NY Times confirms support for AY

escap

Very happy to see this editorial today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/opinion/nyregionopinions/atlyards.1.html?ref=nyregionopinions

livetotravel

me too - equally glad to have read Errol Louis' Daily News article on Friday . . .

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/440478p-371075c.html

doctorj

Livetotravel wrote: me too - equally glad to have read Errol Louis' Daily News article on Friday . . .

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/440478p-371075c.html

That's exactly what I was about to say. Two top pieces.

At the risk of rousing the rabble, what do y'all think of this bit:

"A more important issue is scale. The project would benefit if the square footage came down at least another 15 percent, which in turn would lighten the load on infrastructure, including the streets."

At this point in the process, which from my naïve standpoint looks like a foregone conclusion, how much of the plan is set in stone and how much is likely to be negotiated?

steve

I'm so glad to see some voices in the media say thse things. Both articles couldn't be more spot on.

ratnerville4ever

doctorj wrote: [quote=Livetotravel]me too - equally glad to have read Errol Louis' Daily News article on Friday . . .

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/440478p-371075c.html

That's exactly what I was about to say. Two top pieces.

At the risk of rousing the rabble, what do y'all think of this bit:

"A more important issue is scale. The project would benefit if the square footage came down at least another 15 percent, which in turn would lighten the load on infrastructure, including the streets."

At this point in the process, which from my naïve standpoint looks like a foregone conclusion, how much of the plan is set in stone and how much is likely to be negotiated?

yes, your standpoint is naive, but also, don't blame yourself, so is the Times and Errol Louis'. if it hasn't been made clear yet, Ratner has a major problem in that his use of eminent domain is illegal. and he knows it.

as for the scale thing that the Times wrote, it just shows how dumb the editorial writer is. S/he writes that scale is the real issue, then goes on to talk about reducing density. and do not forget, the editorial, which refuses to pay attention to so many issues, is written by Ratner's business partner, and the Times has every business reason in the world to make sure A. Yards goes through. Why? Because the Times is on the hook by guaranteeing a big loan FCR took out to build the Times' headquarters. Of course many think the whole thing is a done deal, because papers like the Times say so.

Bur remember. The Times also said there were WMD in Iraq.

to set the record straight or to read how dense and inconsistent the Times is, go here:

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/08/credulous-times-editorial-endorses-ay.html

http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_Linked.php?id=153

http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_Linked.php?id=154

doctorj

ratnerville4ever wrote: [quote=doctorj]
At the risk of rousing the rabble...

Like I was saying...

ratnerville4ever wrote:
yes, your standpoint is naive, but also, don't blame yourself, so is the Times and Errol Louis'. if it hasn't been made clear yet, Ratner has a major problem in that his use of eminent domain is illegal. and he knows it.

*yawn*. Since when was the rule of law a consideration in this country when rich people wanted to get something done?

Henry Kissinger wrote:
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.

ratnerville4ever

since when?

well, since two weeks ago. see: Norwood, Ohio. Supreme Court Decision.

or see Poletown case Michigan.

raulism

doctorj wrote: *yawn*. Since when was the rule of law a consideration in this country when rich people wanted to get something done?

Yeah, I mean, Bush wants to go to war with Iran. If he wants to do it, its going to happen, so we should just go along...

...is that what you are saying? The Ratner project would be the highest density census tract in North America. It will have about 1,000 people living per ACRE, not including the 250 events a year at the arena which would bring another 20,000 into the neighborhood. This might possibly be the biggest planning disaster in the US. It might not be, but shouldn't we at least give it a good look? Or should we just go along with the DEIS, which I think says that there will be LESS traffic after all this is built?

Taxpayers are getting screwed repeated. And "when the rich people want to get something done," I'm sure they are quite happy when we're passive about it.

But to answer your question, rule of law is a consideration when the citizens force the issue. The ESDC is not that nimble, and we've made them sweat. It's very satisfying to make them have to work hard for their corruption.

doctorj

raulism wrote: [quote=doctorj]*yawn*. Since when was the rule of law a consideration in this country when rich people wanted to get something done?

Yeah, I mean, Bush wants to go to war with Iran. If he wants to do it, its going to happen, so we should just go along...

...is that what you are saying?


Oh no, you've got me all wrong. Like most things in America, it's the spectacle that counts. What I really think is that it would be better if this were settled the old fashioned way. Like in gentlemen in empires of yore. You guys pick your champions, Ratner picks his champions, we toss you all into the railyards in tight leather loincloths with pikes and maces and so on. With some lions in there for good measure. And lots of nubile cheerleaders and an old-time big band. Everyone turns out to watch along Atlantic and Pacific and makes a day of it for the whole family. Winner take all, and the city pays for bread, beer, and roast chicken. Then we all go home happy and satisfied and the elites get to build whatever they think is in their and our best interests, and we really don't care because justice has been manifestly done and everyone who didn't get gouged or eaten had a great time and a real day to remember.

raulism

doctorj wrote: You guys pick your champions, Ratner picks his champions, we toss you all into the railyards in tight leather loincloths with pikes and maces and so on. With some lions in there for good measure. And lots of nubile cheerleaders and an old-time big band. Everyone turns out to watch along Atlantic and Pacific and makes a day of it for the whole family. Winner take all, and the city pays for bread, beer, and roast chicken.

Oh, that is a rather juicy solution. The things I could do to Stuckey... but I'd better not say more, or it WILL be used against me...... Oh, and the things I could do to Marty involving cheese cakes....