Not Too Late For AY to Go Through ULURP?

Amen.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 10:41 AM

Let them just get on with building the thing. At the end of the day its going to happen, so why prolong it with all these endless complaints?

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 10:46 AM

sounds good.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 10:52 AM

To 10:46 - Because they might make changes that will benefit the people of the city of NY rather than the developer. Why should we hand over 2 billion dollars of our tax money to Bruce without getting the best deal for ourselves?

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 10:58 AM

To 10:46 - Because they might make changes that will benefit the people of the city of NY rather than the developer. Why should we hand over 2 billion dollars of our tax money to Bruce without getting the best deal for ourselves?

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 10:58 AM

"why prolong it with all these endless complaints?"

To build something more appropriate. To halt a boondoggle that swindles taxpayers out of billions. You know, little things like that.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 10:59 AM

10:46: because everyone else doing a project like this has to go through the process. it's only fair.

in reality this is likely some legacy making by doctoroff -- pandering, really.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:05 AM

It's a CYA comment. Kind of like Greenspan's article in WSJ today about how the credit crunch was "an accident waiting to happen." In reality of course, it all pretty much fell into place on his watch.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:08 AM

ULURP is simply a process to kill AY - Dan Goldstein doesnt want an arena built at AY under any circumstances - so he'll take anything that will delay and run up costs so as to get his way.

The sooner they start building the better!

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:08 AM

10:59 - what's appropriate????
Let me guess, no arena, no tall buildings, no large retail, no office buildings

Frankly a parcel this size next to the largest transit hub in the nation (by train lines) is too important to let a bunch of NIMBY self-interested rich folks determine its use.

FSRG

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:11 AM

YOu are saying poor people are entitled to care about their neighborhood? What gives you that right?

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:16 AM

Goldstein is such an ass. These pathetic attempts to halt the project will fail, just as all of the efforts of arena opponents have failed. Give it up, guys, you have lost, and lost big time! Ratner is rich and powerful beyond your wildest dreams and cannot be stopped. That is reality.

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

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:21 AM

U-N-D-O-N-E-D-E-A-L. I can hear it unraveling from here.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:35 AM

Oh please Shahn you got to be kidding that is the stupidist strawman argument I ever heard - 1st of all if you knew anything about development in the city you'd know that Ratner is building a huge (and IMHO bad) retail complex on the upper east side; 2nd if he built the ugliest, most overblown complex on TOP of his house that wouldnt have anything to do with AY (nor would it satisfy its critics).

The issue isnt what "Brooklyn" wants - we have heard of many of the stupid things that various Brownstoners want (from displacement of everyone in the projects to a moritorium on buildings over 5 stories).

If you hadnt noticed the icecaps are melting, the economy is falling and there is a shortage of housing and office space in NYC. If we want to be competitive and sustainable the ONLY method of development that makes sense is high density development, near public transportation. And guess what - that is true whether NIMBY's "want it" or not.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:36 AM

Let's all stick $1000 each in an envelope and maybe, if enough people do it, FCR et al will slink away with their takings and something much more sensible can be built and done in a fair, reviewed, and planned way--NOT carte effin' blanche handed over to shnerers who are in it just to reap huge dollars from taxpayer money.

I feel like we are being held hostage.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:46 AM

High-density development has a place, but not without infrastructure to support it. Ratner's boondoggle doesn't account for any of the strain bringing thousands of new people into that neighborhood would cause, whether on the schools, fire and police departments, traffic, or plumbing. It widens the divide between Fort Greene and Prospect Heights by building up "superblocks" of luxury condo development between them. And the way in which the plan circumvented the proper system for approvals means that the city didn't get anywhere near true value for the land, thus literally taking money out of your pocket in lost city income that needs to be made up for in taxes, and giving it to that corrupt weasel Ratner.

And, seriously, wtf, global warming?! You want to not cause global warming, don't spend 10 years spewing construction site fumes into the atmosphere.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:58 AM

Secret Stuff: does it matter that Ratner's daughter is an anorexic/mixed-up human being? It shows what kind of prick he is in his own personal life and how he treats his "loved" ones.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 12:03 PM

11:58 - no infrastructure? - 10 subway lines and LIRR isnt infrastructure?

