The Times (Finally) Opines on Atlantic Yards
This weekend, The New York Times wrote a qualified endorsement of Bruce Ratner’s plan to develop the Atlantic Yards. The editorial is at once a reasonable summary of the issues at hand and a wishy-washy stance that comes rather late in the game for the paper of record. Where were they 6 months ago? 12…
This weekend, The New York Times wrote a qualified endorsement of Bruce Ratner’s plan to develop the Atlantic Yards. The editorial is at once a reasonable summary of the issues at hand and a wishy-washy stance that comes rather late in the game for the paper of record. Where were they 6 months ago? 12 months ago? From where we sit, the paper’s editors seem to let Ratner off the hook a little too easily over the isue of traffic and to skirt the issue of eminent domain entirely. In qualifying their support of the project, they call for a longer public hearing period and more of the financial burden of acquiring property to be shifted from the public to FRC. Finally, they call for an additional reduction in the size of the project of 15 percent (on top of the 5 percent that’s already on the table).
Editorial: The Atlantic Yards Project [NY Times]
eminent domain abuse = taking good peoples good homes against their will so that someone else can own it.
there’s nothing more abhorrent to me than people being forced from their homes by real estate developers working with any level of government.
for the record, the times has opined on at least two other occasions that i can recall. they’ve been consistent in their qualified support since the beginning.
I think that the fact that the Times was so lukewarm on AY shows how horrible it really is.
As for the “measures” to deal with traffic congestion proposed in the draft EIS — VIP parking for celebs for the arena and selling combined bball/metrocard tickets, as well as having the A train stop at Lafayette Ave on game nights. Wowee! Nothing about the day to day traffic impact of all these new residents and office workers, who will also bring cars.
Sorry for the multiple posts. One more question – I’m confused as to how emiment domain abuse relates to this project. While a developer (as opposed to the government) has initiated this project, doesn’t the fact it brings clear value to the city as a whole and particularly the borough of Brooklyn justify the use of eminent domain?
Does anyone know what measures were taken by the developer to deal with traffic congestion?
Does anyone know how what measures were taken by the developer to deal with traffic congestion?
I agree. I thought that the column was fair and measured.
I found the Times piece to be pretty sensible. I wholeheartedly agree with their suggestions – that the project needs some tweaking, but the development of the railyards is a worthwhile endeavor.