most of whom have been remarkbaly resistant to representing their constiutents as opposed to moenyed interests) to ameliorate the impact of this oversized development. As strane as it is, we in NY have an opportunity denied the high growth areas of the country. While still experiencing economic growth we aren't burdened by the huge population expansions of Florida, Texas or California. We can then begin to plan for a more sustainable renewable futire. Isn't that the ethos motivating folks who renovate brownstones and renew neighborhoods which have been marginalized? It is hard to walk thro=ugh Metrotech and the Atlantic Yards mall and not think that this guy (Ratner) should not be allowed to radically redefine my neighborhood just because he is rich and powerful and has suckered the state to subsidize his folly. The proposed reductions in size are reasonable, although I begin to feel that developers like Ratener and Silverman (?) at the WTC use development as a threat to get pay-offs from you and me to refrain from destroying our neighborhoods. All that said I am more hopeful that the ongoing antiRatner agitation will have a positive effect on its final shape. I guess I reject the idea that I, as a citizen, have no influence over my future and that of my community.

Posted by: putnam-denizen at May 15, 2006 9:37 AM

The man is a genius. (1)Acquire well-know basketball franchise. (2)Obtain development rights via political cronies for challenging development site with promise to pay large enough acquisition price so that non-arms lenght, insider, old-boys network deal does not smell as much. (3) Propose to build something that no one in affected community and environs want. (4) Wait for grass roots opposition to take root. (5)Make modifications to building plan that causes public to howl even louder. (6) Wait for politicians to feel pressure from constituents and offer to subsidize project by 310 million so that developer builds something less controversial. (7) Public is appeased; developer gets to keep more of his money but obtain roughly the same profit margin.

Priceless.

Posted by: crouchback at May 15, 2006 9:52 AM

"(3) Propose to build something that no one in affected community and environs want."

Saying no one wants it is a bit presumptious. I would like to see the brooklyn nets, and I live in the area

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 10:24 AM

cut the size by 1/3 but cut the price by 2/3? Is this usually MTA fuzzy math?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 10:30 AM

I would like to see the Nets in Brooklyn, as well. Its the 70-80,000 new residents with no additional infrastructure (subways, schools, roads and playgrounds) that I object to. Its also, among other aesthetic and practical considerations (such as increased population density), the highrises in a low-rise residential neighborhood that I object to.

Posted by: crouchback at May 15, 2006 10:42 AM

Take a look at the NY Times web page:
http://www.nytimes.com
scroll down a bit and look on the left where there is a slide show including an interview with Gehry and someone else involved in the design of the project. Amazing amounts bullshit thrown around! (Duck!) Also more looks at the model.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 10:43 AM

Call me cynical but who's to say Ratner and the Pols didn't have this plan in mind? However Public won't be appeased when they figure out they are paying even more for Ratner's folly. DDDB will on this like white on rice. Good!

It's time that Brooklyn politicians start realizing that Brooklyn birds-in-the-hand are worth a heck of a lot more than Manhattan birds-in-the-bush. Time to pay more attention to the people who already live here, not those who may come from Manhattan for their luxury housing.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 10:44 AM

what school district will this fall into? I'm looking to buy and looking at public grade schools and think I'll stay away from whatever grade school this place is zoned for

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 10:49 AM

By the time this is built and occupied your kids will be out of high school.
Geez, I thought I was only one old enough to still call it 'grade school'.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 11:01 AM

PS 11 and MS 258 are the current zoned schools for that area. PS 9 is on Underhill and would probably get the 'overrun'.

In all of the designs and re-designs, i have yet to see anything addressing the issue of schools. Will the 50,000 new residents of Ratnerville be singles, empty-nesters or families?

I hope PS 11 and PS 9 are doing all they can to wring some $$ out of FCR. I know that PS 321 is getting their $$ and they're nowhere near the site.

Posted by: ItsAWrap at May 15, 2006 11:38 AM

I'm wondering. Have those who insist that "no one in the affected communities and evirons" wants this project ever surveyed people who say, live in the Red Hook Houses and might want more job opportunities and affordable housing options than are currently available at a hole in the ground? (And before you start jumping down my throat, I am not debating the numbers of jobs and affordable housing, only pointing out that there will be more than exist now).
I would be more receptive to the arguments of DDDB and others if I thought they cared about the interests of all Brooklynites, and not just those who own brownstones and condos near the affected areas. I am especially turned off by their new celebrity board members. I really don't care about Michelle William's desire to protect her open space and clean air as much as I care about more opportunities for people living in housing projects besieged by drug dealers, for example. The people I know in my Brooklyn neighborhood, liberals all, think this project offers more good than bad because of the jobs/housing equation, not the impact on Boerum Hill's light and space. But perhaps our support is considered invalid because we don't live in the immediate vicinity?

