The Personal Side of Dan Goldstein's Crusade
As part of the Gotham Gazette’s week-long focus on the issue of eminent domain, DDDB’s Dan Goldstein penned an essay on the Atlantic Yards project that includes some personal context for what has been a very public fight: Within the [AY] footprint there are four historically significant buildings which are not landmarked. One building, which…
As part of the Gotham Gazette’s week-long focus on the issue of eminent domain, DDDB’s Dan Goldstein penned an essay on the Atlantic Yards project that includes some personal context for what has been a very public fight:
Within the [AY] footprint there are four historically significant buildings which are not landmarked. One building, which I live in, is a renovated 1926 warehouse (pictured) designed by George S. Kingsley with ornamentation inspired by the Egyptian Revival Movement of the 1920s. It’s the only New York example of the ornate storage warehouses that Kingsley became nationally known for (in Chicago his building is landmarked). The Kingsley building and the 1885 Spalding Building, the former factory of the sporting goods manufacturer, are adaptive re-use success stories. The renovated condos in the Kingsley warehouse opened to residents only six months before Ratnervilleas opponents call itwas announced, while the former Spalding factory opened only two years prior to the announcement. The Ward Baking Company Building, built in 1911, is remarkable for its glazed white terra-cotta façade and its storied history of innovative baking techniques in the 1920s. At that time it was called the snow-white temple of bread-making cleanliness. Ratner now has an option on the building coming due in March – and intends to demolish it.
These buildings certainly sound worth saving to us.
Life in the Atlantic Yards Footprint [Community Gazette]
Get a life, or at least a real job, and forget about some rotting building. Are you crazy? Having an arena in Broklyn is a homerun for everyone. Jobs for years, a momumental attraction. DOn’t you have anything better to do. Get a room in Bellvue.
Good point, JoshK. But don’t be too hard on poor Dan. Drama and hyperbole are all he knows. Fortunately, for us arena proponents, this tactic alienates many would-be supporters and further advances the arrival of the arena and housing. $60K, Dan? Ha! Ha! Good luck!
i don’t see whats wrong with that accounting. knowing the government is giving you 100 million, wouldn’t that create some breathing room to take out big loans for buyouts?
of course I’m personally against this arena. its a wholly inappropriate venue at this location. its my personal opinion that an arena built as Ratner has proposed would be a tragedy. I also don’t want my government spending tax dollars on sports arenas. yes, thats my view. again its all moot because its true, the arena doesn’t fit on the rail yards. who says it doesn’t fit over the rail yards? well, two things: look at the map of the plan AND if you are saying it DOES fit over the rail yards then the eminent domain is even worse.
Dan with accounting principles like that you could have had quite a career…..at Enron
As to your opposition to an arena – who says it doesnt fit over the railyards – and either way why cant you just admit that under no circumstances would you approve of a project that include an arena – ED or not.
Finally, the Govt gives millions of dollars to Carnagie Hall, Lincoln Center, BAM just to name a few of the entertainment venues already supported by taxpayer funds.
david, the arena doesn’t fit on the rail yards, so what you are saying is really moot. The City Council has voted to give the money to Ratner. do you think Ratner didn’t consider that committment to 100 million when making his buyouts and the ones he’ll make going forward?
Its just absurd to say that I or DDDB want stasis at the yards or don’t want physical improvements or economic growth (as for entertainment, well if you think its the role of government to entertain people, meaning tickets ranging in price from 12 dollars to thousands, then we just differ on the role of government). DDDB found a goddamn developer who outbid Ratner 3-1 for the rail yards to build what can fit on the rail yards, affordable and market housing, retail, a school (for those children you are so concerned about).
my comments about the tax money are in no way false. Ratner has a pot of his money and a pot of public money. and the MOU stipulates that some of that City money can go to property acquisition. so what is false? Ratner took loans out to buy the properties he’s bought, and now the city is giving him money which he can use to pay the loans. so whats false?
Dan the fact is not 1 dime of taxpayer $ has gone to FCR for AY- so it is very clear that taxpayer $ has not gone to enrich the condo owners cited above.
If in the future taxpayer $ is given to FCR then you can moan and groan about it – until then your comments are lies or a reckless disregard of the truth.