The divide btwn PH and FG if anything will be smaller as compared to the 'hole' that is there now.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 12:10 PM

12:03 - yeah b/c only people who are 'pricks' have kids with mental problems

But thank you for demonstrating the depths that NIMBYs will go

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 12:12 PM

"Secret Stuff: does it matter that Ratner's daughter is an anorexic/mixed-up human being? It shows what kind of prick he is in his own personal life and how he treats his 'loved' ones."

You don't have to be Bruce ratner to have something like that happen in your family. Better be careful throwing stones, poster.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 12:19 PM

FSRG, your NIMBY charge makes no sense. i don't hear opponents to AY talking about building an arena anywhere else. if you're going to use a stupid acronym to reduce a complex argument to a ridiculous insult, at least use one that bears some relation to the actual argument.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 12:24 PM

12:24 - 1st of all AY opponents have suggested at least 3 different locations for an arena at various times (Red Hook, Navy Yark and Coney Island) - which is irrellevant already since the Nets currently play in an arena virtually inaccessible by mass transit.

Andd it isnt just NIMBY to the arena, its also no tall buildings and no large retail component

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 12:39 PM

The "let's create density near a transit hub" argument is, as currently conceived, deeply inadequate as a description of what of AY. The current plans include NO provisions for added subway capacity, new bus routes, new schools, new sewer lines and waste treatment stations, health clinics, fire stations, etc etc. All of this will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. And all of it will come much later than it is needed because none of it is in the current plans. After all a recent MTA study declared that service on the 2/3 and (unbearably crowded) 4/5 lines cannot be expanded beyond what it is now because of practical limitations like the minimum length of time between trains arriving in stations.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 12:49 PM

Ratner's other daughter is cool, fwiw. But I agree this kind of info has no place in this discourse. Nor does the name-calling, now that we're on the topic.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 12:59 PM

Even if every single subway line was at current capacity 24/7 (which they arent even close) it is still imperetive that new developments can be built in a manner that it is realistic to eventually service them by mass transit.

You have 4 choices

1. No new development = escalating housing/office/retail costs to a point of non-sustainability and then economic decline

2.New development spread out, away from center, which adds stress to mass transit and private transport (cars) and makes additional mass transit prohibitively more expensive - resulting in more pollution, more traffic and lower social and economic prospects

3. Development in high density near city center and near mass transit to make pedestrian and mass transit most attractive AND (addressing your point) make additional mass transit more practical b/c of centralization, existing infrastructure and economies of scale.

4. Build more mass transit rapidly and then build high density at central points along these transit lines.

It seems clear that everyone would want number 4 - but that just isnt going to happen (Governments are rarely that proactive- how are you going to sell BILLIONS of capital costs that wont be ready or needed for years?)

The only viable option left then is #3; Of course all NIMBYs will say it HAS to be #4 - but in reality that is simply a vote for #1 under our current political system (and the rising waters of the Atlantic Ocean arent waiting for that to change)

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 1:16 PM

I can't wait until AY is built so you all can go find something else to dwell on. (And you will because it is why you exist. Your life is void of all esle). Guess what, not everyone agrees with you and you are not the majority. I will be on line for season tickets.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 1:29 PM

To 1:29 PM -plese remember these are our homes and neighborhoods that are being sacrificed without us being able to do anything about it. I have lived here 23 years and am wondering if I should sell now and move. So please give us our chance to vent. It is all we have.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 2:45 PM

1:16 PM,
Your comment regarding your option 4: "It seems clear that everyone would want number 4 - but that just isnt going to happen (Governments are rarely that proactive- how are you going to sell BILLIONS of capital costs that wont be ready or needed for years?)"

This has not always been true. The NYC train system as well as trolley lines in other US cities were built awaiting later development. There are many examples of train lines running out into distant “suburbs” that were nothing but countryside at the time.

If you look at the highway and road systems: these often are built before housing goes in. Taxpayers foot the bill for however many millions of dollars per mile of roadway and then developers reap benefits along the new access points. This has repeated itself in the US so many times it has almost become religion.

