NYT Op-Ed on the AY: A Developing Story

meganlibrarian

A Developing Story
The New York Times
February 24, 2007
By JENNIFER EGAN
Op-Ed Contributor

THE developer Bruce Ratner broke ground this week on his Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, despite an eminent domain suit over property he must raze to build a basketball arena for the Nets. This “preparatory work” is Mr. Ratner’s latest maneuver in a maddeningly effective campaign to make his instant city — a 22-acre swarm of 16 residential skyscrapers (and a 20,500-seat arena) that would create the densest population swath in the United States — look and feel like a foregone conclusion.

To supporters, anyone who opposes Atlantic Yards must be doing so for selfish reasons. The project, these proponents claim, is a boon for Brooklyn: it will connect neighborhoods long cleaved by the Long Island Rail Road yards; provide jobs, tax revenue and urgently needed affordable housing; supply acres of public green space; and showcase bold designs by Frank Gehry.

Moreover, it will do all this without seriously straining the area’s infrastructure, according to an environmental impact statement commissioned by Mr. Ratner: police, fire, bus and subway services and schools will absorb the new population mostly without “adverse impact,” and tweaking the timing of stoplights will largely prevent traffic snarls.

Reading these assertions, I’m half-convinced myself — until I look around me.

I live three blocks north of the project, in sunny, friendly Fort Greene, a neighborhood diverse by race, age and family configuration. Many families on our block have been here for 20 years (we’ve been here six), but there are also plenty of newcomers — homeowners and renters both.

Even without Atlantic Yards, our neighborhood and others nearby are feeling the strain of poor planning for a rising population. Traffic and parking are problems already; Flatbush Avenue is a seething mass of vehicles that I dread crossing with my children. Morning subway trains are crammed, and the buses on DeKalb Avenue are often too crowded to pick up new passengers.

At my son’s public school — a lottery school serving the Atlantic Yards area — 620 children vied last year for 100 slots, and the number of applicants rises by a hundred each year. The claim that these neighborhoods can absorb at least 15,000 new residents, not to mention 20,000 arena-goers, defies common sense.

Nearly everyone I’ve spoken to about the Atlantic Yards project, whether they favored or opposed it, assumed that it would be scaled back. In fact, the plan approved by the Public Authorities Control Board in December was more than 600,000 square feet larger than the one first unveiled.

That approval came despite sobering revisions by the city and the developer of his initial heady claims about the project’s benefits to Brooklyn: the proportion of affordable housing has slipped, and much of it won’t be completed until 2016; the public park on the arena’s rooftop is now only for residents; the number of promised jobs has shrunk; the projected tax revenue has fallen; and the taxpayers’ bill is colossal and apparently open-ended.

Even as the Atlantic Yards project sailed forward with hardly a concession from Mr. Ratner (whose company is also building this newspaper’s new headquarters), two other high-profile projects were voted down: the Norman Foster tower on Manhattan’s Upper East Side and the Jets stadium on the Far West Side. Why have things played out so differently for Brooklyn than for Manhattan?

There are many possible answers. The most critical fact is that, because part of the property on the Atlantic Yards footprint belongs to the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a state organization, Mr. Ratner was allowed to bypass local checks and balances and work directly with Albany.

There was also the absence in Brooklyn of a wealthy corporate adversary like Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden and, fearing competition, helped to fight off the Jets stadium. And because Atlantic Yards doesn’t involve protected buildings, the Landmarks Preservation Commission — which killed the Foster building after adamant, well-organized lobbying from deep-pocketed locals — was never invoked.

But as someone who has long opposed the development in its proposed form, I’ve been frustrated that many Brooklynites who agreed with me weren’t moved to do much about it. Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, a local organization (on whose advisory board I serve), has vehemently opposed the project. But resignation and bitter apathy afflicted many residents, who disliked the project but felt that it was unstoppable.

What chance do we have, I was asked, when our mayor, governor and borough president are in lockstep with a private developer? News coverage has often left unscrutinized Mr. Ratner’s claims about the development’s financial benefits or the implications of its density and scale. This tacit approval has only added to the perception that the project is a done deal.

