Ratner's Heavy Hand Cuts Both Ways
Concern over the scale of the proposed Atlantic Yards development and the use of eminent domain tend to dominate the discussion, and rightfully so. However, what is often overlooked is how well a few people did in their buyouts. At 636 Pacific Street (photo), for example, The Times reports that most people received more than…
Concern over the scale of the proposed Atlantic Yards development and the use of eminent domain tend to dominate the discussion, and rightfully so. However, what is often overlooked is how well a few people did in their buyouts. At 636 Pacific Street (photo), for example, The Times reports that most people received more than twice what they paid only a year or so earlier. “We got a premium on this lemon of a building that turned into a great investment for us,” said Mark Klein, the former president of the condominium board. The last hold-out at 636 is DDDB’s Dan Goldstein, who’s reportedly facing condemnation by the state if he doesn’t play ball. Renters, however, have had their lives disrupted often with only a few thousand dollars in compensation.
In other Ratner news, Bruce gets a shout-out in the new theme song rap for the Nets:
    We brought Kidd from the Suns/Vince from the Raptors
    Elite in East/Since Erving was in the rafters
    Check the skybox/Blackberry active
    Making transactions/ It’s Bruce Ratner.
Cringe.
Some Find Greener Grass [NY Times]
A Rap for Nets Owner [NY Post]
Funny where I was educated, a point by point approach to your oppositions assertions, backed up by facts, citations and logical inferences IS how you have a RATIONAL discussion;
and
making hyperbolic statements,with no facts or citations, along with smug value judgements about the opposing party was the DEFINITION of irrational discussion.
Consider that maybe the reason why you are so “exahausted” is b/c your premise – that Ratner is screwing tenants/owners – is just wrong.
It’s too exhausting trying to discuss anything with you in a rational manner, David. So take the last word, please. After all, you always do.
I read the article and w/ one exception ALL the tenants got some sort of settlement/deal from Ratner:
In order of the article:
Frank Yost – (owner of Franky’s Bar) – no settlement, was not offered a renewed lease when his lease expired (non RS building) – by end of article Yost received letter indicating he could have apt in new complex and offer to talk to Stuckley
Mick Raffle-Raffle says he was able to negotiate a substantial settlement in exchange for agreeing to terminate his lease – but he didn’t feel he had much choice.
Heidi Kinney -Kinney told us she and her boyfriend decided not to fight. They reached a settlement. But Kinney would not give details
So would it be “baiting” you or “bashing” you to ask if YOU read the article?
Did you read the bottom of the article where this exchange between the reporter (bernstein) and Stuckly (FCR) took place?
“He [Stuckley] said there were tenants that he didn’t know about, and who he couldn’t talk to before Forest City took title to the building. Even so, Stuckey said if people have struck deals with individual landlords, Forest City Ratner is still willing to stand by their pledge to offer new apartments in the arena complex.”
BERNSTEIN: So even if somebody has moved out and agreed they’re not going to have any claims they could still come to you at this point and say I’d like to move back in and you would sit down with them
STUCKEY: as long as they can demonstrate that they were a tenant on the site when this project began for a period of time the answer is yes.
So does it mean I work for Ratner if I ask where are the tenants that are “sh*t out of luck”???
And finally let me ask does your smug commentary regarding human compassion stretch to compassion for the people who will benefit from the jobs, and housing that this project will create – or was it just thrown is as part of the “civil” conversations that others claim to want?
DAVID: Here’s the WNYC link: http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/48683.
As you’ll discover, there were tenants who lost their apts without even hearing about the possibility of help or compensation from FCR, let alone receiving it. It would be so nice if you could put down your reflexively pro-development stance for just one minute to understand that there are real, human stories here involving ordinary people who are NOT being paid $1m+ dollars for their condos but who are just s*** out of luck. A little compassion would go a long way.
funny
Anon@1:55 causing invalid fact error in Module paycheck.DLL and fatal exception 04 ignore.facts.sys.
Your current application will be terminated.
530 IF (post = “question about AY”) THEN
540 PRINT “a vigorous defense, maintain a positive spin. Repeat yourself as many times as possible. Use terms such as obstructionist, NIMBY, SELFISH, ANTI-DEVELOPMENT and other labels that objectionists cringe at. No need to carefully read the postings. Silence all objections. Keep defending ALL development propositions. Ignore all future impacts and risks”
550 paycheck% = paycheck% + $150
560 ELSE
570 DO NOTHING.
580 END IF
Actually David I was commenting on who gets to define fair. And I would be lying if I said I had a answer for you regarding fairness to the tenants. I have heard that Ratner is fair in his offers to property owners, but I do have a problem with using eminent domain for this purpose.
Rather than calling you on bashing or baiting I’d rather learn what your perspective is- you obviously know a great deal and bring a lot to the forum. You don’t need to bash anyone’s position- just explain why you think your position is better. 🙂
Bx2Bklyn – When I said the settlements outlined in this article were ‘fair’ – you replied by saying “fair to you” – I took that to mean that you dont think they are fair – do you? and if not what would you consider fair.
As for the rest, if you feel my posts go past advocating my views into ‘bashing’ or “baiting” I am more than open to you calling me on it at the time.