"It’s not really in a neighborhood at all."

Thank goodness people who think that are not moving in any more.

Posted by: harriet at November 20, 2008 1:24 AM in response to Dolkart Down on Prospects for "Fringe Areas"

Our building was overcharged repeatedly for this. The best option is to learn to fix it.

Posted by: harriet at September 24, 2008 1:44 PM in response to Pilot light Q?

"Rich people like space, they like cars, they like their private pools and private tennis courts, they want their children to be sheltered from the less attractive side of life. It makes no sense for these people to work in New York. This is a socialist-leaning, public-transit, goo-goo, egalatarian, politically correct archiapelego."

Right now I'm working late in Midtown, and I've worked at tons of financial and other highly capitalized firms. Most of the people in these firms live in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, which seem to match your vision of the most "socialist-leaning, politically-correct" states in the country.

Sorry to disappoint you, sam, but rich people love this town.

Posted by: harriet at September 23, 2008 7:56 PM in response to Brooklyn's Financial Class and the Condo Boom

We still have some important sectors of the economy that won't be decimated by the crashing financial markets. Advertising is more based on the pharmaceuticals. Tourists will still flock here to take advantage of the weak dollar

What neither the Observer or any of the commenters mention here is that credit is tightening again, and that could mean that some projects could easily collapse. The Atlantic Yards proposal is just the most obvious example of a project that relies on a more favorable credit market.

"Your assumptions and over-the-top assertions are not needed in a time in which panic could potentially topple this country."

Luckily, I don't think Paulson or Bernanke care what we say, so I think we can muddle through a conversation here without fear of toppling our country.

Posted by: harriet at September 23, 2008 4:06 PM in response to Brooklyn's Financial Class and the Condo Boom

"I'm more concerned about housing, jobs and something positive happening at that intersection where there's been a hole in the ground my entire life."

That's lovely. You still have not even attempted to show how Norman Oder is biased. You have not shown how Norman Oder is devoid of facts.

You have shown yourself a supporter of jobs and housing. I'm afraid to inform you that EVERYONE says that they are in favor of jobs and housing. I would argue that there are much better ways to achieve these goals.

If you don't mind bringing the discussion back to the original thread, we could achieve our common goals much quicker if the ESDC followed the laws. We could achieve these lovely goals if the ESDC or anyone in our government bothered to do a market analysis, which was an important part of the discussion in court yesterday.

Does the project benefits outweigh the negatives? This shouldn't be determined by a blog discussion. It should have been determined by our elected leaders BEFORE deciding to give hundreds of millions of dollars away in subsidies.

DDDB and the other community groups argued that the state was acting capriciously and irrationally. We will find out in a few months whether the judges agree.

Posted by: harriet at September 18, 2008 7:34 PM in response to AY Arguments Heard at Appellate Court

""Maybe you can buy a transcript if you want something free of what you perceive as bias."

I'm not quite that concerned. I have my own viewpoint, and what comes out of this meeting won't change that."

Okay, so you admit that you are biased, and that facts won't change your mind. And then you say that Oder is biased (without giving any examples) because he disagrees with you.

I think I get the picture.

Posted by: harriet at September 18, 2008 3:32 PM in response to AY Arguments Heard at Appellate Court

"Norman Oder's Web site [is] clearly in the anti-AY camp."

Norman Oder says that he is a critic not an opponent of the Atlantic Yards proposal. You may not like what he says, but he is very thorough and is critical of all sides. If you want "unbiased" reporting, then you should at least read his full posting. You can judge for yourself.

There were no other reporters there, and the ESDC lawyers are not likely to post on this blog.

I would say this is telling. If there were a large, silent pro-Ratner crowd, why weren't they attending the meeting?

Posted by: harriet at September 18, 2008 1:35 PM in response to AY Arguments Heard at Appellate Court

I have attended nearly every Atlantic Yards hearing, and I have to say that this was one of the strongest. The panel of five judges seemed very skeptical of the state's claim that the land that Ratner wants is blighted. At several points there was almost disdain in the judge's statements, such as when one of them asked about the company that wrote the environmental review: "Has AKRF ever found an area NOT blighted?"

Norman Oder wrote that the state punted in its response, but I thought in a way the state made AKRF look even worse. The ESDC lawyer essentially said, "well, they don't only study blight," which I would interpret as meaning "yes, they always find blight when asked, but sometimes they are given other tasks." I think the judge who asked this might have the same one who determined that the Columbia eminent domain case was tainted by AKRF's conflict of interest.

Another judge asked of the ESDC whether their definition of blight could mean that they could condemn any property in New York.

There have been other instances of judges asking tough questions of one side and then ruling in favor of them, so the DDDB crowd is tempered in its optimism. I find it hard to temper my optimism in general, so I would say that it is quite likely that these judges will agree with the argument of DDDB and its dozens of community allies: The blight determination is capricious and arbitrary. It was not based on the legal justification of eminent domain, but on the desire of a private developer to get private profit at the expense of the public.

I am expressing my views as someone who was at the hearing.

By the way, the building where the hearing took place was beautiful, and I recommend attending something there just to look at the paintings on the walls.

Posted by: harriet at September 18, 2008 1:02 PM in response to AY Arguments Heard at Appellate Court

"I looked up "killjoy" in wikepedia and harriet's picture was there!!!!"

I am not advocating ticketing bars! I strongly support that people enjoy the rights of their property, and your stoop is your own property (uh, except in Carroll Gardens, where they are technically public property). I agree with cortnyc:

"If someone can be arrested for trespassing then its not a public place."

I'm just afraid that if the police can bend the edges of private property, what will they do next?

Posted by: harriet at September 16, 2008 11:31 AM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

Wait a second. Shouldn't this law also apply to all restaurants with tables on the sidewalks or visible for the sidewalks? What about bars with open windows? What about bars like The Gate on 5th Avenue?

Since arenas are considered "public spaces," then following the new logic, shouldn't drinks be disallowed there?

Posted by: harriet at September 16, 2008 11:14 AM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

Brooklyn Eagle is a shoddy operation. They aren't going to get their act together any time soon. But they do win the prize for stretching Prospect Heights to an absurd degree.

Posted by: harriet at September 15, 2008 2:16 PM in response to Monday Links

I thought there was an elevator in that building. Could it be that the elevator goes to 4 and the you have to only walk up one additional floor?

I've been in the lobby of the building a few times, and I think it has a doorman, and seems a little old-fashioned.

There is a kiddie park directly next door- you can see a bit of it in the picture. While the block does have some of the sketchiest characters in Prospect Heights, there is new construction there, and a lot of people are pretty bullish about Washington. And Underhill is a really nice nowadays, but this block is outside of the new landmark district.

All that said, I'm usually a big believer in the value of properties in Prospect Heights, but this seems high even to me. And that's saying a lot.

Posted by: harriet at August 19, 2008 6:00 PM in response to Co-op Condo of the Day: 338 Prospect Place, #5E

Re: Make My Heights the P Heights at August 1, 2008 3:27 PM

"The downtown Brooklyn plan calls for rezonings and the buildings of parks. It doesn't say that we've got to kick out wig shops and replace them with H&M."

Actually, it does say that. Part of the plan is to use eminent domain to destroy various successful businesses and homes, and replace them with buildings in tune with the Bloomberg vision. The irony of some of these is shocking- such as demolishing TrackData, a minority-owned high-tech firm with over a hundred employee. In another instance, they wanted to destroy a newly built cultural hot-spot and replace it with... another cultural hot-spot, but one probably more in line with BAM. The City also wants to destroy a book store and replace it with Willoughby Square, which will in turn be rented out to the highest bidder- the City is turning parks into private event spaces for American Express and, conceivably H&M.

So, yes, the plan pretty much says that we (the taxpayers) are paying to kick out wig shops and replace them with H&M.

If the Downtown Brooklyn plan doesn't explicitly say that they want to destroy the existing businesses, it's because these enterprises are invisible to the EDC.

Posted by: harriet at August 2, 2008 1:58 PM in response to DoBro Redevelopment Not So Great for Everyone

Dude, where's da bong?

Ya know, I'm not being completely serious. Maybe I love Prospect Heights too much? Is that possible? In any case, I really hope nobody uses my post as a negotiating tool.

There are apartments on Prospect Place going for about $800,000, and if you multiply that by four, this might hypothetically seem vaguely reasonable.

But I guess my serious point is that it might get the asking price. Not everyone is hurting in this economy, and there are a lot of really strong positives to the house, not just the quality of the reno, but it's location is pretty fantastic. A lot of people love the way that Vanderbilt Avenue is heading, and it's really close to Prospect Park the B/Q and the 2/3. The block is getting landmarked, and this sort of project may be the last of its kind on Prospect Place.

Posted by: harriet at July 24, 2008 2:30 PM in response to House of the Day: 210 Prospect Place

This building is a gut renovation, and from what I've little seen in person, they've done a great job. This is one of the nicest blocks of Prospect Heights IMHO, and I agree it's not $2.5M nice- probably like $3M nice, given what other properties on the block are selling for.... (as if I had that much money for a one-family....)...

Posted by: harriet at July 24, 2008 2:15 PM in response to House of the Day: 210 Prospect Place

Hindy has worked to support the destruction of light industry in Prospect Heights, so he gets no sympathy from me. I found other Brooklyn beers to drink since he was such a jerk in his support the Atlantic Yards proposal.

Still, I hope he could move to Sunset Park. Though I'm sure someone wants to build luxury condos and/or hotels there as well.

Posted by: harriet at July 21, 2008 4:10 PM in response to Brooklyn Brewery Chief Bemoans Lack of Industrial Space

It's really heartwarming that we're donating money from schools and roads to give subsidies to Ratner. It's also so nice for the NY Times to run a free advertisement for their business partners, FCR. They haven't run recent news stories, but they are kind enough to run a fluff piece to drum up sales of the suites.

Posted by: harriet at May 16, 2008 12:35 PM in response to Barclays Center Luxury Suites Hit the Market

I think this was a gut renovation, or it was a severely distressed building that needed a lot of work just to be habitable. It's not like it had been a charming thing with lovely details.