It has also allowed Mr. Ratner to operate his formidable spin machine in a relative vacuum. Perhaps his greatest public relations ploy was to form partnerships, early on, with eight community organizations, some of which appear to have been created expressly to support him (his company has acknowledged giving at least one of them $100,000).

The commitments Mr. Ratner made to these groups — should he honor them — are good ones: construction job training, small-business development and 2,250 units of subsidized housing.

But the biggest gain was Mr. Ratner’s. By allying himself with groups run largely by African-Americans, he was able to cast himself — a wealthy man who stands to make $1 billion on the Atlantic Yards development — as the champion of working-class Brooklynites who favor jobs and housing in a battle against affluent, spoil-sport newcomers who have the luxury of fretting over their quality of life. This was a powerful strategy: the question of whether the Atlantic Yards project was good for Brooklyn dissolved into the uneasy question of whose Brooklyn you were talking about.

What was mostly lost in this caustic debate was the biggest question of all: what do we Brooklynites — a diverse and even divided collective — want our borough to be? Do we want it transformed from a sunny, low-lying place into knots of vertical superblocks? Are we content to let our borough’s future be imposed on us by developers and politicians?

Brooklyn’s population is expected to rise 10 percent by 2030 — that’s more than 250,000 people, and we can be certain that Mr. Ratner is not the last developer to have a grand vision of how to profit from their arrival. It is our responsibility to work together — actively and inclusively — if we hope to exert any control over the future of our borough.

There’s a lesson in Mr. Ratner’s grassroots tactics: if we are united in advance on questions of jobs, housing and scale, it will be much harder for a developer to use these issues to divide us. Progress is already being made. Since 2004, City Councilwoman Letitia James, whose district includes the Atlantic Yards footprint, and who opposed the project from the start, has worked with Brooklynites to create a community development plan for any future building on the rail yards, should Mr. Ratner yet fail. Known as the Unity plan, it emphasizes appropriate scale and affordable housing, and has been endorsed by 23 local groups, and city and state politicians.

This is a model of what should be happening throughout Brooklyn. A strong girding of power and ideas is our best defense against developers who might wish to control the process. And an active and vocal public will send a healthy warning to elected officials who might consider placing these developers’ interests above our own.

Jennifer Egan is the author, most recently, of “The Keep,” a novel.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/opinion/24egan.html?pagewanted=all

jimbo79

There’s a lesson in Mr. Ratner’s grassroots tactics: if we are united in advance on questions of jobs, housing and scale, it will be much harder for a developer to use these issues to divide us.

Does this article make any sense? If you're against AY, then you can agree with her for being against AY. But this "lesson" she draws? OK, suppose Rattner throws in the towel and we're back at square one. Does Ms. Egan really think that a united community is going to rise up and say with one voice, Whoever develops this parcel should include x housing units, y% accessible to people with half the median income, provide z jobs, build no higher than w storeys, etc. In a large and diverse community, people will have different priorities. People who are united by their opposition to a specific plan won't necessarily be united in their support for an abstract plan.

















5

phmimi

What about the Unity Plan which was developed by Extell corp with Tish James office. It provided more subsidized housing, paid the MTA more for the railyards and had no eminent domain. It is a clear winner and was developed in a collegial way.

sevenoneeighty

So what does this mean exactly...?How many properties are we talking about here?

http://www.dddb.net/php/latestnews_ArchiveDate.php

State Court Rules Ratner Improperly Obtained Lease
For Properties in “Atlantic Yards” Footprint
Developer’s Claims of “Control” of Properties Misled ESDC, PACB;
Ruling Significantly Increases Costs of Project

BROOKLYN, NY— New York State Supreme Court Justice Ira B. Harkavy struck a blow to Forest City Ratner (FCRC) on Tuesday when he ruled for Prospect Heights property owner Henry Weinstein in a dispute over control of properties owned by two of Mr. Weinstein’s corporations in the footprint of FCRC’s proposed “Atlantic Yards” project. The ruling terminates the leases, which real estate developer Shaya Boymelgreen improperly assigned to FCRC, and permits Mr. Weinstein to regain full control of his properties.

