Voices from the Atlantic Yards Debate
Last Thursday night, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer ran a segment on the Atlantic Yards debate, interviewing a number of the key players and voices on either side. Here are some excerpts: Marty Markowitz, Borough Pres: Sports have a way of infusing the municipality in which it’s in with that pride, that spirit. And we have…
Last Thursday night, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer ran a segment on the Atlantic Yards debate, interviewing a number of the key players and voices on either side. Here are some excerpts:
Marty Markowitz, Borough Pres: Sports have a way of infusing the municipality in which it’s in with that pride, that spirit. And we have lots of spirit in Brooklyn, you know that. I mean my attitude is if you don’t live in Brooklyn, forget about it.
Bertha Lewis, Acorn: It’s the most far-reaching housing agreement that’s ever been reached in this country. No one else has 50-50 — no one. It’s exhilarating and it is scary
Candace Carpenter, DDDB: They are asking for $2 billion in subsidies, which are taxpayers’ money, that will be utilized to line Ratner’s pockets. And we don’t have any input.
Laetitia James, City Council: It basically says things like good faith effort. It says things like, “we will try.” It says things like “we will consider.” It says things like “we will work with the government.” That’s not an ironclad agreement.
Jim Stuckey, FCR: There might be a need for eminent domain; there might be a need for condemnation; that is something that the state will decide.
Vince Burns, Tenant: If they wanted to take down my building to put in a police station or school – I’d had to leave where I am because I love the place — but I’d understand that – I mean, that’s fine — but this project is about one very wealthy man who wants to become wealthier by, you know, kicking me out.
Developing Brooklyn [PBS NewsHour]
I have read the opinion (BTW concurring is essentially meaningless) and I dont agree that New London is so different nor do I think it will be difficult to get the area to be (legally) declared blighted – but that is my opinion, if eminent domain is declared unlawful here then so be it, and no it will obviously not matter if it effects 1 or 1m the Govt couldn’t then take the property unless the owner was willing to sell.
As for my vociferous support of AY – I am truly excited about it However I am not blind to its consequences and also I have stated critisims where I see them but I still would like to see it done. FInally in relation to this thread I am not so vociferous that I would make excuses for a pro-AY person who voted for a racist nut-case simply b/c he named his political party with a name that he supports.
Sorry Petunia my mistake. And obviously there are a lot of passions on both sides here. Hopefully, the community will be able to have input into the situation and this plan will be changed — together we can surely come up with something better — check out “The Wisdom of Crowds” — it seems big groups of diverse and some might even say unintelligent people can come up with better ideas than those working in isolation.
er, sorry babs, I meant that David was the pot calling the kettle, not you. David, I’ve found your posts on other issues to be informative, but you can be so vociferous when it comes to your support of Atl. Yds…
Sorry, Petunia, I don’t try to shout down any and all — only those that are egregiously false or incorrect. I agree something should be done with the rail yards — they make such a huge psychological and physical divide between two nice areas — but to call the area blighted is a total falsehood.
And as I replied to David at 2:36 today, I certainly wasn’t defending anyone’s actions, just commenting that a lot of people vote for different political parties based on their names. And that that person’s action had no consequences in any event, as he and just about everyone else knew going into it (I voted for Ferrer for the same reason — a protest vote).
Petunia,
My house would never be threatened by eminent domain, because I would have sold out to Ratner long ago, just like most residents did…and made a handsome profit from doing so.
Re – anon 1:50, Puca was merely replying to a previous question, it doesn’t mean he was “digging deep.” I wonder if Anon 1:50 would still consider the Yards “worth it” if one of those houses were his/hers? As the conveniently ignored extell proposal showed, it is possible to keep the size of the development within the actual train yard footprint and still provide jobs and affordable housing.
and re- david’s 6:46 comment to babs – who is calling the kettle black here? *You* might be more persuasive if you didn’t try your damnedest to shout down any and all anti-ratner comments whenever the topic comes up.
And Jimmmy McMillan did disable or change a lot of his links in the weeks prior to the election (and under pressure for other candidates invited to run for his party), but I found a lot about him on Gawker.
David, sorry to get back to you so late. No I certainly wasn’t defending the idea of voting for someone based solely on the name or his or her party, just pointing out that many people do the same thing with the more established parties. It’s never a good idea, but it isn’t as rare as you seem to think judging from your statement. If someone did vote for the RTD party by mistake, that is a shame, and I’m sure that person regrets a frivolous and seemingly-innocent action, which was without consequence in any event.
And the law is subject to change as you know — the Supreme Court’s recent New London decision remains highly contested and easily challenged. I’m marching this weekend for the DDDB legal fund to ensure that we have the resources to do just that.
Puca, your response is telling. Specifically, if you have to make an attempt to list every property not owned by Ratner that is threatened by eminent domain, then you’re digging deep. Otherwise, you would simply have said something like “75% of the property in the footprint will be condemned through eminent domain”. In truth, if you look at the footprint as a whole, the majority of the property, whether it’s at risk for condemnation or not, is comprised of the railyards, private property owned by Ratner, or derelict structures like the Underberg Building. The amount of property that would be seized through eminent domain is relatively small at this point. IMO, that’s a fair trade for several thousand new units of housing. Even if the affordable housing is placed on the site of the former St. Mary’s Hospital, the fact would remain that it wouldn’t have exisited if it hadn’t been for the Atlantic Yards project.