Actually FSRQ we pointed to the Atlantic Yards Report. Not our "own website." And what we were pointing to was a direct quote from the Empire State Development Corporation confirming that the tax credit goes, entirely, to Atlantic Yards.

Our website is DDDB.net, On it we broke the news about this tax credit, not from a Google search, but rather from a federal document. You'll not in the post Brownstoner links to we explain that it is a tax credit.

Posted by: DDDB at November 2, 2009 5:45 PM in response to Uncertainty, Skepticism Around Arena Bond Offering

FSRQ, the $55 million tax credit is completely allocated for AY. That is, at least, according to the ESDC.

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2009/10/forest-city-gets-55m-in-federal-tax.html

Not fungible, not made up. Just a quick and easy fact.

Posted by: DDDB at November 2, 2009 4:06 PM in response to Uncertainty, Skepticism Around Arena Bond Offering

The DDDB translation is not a Google translation. It is a Russian speaking human's translation. (http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_Linked.php?id=2329)

As for whether or not it is a good deal for Prokhorov or Ratner or taxpayers, the details and amounts of the transaction are far from clear. Though we expect them to be announced today (weds) or tomorrow. Will they be clear then so the speculation can stop and the analysis can start? We'll see.

Posted by: DDDB at September 23, 2009 10:26 AM in response to Mikhail Prokhorov's Unique Offer

FtGreene Corey,

your logic is faulty, unless you think Thompson only has the support of 2,000 people?

Posted by: DDDB at September 18, 2009 2:23 PM in response to Russian Billionaire To Bail Out Ratner?

To FSRQ:

While obviously we disagree that THIS arena will be an asset for the Borough, DDDB and many others have been trying for years to get the ESDC and Forest City Ratner to take a realistic look at what the arena and the rest of the project would do to exacerbate the traffic problem. To come up with a mitigation plan.

They have not.

As of yesterday the ESDC, yet again, approved a project with no traffic plan, even while they admit the project would add at least 23,000 new vehicular trips per day.

We've explained, as have many others including transportation experts, that the subway hub is at capacity already. ESDC has said that is not a problem.

So we have tried for years to do exactly as you suggest. As have other groups and coalitions.

It has fallen on deaf ears.

We do not have an all or nothing plan. we want to see the rail yards developed in a rational way. This current plan is irrational and not feasible and the best way to ensure that the rail yards remain undeveloped for decades.

As for who we represent:
We have over 4,500 individual donors. By way of comparison. Mayoral candidate Bill Thompson was bragging about how he has 2,000 donors in a citywide race.

So who do we represent? We represent those who support our efforts, those who oppose AY. And those numbers are far bigger than those who support Forest City.

Insomuch as you say we represent personal agendas, that is just false and easily refuted.

Also, you should note that the leading political opponent just handily trounced her rival, who happens to be the chair of the AY CBA. 12 of the 15 candidates in the 33rd and 39th did not support AY. And the two winners of the 33rd and 39th primary do not support AY. And the three assembly members in and around the site, do not support AY. and the three senators in and around the site do not support AY. and the three community boards in and around the site do not support AY.

Surely those are not all personal agendas. Surely all of those representatives want what is best for the Borough.

Finally, the AY plan calls for 3,800 parking spots and long term, interim surface parking. That is precisely what DDDB is trying to stop from happening.

Perhaps you can suggest your strategy for fixing those traffic and parking problems.

Ours is to stop the degraded AY project from happening and move forward through a public process toward a UNITY Plan-like development over the rail yards. That's our long term, very out in the open agenda.

Posted by: DDDB at September 18, 2009 12:14 PM in response to Russian Billionaire To Bail Out Ratner?

Professionals are free from the burden of ethics? Not in most professional fields.

Posted by: DDDB at September 14, 2009 4:36 PM in response to Closing Bell: DDDB's Letter to SHoP

Precisely the problem.

Justin Davidson says the same thing as we do, just more colorfully and succinctly.

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/59004/

Posted by: DDDB at September 14, 2009 4:26 PM in response to Closing Bell: DDDB's Letter to SHoP

In response to Barclays' Bob Diamond in the Star Ledger...

Barclays' Bob Diamond: We Have to Brand Brooklyn to Save It
http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_Linked.php?id=2267

Posted by: DDDB at August 31, 2009 12:37 PM in response to Monday Links

"Why don't Brooklynites ban together to make an offer for the yards?"

They did and the MTA paid no attention, just like they did when Extell outbid Ratner in 2005.

The DDDB offer for the yards to build a project using the UNITY Plan framework was firm offer and still stands. The details presented to the MTA Board are here:

http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_Linked.php?id=2145

Posted by: DDDB at June 25, 2009 1:09 PM in response to MTA Ignores Fiduciary Duty, Approves Revised Yards Plan

Remember FCR's arena was approved at $637 million. In less than 2 years it went up to $950, and now $800 million, they say. Construction materials did not go up at that rate. Why did it go up so much; was it affordable at approval? Was it ever possible to build architecturally or financially? No. Especially ever since Forest City scrapped the commercial tower that never had any demand anyway.

