Let that be lesson. Certain applications to LPC are approvable at the staff level and applicants are well-served by hiring architects (and other consultants, as necessary) that understand the law and the process. Seems like some people in "the community" might want or need to (re-)familiarize themselves with the law and the process as well.

Posted by: g man at November 19, 2009 6:38 PM in response to Thursday Blogwrap

The overview, with a link to the text amendment itself, is on the Department of City Planning's website at:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/rsp/index.shtml

Posted by: g man at November 17, 2009 1:28 PM in response to City Planning Targeting Curb Cuts

Rob, Chris isn't being a snob when he writes, "Nothing like these tacky guesses. going to be at a higher level fer sure...." His comment reflects, not that we have conferred about this, the desire of Muss Development to offer restaurant choices "appropriate" to the guests at the Marriott. I use that word, and in quotes, to indicate that it doesn't necessarily have to be an upscale eatery, but one at least perceived as such by hotel guests who may come from places with fewer options.

I don't go to steak joints so I don't have an opinion on how nice Morton's is, compared to Lugers (non-chain) or Ruth Chris (different chain). But I think it is perceived as a dependable, urban steakhouse. I remember 25 years ago when Legal Seafood was a big deal, a must stop on a trip to Boston. You can find any number of better fish restaurants now but the Legal Seafood brand still resonates. And let's not kid ourselves, brownstoner readers may want to rush to that new, still-undiscovered frogs leg hut on the Sunset Park waterfront, but most Amerikans like the predictability of a chain.

PF Changs is categorically a good guess. Legal Seafood. But forget places like Olive Garden, Red Lobster--yeah, they would probably be very profitable but the hotel guests can go to places like that at the mall back home. If Muss can land something first rate, "River Cafe, Upland Edition," it will. Otherwise, my prediction is a chain that has some cachet, even if the reputation is undeserved, at least by New York standards.

Posted by: g man at November 12, 2009 9:04 AM in response to 'Nationally Known' Restaurants May Land in 345 Adams

DOT also won't install speed humps on truck routes.

Posted by: g man at November 4, 2009 6:03 PM in response to Closing Bell: Columbia Street Traffic Petition

tybur, thanks. I didn't get the memo and will look at apartments in Jersey on my day off tomorrow ... after I vote for Thompson, of course.

You concede my point that the "average" is less than you assume in your first point but ultimately prove that you are working from real data. Look at that attrition! I guess that most of the people in the higher salaries are supervisors of some sort, and not just guys who have hung in there for 20 years.

Posted by: g man at November 2, 2009 11:02 AM in response to DOB: A Challenge for All Times (and Mayors)

P.S.: Most city employees are REQUIRED to live in the city.

Posted by: g man at November 2, 2009 10:02 AM in response to DOB: A Challenge for All Times (and Mayors)

If the starting salary is $48K, the salary after two years (the "incumbent" rate) would be around $54K. (I checked for actual numbers but there are currently no inspector positions advertised at DOB.) Salaries then increase at the cost of living per union negotiation; let's say 3 percent per annum. At that rate, an inspector would need to have about eight years on the job to make $65K and approximately 15 years of seniority to make $80K. Does this alleged "average" inspector actually exist or does s/he just make a good straw wo/man?

Posted by: g man at November 2, 2009 9:58 AM in response to DOB: A Challenge for All Times (and Mayors)

"Personally, we [Who is we? The editorial board at brownstoner?] think it's too early to pronounce Downtown Brooklyn a failure by any stretch. ... The big test will then be whether or not a critical mass of the kinds of businesses that upscale residents want will follow: restaurants, gourmet food markets, wine stores, etc."

As the article states, Downtown Brooklyn "was rezoned to foster development of new office towers to compete with New Jersey." To point to a handful of projects on Flatbush Avenue and then beat the drum for residential services misses the point.

I find it funny that joe thinks this article bashes the mayor. I spoke today with some of the people quoted in the article and every one of them said the reporters used only their most gentle comments. It could have been much tougher.

Posted by: g man at October 29, 2009 12:50 PM in response to Evaluating the Mayor's Development Legacy

Okay, in order, responding to DBD:

Is "Clinton Hill South" a historic district on the federal and state register of historic places? It is not a city historic district.

There will likely be no appeal to the SBA or even the BSA--either the Board of Standards and Appeals or the Boy Scouts of America. As pointed out by others, any project that moves forward will almost certainly have to be an application to the Department of City Planning for a rezoning, but the rest of what you wrote about the development rights seems generally accurate without my getting out my slide-rule.

I have heard nothing about acquiring adjacent property. In fact, my understanding is that CNR doesn't even seek to construct a building that uses all of the development rights allowable under R7A on the lot it leases, just the building it designed prior to the lawsuit and rezoning. Did I miss something, or is this worst-case scenario conjecture?

"everyone knows that CNR is simply not trying to build senior housing but also expand its medical, nursing and rehabilitation services now located at 520 Prospect Place." I don't know that. In fact, I don't think the proposed building has any of the facilities necessary to support this allegation. That makes the whole post at 7:37 a straw man.

Again, this issue is for other people to sort out, but I think doing so is made more difficult if folks are making up their minds based on inaccuracies, conjecture and hyperbole. Please don't presume to know what is important to me and not based on my interest in having the facts presented straight-forwardly.

Posted by: g man at October 20, 2009 11:14 AM in response to Dim Hopes for CNR's Senior Center

Maly, I wasn't trying to be cryptic. I'll rephrase. IF (key word here, after Thursday's meeting) they decide to proceed, CNR can apply to upzone an area smaller than the entire block, thereby addressing ONE community concern--that "outsized" (to use brownstoner's word) buildings could result all along Lefferts. Was that clearer?

Posted by: g man at October 19, 2009 4:42 PM in response to Dim Hopes for CNR's Senior Center

As I commented in the earlier thread, I do not think CNR needs to apply to rezone the entire (one side) of the street, nor will they if they decide to proceed. I think the comments by maly and slick are misinformed at least and deceptive on purpose at worst.

And while I am playing fact-checker, the big red oval in the image above makes it seem like the White Castle is included in the site; it is not.

Finally, to avoid a repeat of the exchange in the earlier thread, I don't have a position on this proposal other than wanting the facts to be presented accurately.

Posted by: g man at October 19, 2009 3:44 PM in response to Dim Hopes for CNR's Senior Center

I believe there were several developers of the portion of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area that is north of Atlantic Terrace. Hudson Companies was one, if recollection serves (as it does less and less often. I am old enough to remember the meat packers that moved to this area after being displaced from Manhattan.)

re: "the players"--threecee is right; jack slade is wrong.

Posted by: g man at October 17, 2009 11:29 AM in response to Atlantic Terrace Applications Available Nov 1

DBD, I don't have a dog in this fight other than a desire to have the facts accurately presented. None of my comments above express an opinion on the project.

Posted by: g man at October 16, 2009 2:38 PM in response to Meeting About Special Lefferts Rezoning Request Tonight

Well, 1842, I guess we will all know later tonight. I stand by my earlier comment.

Posted by: g man at October 15, 2009 4:30 PM in response to Meeting About Special Lefferts Rezoning Request Tonight

I do not believe that a zoning application, if filed, will be for the entire block (or for all three blocks south of Lefferts Place, as I have also heard).

Posted by: g man at October 15, 2009 2:03 PM in response to Meeting About Special Lefferts Rezoning Request Tonight

"...proposal to get a special upzoning of a block of Lefferts Place to enable them to build an outsized supportive services facility on the otherwise residential block."

I don't think this description is accurate.

Posted by: g man at October 15, 2009 12:29 PM in response to Meeting About Special Lefferts Rezoning Request Tonight

I heard HRA is also moving to 470 Vanderbilt. Don't know if it is the same unit that planned on moving to MetroTech. Interesting that GFI--I think that's the new owner--has been able to sign leases there after the previous owners would or could not.

Posted by: g man at October 15, 2009 12:25 PM in response to Commercial Klutch: October Edition

Although there was a bureaucracy involved and there were inefficiencies, most of the delay in opening this community center was not bureaucratic in nature.

Posted by: g man at October 13, 2009 12:32 PM in response to Ingersoll Center Finally Open (Sorta)

"2013!! what are they going to do, have an EIR (sic) and a $million (sic) study for the express train?" No, express service cannot begin until the MTA finishes the capital project just begun.

Posted by: g man at October 13, 2009 12:29 PM in response to MTA Sets Course for F Train

"greenshoot?" Would someone please broaden my vocabulary?

Posted by: g man at October 7, 2009 12:12 PM in response to Giddyup! Best Western Preps for New Downtown Location

Dock Street isn't in the DUMBO Historic District.
www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/maps/DUMBO_map.pdf

Posted by: g man at October 7, 2009 12:08 PM in response to Exhibit: LPC Sometimes Digs Newfangled Buildings

Canine unit? b4g, are you referring to the former Brooklyn Naval Hospital property? If so, BNYDC has been talking about making that a film/video post-production facility and back-lot. Kind of a spin-off from Steiner Studios.

Posted by: g man at October 5, 2009 2:03 PM in response to Admiring Admiral's Row

Gramps, the property is owned by the Department of Defence and was assigned to the National Guard Bureau. Pursuant to federal military base relocation legislation, the local municipality has the right of first refusal. If the city acquires the land, it has stated it would transfer it to the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation. If the city does not take title, it would be sold through the federal General Services Administraion with the same restrictions developed as part of the Section 106 process.

Posted by: g man at October 5, 2009 11:42 AM in response to Admiring Admiral's Row

There are still two weeks before the deadline for responding to the Navy Yard RFP. FGA, HDC, Scott Witter and others, possibly in cooperation, can submit a proposal with an experienced developer for construction of the supermarket and industrial building while preserving more or even all of Admirals Row. Many of the preservationists have asserted that it is financially possible to save the buildings and construct the new facilities planned by the Navy Yard. They have had since July to prove it.

Posted by: g man at October 5, 2009 10:29 AM in response to Admiring Admiral's Row

"BK Papers story a bit senstational." Aren't they all?

Isn't there a tenant who controls multiple floors and sub-leases space? If so, that may have led to some of them being out of the loop.

Posted by: g man at September 30, 2009 5:08 PM in response to 25 Washington Conversion Confirmed

wyckoff, I believe Pane E Vino is in Community Board 2. I heard they are working on similar back-yard noise complaints at Camp.

Just for the record, I'm with herkimermaid and woodys. Yeah, it's a city and yeah, it's gonna be noiser than the 'burbs. But it is possible to have a lively metropolis without an 'anything goes' attitude.

Posted by: g man at September 28, 2009 1:28 PM in response to Noise Recourse?

Not too [high] a price to pay for smooth streets, constructed in the most economical way for the city and its contractor.

Posted by: g man at September 22, 2009 1:21 PM in response to Sleepless on Livingston

"The issue everyone here along livingston is having is that this isn't a major street that has to be done during the night. This block of livingston (between Clinton and Court) is virtually all residential and one-way... so basically the city decided that we should all have to stay up for a night so that some cars driving through during the day don't have to drive an extra block today while circling around looking for parking."

Actually, no. The city decided to do your predominantly residential block at the same time it resurfaced the more commercial part of Livingston Street, which is a major street and does need to be done at night. The city decided to plan the job for operational efficiencies and economies, rather than your convenience. These jobs generally are one night for milling and a week or so later, one night for paving, every five to ten years. Not too big a price to pay, is it?

Posted by: g man at September 22, 2009 11:56 AM in response to Sleepless on Livingston

I understand the process Chris (Your comment at 11:34). But based on the people I've been talking to, selling the idea of a school to the community hasn't gone so well, at least so far. That's why I questioned the characterization, "the developer is apparently close to doing a deal."