Posted by: anon at May 15, 2006 11:59 AM

DDDB and the other opponents aren't against affordable housing or jobs--the Extell alternative makes better sense for the community and offers both (as well as more money for the MTA). The Ratner PR machine has created this meme that if you're against this fat-cat enriching public rip-off you're somehow against affordable housing and jobs. Look past the movie stars and you'll see that hundreds of people who have for years cared about housing and jobs in Brooklyn are against this total tax-payer ripoff. Making Bruce Ratner richer isn't the only way to create affordable housing and jobs. He just wants you to think so. Fortunately more and more people are waking up to this massive Big Lie.

Posted by: Brooklyn Guy at May 15, 2006 12:07 PM

Brooklyn Guy -- you didn't answer my question (which I've noticed is a standard practice of DDDBers-instead of answering the question they attack the questioner's motives/intelligence/naivete/etc). Has any of the AY opponents surveyed people in housing projects or other non-gentrified neighborhoods? Or made any efforts to find out what they would like at the site?

Posted by: anon at May 15, 2006 1:12 PM

Anon 1:12-

The problem is that the jobs that are going to be created are not going to be open to those folks in Red Hook projects, or won't support them in the community once the stadium is built.

A 23-year old single mother who has two kids and lives in the projects won't be able to afford any of the affordable housing Ratner is developing on her salary as a barista at the new Starbucks that will be opening. Nor will she be able to afford it as a ticket taker at the stadium or working retail at any of the other new shops that will be opening. Also, as the majority of the housing being built is luxury, women like that will find themselves unable to afford to live in the surrounding community as market rates for what is currently affordable housing will continue to rise with the influx of more money into the community.

I don't know if "non-gentrified neighborhoods" were surveyed (and judging by this website there are damn few of these left in Brooklyn), but there is a difference between AY providing jobs, and providing employment that will allow people to stay in the neighborhood once Gehery's beautiful new vision for Brooklyn has occurred.

You say your Brooklyn neighbors support the project because it will create more jobs and affordable housing. I think that it will not create the kinds of jobs or housing that will allow those folks in the projects to ever leave the projects. And I think that if you ask the "non-gentrified" they know that. What kinds of business are coming into the neighborhood? Are professionals (doctors, lawyers, architects, accountants, etc) being courted to move into the space? As far as I'm concerned Atlantic Terminal was Ratner's opportunity show what his vision was for the neighborhood. And the results are Chuck E' Cheese, Mc Donalds, and the Guitar Center. No one is moving out of the projects working at any of those places.

Posted by: Oh Lord! at May 15, 2006 1:55 PM

There will not be 50,60,70 or 80 thousand new residents at AY -
The proposal is for 7,300 housing units - if you assumed 4 people per apt on average (which is ridiculously high when you consider that developments like this generally have a majority of 1br apts) you are at less than 30,000.

As for this political proposal - while I am sure many of those who previously complained about a give away to Ratner will support it anyway simply for their own selfish reasons; it is a waste anyway b/c DDDB et al don't want an arena and wont sell even at 150% of fair market value - so this amounts to a give away to Ratner, a underutilization of prime mass transit accesible land all for no benefit in terms of quieting opposition. Typical short term thinking on the part of our politicians

Posted by: David at May 15, 2006 1:56 PM

Oh please! Not the same tired argument again-DDDB doesn't want....blah...blah...blah...Honestly, can't you come up with something new to say instead of always trying to make DDDB the bad guy?Seems to me that up until now DDDB hasn't gotten the support of too many pols but now that they have some celebrities on board the media hungry pols are suddenly taking notice of how awful the Gehry design is. And I remember even you, David, not being overly thrilled with it. Oh Lord wrote a great commentary on the reality.

By the way, anon at 1:12- you must be pretty paranoid if you could complain about DDDB practices in that response to Brooklyn Guy. Isn't that a bit pot and kettle? If you want to see the opposite side of the story read David's posts on this subject.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 2:22 PM

Read this and then tell us what you think. Too many people on this blog don't have their facts straight.