In the case of urban development, these business people see the opportunity to cash in on an existing infrastructure. Certain cities around the world have had immense amount of private building without any investment in infrastructure or urban planning, for example, in places where the paved surface is just not sufficient for the density of housing in a given area. This leads to unbelievable traffic as well as supply problems getting goods in.

In terms of the location of this huge development, there are big questions unanswered on how the packed rush hour trains will handle the influx, how the area will handle additional vehicular traffic, where the services (police, fire, schools) and infrastructure (clean water in—and maintaining decent water pressure in the surrounding areas, sewage out, waste treatment, trash and recycling collection, etc.) will be provided for. These issues have not been addressed very well at all. It has been handled in a very unprofessional, almost lawless frontier kind of way. We’re talkin’ “BASIC urban planning” here. If you want to witness a “third world” situation (overbuilding with a disregard to available infrastructure), keep cheering for this private developer, write “Done Deal” on blogs and sit back to enjoy.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 3:01 PM

3:01 - Your right it wasnt always that way but when it wasnt:

1. The city/country was far less densly populated (meaning plenty of room to lay out transit and road routes)

2. Every large project didnt result in 10yrs of litigation

3. The planners who built these projects didnt have to be sensitive to communities, history or many labor laws.

Times have changed and if you hold up (sustainable development) till the infrastructure is 'perfect' then you'll never get anything built ( or you'll end up with totally unsustainable development)

And frankly many of your other issues are just silly - Water pressure??? Garbage collection...come on are you serious?

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 3:20 PM

Opponents of the project are being called on to offer an alternative location for the arena. Let's hear a convincing argument (that's not based on sentiment) for why we should have the arena AT ALL in Brooklyn. Most of the fan base is coming from New Jersey and we've already got a hometown team at MSG - a subway trip away.

Higher residential density is right for the site, but I can't see the planning argument to be made for having 3500 cars all moving through the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush and Fourth between 6-7 pm.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 3:32 PM

Because it would be nice for a city of 2.5M to have a professional sports team - which is a hugely popular leisure activity for the vast majority of the citizens of Brooklyn. Not to mention that Nets or not, any city of 2.5M should have at least a similar sized venue for other mass entertainment events like concerts, shows and the like.

3:32 - based on your argument we should close BAM, the Brooklyn Museum, the Botanical Gardens (and many other) entertaiment/cultural venues because heck many of the patrons don't live in Brooklyn and we dont need the traffic - which BTW are all also subsidized

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 3:47 PM

No one expects "perfect" infrastructure, but a stadium without a parking lot? For a New Jersey Team nobody in Brooklyn cares about? That the developer just happens to own?

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 3:48 PM

And if the developer didnt own the team (which he didnt when AY was proposed) - you'd say "why build an Arena if we dont even know if Brooklyn will get a team"

As for no one caring about the Nets - you can be assured that once they move to Brooklyn they will be a very hot ticket - no one cared about single A baseball in Brooklyn either before the Cyclones moved here.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 3:55 PM

Doesn't matter when Ratner bought the team. He owns it. He wants the taxpayers to build HIS team a stadium. This is the very definition of BOONDOGGLE.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 4:26 PM

AY opponents are never happy. There WILL be a temporary parking lot, which opponents have screeched about. But once Phase II of the project begins and that parking lot is built over, opponents will scream that there will be no parking for Nets fans. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 4:27 PM

BS. the completed project would have at least 3,600 parking spaces.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 4:32 PM

Funny how none of the people complaining about a publicly built sports arena for a privately built team (not really true but anyway...) said a peep when the city built the stadiums in SI and CI for the Yankees and Mets - much less a protest of the new stadiums for the major league teams (except for the loss of some parkland in the Bronx)

Just be honest - you dont care about the $ - its simply that you dont want this development near you (whether its right or wrong for the city as a whole)

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 4:43 PM

Hello! WE ARE paying for the arena. Where have you been?

