The War For Brooklyn

Sites like Atlantic yards will:
a. suck the life out of surrounding mom and pop/local restaurants and coffee shops
b. create massive traffic problems so our quite brownstone streets will be chocked with traffic. Ever been around Wrigley Field in Chicago after a cubs game lets out?
I read the article and found some glaring inaccuracies that they let slip like saying DDDB wants no development at Atlantic Yards - on the contrary the backed a competing proposal.
also missing from this article and nearly all reporting on it is the soft corruption involved with developers paying off politicians.
But overall its good that its FINALLY being recognized that most brooklynites don't want this over development or sky scraper skyine though Gargano has essential told us our opinions don't matter.

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 10:50 AM

"Please provide some statistics to verify this claim.

Maybe in areas like Fort Greene or Park Slope this might be true. "

Yes the people in those neighborhoods (thus effected by it) don't want it. And as I mentioned that is completely disregarded by Gargano. All things being equal, those further removed from it will care less.

And folks its not just about the stadium the development will make that area the most densely populated area in the United States...I don't see how anyone can seriously want this, unless you're on Ratner's payroll

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 11:32 AM

I should also mention to anyone who supports Ratner's Atlantic Yards development: it relies on eminent domain and taxpayer subsidized loans and grants. You are essentially lining the pockets of a millionaire AND taking people's homes from them. and it's allowed to happen there, it can happen in your neighborhood too.
He gets 200 million from the state, 4 billion in low interest loans and a 30 year property tax break - who do you think pays for that? you and me. And what do we get? it brings $7.00 target jobs and drive out home grown businesses.

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 11:41 AM

Oh and one more thing the MTA, who claims they are cash strapped and need to raise fares, are giving him the property at 100 million UNDER its value.

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 11:44 AM

"If the project was a shopping mall, a museum, an opera house, an industrial park, or an exclusively office complex, there would be increased traffic."

Yes, but there is a difference between developement in scale with the community, as proposed here:
http://dddb.net/php/community/extell.php
this plan actually bid MORE for MTA's property but the proposal was given to Ratner; 100% croynism/corruption

and Ratner's proposal which is clearly out of scale with the community:

"But in its present form, the Forest City Ratner plan does not work for Brooklyn. To work, the project’s design, size and scale should be altered to fit with the borough’s historic character and its promising future.

Brooklyn is appreciated for its human scale, but the current plan would overwhelm surrounding neighborhoods with massive new towers and create a private park on what is now publicly owned land. Brooklyn is celebrated for its lively streets, shops and restaurants, but the current plan would eliminate existing streets, divide communities instead of uniting them, and add 40,000 new vehicle trips every"
http://www.mas.org/

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 12:13 PM

"highjacking another thread, huh?"
Gee I gave info about AY developments in a thread about....developments in Brooklyn...what should I post about, Jane Austin's impact on 20th century feminism?

"Brooklyn will survive one way or the other whether the project gets built or not."
Survive yes...what sort of place it will be is the question. A place more pleasant to live in, or less so. What if Robert Moses got his way and ploughed the BQE through Brooklyn heights...Brooklyn would have 'survived' but what sort of place would it be?

"the borough's best interest will be served by the final outcome."
really? Were all of Robert Moses's destructive projects serving the New York city...or his ego? If Bruce Ratner is buying off politicians and undermining the democratic process - which his project clearly does that's 'serving our best interests"

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 12:49 PM

One asepct of AY opponents that I find amusing is their silly belief that this war will be won with facts

Yes, silly us to think the truth has any relevance. If you (and me) are complacent about this sort of corruption - and that's what it is - then we get what we deserve.

and overblown language. Folks, this is entirely about power and we all know which side has more of that.

So are you agreeing it's not about what's right?

"You know you've gotten the better of an AT opponent when they pull out the old "you must work for Ratner" card."

how precisely, have you 'got the better of me' i know they aren't relevant but can refute any of the facts I posted concerning this tax payer subsidized project?

"Your exact words were "MOST BROOKLYNITES don't want this..." Funny, when you're called upon to provide evidence, you can't do so (because you don't have any) and you then proceed to reword your original statment to better suit your needs."

To better clarify what I meant to say. You might say its something like electrical power plants -no one wants them in their neighborhoods but someone in another neighborhood might want it built so they get electricity.

on the eminent domain issue, if you don't want it done to you, in my opinion you have no right to advocate that it be done to someone else.

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 1:57 PM

"The problem with alot of the other debates is that they center around much squishier ideas about ambience and aesthetics. Dreadnaught just used the word "scale" 4-times in his last post, without ever defining it. The notion that any two people could agree to the appropriate scale of any development is absurd."

mrLomez - we specifically have zoning laws that do define what appropriate scale is, in the case of AY and Downtown, they are doing an end run around those laws -and environmental review - by using Empire State Development - which essentially overrides zoning, community input and environmental review. It's the worst sort of central urban planning as those that devastated New York in the 50s and 60s...Think about...what are the neighborhoods that bounced back? the centrally planned public housing or the brownstone neighborhoods?

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 2:08 PM

"Dreadnaught, your posts are damn near fascist. I don't really care one way or the other about AY, but its hearing people like you, who are so fanatically opposed to the project and want to control every aspect of a neighborhood, that makes me hope the project succeeds. What will you put all of your time and effort into opposing (in vain) next?"

Marcy, you have repeatedly name called and made straw man arguments that i want to control every aspect of a neighborhood - when in fact that is EXACTLY what Ratner's project does.

Please explain how my posts are "fascist" I have very simply laid out how and what Ratner's project is doing and that it overrides the democratic and community input process.

Opposing eminent domain is 'fascist'?

Again you've repeatedly called me names, you have responded to one fact I have posted and then you make up what you *think* I am saying and respond to that.

Well gee marcy you just want to destroy every brownstone in Brooklyn! ...sounds pretty silly doesn't it?

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 3:38 PM

Bx2Bklyn: thanks :)

flambee....so if that's the case why don't you live by Madison square garden?

In any event, the stadium is not the main issue- its about eminent domain abuse, taxpayer funding for private projects - and a rigged review process.

and no one is saying the area shouldn't be developed the question is how and by whom.

FYI
Eliot Spitzer just sent a letter demanding that they allow 30 more days for a community hearing (the ESD tried to schedule one in august when all the community boards are in recess.)

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 5:47 PM

"but he takes it to the next level and first assumes and then demands that everyone agree with his position."

Marcy, can you offer some evidence that I 'demand' that you agree? I have stated the facts, I have stated my opinion, and said it was just that my opinion. on the other thread, I specifically noted my tastes were different than yours. Obviously, you think your tastes are better- otherwise you wouldn't embrace them, obviously I think mine are better. But where I have advocated forcing my tastes on anyone?

"I noted his comments bordered on the fascist because he has a singular vision which he attempts to impose on all others."
Again this seems to be your impression of me rather than me. It does not relate, as far as I can tell to anything I have said. I have only asked that you respond to my points rather than name call.

On common ground, although our tastes are different I would certainly agree with your point there is little thought, design wise, being put into current projects and that developers are cutting corners.

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 10:13 PM

"Just be mindful not to dilute the strength of your argument with the wrong delivery, i.e., you can always attract more bees with honey than with vinegar."

Agreed. sometimes tone can come across the wrong way online, - what one says in verbal conversation is often conveyed by nuance... and looking over my posts I can see how they might be misread...

Posted by: dreadnaught at July 28, 2006 11:11 PM