« Thursday Linkerati A Chance to Bring Back an Old Brooklyn Gem »

September 28, 2006

Atlantic Yards: Time to Take a Shower

Regardles of whether you're for, againt or somewhere in the middle on the Atlantic Yards project, it's hard not to be disgusted by the transparent dog-and-pony show that's gone on in recent days culminating in FRC "accepting" the city planning commission's recommendation of a 8% cut in the scale of the project. Kinda makes you feel like you want to take a shower. Opponents have been warning of this political gamesmanship for a while--ask for the moon and then look like you have compromised when you agree to a smaller size. It's pretty disgusting stuff and frankly we had thought Amanda Burden (who had always struck us as a pretty straight shooter) was above that. Apparently not.
AY Developer Acepts 8% Reduction [NY Times]

Comments

Atlantic Yards...West Side Yards ....Hmmm when will the developers gobble up the SUNNYSIDE yards??

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 9:12 AM

Wouldn't it be so much easier to just say no to them using Eminent Domain but then to let them build whatever they want to and not involve all of these greasy politicians?

Posted by: JoshK at September 28, 2006 9:26 AM

Those greasy politicians are supposed to be representing the public interest, safety, etc. Looks like they are not doing their job.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 9:40 AM

Anon 9:12 -- "Visions for New York City: Housing and the Public Realm," written by Alex Garvin and Associates for the city administration does propose building over the Sunnyside Yards as well as the 36th Street yards and Bay Ridge Line in Brooklyn. It also looks at platforms over the BQE, in Cobble Hill, and the Prospect Expressway. Reportedly, improvements to air scrubbers will prevent these potential projects from suffering from the same problems as the buildings over the approach to the GWB.

It also sees opportunities to build on the waterfront in the Bronx (Bronx and Harlem rivers), Staten Island (the North Shore and the "Homeport" site) and Sunset Park.

Also considered are transit hub developments at Third Avenue and 161st Street in the Bronx and 21st Street in Queens.

Don't know if this is officially released yet but I downloaded a copy of the 91-page report off some blog. People who hunt around may be able to find a copy.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 9:56 AM

i don't understand what brownstones personal hygiene issues have to do with the Atlantic yards. seems kind of pervish, all this dirty talk about showers and dogs and ponies.

seriously, why shouldn't FCR try to build the largest project they can, and i for one feel the pro-AY politicians are representing the larger contingent of the city's population beyond the PH/PS/FG nimbys, that is all for developing this wasteland.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 10:22 AM

"seriously, why shouldn't FCR try to build the largest project they can, and i for one feel the pro-AY politicians are representing the larger contingent of the city's population beyond the PH/PS/FG nimbys, that is all for developing this wasteland."

why not, FCR employee? Why don't we build t toxic waste dump right by your house and then scream "nimby" when you bitch about it? Oh because we have things like zoning laws. So if other people not in your neighborhood wanted to build a toxic dump by your house and ignore your zoning laws that would be okay?
in addition....
a. because it is out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood and will tax infrastructure...

and as brownstoner stated, fcr scumbag, this has involved gross impropriety....and possible illegal activity...that's ok with you? Go move to a banana republic then.

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 11:18 AM

"i for one feel the pro-AY politicians are representing the larger contingent of the city's population beyond the PH/PS/FG nimbys, that is all for developing this wasteland."

IF this contingent you speak of knew the facts and the impropriety your employer would be in jail.

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 11:28 AM

As usual, when an anti-Ratner person is faced with someone who supports the Atlantic Yards, all they can do accuse them of being employed by Ratner. Such deep intellect.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 12:35 PM

"As usual, when an anti-Ratner person is faced with someone who supports the Atlantic Yards, all they can do accuse them of being employed by Ratner. Such deep intellect."
well, considering nearly all the cheerleaders for AY have received money from Ratner, it's a reasonable conclusion. In addition, the sleezy tone of your posts have Forest City written all over them. If it walks like a duck....

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 12:50 PM

Of course that's all they can do. These people exhibit more cognitive dissonence than any other population group in history.

They simply cannot accept the fact that they are rich, provincial, self-centered, and that Brooklyn once consisted of farms and no buildings taller than a church steeple.

As for the corruption, this is what happens in legalistic societies. When you make a million laws just to keep lawyers employed, nothing can get done without breaking some law. Thus corruption.