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 2:26 PM

what kind of stupid comment is "greed is destroying america" from anon 9:16am?

did he/she read their history books? greed has been a part of american society since the day the settlers set foot in jamestown. remember slavery too? greed is the american way. just not who gets removed or stepped on each and every time!

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 2:37 PM

Bring on the Nets and Atlantic Yards!! I'm 100% behind the project. I just want another architect on the project. Gehry's plan absolutely sucks. The model is pathetic. AY will represent a defining moment in our boroughs history so we can't afford to waste this significant opportunity with something so unimpressive.

DDDB people, get with the 21st Century. The parcel of land is huge and no one is going to build a farmer's market and low rise townhouses on the property. Get real. Who are you kidding?

Posted by: BrownBomber at May 15, 2006 3:05 PM

anon 11:59 and 1:12, back again. I gather the answer to my question then is no. Anyone?

Posted by: anon at May 15, 2006 3:45 PM

It is a known fact that Forest Ratner has full time staff to monitor the blogs and to make bogus postings to combat any opposition - even constructive criticism. The information war is on.

Posted by: concernedcitizen at May 15, 2006 6:22 PM

anon: Has any of the AY opponents surveyed people in housing projects or other non-gentrified neighborhoods? Or made any efforts to find out what they would like at the site?

Yes. plus, with how are 700 new jobs AT THE MOST going to serve Red Hook Houses, Atlatnic Terminal Houses, I/W/F, Wyckoff Houses and all ther rest? please splain your logic, if you can.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 7:32 PM

anon at 3:45 et al- you can find public opinion, pro and con all over the place. Do the research. As far as DDDB- how is it you aren't bothered by Ratner's very selfish, self=promoting interests? You're more upset about Michelle Williams opinion than Ratners horrible Gehry design? I can tell where your priority are. And for the record, DDDB has never made a secret of why they exist or what they do. You certainly can't say the same for Ratner. Or perhaps for Businessweek?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 8:25 PM

I find it amusing when people belittle the service jobs that the arena, retail and hotel space will provide.
Besides the fact that people all over this boro (in the projects and everywher else) are clamoring for these jobs. The entry jobs are essential entry points for those who arent blessed with college degrees or even HS diplomas. No one is trying to sell wrking at Starbucks or taking tickets at an arena as a job from which you'll be able to buy a $750 per sq ft condo; but at the same time w/o a successful working record on your resume, no one is giving the GED prospect the next level job on the economic ladder. (which BTW Hotels, arenas and retail do have in abundance) And incidently while it might have been easier years ago b/c you could stay within one company - the factories of yor didnt give the HS dropout a middle class wage in the 1st yr either.
And besides all that, AY current proposal calls for 600,000+ sq ft of office space (jobs), over 10 yrs of construction (UNION jobs) not to mention the hundreds of building service jobs (also union high paying) that the complex itslef will sustain.
Certainly a more office oriented development (which originially was proposed and was lambasted by the same critics complaining now) would offer more jobs ( probably not at the entry level though); the overall proposal is pretty balanced and really cannot be viewed as anything less than a huge net gain in terms of job opportunity for Brooklyn -

Posted by: David at May 15, 2006 9:48 PM

Those are not necessarily entry level jobs anymore. More and more, older people and people with children depend on them just to subsist. But what saying is that the construction phase will get the highpaying jobs. So the unions will make even more money, then they leave to go to the next job. Union people for the most part make good pay and excellent benefits. They have protections in place. The low-paying, "entry-level" jobs the Ratner project will create will neither be enough to allow someone to make a basic living wage, most will be dead-end jobs, and many more will be part time only. So the decent jobs go to the developer and the trade unions, but not to the people being used as political leverage and the easing of Ratner's conmscience. As if that were possible.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 15, 2006 11:43 PM

Ratner, you have the land, the policians and the support of the public behind you, now give Brooklyn something "world-class, imaginative and beautiful."

