Oder Does The Times
After years of (rightly) criticizing The New York Times for its failure to bring a critical eye and adequate resources to its coverage of the Atlantic Yards project, Norman Oder, publisher of the Atlantic Yards Report, got his own essay (that’s what The Times calls it; he calls it an Op-Ed) in the paper of…
After years of (rightly) criticizing The New York Times for its failure to bring a critical eye and adequate resources to its coverage of the Atlantic Yards project, Norman Oder, publisher of the Atlantic Yards Report, got his own essay (that’s what The Times calls it; he calls it an Op-Ed) in the paper of record. A central point of the essay, and the one that he parses further in a follow-up post on his blog, is that public officials might have thought harder about handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies if they’d known that someone with unlimited financial resources–in this case Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov–would end up being the beneficiary. “All was forgotten as flashbulbs popped for Prokhorov, as was the notion that had a man worth nearly $18 billion put his hand out for subsidies, someone might have called foul.” Lest the appearance of Oder’s piece on The Times give the impression that the paper has changed tack on Atlantic Yards, it’s accompanied by another criticism-free profile, this one of Ratner, in today’s sports section, the main point of which appears to be to stir up conflict between him and Madison Square Garden chief Jim Dolan.
A Russian Billionaire, the Nets and Sweetheart Deals [NY Times]
Ratner Content to Succeed in the Shadows [NY Times]
My Time Op-Ed [Atlantic Yards Report]
Photo by gilly youner
Brokeland;
Point taken on Atalntic Yards.
I think the issue of eminent domain is a legitimate one. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo and here we are. My point is that the potential for its use was NOT unique in this case. It is the law of the land. Since there really has been no substantial movement to change this law in NYS (in many other states the eminent domain laws HAVE been tightened up since Kelo), it seems that there is something about this project that brings out the tinhats.
Beside the eminent domain issue, I see no difference between this project and many other public-private ventures these days.
Given all this, I wonder why this project brings out so much venom and I come to the conclusion that Lech is right. It simply boils down to venom against a developer because he is rich and in the public eye.
the commenter’s point, or lack of one, it seems to me is that because it appears to be moving forward in some form we should all just shut up about and never discuss again.
which, of course, is really an indefensible position.
Man I cant believe Norman Older is just this big a fool – I mean the Times is punking him or something right????
The guy is pissed that the NY Times wasn’t more critical of AY and now AFTER it is a D-O-N-E D-E-A-L, after they started DIGGING, they give him an op-ed and the fool pathetically takes them up on it? (and then writes a rambling mess of an article no less)
Have some fucking pride Older – its over, your essay’s and missives are wasted breath – come back in a few years and if all your negative predictions come true then the press will love to give you the “I told you so” columns (the press loves that kinda shit); but right now??? its DONE, OVER, ‘FINITO, –
and if you must write about AY then how about some suggestions on ways to improve the current plans (i.e. traffic flow ideas, mass transit suggestions, local business development initiatives) – something…anything that is at all relevant and productive to the reality that the argument you wont STFU about is OVER.
“I get the criticisms, but the toothpaste is out of the tube. I’ll join the “just build it already” chorus.”
hey, Ratner’s dug a hole, lets stop talking about how he got to build that hole. what kind of logic is that?”
I think the point is that all of the legal challenges have been brought and finalized. It’s a done deal – to get it the property back, the state would have to condemn it. That would be funny, though.
“I was assuming the cause is rational and just to begin with.”
Lechacal, you’re right. My bad.
It is completely irrational to be against backroom dealings, the use of taxpayer subsidies to permit a project that is of at least questionable public good at a time when the city doesn’t have enough funds to pay for other vital social services, and to suggest that maybe with the MTA facing a massive budget shortfall selling a piece of property to the lower bidder might not be the smartest idea. I can now see why you believe that opponents of AY are unjust.
In all seriousness, the use of the words “public fleecing” are not designed to reflect bias but rather to suggest that the city’s coffers have been raided, both through the MTA decision to sell at the low bid and through lucrative subsidies. Given the economics of the transaction, I think you’d have to be biased not to call the deal what it is.
“I get the criticisms, but the toothpaste is out of the tube. I’ll join the “just build it already” chorus.”
they are just building it, so they claim. but you know what, the war in Afghanistan is out of the tube too. does that mean there should be no criticism?
hey, Ratner’s dug a hole, lets stop talking about how he got to build that hole. what kind of logic is that?
“Question: do you also oppose these deals? From the comments I see in Brownstoner, I gather that most folks don’t object. I would like to know how these deals are different than Atlantic Terminal IN PRINCIPLE.”
it is called Atlantic Yards. how is it different? Atlantic Yards is built on once public land and once private land using eminent domain. the affordable housing subsidies you are talking about, agree or disagree with them, are given for projects built on land privately owned by the developer. Ratner’s land was acquired by a well below market MTA deal and eminent domain theft. plus he didn’t have to go through any voting process. those are the key differences.
“You’re OK in my book, lechacal.”
Aw shit I missed this earlier. Thanks ENY, you’re OK in my book too. I’m sure we’ll still get up in each others’ grills once in a while but what the hell.
“Lechacal, in that case you understand why people continue to fight AY rather than burying their heads in the sand and rationalizing what is a dreadful project on multiple levels.”
I was assuming the cause is rational and just to begin with. I guess one could not give up banging one’s head against the wall.