« Brooklyn Daily Eagle Tuesday Trifecta | Main | MTA board member "concerned" about amended Vanderbilt Yard plans, says board has yet to be fully briefed »
June 2, 2009
It came from the Blogosphere...
2nd Ave. Sagas, A sweeter sweetheart deal for the Atlantic Yards
Transit blogger Benjamin Kabak weighs in on the shady dealings between Forest City Ratner and the MTA.
So let me get this straight. A few months after the MTA needed an Albany bailout to avoid Doomsday cuts, they’re going to accept $50 million less than they had originally agreed to and $164 million less than market rate for the Atlantic Yards land, and this is somehow acceptable? No wonder the public does not trust the MTA.
MyBrooklynReport.com, 172 Brooklyn Avenue: Whose in Charge of this Eye Sore
 |
Atlantic Yards is invoked by a real estate blog that wonders why the City of New York has allowed a Crown Heights building to sit vacant for decades.
Like most states, New York has exercised its power of Eminent Domain for what the State deems for the highest possible use for its land. Projects like Yankee Stadium, the expansion of Columbia University’s campus, Atlantic Yards project, etc… were all projects that began with the legal condemnation of existing property.
Yet, this property’s highest possible use for 38 years was being a tax shelter.
...Do you think that buying this property and rehabilitating it for affordable condo ownership would be a project worth using some of the $24 million dollar grant for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program?
(or is it absurd to assume that the city is interested in stabilizing neighborhoods hard hit by the foreclosure crisis; neighborhoods like Crown Heights?)
Room Eight: Hildy Johnson's Blog, BRAD LANDER AND THE ACORN/RATNER ATLANTIC YARDS CONSPIRACY: AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
This lengthy, allegedly "investigative" piece on ACORN and the Working Families Party is short on citations, obscured by anonymity ("Hildy Johnson" was a character in the newspaper-themed classic films The Front Page and His Girl Friday), and casts perhaps unfair aspersions* on City Council candidate Brad Lander. But we publish it here because it does raise some serious questions about the WFP's role in elections and development.
...a questionnaire sent out by the Party to prospective candidates for Brooklyn Borough President included a section on “Land Use”. The section notes that “Borough Presidents appoint representatives to local community boards and the City Planning commission, which vote on land use and zoning actions under the NYC Uniform Land Use Review Procedure.”
It then asks if the candidate will “pledge to”:
“A. Consider the advice” of the party “regarding your appointments”.
“B. Commit to consulting with” the party “on development before deals with the developer are struck”.
Council candidates were asked to make similar pledges.
This is already a substantial grab for power for a political party. But WFP is not merely interested in using this power to increase its influence and increase its leverage. It is, itself, an actual beneficiary of the deals over which it seeks power.
* Norman Oder wrote the following this past Sunday, in an article headlined "Council candidate Lander, in testimony prepared for Senate hearing, gets tougher on AY, saying deal should be canceled":
Lander, the fund-raising frontrunner for the seat held by Bill de Blasio, has long had a more nuanced position on Atlantic Yards, previously taking a more BrooklynSpeaks-ish position, on his web site stating that "we should use the opportunity to either fix the flaws or reconsider the project." (Lander, former director of the Pratt Center for Community Development, is now a senior fellow there.)
Recently, in debates, Lander has ramped up his criticism of AY. Lander told me that, when he wrote his position a year ago, "I imagined that the economic crisis (which was then just beginning to become clear) might be an occasion for a renegotiation between ESDC/MTA/City/State and FCRC that might include the opportunity to fix some of the fundamental flaws. But as has become clear over the past year, and was evident at the hearing, that is not the case."
Lander's position also might be seen as an effort to compete with Josh Skaller, who's second in fundraising and has long been fundamentally opposed to the project, allying himself with Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn.
Posted by eric at June 2, 2009 9:31 AM