This is why these kinds of rich conservatives always lead to the downfall of societies. They become rich by perverting law, the law becomes irrelevant because it contradicts the actual needs of the people. Eventually, people will just ignore it.

The people need this housing, and ultimately the law and the desires of the rich homeowners of Brooklyn are completely, totally irrelevant.

Posted by: Eryximachus at September 28, 2006 12:53 PM

"The people need this housing, and ultimately the law and the desires of the rich homeowners of Brooklyn are completely, totally irrelevant.'

SO why were competing projects that would provide more affordable housing rejected? There is NO guarantee of ONE unit of affordable housing in the FC plan.

And you're accusing us of being 'rich and privileged' while justifying subsidizing a billionaire developer...you have some nerve.

"As for the corruption, this is what happens in legalistic societies. When you make a million laws just to keep lawyers employed, nothing can get done without breaking some law. Thus corruption."
Oh, so this is your justification for giving a billionaire the right to eminent domain to take property away from middle class home owners and business. This is so stupid I wasn't even going to respond to it, but please, keep posting stuff like this so all can see what low-lifes Forest City Employees (which is what you probably are) and cheerleaders are.

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 1:04 PM

"The people need this housing, and ultimately the law and the desires of the rich homeowners of Brooklyn are completely, totally irrelevant."

Okay comrade, so let's build it on bruce ratner's 196 acre protected estate, or use eminent domain to build it on his brownstones....
I am glad that you think in a democracy that the law and desires of the people are irrelevant...that sums up forest city's attitude. you're pure scum.

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 1:09 PM

Relocating the LIRR railyards and building a platform over them are highly complex and expensive engineering tasks. The costs involved in these two specific tasks are likely to be the single strongest driver of the extreme scale of the AY project -- even though the DEIS does not reveal them. So is this infact an appropriate site for redevelopment? For efficient functioning, all major urban centers must include power stations, water works, hospitals, school bus parking lots, railyards etc. Few of these structures are aesthetically attractive. In the case of the Vanderbilt Yards, a comprehensive landscaping effort could transform the area. Meanwhile, the other 10+ acres that have been ear-marked for the project can and will redevelop on their own, propelled by current market conditions. The argument that the railyards MUST be developed has never made sense to me.

Posted by: NeoGrec at September 28, 2006 1:10 PM

D-O-N-E-D-E-A-L!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 1:12 PM

"The argument that the railyards MUST be developed has never made sense to me."

I think this underscores my point. If FCR can pay for the costs of burying the yards and whatever infrastructure is required, and can offer a decent price to the city, and he outbids anyone else, then we should just let him.

And then, if he's paying for, then short of a toxic waste dump, we should just let him do what he wants.

Some people don't like the scale? I'm sure other people like the scale. Some people think the buildins are ugly? Some people like them. That just doesn't seem like anyone's business, but his - assuming that he buys the space free and clear without a subsidy.

Posted by: JoshK at September 28, 2006 1:17 PM

"They become rich by perverting law, "

Anyone else find it slightly ironic that this poster would say this, in defense of a billionaire developer who is doing just that?

Posted by: hypocrisy alert at September 28, 2006 1:18 PM

"and he outbids anyone else, then we should just let him."

Josh that's just the point - he didn't - extell and unity outbid him -its a sweetheart deal.

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 1:20 PM

"that's just the point - he didn't - extell and unity outbid him -its a sweetheart deal."

IMHO, that is the real issue. The gvt should look out for the taxpayers first. That and using eminent domain.

And then, when he gets into an insider deal like that, that opens the project for everyone to start to demand "affordable" housing and all kinds of other nonsense.

Posted by: JoshK at September 28, 2006 1:26 PM

I wish they would build a golf course over the atlantic yards. I am serious.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 1:27 PM

"That and using eminent domain."

Josh - damn straight - if the properties that the state wants to seize are 'blighted' then NO home is safe - you don't have real ownership of your home anymore.

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 1:29 PM

Well, first off, I can't subscribe to the theory that if FCR can pay for it, they can do what they like. There are limits on free market enterprise -- especially when this project involves building the most dense urban tract in the nation (more than twice as dense as the current recordholder in Central Harlem). Then there's the tiny, tiny issue that none of us (Jane and Joe Public) knows how this project will be financed or what the cost to the taxpayer will be. Why are people so anxious to endorse a plan that is likely to require hundreds of millions of OUR dollars?