Notably Ouroussoff's tirade places the blame squarely on Forest City Ratner's head and, to a lesser extent, government—right where it belongs.

Our opposition to Atlantic Yards, to name just a few reasons, has always been about the political corruption, the sweetheart, backroom deals, the laughable and undemocratic approval "process," the ongoing bait-and-switch, the feeding from the public subsidy trough, the abuse of eminent domain, the superblocks, and the offensive scale and density of the project. We also weren't too pleased when the now-lamented Gehry said in 2003 that he was "excited to build a neighborhood practically from scratch."

The opposition is about the concept of the arena itself, NOT what it looks like or who designed it. It was wrongheaded as a concept in 2003, and it is wrongheaded as a concept now. An arena doesn't belong and doesn't fit in the fabric of Brownstone Brooklyn, or any residential neighborhood. That is why city zoning regulations, overridden in this instance by the state, do not allow arenas in residential neighborhoods.

Ellerbe Becket, Lemony Snicket or Frank Gehry could be the architect, but it all would be just so much window-dressing on an affront to the community.

There is no accounting for taste. Some like Gehry some don't. Some like Ellerbe Becket (really, some do) and some don't. Whether one prefers spaceships or airplane hangars is not the issue.

We fully understand that Ouroussoff must view the project through his critic's lens, and well he should (though had he brought his skeptic's lens earlier, he might not be kicking himself now.) And though we don't agree with him that Atlantic Yards was ever about the public good—even as architecture—we do agree with him that Ratner's dumping of Gehry is a "shameful betrayal of the public trust," and a bait-and-switch.

The final dots that need to be connected are left unconnected by Ourossoff. Bait-and-switchers don't just bait-and-switch once, it is a pattern. And if Ratner's Gehry bait-and-switch is stunning, so is the bait-and-switch on "affordable" housing, "publicly accessible open space," job creation, commercial space, reneging on a contract with the MTA, and changing the project timeline from 10 years to, unofficially "decades" and officially 6 years to build just the arena according to state financing documents. Atlantic Yards itself is a monument to bait-and-switch.

And remember, numerous times over the past six months various Ratner team members, including Bruce Ratner, Nets President Brett Yormark, and Forest City Ratner mouthpiece Joe DePlasco have all told the public, through reporters, that Frank Gehry was their architect for the arena when all the while Elllerbe Becket was working up their new "spiritless box" or "airplane hangar."

Why should anyone trust Forest City about anything they say or do, at this point?

Now we need our elected leaders, starting with Gov Paterson, to restore the public trust, to convince us that they view the public as more than mere play things for duplicitous developers and backdrops for ribbon cuttings. We need the man in charge of the two agencies preparing to make concessions to Forest City for its Zombie Project—the MTA and the Empire State Development Corporation—to say enough is enough, and take away Ratner's tackle box so the Atlantic Yards bait-and-switch ploys can be put to rest.

Posted by: DDDB at June 11, 2009 10:32 AM in response to Ratner Cans Gehry For Good

Polemicist: The land is not state property. If one day it become state property, then you are correct, the zoning override by the state overrides the city zoning regulations and no rezoning required. But, if Atlantic Yards does not happen, and Ratner wants to develop the non rail yard properties, he'd have to get a city rezoning.

The demapping has nothing to do with the decking. the demapping has to do with the superblocking. Also, they will not be demapped, they would be condemned by eminent domain just like the private properties.

bkn4life wrote:

"i repectfully disagree that the final nail in the coffin has been filed. you have done good work and it may be enough. but for my money, there is more awaitin the rat."

not saying at all that the "final nail is in the coffin." That is not the case whatsoever. What the comment said is that you were saying you'd be interested in a lawsuit challenging the blight finding, and that suit has been filed.

more about it here:
http://dddb.net/FEIS/appeal/index.php

Posted by: DDDB at December 16, 2008 12:33 PM in response to Atlantic Yards: Beneficiary or Victim of Economy?

bkn4life you wrote:

I smell a class action suit coming regarding arbitrary rules for blight determination that gracie mansion wouldnt pass.

When they want to file that one, ill jump in also as it impacts EVERYONE in the city.

----------

That blight challenge is pending a decision from the appellate division. The account of the Sept. 17 courtroom argument is here:

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2008/09/in-appeal-of-case-challenging-ay.html

So, it has been filed. If you would like to jump in, that is still possible by helping with the legal fees for the community-funded suit. Just visit:

http://www.dddb.net/donate

Posted by: DDDB at December 16, 2008 10:44 AM in response to Atlantic Yards: Beneficiary or Victim of Economy?

bheilig and I disagree,

there are 2 lawsuits DDDB has organized and is funding with the support of community contributions.

The EIS appeal is pending a decision. The eminent domain lawsuit will be argued next year.

The status and other information on those suits can be found at:

http://www.dddb.net/php/status.php

Posted by: DDDB at November 21, 2008 12:54 PM in response to FCR: We Control the Pace at Atlantic Yards