Posted by: harriet at April 21, 2008 11:50 PM in response to House of the Day: 58 6th Avenue

"It is the responsibility of every citizen to accept the execution of the law by the state. This matter - from an ethics standpoint - is decided."

Wow. I guess there's no more need for polemicists if we listen to Polemicist, because all we have to do is listen to our wise leaders.

More importantly, I believe that the AY eminent domain determination by the state does not follow the constitution, even using the Kelo decision as a guide. So doesn't that require that I fight the illegal confiscation of private property?

Posted by: harriet at March 31, 2008 11:54 AM in response to Docs: Low Disclosure Req'd From Ratner For ED Seizure

"i don't disagree with your observation. but if not ratner then who? i'm looking for a specific realistic answer, not something that just sounds nice."

Extell recently said that its bid for the Vanderbilt Railyards was serious, which I consider a specific realistic answer. Of course, the situation in the financial markets has changed recently.

...But I have a feeling that you're not going to like that answer. My preference was well represented by the UNITY plan, which is to get multiple developers for different parts of the area.

The Atlantic Yards footprint was determined by Ratner, not by a transparent process. In other words, the developer said "jump," and the ESDC said "how high?" I would like to see a development plan that's based on the needs of Brooklyn, not of a private interest. Ideally, a plan that serves the interest of the public would also be profitable for a developer.

But it's important to remember that Ratner has not finalized his bid for the Vanderbilt Railyards. It's still officially MTA property.

So to give a full answer your question, I would need to know what area you are considering.

Posted by: harriet at March 24, 2008 5:03 PM in response to Endangered AY

I think BrooklynLove sums up the DDDb position nicely at 7:43 pm:

"the yards are screaming for large scale grand development of this nature - nexus of max transit, nexus of major thoroughfares, nexus of multiple neighborhoods, major cultural institution, one of brooklyn's most destinctive landmarks (wsb)."

DDDb was the organization that found the highest bidder for the Vanderbilt Railyards, and the DDDb-crowd has spent years developing the UNITY plan, which fulfills BrooklynLove's dream of a grand development.

Bruce Ratner succeeded in creating massive controversy and getting $55 Million (and counting) of taxpayer to tear down existing properties without building a thing. Given that many other developers have succeeded in building large projects in Brooklyn, Ratner seems to be failing where others have figured out how to build.

BrooklynLove, if you really want a project built, then it's time to realize that Ratner is not the only one to do it.

In any case, I'm glad that you agree with DDDb in supporting something great at the site.

Posted by: harriet at March 24, 2008 10:16 AM in response to Endangered AY

Something in BH would be great. I have nothing against that- it's an interesting comparison. If you're looking for comparisons, there is about as much evidence of escaped slaves on Duffield as at Plymouth Church, at least according to the New York Times a few weeks ago.

There are not that many basements owned by Abolitionists. The Duffield Street properties are some of the best documented Underground Railroad sites in New York, which shows how poorly the other possible sites have been documented.

I think we should listen to Dr. Cheryl Laroche. She's the academic behind the discovery of slave quarters at George Washington's presidential residence. She says that Duffield Street represents THE BEST site for Underground Railroad research in the country.

There may be other sites, but Duffield is really quite exciting.

Posted by: harriet at December 2, 2007 1:16 AM in response to BREAKING: 227 Duffield Saved From Eminent Domain Death

Many of the 34 comments to this point talk about how horrible NIMBYs are. Well, what about the YIMBYs? There are some people who WANT development in their backyards.

I'm talking literally here. Lew Greenstein, one of the primary Duffield Street owners, has said that he is glad to have people take his backyard, just so his property can be part of the future of Downtown Brooklyn. He would do anything to use his 1840s home as part of a new Brooklyn. He thinks that a museum would be the best use of his property.

The other owner, Joy Chatel, wants her home to be part of this new future as well. And I think she understands what's coming to her neighborhood.

Currently, three hotels are planned for Duffield Street between Fulton and Willoughby, also known as Abolitionist Place. Two are across the street from 227 Duffield, and one is at 337 Duffield. There's also a massive project going up at Fulton and Duffield. Oh, and there's another development on Willoughby and Duffield, but that's easy to miss- it's only valued at $208 MILLION.

My point is simple. There are massive projects popping up all over Downtown Brooklyn, especially on Duffield Street. Letting a few owners keep their properties is not stopping this dramatic growth.

There can even be a parking lot and small park on Duffield, and Ms. Chatel can pursue her vision of a museum. I probably won't convince "guest" (who posted at 1:02, 1:05, 1:20, 1:26, 1:29, et cetera), but this did convince the EDC. They realized that a commemoration of Brooklyn's Abolitionist history is the best thing for all New York.

I applaud the EDC's decision. It's not worth our taxpayer dollars to fight a homeowner who wants use their property for a real public benefit. This is a great day for Brooklyn, and for New York.

Posted by: harriet at November 30, 2007 10:59 PM in response to BREAKING: 227 Duffield Saved From Eminent Domain Death