« Business Week's Spoonful of Sugar Real Photos of Carroll Gardens Bastard »
September 27, 2006
How Low-Income Can You Go?
The latest Atlantic Yards puff piece arrived in mailboxes earlier this week and the cover photo is something of a head-scratcher. We're not so sure a family in matching $75 designer polo shirts was quite who Bertha Lewis had in mind when she sold ACORN's support to Bruce Ratner for half a million bucks and a kiss. Of course, the mailer actually got the demographic just right: The large majority of apartments in the proposed complex ARE for the polo-shirt set. Too bad that wasn't made clear to all the low-income folks Ratner got to spend the day in line at the first public forum who actually have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an apartment.
Comments
I'm sorry but you're clueless if you think anyone pays retail for those shirts. They're on deep discount at Marshalls and Pay/Half in the Atlantic Center Mall. Polo ain't just for rich folks anymore.
Of course that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not AY is good for anyone.
Posted by: kitten at September 27, 2006 9:47 AM
You're sounding more and more like the right-wing politicos who slander, debase and ridicule anyone that disagrees with their platform.
Bertha Lewis and ACORN have a long and respected history of working for the community and getting lower income housing built.
Because she did not take same position as DDDB and other one-issue anti-AY groups , she/ACORN are being dragged through the mud.
It doesn't help your position by doing this.
Posted by: pete at September 27, 2006 9:55 AM
This is the third or fourth piece of propaganda I've gotten in the mail straight from Ratner's bottomless tax-payer subsidized pockets. Each one hides the true scope of the project. Instead they feature the coziness and neighborliness of the brownstones this mammoth project will displace. And never a peep about Frank Gehry or "Miss Brooklyn."
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 9:56 AM
I'm just perplexed by AY opponents' contradictory arguments: That there should be more truly affordable housing in the complex and that AY should be much smaller. So where are these affordable apartments supposed to come from? Who pays for them? The federal goverment doesn't give outright subsidies anymore. If anyone's got other great ideas for alternative financing for affordable housing in Brooklyn, I'd love to hear them.
Posted by: midwooder at September 27, 2006 10:32 AM
For the sake of being accurate, those are not Polo shirts, they're Lacoste.
Posted by: Mara at September 27, 2006 11:19 AM
From Wikipedia...
The known subsidies are:
* $100 million - Direct cash from New York City
* $100 million - Direct cash from New York State
* ~$360 million - 30 Year Full Property Tax Exemption (if the lease for its full term of 99 years, the abatement would exceed $1 billion)
* ~$77 million - Mortgage Recording Tax Exemption
* ~$610 million - 9.1 Million Square Feet of Development Rights (A $910 million value for which Ratner pays approximately $300 million, including a discounted, closed-door price for the Rail Yards, without genuine competitive bidding; Vanderbilt Rail Yards appraised value: $214.5 million, Ratner bid $100, Extell bid $150 million)
* ~$555.3 million - Tax-Exempt and Taxed Bonding for the Arena
* ~$101 million - Housing Construction Subsidies
* $26 million - Forest City Pays $1.00 for a 99 year lease for all the land under the Arena, its garages and accessways, including City street, a total of 6.5 acres
Total Known Subsidy (approximate): $1.929 billion
In addition to the known subsidies, the unknown subsidies include:
* Unspecified (and unlimited) additional funds for "extraordinary infrastructure costs"
* Government subsidies and/or tax credits to provide for "affordable housing"
* Credit for any costs which Ratner incurs in relocating and installing public utility infrastructure
* Guaranties from the City, the Empire State Development Corporation and the EDC that they will "use their best efforts" to obtain energy cost savings for the Arena for an unspecified period of time
* Arena construction materials and fixtures sales tax exemption
* Credit under the Brownfield Program if Forest Ctiy has to spend more than $20 million in remediation of environmental hazards
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 11:36 AM
Yes, it's a ridiculous amount of subsidy, whose returns are dubious. (What else is new in this town?) I also don't see how it answers the housing question. Would Propect Heights and Fort Greene really stand for it if, say, the city or state used that money to build a new high rise, all-low-income housing project on the site instead? Would adding another few acres of new middle-income row houses (like the ones on S. Oxford near Atlantic) do anything to deal with Brooklyn's housing needs?