Posted by: NeoGrec at September 28, 2006 1:46 PM

Exactly. The issue has nothing to do with the NIMBY's it's about abuse of eminent domain. And everyone should be absolutely alarmed at how freely and without any obstruction at all in our city government, these developers were able to utilize eminent domain.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 1:47 PM

AND another issue is that this is just yet another development tossing thousands of luxury units into the market, just as there is a slowdown due to the glut of new-development. Ratner will make hundreds of millions of dollars off of this deal, whether it succeeds OR NOT. It hardly matters to him whether AY turns out well, or is needed by the community or instead taxes the infrastructure too much. He gets paid regardless. Just look at Atlantic Center - it's a failure, and he doesn't care at all.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 1:51 PM

These public-private deals are evil. Clearly, no one beleives that this is the best deal for the city. And, the result is going to be twisted into something freakish too, in order to satisfy so many masters. It's a tremendous abuse of goverment power when people can get moved out of their homes because of one developer's connections.

But..

"another issue is that this is just yet another development tossing thousands of luxury units into the market, just as there is a slowdown due to the glut of new-development."
That shouldn't be anyone's concern besides the developer's. If people want it, the will buy it.

But, if Ratner was doing this without dipping into the public trough, then this would be false:
" Ratner will make hundreds of millions of dollars off of this deal, whether it succeeds OR NOT."

Posted by: JoshK at September 28, 2006 2:03 PM

It's funny no matter how many times I post this no Ratnerites have ever been able to refute this. So all together now:

1. There is a housing bust in progress - Ratner is cutting the size of the project (and will likely cut more) because it's not going to be profitable for him to build in a down market - with construction costs rising. So any altruistic notions about his 'cut' are the purest BS.

2. Ratner has absolutly no obligation to provide any affordable housing - in fact his agreement allows him to opt out of it if "market conditions change." Ratner has not and will not agree to guarantee ANY affordable housing units under this plan.

3. The union construction guys are testifying at these meetings becase they are the ones who will reap the benefits of the plan - with TEMPORARY jobs-there will be a hot dog vendor job for someone in Fort Greene - that's about it. If reporters on this story didn't have their heads lodged assward (or their asses pocketward in Ratner's jacket) they'd actually give a count of what these allegedly permanent jobs are and who will get them.

Wake up folks, and smell the economy. This area is not blighted as of now, but if you let Ratner build under these conditions, I can guarantee he'll blight it for you.

Posted by: Alo at September 28, 2006 2:35 PM

Alo, you argument makes no sense.

1) Housing busts are what have made this city. If it wasn't for greedy landlords building too much luxury housing, many of the ghettoes of this city wouldn't exist. Look at Harlem. We need Ratner to build 100 atlantic yards projects. Then, and only then, will normal middle class people be able to afford a home in this city.

2) Affordable housing doesn't matter. It will become affordable when there is enough of it. Have you taken Economics 101? Housing is expensive because there is a shortage! Price restrictions are never the answer, and have never worked. What are you, a communist?

3) Umm, people need jobs. Temporary jobs are better than none at all. We need more housing in this city for the economy to continue to grow. The jobs aspect is wholly secondary to the squalor people are living in. You wouldn't know this because you are a rich do-gooder who lives in a housing unit 95% of New Yorkers could never possibly afford.

No one in the late 20's living in a shared apartment would hold such an insane view as yours.

NO DEVELOPMENT EVER LEADS TO BLIGHT.

A 1,000 high rise apartment buildings would have to be built before there was ever blight in this city. If Ratner goes bankrupt, who cares.

Posted by: Eryximachus at September 28, 2006 3:07 PM

Eryximachus ,

I generally agree with your points, but the problem that a lot of people, myself included, have with the ratner project is that is has enmeshed the public and private spheres.

The idea of using eminent domain and taking a lower bid are really disturbing.

Posted by: JoshK at September 28, 2006 3:15 PM

Eryximachus yes or no question: do you want Brooklyn and New York to have the population density of Hong Kong?

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 3:16 PM

Umm, people need jobs. Temporary jobs are better than none at all. We need more housing in this city for the economy to continue to grow.

Eryximachus - you know this is not a sustainable pattern of development, don't you...or do you?

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 3:21 PM

you burped:

"you're accusing us of being 'rich and privileged' while justifying subsidizing a billionaire developer...you have some nerve."