Park –
Dan doesnt want an arena whether it fits on the railyards or not, Dan wants to preserve his (little) vision of Brooklyn, and damn physical improvement, economic growth or entertainment for everyone else.
Despite Dan’s factually false comments above – “your” tax money wasnt used for any buyouts and putting an arena in CI simply moves and multiplies the very problems that the anti-AY folks bemoan as the end of civilization – but I guess you dont care about that since you dont live near CI.
Finally, a LL not renewing a lease in a non-rent stabilized building is not, nor will it ever be “displacement” – it is simply contract law which doesnt and shouldnt entitle the tenant to any type of compensation.
thank you Park.
David, you wrote:
Dan are you allergic to the truth or do you just avoid it b/c it is inconvenient??
You said and I quote:”the buyouts Ratner has done are literally with your tax money!”
EXCEPT
the MOU you cite is dated FEBRUARY 05 and the buyouts described were a done prior to 2/05 AND the ESDC and City fundig is dependant on a whoe host of contingencies being completed- not the least of which is a bond authorization or legisative appropriation- which havent happened yet SO CLEARLY the buyouts of these Condo owners was NOT done with tax dollars. But dont let the truth stop you.
——
are you being a fool on purpose? buyouts occurred before that MOU and after. money is fungible. if one of Ratner’s largest expenses is the acquisition of land and the City approves $100 million to him (which it has done, if you give me your email i’ll give you the document with the line itme where the voted for the appropriation) and the MOU says he can use that money for property acquistion, how can you say the money isn’t going towards buyouts? dude, money is fungible. put it this way. Ratner will be paying AT MOST 300 million (rail yards 100, maxiumum 200 million for private properties) for 9.1 million in development rights. subtract 200 million cash from city and state and thats 100 million he is paying for rights worth very conservatively $682.5 million or more realistically $910 million.
David, taxpayer money is going to these buyouts and eminent domain “compensation.” You can call me a liar all you want, but its there in black and white in the MOU.
In case anyone really doubts that local residents have already been displaced, please refer to this transcript of a WNYC report from last June:
Some Prospect Heights Residents Fear “Future Brooklyn”
by Andrea Bernstein
NEW YORK, NY, June 23, 2005
REPORTER: Forest City Ratner now owns ninety percent of the homes here, and nearly two thirds of the rental buildings. The property owners aren’t discussing their deals publicly – they signed confidentiality agreements which require them not to protest the planned arena and high-rise complex. Privately, some have said Ratner has been generous.
But many of the tenants here are of moderate means, and they wonder where they will go when its their turn to leave. Last winter, at a packed forum at a college in Brooklyn, Forest City Ratner Executive Vice President Jim Stuckey said Ratner would pay for any rent increases for tenants who had to move for the project, so it would cost them nothing.
STUCKEY: Every resident who is displaced from the project will be brought back in or offered to come back in if they choose to a unit the same size, same number of bedrooms, same rent. They’ll follow minimum rent stabilization guidelines, so they can’t be increased. This is not something we’re trying to fool people.
REPORTER: But there are people who feel they HAVE been fooled. I spoke to two dozen tenants or their representatives in the “footprint†of the arena complex. None said they’d made the kind of deal Stuckey described. Instead, there were found people like Frank Yost.
YOST: My lease was up earlier this year and my landlord said we’re not going to renew your lease you have to be out by April 1st.
REPORTER: Yost, who wears his scraggly grey-black hair tied back in a loose ponytail, is the owner of Freddy’s Bar. He sips a glass of red wine at the end of a wooden bar, where a few patrons drink brews, nothing fancy. This bar will be ripped down if the Ratner project gets the green light. And so would the five apartments above it, one of which is occupied by Yost.
YOST: Well I have to find a place to live. To me, at my age I hate to move.
REPORTER: Yost says his lawyer was able to negotiate a few extra months for him, but says he got no monetary settlement from his landlord. The building he lives is not yet owned by Forest City Ratner.
YOST: I would love for them to come to me and say we’re sorry about you having to move, we realize the inconvenience we’re going to give you an apartment on the 31st floor facing west by southwest so you can see the sunset, a small little terrace so you’ll be able to charcoal your lamb chops out there.
REPORTER: Instead, Yost says, he’s moving to a small basement apartment nearby at the end of this month, where his rent will essentially double.