WE'RE PAYING and they're getting to use it for 99 years at $1. They're reportedly getting $400m from Barcleys for the corp. name to be slapped on the arena...an arena OWNED BY THE PUBLIC...an arena that now appears to be built WAY to close to roadways for security reasons! Hhhh...

I would love to see the offshore accounts of the people and politicians involved in this.

3:20, You're 3 points are incorrect to a certain extent. When transit lines and roads were getting built during the 20th century there was a lot of trauma. It wasn't some clean slate of limitless space, with no unions, no laws, no communities, history, etc. Ever hear of "Eminent Domain"?! There was a lot of trauma. People lost homes and property to roadways and transit degraded neighborhoods and cities. Just because you can zip up I-95 at 72 mph looking at two-family houses on either side does not mean that neighborhoods were not ripped apart, homes lost, community fabric ripped in half…ignorance. Every hear of Slobert Moses? GM et al pushed it through and before that railways grabbed what they could and got sweet deals from gov't, used eminent domain, etc.

And to the one above who thought that somehow certain infrastructure concerns are of no concern: Low water pressure can easily become an issue in both the existing surrounding areas and down the line from a super dense residential area put in without an upgrade to the system. Existing homes and buildings probably do not have the machinery that hi-rises have that create that decent water pressure people expect.

You’re living in a material daydream. You’ve been lulled into an assumption that you can just open a tap and voila. It took a LOT of engineering and it takes a LOT of infrastructure to make that happen and keep it going. There’s an expression: “The tap ran dry…” If you don't plan, it can happen.

NYC streets have been ripped up and houses stuck on piers in order to build the underground subway...streets were ripped up again and again to lay the sewers, water mains, gas mains, electrical lines, telephone lines, TV cable lines, etc. These things get fixed, upgraded, etc. When a massive housing complex goes in, the impact on the infrastructure is usually assessed, planned for, created new or upgraded.

You wouldn't expect one phone line going into a housing complex. A massive amount of work will have to be done by Verizon off the metro ring to get enough service in.

Con Ed will have a huge amount of work getting services in.

Why expect other utilities like incoming water and waste water/solid waste removal not to need a huge amount of infrastructure upgrade?

Sad that the only time many people ever get an inkling of the value of resources is when their Ipoop or laptop battery runs out…or when there is a rare blackout. The illusion of endless resources and the access to those resources (energy, water, food, etc.) and an easy way of disposing of wastes have unmoored us from reality.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 5:26 PM

Your knowledge of the NYC water supply system is severely lacking

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 5:43 PM

Who is 5:43 referring to?...

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 5:46 PM

5:43, I am curious...new to this site...
Can you explain how the fresh water delivery system works and do you know how they are planning on augmenting/updating it for the large development? I also not clear on what will be done about the waste water. A friend of mine said there is a waste management system that overflows when it rains heavily. Some part of Brooklyn gets the brunt of this and the sewage spills out into the harbor. Is this true?

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 5:49 PM

"Who is 5:43 referring to?..."

Themself, evidently.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 5:51 PM

5:49 It is true the overflow goes into the Gowanus Canal I believe. This is one of the many details the AY team felt they did not have to address in their secretive deals with the State.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 6:21 PM

Yo Doctoroff if you are reading this, or anybody else who can pass this on to him...one of the only 5 parking lots mentioned in the plan in the area is now turning in to a high rise rental. That is discussed in an earlier post tonight. Bloomberg's administration is going to single handedly turn a nice part of NYC in to one big giant parking lot. We all know the feeling when you drive by the Trump built buildings on the west side highway. How you get amazed that there are so many of the same looking thing. Well that will be nothing because those buildings are teeny-tiny compared to what's coming to AY. And you won't be zipping by them on a highway. You will be caught for hours in bumper to bumper traffic on most nights of the year as bozos from the tri-state area search in vain for parking to the hundreds of events they will have at the arena. And then ask yourself why wouldn't a terrorist strike again at the same exact subway station they tried to blow up in the 90's. But hey this time the city honchos threw up a giant arena all covered with glass. What happens next. All we can say about Al Queda is that they seem obsessed with enacting their plans no matter how long it takes. But nobody bothered to examine that old chestnut when it came to AY planning.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 6:54 PM

Great! More money to ConnEd because they anticipate the massive job of bringing service to this proposed mess.