Posted by: g man at September 21, 2009 12:31 PM in response to Friends' Expansion Making Enemies on State?

1. "...the developer is apparently close to doing a deal with Brooklyn Friends School...."

2. "In order to do this, however, IBEC needs New York State to void the restrictions it placed on the property when it sold the land to IBEC in 2004."

These two statements seem to contradict each other.

Posted by: g man at September 21, 2009 11:00 AM in response to Friends' Expansion Making Enemies on State?

"The city charges tennis players $7 per hour, or $100 per year, to play. Absolutely none of that money goes directly to tennis courts, but instead subsidizes sports that are free, like handball, softball, etc."

First off, my recollection of most of the weekend softball games at Bedford and North 12th is league play, which is permitted, which means there is a fee. Furthermore, per law, almost all income of any sort goes into the general fund and when it comes out the other end, who knows what it is spent on. New tires for a fire truck, for all we know. Tennis fees, or fees to swim at Met Pool, don't subsidize anything.

I suspect the decision about what fields to build on the waterfront is driven in large part by what sports children play. Yes, some kids (both ragamuffins and snobs) play tennis, but not as many as soccer.

Posted by: g man at September 18, 2009 9:25 AM in response to Ace Plan for Tennis-Friendly McCarren Makeover

I have worked directly with Bertha Lewis, formerly the head of New York Acorn and now national president. It was one of the most unpleasant experiences in all of my public life. Right now, I am having a 'strange bedfellows' moment, as politics will lead you to sometimes.

Posted by: g man at September 16, 2009 8:21 PM in response to Wednesday Links

And what about the "$20 million in tax-exempt stimulus bonds?" That's the real story, no? Good investment or bad?

Back when comments like Rob's could be posted here anonymously, he would have been accused of being a troll.

Posted by: g man at September 14, 2009 10:12 AM in response to Sparks Fly over Bailout for Downtown Development

"Captain Anthony Tasso ... needs to be held accountable to his superiors downtown."

With CompStat, he will be--if his numbers are bad. But the fact of the matter is, most crime figures in the 88th Precinct are down. Horrible, high-profile crimes skew people's perception. And, granted, "Numbers of Skeevvy Corners that Make People Nervous" is not a category where statistics are maintained.

Posted by: g man at September 14, 2009 10:05 AM in response to Crime Down in Fort Greene, Despite Unease

"there is no such thing as a 'low quality' job."

Sure there is. (I had a bunch of them.) A low quality job has a salary too low to allow independent living, doesn't offer health insurance or other benefits, doesn't teach the employee new skills or otherwise provide for advancement, or merely some of these characteristics.

Posted by: g man at September 14, 2009 9:47 AM in response to Sparks Fly over Bailout for Downtown Development

"Exit Realty!" Ya gotta love it!

Posted by: g man at September 10, 2009 12:19 PM in response to Glassy Gowanus Office Site on the Market

re: "pretty sure that plan was scrapped"

One Brooklyn Bridge Park is already making payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) to the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation. Senior staff at the development corporation report that the funds paid to date and in the future are sufficient to pay for park maintenance and operation until 2013. By that time, additional development (as approved in the general project plan) will need to come on line to generate greater revenue.

Posted by: g man at September 9, 2009 11:36 AM in response to It's Raining Cars at 1BBP

The tax exemption referred to above is an IRS determination that the interest on the bonds (payable to those who purchase them) would be exempt from state and federal taxes. Nothing to do with the construction of affordable housing or the state 421-a tax abatement program.

Oh, and if you have to kiss a pig, lipstick can only help.

Posted by: g man at September 3, 2009 11:53 AM in response to Atlantic Yards Taps New Arena Architect

Sorry, MM, but it is indeed completely illogical to expect someone to take care of their neighbor's property. (I have some work that needs to be done at my place; are you coming over? Bring your own tools and materials.) Heck, let's blame the city parks department--they've got some land across the street. The National Guard, and its parent organizations, the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense, are responsible. Well, them and all of the preservationists who did not scream louder twenty years ago, myself included.

Posted by: g man at July 10, 2009 11:46 PM in response to Navy Yard Kicks Off Supermarket RFP Process

"I go nuts over this...." That is probably why you are making illogical statements. As bkre asked, "Should you be blamed if your neighbor's roof leaks?"

Posted by: g man at July 10, 2009 3:46 PM in response to Navy Yard Kicks Off Supermarket RFP Process

"I had never seen them grouped like that with all that heavy fire power in full view. When did that sort of thing start?"

As soon after September 11, 2001 as logistically possible.

Posted by: g man at July 8, 2009 6:36 PM in response to Sky Watch Sets Up Shop on Franklin Avenue

I am available to speak on a variety of topics if any advocacy groups want to pick up the tab for my airfare and lodging. I prefer no travel to the south during the summer months, but am otherwise flexible.

Posted by: g man at July 7, 2009 11:46 AM in response to Tuesday Links

Do I understand correctly that the visitor center hasn't been built yet? If so, how can anybody give out awards based on renderings?

Posted by: g man at July 7, 2009 11:35 AM in response to BBG Visitor Center Design Unveiled, Award Announced

Tracy, thanks for jogging my memory. This was funded with Boymelgreen money, somehow related to Newswalk, right? Nothing to do with Atlantic Yards. I seem to have gone off on a tangent in response to IJ's post. If local people are happy with this, who am I to tell them what is good enough?

Posted by: g man at June 30, 2009 10:43 AM in response to New Turf Field On the Way in Prospect Heights

Interesting, bkre. If I remember correctly, this work was done in part to mitigate the impact of the Atlantic Yards project. To think the city went cheap under those circumstances is a place I don't really want to go.

Posted by: g man at June 29, 2009 1:44 PM in response to New Turf Field On the Way in Prospect Heights

FieldTurf has a whole sub-grade system; it is not glued to asphalt (or other hard surface). This might indicate that Parks is not installing a state of the art surface, but that would surprise me if true. Maybe the description of the problem with the work is inaccurate.

Posted by: g man at June 29, 2009 12:42 PM in response to New Turf Field On the Way in Prospect Heights

Some times all the facts are researchable online, other times not. I have no facts about the finances, but I question whether Two Trees made $2M on this deal. Is that really how a board member would treat an organization it serves? And, if BAM paid what Two Trees reportedly paid, $5M, then a $4.5M mortgage would be ten percent cash. I know a lot of people are down on the company because of the Dock Street project, but the puzzle pieces aren't fitting together here for me.

Posted by: g man at June 28, 2009 7:06 PM in response to BAM Buys 321 Ashland for $7 Mil From Two Trees

Nope, mope'. The plan all along was for Two Trees to buy this property and then flip it to BAM when the theater was ready. Kinda like when the Trust for Public Land buys land and holds it until the government makes an appropriation for acquisition.

Posted by: g man at June 26, 2009 2:39 PM in response to BAM Buys 321 Ashland for $7 Mil From Two Trees

Thanks Red. I made my comment on the budget based on statements made by SCA, so if the "it simply is not true," then I guess it is not.

As for the rest of your post, I'm still separating issues of concern and desires for greater transparency from the allegation that "proper procedure" was not followed. Sorry. I don't mean to get all bureaucratic but as a g-man, it's genetic to a certain extent.

Posted by: g man at June 24, 2009 2:48 PM in response to Council Subcommittee Hears Case of PS 133

MM, what "proper procedure" was skirted? I'm not being argumentative, just looking for more specificity.

Also, I believe that some of the funding for this project evaporates unless some milestone is reached by the end of the fiscal year, this Tuesday. If true, that is probably what is driving the urgency.

Posted by: g man at June 24, 2009 12:34 PM in response to Council Subcommittee Hears Case of PS 133