What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Dear everyone,

    The NY Times article fails to discuss many important issues to the community. This is a park in the public domain, and our community has a lot of perspectives on what a park means to us, and rightfully so!

    As a journalist, this reporter did not capture the full conversation occurring in our community about this project. Please consider reading the comments on bit.ly/SavePier6 and perhaps signing our petition in you agree, or sharing your thoughts / help.

    We do not need leader fatigue on this issue. The parks development, and the compromises agreed to previously, aren’t even what’s guiding the decisions here on Pier 6. These decisions are NEW and the community has a right to be heard!!! Our leaders have the obligation to constantly fight for what’s best for us, project by project.

    Also, real estate developers are making a lot of money off these projects, maybe our leaders need to negotiate a better deal for the people, instead of giving away money to the developers. Toll Brothers is making a killing on Pierhouse.

    On Facebook we are “Save Pier 6” — thank you for reading

  2. that being said, BdB jumping on this development to add an affordable element will reduce the revenue to the park. Affordable housing doesn’t need to be co-located with luxury.. it’s not very efficient. Let people pay up for the views, gather their taxes, and use them where it makes sense.

  3. if we could figure out how much money… the park actually needed… ??? from dev. on pier 6?

    maybe we could raise the money, and create a fund… and have no more buildings on pier 6! and have more trees!!

  4. Dear friends,

    I prefer you read the petition … but the decisions on the project have changed literally overnight and I’m not a lawyer, but there was a general project contract way back when, and I’m pretty sure its violated by these latest hasty changes?

    ONn the profit/project economics, I understand property values have gone up, generating a profit for Toll Brothers. Why couldn’t the city have had a clause in the contract (when the land in the public domain was sold by the city) that would have allowed the city a portion of the developers profits beyond a certain threshold? I believe its called “retaining some of the economics” ?

    Just a thought. Sorry to post a second time. I don’t meant to spam.

  5. i understand that this project was designed to “break even” financially and was expensive.

    But theres’ a moving definition of “self funded”… there’s always some magic in forecasting stuff like this.. everybody’s got an agenda…

    …and its not just the views , although, I will be sad, when dragging my “sorry tail” back down Atlantic Ave after running Prospect Park to see a skyscraper instead of the water and sun

    .. it’s also that the park is small, 85 acres? I hear that measurement includes the water in between the piers? Prospect Park is 585?

    Every last inch of green space is precious and per one article yesterday, the park’s already pretty really full of happy visitors! shouldn’t we keep the people living in the park to a minimum?

    Let’s preserve the “park-ness” to the greatest extent possible.. so the greatest number of people can benefit from the park. ..

    Now I am spamming! I am so so sorry!