Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo

(1) "Uh", half off, I think what Goldstein was referring to was the state lowballing folks (like him) who had previously rejected a developer's initial, generous offer and instead choose to fight.

(2) Right on smeyer, people shouldn't get their panties all in a bunch right now over the fact that the state has started low ... it is a negotiating stance after all.

(3) This is just my personal opinion, but Goldstein and the whole DDDB crew are a bit too self-indulgent for my tastes. I hear what babs is saying, that giving him anything less than fair value sets a bad precedent for the rest of us should the state come looking for our property in the future (although the big caveat from above is that the state will probably pay him fair value and is just starting out from a low point, which is a page out of Negotiation 101), but that notwithstanding part of me would love for him to get smacked down with a lowball price for dragging this charade on for years too long.

Posted by: be_rude at November 16, 2009 11:12 AM

The neighborhood that Ratner is "running roughshod over" is a desolate rail yard. Yes, there are some other steets/structures on the periphery, but by and large it is a desolate hole. Let's call a spade a spade: it is a place in need of redevelopment. And most homeowners took the windfall, market-peak buyouts Ratner offered. Hardly a bad deal for them.

Taxpayers may (or may not) be getting a rough deal, but public subsidies for redevelopment and sports facilities are nothing new. We can debate ad nauseum whether public $$ should be involoved with stuff like this, but the fact is there was no "curtain covering up business as usual" that Goldstein's intrepid group of crack sleuths uncovered and tore down. If you don't think this is anything but business as usual, I have a bridge I may want to sell you.

Goldstein is just a NIMBY whiner, and one of the things that irks me the most about DDDB and its apologists is how they recoil at any NIMBY association. Just embrace it, Dan, and I'd have less of a problem with you. And if the group is really about righteous indignation with corporate/government tie-ups and improper use of public money -- and not merely NIMBY whining -- why did you call it DDDB not, say, DDDNYC, or DDDNYS?? I guess DDDB is better than DDD-the-corner-of-Atlantic-and-Flatbush, though. That'd be too obvious.

Posted by: be_rude at November 16, 2009 12:57 PM

Read my post, bxgrl, I acknowledge that the "neighborhood" is not stritly a rail yard. There is peripheral stuff, but that's all it is: peripheral. The site is, priniciply, a vacant hole in the middle of a vibrant borough, and the anti-AY crowd needs to stop cloaking it as anything more.

And, bxgrl, this thread is full of "whining over Goldstein" because the article in question is about Goldstein.

While there are some legitimate advocacy groups (are you involved with one?? If so, kudos) that are fighting this on the same grounds they've fought many similar battles before, Goldstein's group isn't one of them. He is a NIMBY pure and simple. Did he ever care about, or protest against, eminent domain abuse before _his_ house was threatened? I think we all know the answer. My point is merely that he has a narrow focus based on what's happening to him, but he's appropriated the image of some righteous crusader for all poor souls, which is disingenuous at best.

I don't have any problem with folks objecting to "all the minuses of this particular development" -- though I happen to disagree with them. I do have a problem with self-satisfied folks feigning some grand purpose when all they really care about is themselves.

Posted by: be_rude at November 16, 2009 2:13 PM

southbrooklyn & bxgirl: I am perfectly well informed about the site, and how the footprint extends beyond merely the yards. Do I need to say it a third time?? Other stuff is peripheral. I never said the million dollar condos themselves were a sign of blight, but they are right next door to a major area of blight and are peripheral to a development project that far exceeds the scope of the incremental, pre-Ratner projects that created them. You both may be happy with incremental improvements creeping along -- ensuring the yards continue to remain largely vacant for decades to come, as they were pre-Ratner -- which is of course your prerogative. But don't get all self-rightous and paint a picture of someone steamrolling leafy neighborhoods as if there weren't a huge urban eysore at the core of this site. That's all I'm saying.

And bxgirl, while I've come to enjoy this spirited back-and-forth, I'll say it once again: please read what I write before you spout off. I never said my thoughts about Goldstein were anything but personal (see: #3 at 11:12 AM). And no, I never cared about ED before (did you??). But then again, I am not the one getting all self-rightous about ED now only when it happens to suit me, am I? You're missing my point. And you ask did anyone care about ED before this? YES. There are other folks involved in this who have legitimately fought these battles, across the city and state, for years. I give them credibility ... I just find folks like Goldstein self-indulgent (as I clearly said before).

Posted by: be_rude at November 16, 2009 3:59 PM

bx, maybe this is where we aren't seeing eye to eye: I don't think calling DDDB "NIMBY" automatically delegitimizes it, it just calls it what it really is. And as to other AY-opponents, I am not (and have not) addressed any of this toward them, so I'm not delegitimizing out-of-hand the "very real" objections of all opposed to this. In fact, I've said repeatedly that there are other groups/individuals involved, on the opposition side, who I find credible.

I don't assume that DDDB has no legitimate interest in what's happening (they clearly do, and that's precisely the point: they have the interest not to move out; the interest not to have a project they oppose "in their backyard" -- their interest is the very definition of NIMBY!). Further, I don't assume DDDB haven't educated themselves on the issues (clearly they have so they could propogate a picture of cronyism and stall this thing in court).

And just to clarify, I don't know Goldstein personally, and have never met him. My opinion just has to do with his approach -- one that seems disingenuous, self-satisfied, and above all NIMBY desperately attempting to disguise itself as something else -- but it's just that, a personal opinion, and you are free to disagree. However, if you don't want "Goldstein's presumed personality issues" overshadowing real issues he's addressing, then perhaps you should start by not conflating Goldstein & AY yourself. In other words, avoid responding to discussion threads specifically about Goldstein and launching into more of the same anti-Ratner invective.

Posted by: be_rude at November 16, 2009 6:58 PM

Invective may be too strong, I grant you.

Here is where you sarcastically shift a conversation about Goldstein to yet another anti-Ratner rant: "Sure- I would so much rather have a Ratner running roughshod over taxpayers, neighborhoods and homeowners than a Daniel Goldstein and DDDB who actually had the guts to stand up to him and his steamroller. Yeah. Really. A Brooklyn Basketball team is just so much more important than all of that. (Psssst....wanna buy a bridge?)"

You're not calling him names or insulting him personally, true. Your tone is obvious, though, and you're trotting out the same tired anti-Ratner cliches about steamrolling, running roughshod over defenseless folks, etc. So I'll revise my statement: "...perhaps you should start by not conflating Goldstein & AY yourself. In other words, avoid responding to discussion threads specifically about Goldstein and launching into more of the same [tired] anti-Ratner [rants]."

My point remains, though, you're the one linking Goldstein to your broader complaints about the project, not me.

And to clarify my thoughts yet again (is big jugs the only one who need to brush up on reading comp??), you're close, but I don't believe Dan Goldstein shouldn't be "allowed" to protest. He can do whatever he wants. But call a spade a spade, that's all I ask. Because the project is, literally, right in his backyard and he's never shown any concern for lofty issues such as ED abuse and the common man before, he's not some altruistic crusader here, he's simply a guy who doesn't want something built and is resorting to any means possible to cloak his persoanl desire in something more palatable. Or, as I already said earlier today: "Just embrace it, Dan, and I'd have less of a problem with you. And if the group is really about righteous indignation with corporate/government tie-ups and improper use of public money -- and not merely NIMBY whining -- why did you call it DDDB not, say, DDDNYC, or DDDNYS?? I guess DDDB is better than DDD-the-corner-of-Atlantic-and-Flatbush, though. That'd be too obvious."

Posted by: be_rude at November 16, 2009 7:58 PM