Posted by: midwooder at September 27, 2006 11:54 AM
Actually, for the sake of being accurate, they ARE polo shirts, with a lowercase p!
Posted by: Brownstoner at September 27, 2006 12:07 PM
Hey Ratner did a bang-up job with the subsidies he got for Atlantic Terminal. That urban maze of a mall with improperly designed parking demonstrates his acumen for using the public dollar for his advantage.
Dropping approximately 15,000 people and thousands of more cars in an area defined by brownstones makes a whole lot of cents. I like how the Nets arena morphed into a monstrosity. But, hey, Bertha's happy.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 12:36 PM
DDDB issued their own propaganda yesterday. Upon arriving home, I found a stack of their leaflets in my vestibule. As always, I quickly scooped up all of the copies and promptly tossed 'em in the trash. Before that, though, I glanced at one and was shocked to see that they were trying to align themselves with Hakeem Jeffries - the man that their members spent months defaming. I hope that he refuses to work with them in the future.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 12:58 PM
Since no one else wants to say it, I will. This mailer is just another example of how Forest City Ratner is trying to further the divide on this development by race. As you can see, every person in this mailer is a person of color, further propagating the myth that the black community is going to benefit from this development while all of us who oppose it are just rich white racists who just moved to Brooklyn a week ago! Every person involved who supports this project has played the race card, from Bertha Lewis to Roger Green, who said that the "opposition" wouldn't mind if FCR was going to build a huge opera house but we don't want a basketball arena because it will bring the "wrong" kind of people to the neighborhood. Yes Roger, that's why we oppose it; not because the project is out of scale, or becuase it will overtax all public service,or becuase people are losing their homes due to the abuse of public domain. And in the end, this development will end up costing all of us money while Ratner skips away with his gajillion dollars like he always does. I hope that everyone who supports this project and especially those whose support has been bought with Ratner's money end up looking like the fools that they are for buying into his lies.
Posted by: bigmissfrenchie at September 27, 2006 1:04 PM
yo pete: yes, ACORN has done any number of great things in Brooklyn and across the country. but if Bertha Lewis things she accomplished what she endlessly crows about, then she is clueless. (I don't think she is clueless.) she sold out on this one and that is why she is being dragged through the mud. it's not about right- or left-wing politics; it's about whether the benefits (one side of the ledger) are greater than the subsidies and unmitigatable impacts (the other side). by my accounting, not even close.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 1:58 PM
yo pete: yes, ACORN has done any number of great things in Brooklyn and across the country. but Bertha Lewis hasn't negotiated housing at a price point that her membership can afford, which means that she sold out on this one. that is why she is being dragged through the mud. it's not about right- or left-wing politics; it's about whether the benefits (one side of the ledger) are greater than the subsidies and unmitigatable impacts (the other side). by my accounting, not even close. you are right that the rhetoric has gotten out of control, but Forest City started that.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 2:01 PM
sorry about the almost-duplicate posts; I was trying to tone down my own rhetoric
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 2:02 PM
lacoste polos are $75 apiece.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 2:15 PM
DDDB's own Daniel Goldstein also played the "race game" with his "wealthy white masters" comment a few months ago. Of course, DDDB's web site neglected to archive their press release condemning these comments - I suppose if you erase all proof of the comments, it's just as if they were never spoken, right?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 3:26 PM
please - no more quoting Wikipedia as a valid source. Anyone can write an entry and guess who wrote that one.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 3:32 PM
she has stated her reasoning and beleives she is being pragmatic. You may have very valid reasons
to not agree with her reasoning or position. You are entitled to yours.
But what is so disgusting is the tactic of smearing her because doesn't agree with your side. That is what I said was a right-wing 'tactic'. (not that one position or another on this issue is right-wing).