Some rich people simply take from the poor and steal their opportunity. Others building them homes. At least he is doing some for the community. What has your convictions done for your neighbor who can't afford the nice house you have there plantation owner? Nothing. Put up, or shut up.

"Oh, so this is your justification for giving a billionaire the right to eminent domain to take property away from middle class home owners and business. This is so stupid I wasn't even going to respond to it, but please, keep posting stuff like this so all can see what low-lifes Forest City Employees (which is what you probably are) and cheerleaders are."

Oh, I will keep posting it you self-centered rich plantation owner. The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. A few stubborn homeowners have no right to make the lives of THOUSANDS of other people miserable because of their self centered attitudes. Why anyone would need to be bribed to hold such a viewpoint is beyond me.

No one who owns a home that costs more than $1MM is middle class by ANY stretch. I don't know what planet you are living on. Why don't you provide us your home address so we can put a price on your humble abode.

Posted by: Eryximachus at September 28, 2006 3:26 PM

Eryximachus yes or no question: do you want Brooklyn and New York to have the population density of Hong Kong?

Yes.

Posted by: Eryximachus at September 28, 2006 3:29 PM

"Eryximachus - you know this is not a sustainable pattern of development, don't you...or do you?"

This question doesn't mean anything. As long as people keep having sex and reproducing, we will need to build more housing. When builders finish with one project, they move on to the next one. No endeavour lasts forever. Such is life.

Posted by: Eryximachus at September 28, 2006 3:31 PM

Eryximachus
"Oh, I will keep posting it you self-centered rich plantation owner. The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. A few stubborn homeowners have no right to make the lives of THOUSANDS of other people miserable because of their self centered attitudes. Why anyone would need to be bribed to hold such a viewpoint is beyond me."
Rich plantation owner? LOL you have resort to this crap? You sound very, very unstable Eryximachus.
So according to you, any developer has a right to take homes from people if it will provide homes for more people?
One moment you're a free market capitalist chastising people for not taking economics 101, in the next post you have no regard for the basic foundation of any economy - right of ownership.
You're either a. stupid b. trolling (good job!) c. both

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 3:34 PM

Posted by: anon at September 28, 2006 3:36 PM

Eryximachus yes or no question: do you want Brooklyn and New York to have the population density of Hong Kong?

Yes.
Posted by: Eryximachus at September 28, 2006 3:29 PM

thank you. Your views speak for themselves.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 3:42 PM

"Eryximachus - you know this is not a sustainable pattern of development, don't you...or do you?"

This question doesn't mean anything. As long as people keep having sex and reproducing, we will need to build more housing
Posted by: Eryximachus at September 28, 2006

shows how out of touch with reality you are...you have it ass-backwards, the US would have a stable or negative population growth but economic planners assume you need population growth to grow an economy, so they encourage it - it is obviously not sustainable, but they dont, like you, care. YOu're quite short-sighted.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 3:45 PM

"you know this is not a sustainable pattern of development, don't you...or do you?"

Gag. I hate left wing sound bites. What the hell does that even mean? It sounds like a rationale for some sort of central planning. That works real well.

And I think people are ignoring the fact that places like HK became so dense because people want to live there. If you have so many people wanting to live in a place and you refuse to let developers build, then you are going to have insane prices (as we do today, thank you City Council).

People never want to face this choice:
1. Low density but very high prices
2. Higher density and lower price

Posted by: JoshK at September 28, 2006 3:52 PM

"shows how out of touch with reality you are...you have it ass-backwards, the US would have a stable or negative population growth but economic planners assume you need population growth to grow an economy, so they encourage it - it is obviously not sustainable, but they dont, like you, care. YOu're quite short-sighted."

When you succeed in implementing some sort of eugenics program that intelligently manages population reproduction, I'll be the first to applaud.

Human civilization has never existed without population growth, so it's a safe assumption. Thus, the constant need for builders.

Posted by: Eryximachus at September 28, 2006 3:58 PM

"Rich plantation owner? LOL you have resort to this crap? You sound very, very unstable Eryximachus. "

The unstable pundits of today lead the revolutionary forces of tomorrow. You are in one small way keep down the a lot of people who want a better life. Do you really think the police will protect your "right" to your nice townhouse? Do you really think in the end you will prevail? The anti-development crowd on this board is in a small way paving the road to anarchy.

Things are far more precarious than you think. If you want stability, solving the housing crisis would be a nice first step.

