Organized Opposition to House of D Plan Grows

NIMBY!

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 9:42 AM

Two web sites and a few handbills does not mean "growing" opposition. If anything, it means that the small number of NIMBYs who run this joke operation are becoming less non-active.

For the millionth time, the city does not need approval from locals to expand the jail and will rightfully proceed with nary a nod to this pathetic bunch.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 9:51 AM

I'm in Carroll Gardens and I honestly don't think it's an issue for this neighborhood -- at least I've never heard anyone express an opinion. Those of us who lived here when the HOD was open don't really care that much one way or another.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:12 AM

TO THOSE OPPOSED TO THE EXPANSION OF BROOKLYN HOUSE:

No offense but do you really think the revitalization of the neighborhood happened because of the closing of Brooklyn House? Come on... that's a big stretch. I've lived in the area for a very long time and the revitalization started happening way before the jail stopped housing inmates. It never completely closed by the way. Some portions of the building were always in use and still are. If anyone isn't telling the truth, it's you guys, not the DOC. If anything, the building and it's employees helped to stabilize the neighborhood during tough economic times in the 70's and 80's. Correction Officers and people bailing out defendants spent money at local restaurants and businesses helping to keep them a float. One can also argue that the neighborhood stayed safer than other sections of Boerum and Cobble Hill because Correction Officers are uniformed peace officers. Having them walk to and from their cars when they worked at Brooklyn House helped to serve as a deterrent to crime in the community. Some street crime actual did rise after Brooklyn House closed. Check the statistics at the local police precinct. That's why you began to see more uniformed police officers walking a beat in the neighborhood.

You guys need to get your facts straight. If you look at real estate figures, Brooklyn house had little to no effect on the value of properties in the surrounding neighborhood. I'm tired of newcomers to the area praying on people's fears. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Need I remind you that the majority of inmates at Brooklyn House were defendants awaiting trial and as such, they were innocent until proven guilty? Sounds to me you like think everyone housed there is guilty before they've even had a chance to go to trial.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:13 AM

9:51 = ex-con with friends still in the slammer

Send them all to a field in upstate NY where the only harm they will do is to some poor cows.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:17 AM

I'm a Boerum Hill resident, and I used to live directly across from the HOD when it was open. I'm not thrilled by its reopening, but I cannot support these NIMBY opponents. The reasoning for reopening the HOD is sound. And yes, they trump neighborhood desires.

Anybody who thought that structure was going to be torn down, turned into condos, or sporting major retail (or a school!?!) was smoking the stuff that gets you send to the HOD -- where you will be innocent until proven guilty and allowed access to the family members who still support you.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:27 AM

9:51-your right the does not need local approval to expand.That doesn't make it the right thing to do. I bought my house on State st. in 1988 when the jail was packed to the gills so it wasn't a deal breaker for me. That said, theres no doubt the jail had a detrimental effect on the nabe ,dividing Atlantic Ave. into good and bad stretches and casting a pall over a large area.I wont move either way but I'd love to see it gone.
If there's a group that wants to take the city on on this I say more power to them. Unless you're a contractor hoping to line your pockets with city expansion money what do you care?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:30 AM

I for one welcome a healthy opposition to this plan. It seems to me that DOC feels entitled to do anything they please, and it is not clear to me that they have the legal right to do so. Nor should they ignore the will of the surrounding community, just because they can. The city has invested untold sums to revitalize downtown Brooklyn--to reopen the jail is simply inconsistent with the city's own goals, and not a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:30 AM

I believe it was used frequently by L&O; perhaps the city could rent it out for filming. You know, pretend prisoners...Brad Pitt in shackles.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:37 AM

Talk about Yellow Journalism. Nice editing Job Brownstoner.

I love the fact that one of these posters was located in the NEW, unopened restaurant still under construction at the corner of Bond and Pacific Streets. I think its ironic, that before they even move into the neighborhood, they are already trying to change it.

People, when you move somewhere with projects and a jail, you need to adapt. I don't think its neighborly or fair to think because you spent $1,000,000 on your 1br condo or $2.5 million on your house that you are entitled to have South Brooklyn turn into suburban Connecticut.

Brownstoner, shame on you for this post.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 10:41 AM

Maybe the can house detainees in all the vacant uints the city plans to subsidize at Atlantic Yards?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 11:01 AM

It is amazing to read some of the emotional invective raised by several posters who make this a NIMBY or yuppie issue and the endless class warfare commentary. As a 30yr resident I am ashamed of the provincial attitude of so many in the community. The "I was here first and don't try and change anything" is such a tired and simplistic refrain. "Get used to it" has never been my attitude. Why should those who live in the community not demand a more thorough vetting of the DOC proposal to see how it will impact the community. This idea that the DOC has a right to do whatever they want because it was there in the past is nonsensical. Why does it have to be in any backyard. The idea that new residents should abandon their rights to object to the doubling of the jail size and just accept this as a done deal is also troubling. Let's try and move beyond the NIMBY accusations spouted by DOC Horn and have an honest debate.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 11:35 AM

It's interesting how none of these comments bother to address the part about how the current facilities are half the size required under federal law, a regulation probably meant to ensure humane conditions for the prisoners. No one also mentions that the current plan is to build two new towers and add hundreds of cells. Sounds like a couple of years of construction plus a lot more people.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 11:41 AM

Good points 11:35 and 41.

I was shocked to learn that the sizes of the cells at the HOD are so small -- it is inhumane especially given that many of the guests are pending trial, and are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 11:49 AM

It's true -- where would these people have the jail be located, then? It's not like the authorities are reopening/expanding the facility because they can't think of anything better to do or anywhere else the money needs to be spent. The opposition would prefer East New York, perhaps? Is the logic that since more offenders come from poorer neighborhoods, the facilities should stay in poorer neighborhoods? Should eminent domain be used to amass property to build this new jail elsewhere?

I don't have the sense that the opposition has thought things through, or followed their assumptions to their logical conclusion.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 12:09 PM

Right, Montrose. I'm the Boerum Hill resident who posted above. I have two children. I'm not concerned about their safety, because I'm not stupid enough to walk on the unpleasant block behind the jail, on State Street, where one might indeed encounter shackled prisoners. They are hardly paraded on Atlantic Avenue.

A NIMBY argument is one that wants a necessary public service to be in someone else's backyard. That pretty much defines the anti-HOD crowd (nice graphics aside). And, 11:35, a jail has to be in someone's back yard because, you know, we have to have jails. Putting one where there already is one just makes sense.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 1:50 PM

Everyone who's so supportive of the HOD should be required to do a meet and greet on visitors day whan the facility re-opens. I lived on State St. (between Hoyt + Bond) in the early 1980s and remember some pretty interesting characters coming around. Always enjoyed it when people at street level would have conversations with their loved ones by yelling up to them from the street. I got mugged once on State at Hoyt and my sister was mugged at the same corner. All within a year. Don't know if it had anything to do the jail, but I for one aren't buying the argument that having correction officers around made things safe.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:43 PM

"We have made it our mission to stop the misguided plan to place a large prison in a thriving neighborhood with a large community of young children."

Agreed, unless DOC agrees to lock the doors. (taking 11:49's correct comments into account.)

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:45 PM

I saw people distributing the flyers on Saturday. I was confused, because these girls seemed barely out of high school. These can't be the condo-buyers, can they?

Anyway, the girls didn't explain to the shopowner at a new-ish card/candle/other-crap store what the flyer was about. They asked if they could put a poster in the window about "improving the neighborhood" and the guy at the register said "sure" without looking at it. As I left the store and looked at the flyer, I was pretty surprised. I wouldn't have guessed they were part of the anti-HOD group.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:47 PM

Labeling people in the community (1:50pm) for walking down the street stupid shows an incredible lack of consideration for your fellow resident. I have to ask - Why are you afraid of these prisoners? The quickness of labeling this a NIMBY argument is alarming and disappointing but gives some a sense of moral superiority. The jail does not have to be in someone elses backyard. There are numerous alternatives that could be considered that would place this in an industrial area, an exisitng Federal facility or perhaps DOC should have spent the time and resources to upgrade Rikers. The presumption that they have done all of this is wrong. They closed it because it would save the DOC money and be more efficient - so they claimed. We pay tax dollars for the NYPD to protect us not the DOC. The idea that having enhanced presence of Marshals, Correction Officers, etc., in the hood as a rationale to accept a doubling of the size of the jail is specious. As a "long time resident" I believe we share more than a fair share of the city services. When do you say ENOUGH IN MY BACKYARD. The presumption that the DOC has done a fair analysis is naive at best. Is any expansion of city services in an already city service saturated area the correct thing to do beacuse it is already there? C'mon people - roll over and play dead for the DOC. How about a nuclear facility, a landfill or maybe a basketball stadium. By the way, their planning on spending a 1/2 billion dollars just to build the expansion which does not include upgrading the existing cell size or facility. Sounds like a real bargain for taxpayers.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:55 PM

This isn't really a NIMBY issue is it? The alternative to the BHOD is Rikers, which, if I know my NYC geography, is an island and probably not in anyone's backyard. The DOC originally closed the BHOD in favor of expanding Rikers. So the real options are (1) in my backyard, or (2) on an island with nothing else on it. Gee, that's a pretty tough choice.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 2:56 PM

Brooklynnative -- they couldn't double the size of the cells, because then it would half the population and make it an inefficient facility.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 3:35 PM

'The presumption that the DOC has done a fair analysis is naive at best.'

I don't believe the city has done a proper alternatives analysis at all, 255.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 3:38 PM

Johnife - you may get a second chance. Perhaps your son or your wife will get the additional thrill of being verbally harassed by them as he passes by on the way to school or she is on her way to work. I remember that experience vividly and I would not wish that on anyone.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 3:46 PM

Johnife - So the Stakeholders Group which is opposed to the DOC expansion are "recent arrivals with a sense of self entitlement." Do some homework before you spout such ignorance. And what is your definition of a "new arrival". Because you did not hear residents whining about the HOD in the past means we should roll over and accept it without challenging the DOC. Why do you do you insist on labeling people and putting them in your ideological buckets.I have been here a long time but never was so presumptuos to believe I have more rights than others because I have lived here longer. One can only question your motivation or sense of self for attacking "the new arrivals". Doing so does not make me feel better or change anything on the ground. It's just noise to distract from the real issue. Who said Rikers is the only alternative. Many of the prisoners will be bussed to the Supreme Court on Jay St. Not all of them will be strolling unseen through the tunnel to the Criminal Court.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 4:03 PM

Though I agree with montrose, I think he's showing a lot of chutzpah saying that the downtown area should do its civic duty, give his attempts to keep the intake center out of the bedford shelter. The same data that was used to make the case against the intake center shows that downtown area has the second highest concentration of social service organizations in brooklyn.

as you would say, montrose, we've done our share.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 4:04 PM

2:43, you could get mugged on Park Avenue at noon in the early 80s. You could get jumped outside a cop station. Weak correlative.

So what has been functioning as a house of D (versus a prison) in the intervening years that the HOD has been closed? I agree that it's efficient to have defendants, er, stroll across the street to their court date. What system is in place at the moment, I'm wondering?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 4:15 PM

Actually, the downtown brookyn area is third (ocean hill/brownsville is second). At 80 beds per acre, it is three times above average (CHeights = 112, Ocean Hill/Bville = 100).

So, the lecture about doing our "civic duty" is thus dismissed.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 4:15 PM

Johnife

Now we all understand your line of demarcation. You need to live in the hood for more than 10 years to join "your club". You go from the "vicarious thrill of entertaining your son" like it is some freak show to "Mr. Sensitive" towards the "arrestees". So your argument is all about logistics and convenience. That is obvious to all and it is why the DOC is moving ahead. No argument from me. I am not proposing they continue the Rikers process but perhaps if you flocked to a Stakeholders meeting with all your energy and insight you might see that there are alternative sites in non residential areas that would not require transporting "arrestees" all of over creation. Did you know that there is a Federal facility in a non residential area of Sunset Park? Did you know the city closed the Brig in the Navy Yards? Instead of ranting about the newcomers why don't you come learn from the oldtimers.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 4:51 PM

5:11 What were the alternatives and such the City checked out?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 5:37 PM

Johnife - They are detainees not arrestees.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 5:49 PM

Parenting 101 from Johnife

"I don't remember the situation actually arising, but I'm certain that if my son, when he was 11 years old or so, had been aware of the opportunity to see shackled criminals in the flesh he would have begged me to take him down that block to "see the bad guys" and there's no way I would have denied him that vicarious thrill.

Posted by: johnife at June 17, 2008 2:39 PM

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 5:59 PM

DT Brooklyn is a transit hub. Many of the detainees at HOD are poor lower class and this makes travel less complicated for their families and enables easy access to the Public Defenders. these aren't the most lucrative cases so could you imagine if they had to truck out to ENY or Sunset Park just to carry out some basic procedures.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 7:24 PM

It makes no sense to try and relocate the jail. DOC should just open it as is and also look for another location to accommodate the inmates - they are called inmates - that they will need to move off of Riker's Island. Riker's Island is extremely inaccessible for family, lawyers, volunteers and others who need to visit and provide services for the inmates. Waiting for inmates to be transported via bus to court costs the city millions in gas, vehicle maintenance and overtime. True that many of the inmates would still have to transported by bus from State street to the new court building, but it would take less time and resources to get them there from the Brooklyn House on Atlantic.

Originally the plan was to expand the facilities on Riker's Island but Hurricane Katrina and other emergencies taught the city a huge lesson. The Island is in the East River accessible only by one two lane bridge and is way below sea level. In heavy rain storms, the old decrepit jails flood. What do you think would happen in a hurricane? There would be no way to evacuate all of the inmates and employees. Even if they did, where would they then evacuate them to? Are the lives of the people on the island despensible?
Afterall they are just inmates and oh Correction Officers who are not the NYPD and therefore not paid to protect and serve the public according to one poster. To the knucklehead who said that they don't feel safer with Correction Officers around, look up the definition of Peace Officer. I personally don't care which uniform responds to my needs in an emergency as long as someone responds.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 8:00 PM

I don't agree with them on this issue, but most of the anti-HOD stakeholders group have lived in the neighborhood for a long time. A looooong, looooong, time: Sue Wolfe, Boerum Hill Association; Heloise Gruenberg, Brooklyn Vision; Sandy Balboza, AABA; Ian Kelly, AALDC. It's inaccurate and unfair to call them arrivistes.

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 8:54 PM

7:24, true. Rikers Island (so I've heard) is a schlep. Before everyone piles on me for saying "but these are offenders and life is tough" I'd point out that the visitors are not offenders but people close to them; why make them suffer more?

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 9:18 PM

So the t'What woudl be a resident of Brooklyn Heights?!

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 9:33 PM

bxgrl

Spare us the grit and reality lecture. The renovations to the facility were incompetently performed and did nothing to correct the size of the cells. Who says it has to go in a poorer hood,

Posted by: guest at June 17, 2008 9:53 PM

Could someone please clarify a point for me? I live in the hood and did when the HOD was open and don't really care one or another. However, if there are plans for the HOD to expand, that's quite different from re-opening the existing facilities as they were. I am curious as to what that expansion entails -- is is relatively minor, or a huge expansion?

I think it is perfectly reasonable for the community to review and make known their views on any expansion of a facility, just the same way as those who lived in the Ikea area, Atlantic Yards, and the big Court Street development that used to be the Longshoreman's medical center are the focus of community groups. While for some people it may simply be "we don't want a HOD period", for others the expansion may be different than the re-opening.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 9:13 AM

They are going to double the size of the population, spend close to 500mm building a second tower and the vistor traffic will likely double from 4500 to 10,000 weekly.

Why is bxgrl so opposed to a liitle sunshine on the DOC's plans. The constant drumbeat of this is not Disney Land, get used to it, whipping up fear and hysteria,NIMBY etc. is not what this is about. Talk about whipping up hysteria with your reference to sex offenders, rich people not liking the seamier side of life. It is convenient to make this a class issue but it is a false argument. The Bronx fought back and won their battle with the DOC and this fight has many of the same merits. The Bronx was fed up with the DOC and made the right argument. The DOC is now looking at alternative sites in industrila zones. Enough is enough.

The community has changed and changed for the better despite all the complaining about the newcomers. There are more stores, restaurants, residents, than ever before. The reopening and expansion of the jail and the associated impact on the community has not been well examined. The fact that it will be doubled in size is not insignificant. The DOC's track record with BHOD is pitiful. The money spent on renovations were a joke and may as well been flushed down the toilet.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 9:50 AM

9:13 the plan is to double the capacity. That's fairly huge.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 9:52 AM

To the contrary. There is a proposal to add real social services, counseling, job training and other services to the BHOD rather than simply doubling the size of the HOD. The fact that it is convenient and cost effective is not the argument. That is only one aspect of good public policy. The Correction's Union opposed the DOC's plans in the Bronx and recommended the money would be better spent upgrading Rikers. When forced to by the community the DOC came up with some more creative plans that struck a compromise with the community rather than it being force fed to us as this plan is now. The fact that it was there long before condos went up is also not a reason to except the plan as proposed and certainly does not represent enlightened public policy.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 10:23 AM

"The Correction's Union opposed the DOC's plans in the Bronx and recommended the money would be better spent upgrading Rikers."

This is absolutely not true. Number one there is no "Correction's Union." There are three unions that cover the uniformeed forces working for the Department of Correction. No 's'. The Correction Officers Benevolent Association or COBA is the largest, the Correction Captains Association or CCA, the second largest and the Assistan Deputy Warden's Association. Not one of these unions were opposed to the opening of the facility in the Bronx nor are they opposed to the reopening of the Brooklyn House. Of course, all three support newer smaller jails that equipped to provide more services for the inmates because all of these improvements make the jobs of their members easier. Not one of these unions was in support of upgrading Riker's Island because as previous posters have already stated, the island is below sea level and is a disaster waiting to happen if there is a need to evacuate. It is inaccessible for the staff many of whom travel there by public transportation. The large jails on Rikers are security risks to both staff and inmates who are both regularly assaulted because the most of the newest jails there were built in haste, poorly designed and the bubble tent and trailer dormitory additions to the existing buildings were only meant to be temporary.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 11:54 AM

(The Bronx jail is being built on a piece of city-owned property and had to be moved for legal reasons- not because of community resistance.)

The jail, which would have been the city’s second largest, drew opposition from Community in Unity, a coalition of nonprofit groups including the Bronx Defenders; Sustainable South Bronx; Critical Resistance, a national group opposed to new prison construction; and the Point, a social services organization based in Hunts Point. It was the community's resistance that led the DOC to change direction - period. Ask the DOC if you doubt me.

The Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, the union representing prison workers opposed a new jail in the Bronx.

The detainees will largely be Brooklyn residents so how you got the impression visitors will be coming from far away is something you obviously are just making up. The DOC has stated they want the detainees closer to their families. That is sound but that does not mean they need to dump it in a residential hood that has changed vastly since 1957 when they originally built it and 2003 when they closed it. The DOC has failed miserably at planning and why we should take them at their word is baffling.

"most of the newest jails there were built in haste, poorly designed" gives one great confidence for the BHOD. Fisrt they closed it to save money and stated that centralized facilities were more efficient now they state they need to decentralize and spend more money to double BHOD. The fact that DOC has not received greater scrutiny in the past has resulted in this poorly executed policy and is grounds for greater scutiny and questioning going forward.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 2:55 PM

The DOC in action at BHOD:

Examples:

$18 million kitchen created and never used
$45 million pink marble exterior cladding, installed over 8 years
Bollards installed to prevent abusive parking by HOD and court employees, then uninstalled
$16 million for replacing windows in an empty facility

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 3:59 PM

John

You did write this but my guess is you now regret it.

"I don't remember the situation actually arising, but I'm certain that if my son, when he was 11 years old or so, had been aware of the opportunity to see shackled criminals in the flesh he would have begged me to take him down that block to "see the bad guys" and there's no way I would have denied him that vicarious thrill."

Yes I have children and no I would not take them down to see the perp walk or as you say "shackled criminals in the flesh". Not because I want to shelter them. That process dignifies no one, especaiily the detainess who are presumed innocent. However, I have taken them to court proceedings where at least they can see and hear both sides of the story.

My recollection is you began the personal attacks. I have not engagaed in anything remotely similar.

"I did a whois for the website registrant and discovered that he's a former DA who now works for a private law firm and who specializes in getting off corporate bigwigs who've been fingered by whistleblowers. I'm so glad the phrase "yuppie scum" is in vogue again because I can't think of a better definition."

"The only thing that's really changed is the overblown sense of self entitlement of the more recent arrivals."

Why are you so angry John?

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 4:27 PM

"The Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, the union representing prison workers opposed a new jail in the Bronx."

COBA represents only one segment of the "prison workers." As a COBA delegate I can assure you that COBA was not against the building of a jail in the Bronx. The Bronx jail will replace VCBC, the Vernon C. Bain Center which is a barge and will have to eventually be put in drydock. True, in the past, more specifically in the late 80's and early 90's, many decisions regarding the housing of the city's inmates were made in haste and were not long term solutions due to the sudden increase in population in a short period of time basically because of crack. Under Guiliani and his know-nothing Commissioner Bernie, construction was started on the Brooklyn House and the jail population decreased shortly thereafter. Then of course there was hurricane Katrina and new Federal mandates regarding housing and evacuation. Horn is trying to take all of these factors into account to come up with long term solutions. Unlike the Bronx, this jail already exists and can reopen without going through what the city and DOC are going through to try and have a new jail built in the Bronx.

I would love for schools, hospitals and affordable hosuing to be built instead of jails. It is truly my wish that the inmates stop coming to jail and put the DOC out of business. I will glad retrain for another job. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. There will always be a need for jails and the oppositon to this jail is simple NIMBY. Only most of the newer homes were built in the jails backyard.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 9:38 PM

"The Correction Officers' Benevolent Association, the union representing prison workers that opposes a new jail in the Bronx..."

NY Sun Article June 27, 2007

Yes unfortunately we need jails but the DOC is essentially building a new jail at BHOD not simply reopening the old one. Take a look at the RFP - $240mm by their estimate and the Bloomberg admin budget projects it to be in excess of $450mm. I have never heard Horn justify the BHOD on the basis of the threat from hurricanes. The BHOD is only projected to hold 10-12% of the existing Rikers inmates so how do they meet Fed standards under that scenario. It is not a NIMBY issue but a result of poor DOC planning, community outreach, inept management, wasted tax dollars on building more prison beds below code and lost opportunities to rebuild Rikers when city coffers were swelling. I would rather they spend double the money to build a facility in the appropriate place (non-residential like they are proposing in the Bronx and unconnected to the Courthouse so clearly not the end of the world) rather than the expensive and dubious proposal for BHOD. The other Horn refrain relates to putting inmates closer to families to reduce recidivism. Bogus argument, absolutely zero empirical evidence to support this statement. Does not even factor into top five list of issues effecting recidivism.

Posted by: guest at June 18, 2008 11:10 PM

it is still much cheaper to reopen the jail than to now begin to look for a new site, and begin the whole process of research, and finally build. Which could take years- and what do you do in the meantime? and a lot more taxpayer money.

Beyond bitching about the DOC, and freaking over possibly seeing a shackled- oh the horror! the horror!- prisoner,I have not heard a single argument that supports not using or expanding the jail. It has not been a problem in the neighborhood, other than it ain't pretty. It has most definitely not stopped gentrification and new construction. Considering how many more people are moving into the area thanks to new construction, you can hardly freak over a few thousand more family members visiting. they certainly aren't running around in the neighborhood knocking over old ladies and kicking babies.

The jail serves an important function and it is in an appropriate area. So why not just get over yourselves? Maybe you just don't like the idea of a jail in your elitist midst but until you can show me statistics that the jail has impacted the area in a negative way, it's just a crock. every neighborhood has to deal with city services, why shouldn't you?

Posted by: guest at June 19, 2008 12:08 AM

The neighborhood already does deal with with its fair share of city services. Fare more than most - MTA, court system, borough hall, Board of Education, etc.

Posted by: guest at June 20, 2008 2:36 PM

The Department of Corrections claims the BHOD is "too valuable and irreplaceable a building to relinquish."
Source: 3/5/08 Letter from Horn to Stakeholders

THE TRUTH: The BHOD is an antiquated relic in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is worth more to the city and the community as a commercial development for minority business owners than as an overcrowded prison.
- The city owns land that would be more appropriately allocated to a prison, including property at the Navy Yard and unused land at the site of the Metropolitan Detention Center and Riker's Island.
- The BHOD sits on one of the most valuable blocks in Downtown Brooklyn.
Source: 5/13/08 Editorial, Brooklyn Daily Eagle
- Selling or leasing the BHOD would bring the city much-needed tax revenue (conservatively estimated at $20 million annually).
Source: 4/24/08 Press Release by Comptroller Thompson
- Comptroller Thompson advocates selling the site because it is "important to return the property to the city's tax rolls in an effort to promote the further revitalization of the Atlantic Avenue corridor and to bring the city much needed revenue."
Source: 4/24/08 Press Release

Posted by: guest at June 24, 2008 10:42 AM

Downtown Mobilizes To Stop Jail Expansion
published online THE BROOKLYN EAGLE 06-23-2008

Upcoming Meeting To Feature Yassky, Other Elected Officials

By Dennis Holt
Brooklyn Daily Eagle

BROOKLYN — The challenge to the city proposal’s to double the size of the Brooklyn House of Detention by building a second building comparable to the existing one has intensified and is becoming a comprehensive political issue.

On Thursday, June 26, City Councilman David Yassky will host a press conference at 12:30 p.m. at the House of Detention on Atlantic Avenue to protest the city plan. He is expected to be joined by several other elected officials including Councilman Bill de Blasio and city Comptroller William Thompson. Although elected officials have voiced opposition to the jail proposal before, this press event is the first overt political step. It is anticipated that comments, and perhaps proposals will be made about an existing $500 million capital line in the city budget to build the jail expansion.

The House of Detention was closed in 2003 and is still closed, with prisoners being transferred to Rikers Island. This effort failed because of conditions there and because the city did not invest money to improve them.

The current Brooklyn facility has a capacity of more than 700 beds, and the new proposal would enlarge that capacity to about 1,500 beds. A building about the size of the current facility will need to be built.

Community opposition has been building for more than a year. A group calling itself the Stakeholders Group has existed for some time. It is composed of the Boerum Hill Association, the Cobble Hill Association, the Atlantic Avenue LDC, the Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association and tenants from some of the new apartment complexes in the area.

Last week, a new group was formed, largely, but no means entirely from new homeowners on State Street in Boerum Hill. A meeting was held on Saturday, June 14, and by Sunday afternoon storefronts all over Smith Street, Court Street and Atlantic Avenue were festooned by stark posters featuring the command “Stop the Jail.”

The more than 30 people attending this meeting were divided into teams that then canvassed the neighborhood, both commercial and residential buildings and did so. Calling themselves Stop the House of Detention, the constituency includes more than just homeowners.

One of them is Jim Walden who is a member of the Manhattan law firm Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. This firm went to court to stop a similar plan to build a new house of detention in the Bronx at Oak Hill. That effort was a success.

One of the issues this group is focusing on is the city’s decision that it does not have to go through the city land use review process to double the size of the jail. If nothing changes, this clearly will become an actionable issue.

The new group has created a new web site known as www.stopbhod.org. “BHOD” means, of course, Brooklyn House of Detention.

© Brooklyn Daily Eagle 2008

Posted by: guest at July 2, 2008 10:09 PM

Brooklyn Jail Opponents Speak Out
NY SUN
By HOPE HODGE, Special to the Sun
June 27, 2008

Elected officials and neighbors of the long-closed Brooklyn Detention Center are protesting plans to reopen and expand the facility.
Share Share Email

The jail at 275 Atlantic Ave. closed its doors in 2003, and since plans to reopen the facility and double its inmate capacity were announced in 2007, a tense tug-of-war between the city's Department of Correction and local officials has ensued. The city is expected to announce a developer and begin a $440 million redevelopment by the end of July.

Yesterday, dozens of Brooklyn residents waving "Stop the Jail" signs stood in protest with the local City Council member, David Yassky, the city comptroller, William Thompson Jr., and a handful of state legislators.

"This is a case where the Department of Correction is saying, 'If it isn't broke, break it,'" Mr. Thompson, an expected mayoral candidate in 2009, said yesterday.

He and Mr. Yassky, who is running for comptroller, described how downtown Brooklyn has become increasingly residential and attractive to small businesses since the jail's closing.

They urged Mayor Bloomberg to sell the property and build more jail space on Rikers Island instead.

A recently formed citizen action group, StopBHOD, is opposing the development, citing a lack of transparency and adequate research on the effects of reopening.

"They're trying to railroad it through without going through the process," an organization spokesman, David Wieder, said.

The correction department plan would increase the jail's capacity to 1,479 from 815.

A deputy commissioner of the department, Stephen Morello, did not immediately return a request for comment yesterday. In the past, the department has defended the Brooklyn expansion as part of a larger plan to decrease citywide jail capacity and allow local inmates to live near their families.

Posted by: guest at July 3, 2008 12:03 AM