Is Keyspan (what's the name of the company that's buying Keyspan up?) doing the same?

I guess our property taxes will get sucked up into this mess to.

Where is the public benefit?

I'm sure when the buildings need some major repairs or who knows what, the owners will find a way to shift the cost to either the public or a new owner or sell off the rental apartments to the tenants so they have to cover the costs of needed work. Maybe these buildings won't even last that long anyway.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 8:04 PM

Doctoroff is hot!

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 9:14 PM

So after reading fifty posts, I notice that nobody has asked (or answered) the obvious question, which is how do you unwind a deal that is already done? FCR already has a signed deal with the city and state and already has the approval of that obsure committee chaired by Pataki, Bruno and Silver (I can't remember the name). Sure, there are two outstanding lawsuits, but let's say (for the sake of argument) that the courts rule in favor of Daniel "I Just Moved Here From Manhattan Last Week, But Don't Develop Brooklyn" Goldstein and determine that eminent domain would be unfairly applied in this context...what's to stop Ratner from just building Atlantic Yards around the land he hoped to have condemned. In other words, he already owns 80% of the site, so why wouldn't he just redraw his plans and just build on the land he owns (just like the city is doing by building Willoughby Square Park around the Duffield Street houses). Am I missing something here?

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 10:04 PM

because the arena can't be built without eminent domain and the superblocks can't be built without eminent doman. eg, the project can't be built without eminent domain. that's why.

as for Daniel Goldstein he has lived in Brooklyn for 12 years, is that long enough for you? or what is the cutoff date precisely for one to express one's opinion?

whatever, seems quite a bit longer than Bruce Ratner who has lived in Brooklyn for only....wait, oops, he's never lived in Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:20 PM

I'm 10:04...to 11:20, my question is WHY can't the project be built without eminent domain? I used Willoughby Square park being built WITHOUT eminent domain for a reason...if Ratner owns 80% of the footprint of the property, why can't he just build on what he has? Regarding GoldStein...I've lived in Brooklyn for 36 years (my entire life). I'm sick of white people gentrifying black neighborhoods and then telling black people what's good for them...they may think they are so liberal, but they are actually the most patronizing and worst kinds of racists!

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:19 AM

The arena CAN be built without eminent domain - at the corner of Atlantic and Vanderbilt. But it's neither in Ratner's or DDDb's interest to point this out. Putting the arena in the opposite corner of the site would negate Ratner's argument about the arena being transit oriented. DDDb would like us to believe that an ED win will stop the arena and the project altogether.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:28 AM

"And, seriously, wtf, global warming?! You want to not cause global warming, don't spend 10 years spewing construction site fumes into the atmosphere."

Oh my god, I got a good laugh out of this one.

For one thing, the population of this planet is growing. If they're not spewing 10 years of construction fumes into the air here, they'd just be doing it somewhere else because all those people from the increasing population has got to live somewhere.

If they don't live in a dense, environment close to transit, then they'll just live in the outskirts and continue to destroy virgin lands. Not only that but they'd have to drive more in those areas so that's a double edge sword to the environment.

The person who made that statement is an ignorant NIMBY.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:32 AM

9:28, you hit the nail on the head...An eminent domain win does not stop Atlantic Yards...alters it, yes...stops it, no.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:41 AM

Nope, the arena can not be built at the corner of Atlantic and Vanderbilt without the use of emient domain. 5 of the 13 eminent domain plaintiffs rent or own property on that block.

Plus the state would have to do an entirely new EIS to build it there, and FCRC doesn't want to build it there, as it wouldn't feed directly into their malls.

but the bottom line is that the arena and superblocks cannot be built without the use of eminent domain -- as in Atlantic Yards cannot be built without the use of eminent domain.