Posted by: Eryximachus at September 28, 2006 4:02 PM

"When you succeed in implementing some sort of eugenics program that intelligently manages population reproduction, I'll be the first to applaud."

Again, you're creating strawmen - like 'rich plantation owners'. the US and Europe and japan all would have negative or stable population patterns but for mass immigration. Japan is the only country that is not trying to solve economic and other problems via population growth - the island is too dense already.

"Human civilization has never existed without population growth, so it's a safe assumption. "
simply not true.

"You are in one small way keep down the a lot of people who want a better life. Do you really think the police will protect your "right" to your nice townhouse? Do you really think in the end you will prevail? The anti-development crowd on this board is in a small way paving the road to anarchy."
anarchy is what you advocate - the very rich and powerful siezing homes and properities from the middle class.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 4:10 PM

What the hell does that even mean? It sounds like a rationale for some sort of central planning. That works real well.

People never want to face this choice:
1. Low density but very high prices
2. Higher density and lower price

josh would you want to see brooklyn heights razed and built over? greenwich village? Park slope? People put housing and zoning laws in for a reason - would you want to live next to toxic dump...if you bought a home and someone wanted to build a toxic waste plant next to you, would you fight it?

Sustainable growth means just that - grow in ways that don't pass on problems to future generations. We have public parks, trees and such because people were investing in a future they would never see. No one who plants an oak tree is going to enjoy it in their life time - why do they do it?
josh, please just think long term for a moment:
a. the US just became a net food importer for the first time in its history. is this a welcome trend?
b. the population of the US (almost 100% from immigration) went from 250 million in 1975 to 300 million now - the reason america had/has great living conditions is the land to population ratio
Let's grow, but lets think of smarter ways to grow. Ireland had/has a thriving ecomony without population growth, same goes for switzerland.
Personally I value the open land we have in the US. You obviously don't. Not knocking you personally just point that out.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 4:16 PM

"would you want to see brooklyn heights razed and built over?"
That's my point. If the guy who owns the house doesn't want to sell it, it's a shame to use eminent domain to take it from him. But, if he wants to turn his nice Brooklyn Heights house into a salvage yard, that really is his choice, not yours or mine. One man's dump is another man's paradise.

"Sustainable growth means just that - grow in ways that don't pass on problems to future generations."
We have never really had successful planned growth. Most growth came through individuals and companies trying all kinds or things until something panned out.

"the US just became a net food importer for the first time in its history."
Who cares? We're net exporters of software. Is that a problem for you?

"b. the population of the US... (went from 250 million in 1975 to 300 million now - the reason america had/has great living conditions is the land to population ratio.
Let's grow, but lets think of smarter ways to grow."
I don't know if we want to get into the whole illegal alien thing how. But, take a drive outside of NYC and you'll see that most of the US is pretty vacant.

Posted by: JoshK at September 28, 2006 4:27 PM

Unfortunately any organization with ties to the politics in power can preety much do anything it wants. The City Planning Comission is a joke. In the hearing for the Brooklyn Law School domitory, the dean testified that the block was blighted (a parking lot) and dangerous without anything to substantiate the claim. Those of us who live in the neighborhood cited the police department's records of a lack of any crime to no avail.

Then when they apprved a change in the zoning -- just for the BLS -- guess who else benefits? Walentus. He buys 100 Livingston (in the swath rezoned for the BLS) and can build higher than before. It's all a game for them. They pull the stings and line each other's pockets.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 4:32 PM

"We have never really had successful planned growth."
Josh, what i have learned is that those who talk a free market (i am NOT accusing you) play a very different game...google dean baker 'the conservative nanny state' available for free download- the Wall Street Journal, ect talk a good game about free markets but wall street makes a ton of money off the government and regulation.
as for central planning - i agree but what do don't realize is all the tweaks put out their by our government and various agencies making the very assumption that you need population growth to grow the ecomony.
as for taking a drive...that simply isn't case we're losing open land an an alarming rate, again if you don't value it, it's a pointless discussion.
"the US just became a net food importer for the first time in its history."
Who cares?
I think that says it all.
Josh I used to hold and still to some extent hold libertarian values, but I have realized that any sort of fundementalist idealogy leads to irrational thinking and becomes the proverbial hammer that makes every problem a nail.
A country's ability to feed itself is about as fundemental to its existence as national defense...if england didn't have an ally in the US in WWII it would have been starved into submission.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 4:34 PM

I'm still wondering why brownstoner feels the need to write about his shower fantasies.

also this new trend of multi-paragraph quotes from previous posts is horrible. you don't have to do that the post is right there above yours.

but in the end, thank you, all you psychos, for coming out today

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 4:39 PM

"A country's ability to feed itself is about as fundemental to its existence as national defense"
That's just silly. We don't do lots of things that can be done more cheaply elsewhere. If you can make more money making software then by farming you are crazy if you run a farm.

