« MTA’s Change of Ratner Deal would Violate State Law without Independent Appraisal | Main | Public hearing set for July 29 & 30; arena due 2012, 25 years to get Phase 2 started »

June 29, 2009

In "Why Atlantic Yards matters" editorial, Crain's ignores inconvenient facts

Atlantic Yards Report

Norman Oder offers a running correction of this week's Crain's NY Business blinders-on, error-filled editorial extolling Atlantic Yards, which is only available to subscribers, or else we'd have done the job ourselves.

We'll post the offending item if we can get our hands on it.

In an editorial headlined Why Atlantic Yards matters: Mr. Ratner must act quickly, or it will be too late, Crain's New York Business goes to bat for Forest City Ratner.

I've bolded sections for emphasis.

The editorial states:
Amid an outcry that the state and the MTA have given Forest City Ratner a sweetheart deal to keep alive its Atlantic Yards project, it's time to recall how this scheme originated and why it has such steadfast backing from responsible city and state officials. For those who are optimistic about the city's prospects, Atlantic Yards is crucial for realizing New York's potential.

The editorial closes:
New York can continue to support Atlantic Yards, realize what is economically possible now and bet that the entire project can be built in the future. Or it can abandon Mr. Ratner and the project, in which case it is certain that Atlantic Yards will remain an open sore for decades to come.

Why does Crain's, tribune of the business community, not endorse free market practices--an appraisal, an effort to seek new bidders--but rather embrace a "market of one"? Why does Crain's not even endorse the RPA's desire to harness the upside?

And why does Crain's call a working railyard "an open sore," and treat the railyard as a substitute for the site itself, which just happens to be bounded by a new historic district?


Posted by eric at June 29, 2009 4:09 PM