Posted by: BrownBomber at May 16, 2006 7:16 AM

http://ltjbukem.blogspot.com/2006/05/similar-views-or-not.html

Posted by: ltjbukem at May 16, 2006 8:32 AM

ltjbukem- you are joking right? Was that your best shot at a valid argument?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2006 10:25 AM

Anon @ 11:43 do you have any statistics to backup your "dead end job" comment or did you just make it up.
and now your knocking Union construction jobs too, which if there is no construction does not have "good pay" and "excellent benefits"

BTW - There is no more 'dead end job' than unemployment

Posted by: David at May 16, 2006 10:59 AM

I am most certainly not knocking construction and union jobs. Let's not put words in people's mouths, shall we? But in comparison to the type and quality of jobs that will be generated by the complex, well there has been plenty of reports. Read them yourself. And yes, I do consider unemployment the ultimate dead end job, but unless you've ever worked a dead end, crappy, depressing job for minimum wage just to make ends meet, I hardly think you're an expert on what decent as opposed to dead end means. I object to you and the other pro-AYers who don't give a rat's ass for anything but a stadium (please, lets not talk about subway efficiency again or the future of Brooklyn), complain about the DDDB (you put words in their mouths too) and use "job creation" purely as a carrot. My first concern is not the unions, but the residents who live and work in the area and are being told how good this will be for them. Great PR, the reality is another thing.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2006 4:00 PM

Enough already! Stop calling it a freak'n STADIUM. You sound like a damn retard. It's an ARENA. Basketball and hockey are played in arenas. They hold approximately 20k fans. Football, baseball and soccer are played in STADIUMS which hold any where from 65k to 110k spectators. Do you not know the difference between an ARENA and a STADIUM? Attempts to demonize the development project by referring to the basketball venue as stadium (invokes images of massive crowds, traffic and congestion) is so transparent. DDDB is against the arena PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT "COMMON FOLKS" TRAVELING THROUGH THEIR NEWLY MINTED GENTRIFIED NEIGHBORHOODS FOR WORK OR ENTERTAINMENT. No one is buying DDDB's garbage. The entire population of Brooklyn knows that without the arena there will be no Brooklyn Nets. The majority of Brooklyn residents want their own sport franchise and thus willingly approve of AY. DDDB support is thin because you guys cannot comprehend this simple fact. Anon, if you don't want to live near an arena then simply move (displacement is a fact of life). I guarantee there will be a horde of potential buyers willing to relieve you of your burden.

Posted by: BrownBomber at May 16, 2006 4:40 PM

BrownBomber, I'm interested in where you get your data that "the majority of Brooklyn residents want their own sports franchise and thus willingly aprove of AY." I can see that you are an ardent sports fan, Bklyn booster, and you know the difference between an area and a stadium, but I think you are projecting your own opinion on the rest of Brooklyn. Most of the people I speak to in the borough, and I speak to quite a few in the course of my job, don't care one way or another. The poorer people know they aren't going to be going to games: too expensive. Most of the women I talk to of any income group don't care either. That really only leaves a dedicated group of people, mostly men, largely upper income. Hardly "a majority". I think there is an opinion poll out that basically backs that up as well.

Whether stadium, arena, or the Circus Maximus, I doubt the average Brooklynite will be visiting this Fortress of Solitude looking piece of industrial violence. The sports edifice is only an excuse for the rest of the AY development.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2006 6:20 PM

And you Brownbomber, sound like a petulant, immature little brat. I'm glad you know the difference between a statium and an arena- it's wonderful that you've learned something in your lifetime. Probably the same place you learned to suck up to people with money. As far as DDDB, it seems to me you're much closer to that philosophy of the "common folk nimbyism" than they are. After all, aren't you the big bucks elitist who wants downtown Brooklyn to be upgraded so the likes of you have someplace to shop? And have you not noticed how the design will accomplish exactly what you accuse DDDB of wanting- keeping out the "common folk?"

I may be a retard about arenas and stadiums, but at least I'm not an egotistical, moneygrubbing Ratner suck-up.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2006 6:37 PM

Whatever Patti Hagan! Crawl back into your little self-righteous hole and allow us pompous, elitist, sport crazed men to have our little fun! In five years, I hope to be one of perhaps 1 million Brooklynites celebrating the Brooklyn Nets first NBA Championship along Flatbush Avenue!

Posted by: BrownBomber at May 16, 2006 9:49 PM

I'm not Patti Hagan, just one of the many other Brooklynites who could give a damn about the Nets (NBA championship- muhahahaha) and who don't believe in selling out. I guess you're willing to have Gehry's awful design built just so you can go see the Nets? You can't get shallower than that. BTW, "pompous, elitist, sport crazed "- wouldn't be proud of it if I were you.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2006 11:34 PM

« Monday Links Joshua Guttman: The Real Slim Shady »

May 15, 2006

Local Pols Want to See Ratner's Shrinkage

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions