PACB Gives Ratner What He Wants
After an Oscar-worthy head fake on Tuesday, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, along with the two other members of the Public Authorities Control Board, George Pataki and Joseph Bruno, gave the thumbs up to Bruce Ratner’s vision for Atlantic Yards. “I am pleased the developer is committed to addressing numerous community concerns through several specific actions…
After an Oscar-worthy head fake on Tuesday, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, along with the two other members of the Public Authorities Control Board, George Pataki and Joseph Bruno, gave the thumbs up to Bruce Ratner’s vision for Atlantic Yards. “I am pleased the developer is committed to addressing numerous community concerns through several specific actions that will result in significant neighborhood improvements,” said Silver. Last time we checked, traffic congestion, overcrowded schools and a surfeit of chain stores didn’t exactly qualify as improvements (though there were some last minute changes, including 200 more units of affordable housing and $3 million more for improvements to neighboring parks) but then again, pols who live upstate must have a better grasp of what’s better for Brooklyn than the four assembly members closest to the site. So where does this leave those who oppose the project? Eminent domain lawsuits, scale negotiations and a guy named Spitzer. From the beginning, the project has been a public-private partnership in which the public has not been represented, said Kent Barwick, president of the Municipal Art Society. The vote today reflected a process that simply did not allow New Yorkers to shape the project, and the result is a plan that will not work for Brooklyn.
State Approves Major Complex for Brooklyn [NY Times]
NY Board Approves Atlantic Yards Plan [Bloomberg]
The Nets Win! [NY Post]
Photo by f.trainer
Yeah, you keep dreaming. Ratner is going to produce a monstrosity. It will be cheaply and poorly constructed. It will be ugly. Its design will be inefficient and stupid. It will be the biggest eyesore in Brooklyn, perhaps in all of NYC. If you think this will help property values, then I’d be happy to sell you some property adjacent to a big nasty crackhouse in East New York.
clinton hill prop values will just keep going up as a result of this project as they are far enough removed from where construction will take place and quite far from the arena site. The blocks of Prospect Heights and Ft. Greene that are adjacent to, or within a block or two, of AY are the areas that will need to be concerned about being close to the arena and near the construction. Who knows how those property values will shake out. Long term, it will, imo, mean higher values and higher rents all around, so even faster gentrification.
3:04 — re the Constitution — eminent domain is to be used for the public good, not for private gain.
In the case of AY, spurious public goods have been hawked in order to justify the use of eminent domain to benefit Ratner.
Especially since most or all of those public goods could be accomplished without eminent domain! IE, even if you believe that it will be a public benefit to have a sports arena at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush, an arena could be built on property Ratner already owns, with the additional public good of tearing down the hideous and unpleasant malls he bought. And I like malls! But Atlantic Center is simply the most unpleasant place to shop I have ever been in.
Funny, but the comment I’m angriest about in this lovely little soccer riot is the slanderous charge that if I had more money I’d live in Manhattan….
The fact that we don’t know whether AY will be a gain, a draw, or loss for taxpayers tells you everything you need to know about the lack of transparency here. And whenever a real estate developer and his political backers get together to draw a discrete veil over the details of the financing, I think we are only being prudent to ASSUME a swindle until proven otherwise!
anon 2:57: Actually, the Constitution itself codifies the government’s eminent domain power. To call it unlawful is just wrong.
“this project could be a net loss for the state and city – and thus it will be one of the biggest taxpayer/land swindles in New York City history.”
That doesn’t make any sense: “could be . . . will be”? The bottom line is that no one KNOWS that this will result in a loss for taxpayers. Questionable, yes. But certain loss, no. Otherwise it could not have passed politically. To call it a taxpayer “swindle” is just not being honest. This is not to say that the project is a good or even okay one overall. It’s just that the hyperbole about it gets so annoying and distracting.
On the Manhattan vs. Bklyn argument: sure, many people live in Bklyn instead of Manhattan simply because of the cost, but not all. I could buy a decent place in Manhattan if I wanted, but don’t want to leave the quieter, tree-lined streets, off-leash parks, and racial diversity. Anyone trying to equate Ft. Greene with the UES/UWS is cracked up.
And c’mon people, whoever you are, please don’t hype some kind of threat from those consigned to living in the PJs. If you’re smart enough to turn on and use a computer, you MUST be smart enough to understand the stupidity of your argument.
And you know, not to be too personal about it, but I don’t think anyone can think that Ratner’s buildings to date are anything but hideously ugly. I’d like to think that 3rd time is the charm, but there’s no track record to speak of.
anon 2:34 said “And with respect to eminent domain, wasn’t the vast majority of the land acquired from willing sellers?”
MTA land: 100 million below its value, 50 million below a higher competing bid.
as for the other land – it doesn’t matter if 90% of it was acquired willingly. if a person or business doesn’t want to sell to a private developer that should be his right. That’s what the law is supposed to protect people from.