"we're losing open land an an alarming rate"
What rate is that? Most of the US is just wide open country.

"that those who talk a free market ... makes a ton of money off the government and regulation."
Classic Adam Smith. Everyone wants to get the gvt to do something to their advantage. Ratner is just one advantage and all are prime examples of why we should reduce government involvement as much as possible.

Posted by: JoshK at September 28, 2006 5:35 PM

"If you can make more money making software then by farming you are crazy if you run a farm."

what if you love farming? Sorry i have to say this josh, but money isn't everything. We wouldn't have prospect park if money was everything. we wouldn't have great artists, great music, and open land...to me open land and farm land is priceless.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 5:42 PM

Careful! Don't interfere with the worship of the almighty dollar!

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 6:04 PM

I still think they should build a golf course.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 6:29 PM

For those who use the term NIMBY in relation to this project doust think you don't know perhaps what this means.
Nimby is folks like the Cobble Hill Gang that exposed a domestic violence shelter because they thought that was a poor person's issue and thus harmed the lives of many.
Someone not wanting their home for a sports arena and one rich white guys aresenal of money...ain't NIMBY

Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 7:08 PM

We really have to start thinking about dismantling the Historic Districts which are beginning to constrain further growth in the city. The city is growing like crazy and we need to build denser housing and we can't as long as all these historic districts and brownstones are standing in the way. Let's get these racist nimby obstructionists out of the way and build UP! And some more big box stores would be good too; people got to work and we need cheap stuff to buy.

Posted by: Anyone at September 28, 2006 10:46 PM

This is business as usual with the Planning Commission. They feel the need to respond to community concerns (which is a good thing really) but this puts developers in the position of having to overstate their project so that the downsizing won't kill it. (Which can happen, given the low short-term profit margins developers operate with, though I have no knowledge about the financing of AY.) A similar phenomenon occurs with the provision of amenities like open space and affordable housing. Where not strictly required by zoning, the CPC has no real discretion to impose such requirements unless an environmental study shows the need for them, but they will essentially make developers agree to them in order to get an approval. Since the Commission will always demand more than the developer is voluntarily proposing, it makes more sense for developers to propose less than they can actually afford to give. Then, for the majority of rezoning projects that have to go before the City Council, the same process happens again. The council members have to show their consitutents that they are getting something for them. So, from the developer's perspective its isn't so much slimy gamesmanship as a strategy made necessary by the realities of city politics. And at the end of the day, one will always be able to speculate that any initial proposal was a sham if the developer ultimately agrees to build something smaller, but who's to say they just weren't optimistic about what might get approved?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 29, 2006 1:39 PM

Done deal.

Sorry this is too much for me to stomach.

Go away.

Posted by: anon at September 29, 2006 9:18 PM

Sorry I missed the hilarity.

Are some of you 10 years old? No doubt you have no familiarity with the blight caused in NYC areas by abandoned, or rundown high-rise "affordable" housing projects in harlem and the bronx. Or money-losing stadium projects all over the country:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n132/ai_20913158/pg_3

May I also remind the inane soul who wrote that "TEMPORARY" jobs are better than none -the entire reason for approving this project, and a large reason for justifying the land grab, was hinged upon the promise of PERMANENT jobs as well as affordable housing-- p.s. those temp jobs are not going to construction workers who live in the neighborhood, they're going to guys in NJ. No one benefits bot the private construction company and its largely nonresident employees.

Unless you've lived through the blight of half-finished, abandoned housing and recessions in NYC, you have no idea what nasty outcomes could lie ahead in this project.

Ratner is out to make money on this, period. He has no interest in serving the public -unless it helps his bottom line. And market conditions do not help his bottom line now.

Posted by: Alo at September 30, 2006 1:10 PM

« Thursday Linkerati A Chance to Bring Back an Old Brooklyn Gem »

September 28, 2006

Atlantic Yards: Time to Take a Shower

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions