Marty Weighs In On City's Coney Plan

When was the last itme you were in Coney Island, benson? Everytime I've been, it's been crowded with families and people out enjoying the beach and the amusements. It may not be your cup of tea but Sitt would make it disappear or make it so expensive that the majority of NYers who can't afford pricey entertainment would lose one of the few palces they can go to enjoy the sun and the water.

What's the big deal with building up the waterfront on a small scale and going with the iconic Coney Island? Does everything have to look like Donald Trump tossed pixie dust on it and it has to be glossy, plastic and fake?

Posted by: bxgrl at May 7, 2009 11:33 AM

benson- no one said anything about eminent domain and Joe Sitt bought the land understanding full well what would be involved in terms of zoning, aprrovals and such. I can't weep too much for him and his idea of Trumpifying CI is stupid. Trump and Las Vegas and Disney world may be your taste but to hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, we just want a place to enjoy in the summer without having saccharine perky fake Snow Whites and Mickey Mouses in foam rubber suits chirping through the streets and eating a hot dog that doesn't run you $8.00 without the sauerkraut.

If Joe Sitt wanted to really make money, he should have gone with a venue that would be less controversial and in a less iconic spot. Like it or not, Coney Island is a landmark and holds a place in hearts and minds. Ferlinghetti, Baldwin, Paul Cadmus, george Tooker - a slew of artists and photographers are all testament to Coney Island.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 7, 2009 3:49 PM

Sparafucile- If the Brooklyn Bridge Park can have co-op or condo buildings in the park area, with private waterfront access or club memberships, who's to say that the residents of the luxury housing Sitt want to put up won't also want private amenities- and get it? If Ratner can get NYC to agree to close off an entire section of Pacific St. for his project, you going to tell me with complete certainty that Sitt will never get special favors regarding the waterfront? remembering that waterfront property is so highly desireable?

Posted by: bxgrl at May 7, 2009 3:53 PM

I think there has been a concerted movement toward giving developers of hi profile projects whatever they want- and I think AY is a case in point. The layout and economics of the areas are different- and the Meier building is on the perimeiter of the park on a residential block. Sitt's buildings, as far as I can tell, will be right along the waterfront, and it will be a huge development. There's been similar situations in other, albeit, smaller towns and cities where private property is so situated as to make it difficult for people to reach public beaches, and have even petitioned to privateize access (their argument being they are paying so much money).

I really don't know the technicalities of BBP but I thought the whole brouhaha over the coops and condos was that they would be on public parkland, and the idea was to make the park self-sustaining financially.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 7, 2009 4:31 PM

benson- I'm not disparaging anything. And actually a number of people have tried in the past to build Coney Island up again, only to be discouraged at every turn by the city- but please don't try to claim Joe Sitt has anything other than his own interests at heart. What he wants to do will totally change the character of Coney Island, make it much more expensive for residents of the area, and build a Las Vegas on the Atlantic- all glitz, all the time. It's one thing to invest in Coney Island (and yes, he is putting up his own money, as Ratner did when he was buying property in the AY area, but then what? Tell me there willl be no tax abatements or breaks and no public funds sunk into this? Tell me Sitt will not take every advantage and every dime to make sure his investment is protected, even at taxpayer expense- yet somehow we never consider that aspect of these big overbaked developments. They're grandious, and other than throwing a bone to the community, they really care nothing for that community except as its to their advantage. Sitt is not doing whats best or good for Coney Island, or the City- he's doing what's best for Joe Sitt and his vision of Coney Island.

And not that he shouldn't- after all, its business. But we both know that this is hardly a case of it's my property, I'll do what I want- its far more complicated because whatever he does will impact thousands of other people. That's life in the big city and he is well aware of it. But like Ratner, he thinks money gives him the right to do whatever he pleases. That's not the reality.

All the public institutions, the publically owned lands- are funded by taxes. They belong to the public no matter how many politicians forget that or developers want to forget that.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 7, 2009 5:26 PM