Argue the facts and merits. It doesn't help to smear and ridicule.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 3:37 PM
How much in taxpayer dollars is funding it in your estimation?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 3:40 PM
Yes, I actually saw the DDDB propoganda flyers in the hallway of my co-op building last night also. I doubt that Hakeem Jeffries the new assemblyman for the district will have much to do with the DDDB crowd because of their extremely harsh criticism of him throughout the primary campaign. One thing that I've learned from my work with non-profits is that you never burn bridges. DDDB trashed Jeffries and now he is in power and will probably ignore them. Personally, I find DDDB's tone to be very condescending and shrill which is why many people around the borough simply dismiss them.
Posted by: DeeDee at September 27, 2006 4:09 PM
I believe the definition of affordable in the agreement is households earning up to $109,000 a year -- hence the polo shirts.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 27, 2006 4:32 PM
I'm not defending Daniel Goldstein's comment. I''m suspect it was born out of weariness at this whole convoluted mess, but that certainly doesn't excuse him. But while everyone is quick to condemn his comments, no one takes Roger Green or Herbert Daughtry to task for comments just as racist as Goldstein's, just couched in more palatable language.
Regarding the FCR mailing, I recommend that all fo you who are against this development do what I did with the last one that came to my house. I sent it back to them in an envelope with a strogly worded letter stating how I felt about the AY development and asking them to please not send any more literature to me. I'll be curious to see I no longer receive mailings from them. It probably won't do any good, but it sure made me feel better!
Posted by: bigmissfrenchie at September 28, 2006 11:41 AM
Roger Green and Herbert Daughtry have been taken to task. The anti-Ratner folks have critcized them ad naseam for just about everything they've done or said.
Don't worry, I'm sure that your letter to FCR will be ignored and that the mailings will continue.
Lastly, to suggest that Dan Goldstein's comments were made out of "weariness" equates to excusing it, despite your denials of doing so. Was Dan's support of Charles Barron, who approves of Zimabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, also done out of weariness?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 28, 2006 1:18 PM
pretty shameless attempt to race bait and exacerbate racial tensions...Forest City is about as low as yo can get. IF affordable housing IS the issue then why do Forest City cheerleaders avoid the fact that bids from UNity and Extel offered MORE affordable housing and were rejected out of hand by the ESDC?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 29, 2006 10:13 AM
yeah forest city cheerleaders, because Daniel Goldstien said one stupid thing, everything else he says is invalid. He should be forced to give his home to a billionaire developer, the state should float forest city four billion in low interest loans and ignore competing bids that offered more for the yards and more affordable housing.
and yeah, everytime a greedy, corrupt developer wants your home he should be able to take it.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 29, 2006 10:25 AM
"Each one hides the true scope of the project. Instead they feature the coziness and neighborliness of the brownstones this mammoth project will displace. And never a peep about Frank Gehry or "Miss Brooklyn.""
if the AY plan is so great why does forest city keep it from the public? hmmm got an answer Raternites?
Posted by: Anonymous at September 29, 2006 10:27 AM
"If the AY plan is so great why does forest city keep it from the public? hmmm got an answer Raternites?"
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: Anonymous at September 29, 2006 2:48 PM
The other plans offered a higher PROPORTION of their housing as affordable, but Ratner's plan offers a higher NUMBER of affordable units. When ever affordable apartment counts in a city as expensive as NYC, then numbers are more important than proportion.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 5, 2006 1:04 PM
Proportion, eh? Dropping a mini-Manhattan skyline filled with 15,000 people and thousands of motor vehicles -- in addition to a Nets arena attracting another 20,000 people and a bunch more vehicular traffic -- is all out of proportion with the neighborhood in which this monstrosity will squat.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 5, 2006 2:48 PM
I just don't understand the copy. I mean, is that 12 hours a day, 5 days a week? What kind of job does the guy have? What is his salary? Why can't he afford to live in Brooklyn? Does he have mega debts or something? Does his wife work? Are those his only children? Are they his children? I get the shock value of the copy but any thinking person would look at it and say, come on!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 11, 2006 12:01 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.