August 6, 2006
The Atlantic Yards Project
The NY Times editorial board believes that the advantages of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards proposal outweigh the problems traffic, lack of city planning or review, and density be damned:
These advantages have been repeated endlessly by Mr. Ratner, who is also The Times’s partner in building its new Manhattan headquarters. More than 2,200 of the apartment units would have rents targeted to low-, moderate- and middle-income families. The Nets basketball team would bring major league sports back to Brooklyn. The buildings designed by Frank Gehry would add a sense of excitement to the entire area. And, when finished in 2016, the project will add substantially to city and state tax revenues.
The board's main objection is the issue of density, and they recommend a 15% reduction to the scale of the project.
Suffice it to say, if Ratner pulls a revised plan out of a hat that is reduced by about, say, 15%, *Times readers and Brooklynites will have a clearer picture of the relationship between the Times and its development partner.*
Though the board has supported Atlantic Yards in the past, it continues to take a position that is diametrically opposed to its earlier opinion of the Jets Stadium project. The board opposed the scuttled project due to the lack of public input, enormous public subsidies and fast-track approval all issues that have been voiced by Atlantic Yards critics.
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn has posted an eye-opening side-by-side comparison of the NY Times's editorial against the Jets Stadium and today's editorial in support of Atlantic Yards.
We'll leave the heavy-duty analysis to Norman Oder at Atlantic Yards Report, who provides a point-by-point examination of the City-section editorial, with links to opinions other than those promoted by Forest City Ratner.
As readers can imagine, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn finds the editorial to be incredible:
The editorial board clearly did not delve into the DEIS, examine policy issues such as democratic process overrides, state overrides, Ratner's numerous broken promises, public financing, housing, myriad impacts that cannot and will not be mitigated if the project is built and, as usual, the Times and its board continues to have a glaring blind spot when it comes to eminent domain abuse.
Posted by lumi at August 6, 2006 12:14 AM