Back Room Sweetheart Deal for Ratner
August 20, 2005, Brooklyn Papers — The same day they signed a widely publicized agreement setting aside land for developer Bruce Ratner’s proposed Atlantic Yards project, top officials of the Pataki and Bloomberg administrations signed a separate pact with the developer, granting him the right to build up adjacent urban renewal sites without city review….
August 20, 2005, Brooklyn Papers — The same day they signed a widely publicized agreement setting aside land for developer Bruce Ratner’s proposed Atlantic Yards project, top officials of the Pataki and Bloomberg administrations signed a separate pact with the developer, granting him the right to build up adjacent urban renewal sites without city review. That second agreement was never made public, but it turned up this week in the state’s response to a fairly broad Freedom of Information Act request made by a neighborhood group opposed to the Atlantic Yards plan.
The document stipulates that Ratner would be able to obtain the development rights to build nearly 1.9 million square feet of residential and commercial space on properties north and west of the Atlantic Avenue rail yards, exceeding the current zoning for those sites, without having to put the proposal through the city’s lengthy land use review process. That review requires public hearings before the community board, borough president, City Planning Commission and City Council. The developer currently operates the Atlantic Center mall and leases space to a Modell’s sporting goods store on those potential development sites. The Modell’s block also contains a PC Richard & Son electronics store. Ratner is currently negotitaing with the state-controlled Metropolitan Transportation Authority to build over the Long Island Rail Road storage yards across the street to build a professional basketball arena as part of the Atlantic Yards plan. Should he fail to work out a deal for that property, the second MOU stipulates, Ratner could still build on the two new sites, but would have to either abide by current zoning or gain city approval to surpass it.
Double Dealing [Brooklyn Papers]
Personally, I am in favor of the development, with some caveats/comments:
I. Traffic mitigation is a real issue — while there are few areas more perfect than Atlantic Yards (given subways, train), we need explicit changes to the intersection paid for by the developer and clarity around the subway interchanges on both sides of Atlantic, and any underpasses, all of which should make the intersection safer, the transit more accessible, and improve the neighborhoods on all sides of the complex
II. The tower/pedestal/plaza relationships need real design review — the residential piece seems to use setbacks from the street and internal plazas in a way that is inappropriate for the site and the city, and which are failures in other areas/cities
III. I’d like to see this development area, and ultimately 4th Ave integrated formally into a master plan. If we can get the BKLYN equivalent of Broadway from 60th to 72nd using pedestals, broad walkable sidewalks, and towers setback nicely to preserve light we’re in great shape. By the same token, I think there should be very little office on the south side of Atlantic .. it hurts Downtown and the neighborhoods.
IV. The only piece of MOU2 that’s squirrelly to me is the development rights over the street where the bridge is between the malls .. I’m fine with revamping the footbridges, but I’d hate to see a solid development in the air killing the street grid
V. I think multi-use basketball arenas are one of the best developments cities can do — look at the MCI Center in DC which has catalyzed enormous positive change in one of the most blighted areas of the District — sure baseball has more games, but the other programming of an arena, from concerts, conventions, local sports, and … other sports (i.e. the Islanders) … is tremendous, and can generate pedestrian flows almost every night of the year.
I just wish Ratner would go with a different architect than Frank Gehry. I have this gut feeling that his work will not age well. We’ll be living with the towers for decades. Still, NYC needs the jobs and affordable housing the project will create.
David – I’d think you be surprised how much support there is for Atlantic Yards, and perhaps mostly apathy. Its just the anti people seem to be quite vocal and keep yelling at us ‘the sky is falling’.
As you can read from most comments on this website – just about any new development is ripped to shreds. They love the status quo and
fear change will negaitively affect their personal quality of life and come up with any excuse that the project is awful.
I’m with David. I think Bored started with the personal attacks when he accused David of showing “a complete lack of understanding of the issue.”
David gets it, even if he is a little abrasive. Traffic is not the issue. Ratner would have to build 5 of these developments to have any major impact on the traffic.
To address the person who says there will be no tax benefit to the development, you are a dope. Ratner might be getting a tax break, but people who live there will pay property taxes and the businesses that locate there will pay payroll taxes. Add in the sales taxes from increased retail in the area and you get increased tax revenue even when you consider Ratner’s break.
I’m with “bored” – David, since you post on this site so much, do you think you can tone down the arrogance a bit, and still get your point across? This isn’t Urbanbaby, you know….
I am completely against the process by which Ratner/City/State are developing this project.
How can the local public schools accommodate a minimum 7,200 new students?
Is the city requiring the developer to set land aside for a new school or fund it?
As for new tax revenue funding new schools…what new tax revenue? Ratnerville will be tax exempt for 15 to 30 years.
When other cities are tearing down high-rise/high density “affordable housing” why are we building more of it? Isn’t extremely difficult to control drug dealing and crime in high-rise/high density “affordable housing”?
Haven’t urban planners determined that low rise low density housing is much better for affordable housing?
To the obnoxious David.
Perhaps if you read a bit more carefully rather than spewing a nasty screed, you would have noticed I said the “commercial development” would have the most significant impact on traffic. Also, I said the streets are at capacity not the subways.
I am not opposed to development; what I am opposed to is a sweetheart deal, not subject to City zoning, with a developer who has a reputation for horribly designed buildings (Metrotech, Atlantic Center, Atlantic Terminal, Court Street 12 plex) that make no effort to integrate with the surrounding community.
Rather than make a blanket statement in support of “development,” read Roz’s 8:00 pm. comments to learn a bit about what Ratner is building. As Roz says, if its such a good deal, why all the back room dealing?
yeah i guess more people used to live in brooklyn, but is somehow just feels like the developers want to make brooklyn into a manhattan knock-off, and we’re so much more than that.
i really don’t care deeply enough about the issue to rally about it or something, however i hope that the schools in brooklyn will benefit from the activity. maybe all the tax money will enable the parents who live in the area to send their children to school in the area.
forgive me, it’s late. i hope it makes sense.
Also remember: more people lived in brooklyn in the ’40’s than today — somehow they survived (and even became the “greatest” generation).
It’s grow or die.. even though NYC seems like in good shape now the long term trend for cities is horrible (not enough children, continued dispersion of workforce etc.), so we need all the projects like this we can get.