Nail not hit on head.

as for the gentleman/woman above who has lived in Brooklyn for 36 years, does it mean that someone who has lived in Brooklyn for say 42 years is more right than you are, whether white or black? not sure if you noticed, but Bruce Ratner is a white liberal (supposedly) attempting to gentrify the neighborhood and tell black people that it will be good for them.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:02 AM

EIGHTY PERCENT???!!! DUH...

THIS IS B.S.

How do you get 80%, pray tell? By counting the city streets and sidewalks that will be given to FCR? Ridiculous!

Building there will be VERY different if the city cannot, in the end, demap and give over the streets and sidewalks and if FCR cannot buyout or strongarm current property owners via eminent domain.

Look, FCR could have stuck an arena on the other side of Atlantic...and still could. But we need to have our UpCHUCK-E-CHEESE and Daffy's, etc., etc.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:20 AM

Yeah! Corporate mega stores and mega chains! Yeah! Local businesses bye-bye and Merry Christmas to you! By the way, we always have a low-pay, no health insurance sales job waiting for you when we squeeze you out.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:23 AM

10:02...the point I'm making is that I grew up in Fort Greene, which up until about 5 years ago has been BLACK neighborhood...the only people that I know in the neighborhood that are against Atlantic Yards are WHITE "LIBERAL" transplants from Manhattan and elsewhere who are complaining that Atlantic Yards will "change the character of the neighborhood". All of my black friends...people that have lived in the neighborhood longer than I have been alive are excited about the Basketball team (which for Black people is a passion), the arena and the development in general. Ratner isn't the white liberal telling black folks what's good for them...NIMBY's like Goldstein are the white people telling us (Black folk) what's good or bad for us.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:43 AM

10:43AM,

I'm sorry...but you appear to be BS'ing. Are you sitting in a FCR office in Ohio? What, all the "blacks" in FG are rah-rah for an arena?! "Blacks" in FG are all up in basketball so much they can't wait for the arena? AND, You write that that people older than you've been alive (36 years) are all excited...You mean to tell me that 40 and 50 year olds can't wait for some stupid old arena to get built? They don't care probably...or they don't even want it. Go talk to folk down on St. Felix. Are you for real?

There are people of all stripes against AY being built and eminent domained as it's planned...Last time I checked MANY "Black" leaders and elected officials are against AY as planned/forced through. You want names?

It's not a questions of "white liberals", NIMBYs keeping back "black folk"...

What? You want more big corporate stores to go in so the last remaining black owned mom-n-pop stores get squeezed out? I give my business to my local mom-n-pop pharmacy NOT to the one in Pathmark. Some old store happening all over: big stores come in with slightly cheaper prices and glitz, force out long established businesses in the community and then the big retailers become mini-monopolies. The former owners of small stores end up as employees of the big stores.

And, NO, Fort Greene was not a "black neighborhood" until 5 years ago. What planet are you on?

Yeah...It was *perceived* to be a "black neighborhood" until maybe 7 to 10 years ago. And I write "perceived", notice? FG is was a very mixed neighborhood. There was a lot of diversity in FG south of Myrtle. For example, there was a big Central American community in the couple of streets running between tDeKalb and Fulton that no one ever seemed to consider even at that time in the 80's and 90's. There were people of all stripes living in FG and Clinton Hill, and yes, many "middle class black families" at one time...and yes, the economic levels and color line have shifted dramatically but your "until 5 years ago" is incorrect. You couldn't say it was a "black neighborhood" unless you go back a WHOLE mess of years.

What? You dipping too much snuff?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:05 PM

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

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 3:21 PM

S-P-U-N-D-E-A-L!!!

D-U-M-B-D-E-A-L!!!

W-E-D-O-N-E-B-E-E-N-R-O-B-B-E-D...AGAIN!!!

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:07 PM

So let's say that Atlantic Yards doesn't happen...what next? The Vanderbilt Yards continue to be a whole in the ground for the next 100 years and Goldsheen stays holded up in his building all by his lonesome for the rest of time like Will Smith in "I am Legend"?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 6:51 PM

"So let's say that Atlantic Yards doesn't happen...what next?"

A more reasonable development is built after a fair and open bidding process? After infrastructure upgrades have been built into the project?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 8:37 PM