Justice Harkavy ruled that AY Carlton, an affiliate of FCRC, had improperly acquired the leases on the property owned by Mr. Weinstein at 752-766 Pacific Street and 535 Carlton Avenue from Mr. Boymelgreen. The leases had been transferred to AY Carlton without Mr. Weinstein’s approval, and for a purpose – the demolition of the properties – to which Mr. Weinstein did not consent, despite clauses in the leases that clearly forbid such actions.

Ignoring the fact that Mr. Weinstein had not consented to assignment of the leases and that he, in fact, still owned both properties, FCRC also misled the Empire State Development Corporation and the Public Authorities Control Board by claiming control of Mr. Weinstein’s properties, despite Mr. Weinstein’s rejection of the transfer and his repeated requests that FCRC refrain from making such a claim.

Mr. Weinstein, whose corporations are plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit contesting the use of eminent domain for the “Atlantic Yards” project, contends that FCRC attempted to take assignment of the leases in order to substantially diminish the value of his properties, thereby minimizing the amount they would have to pay him, if he agreed to sell, or through State condemnation procedures.

Even if the Court permits the State to proceed with its taking of property using eminent domain, which Mr. Weinstein strongly believes it will not, Justice Harkavy’s ruling will likely substantially increase FCRC’s costs for the proposed project. By acquiring Mr. Weinstein’s leases – which run until 2048 – FCRC likely hoped to claim that the properties had little value beyond the leases themselves. With full control restored to Mr. Weinstein, however, the cost of acquisition has likely increased ten-fold. In court filings, Mr. Weinstein said that FCRC never made him a firm offer for his properties, and that FCRC implied that if he did not sell, the ESDC would take the property through eminent domain.

“I’ve always believed in the rule of law,” Mr. Weinstein said after Justice Harkavy issued his decision. “I’m pleased that the truth prevailed today, and I am confident that my co-plaintiffs and I will win our challenge to Ratner’s unconstitutional use of the power of eminent domain. Justice Harkavy made it clear to Ratner that he is bound by the law like everyone else, and I trust that the federal court will hold him to the same standard.”

Click here to download a PDF of the Court's decision.
Posted: 3.07.07

jack krohn

Re: DDDB press release, all this court decision really means is that Henry Weinstein will get more $ for his property than he initially thought.

The important question to ask is, Will this help block the project? And the answer to that, as usual, is no.

karl the druid

Subject: continued

after the dragon's smoke cleared an ogre appeared among the confusion cloaked in the skin of a mighty magician

thus, spoke he mockingly as dust blew around his heavy bare feet

"mourn we not, the loss of your precious captain america? i, your new your leader command. follow me all."

all eyes were blank

(continued)

pitu

here's the NYT story on the leases today
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/nyregion/08yards.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

March 8, 2007
Atlantic Yards Loses Lease to Part of Site
By ANDY NEWMAN

As it moves forward on its plans for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, the developer Forest City Ratner has represented itself as controlling nearly all the property in the 22-acre footprint of the site.

But in a decision released yesterday, a judge in Brooklyn terminated Forest City Ratner’s long-term lease on two properties covering nearly an acre of land within the site, after finding that a tenant had sold the lease to Forest City without the owner’s permission.

Control of the properties, a six-story office building and adjacent parking lot along Pacific Street near Downtown Brooklyn, reverts to the owner, Henry Weinstein, the judge ruled.

Mr. Weinstein is one of 13 property owners challenging the state’s right to condemn property under eminent domain law and convey it to Forest City for the $4 billion Atlantic Yards project that includes 6,400 rental apartments and condominiums, office towers, a hotel and a basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets.

Forest City has already begun work on the project on portions of the site it owns in anticipation of ultimately gaining control of the disputed properties.

Officials at Forest City Ratner declined to comment on the ruling.

Mr. Weinstein’s tenant, a company controlled by another major developer, Shaya Boymelgreen, had argued in court papers that Mr. Weinstein had no valid reason to deny him permission to sell his leases to two companies controlled by Forest City. Mr. Boymelgreen’s lawyer contended that Mr. Weinstein was only withholding his consent in order to be able to extract more money from Forest City or the state when he sold the properties.

But the judge, Justice Ira B. Harkavy of State Supreme Court, ruled that regardless of Mr. Weinstein’s motives, the contracts stated “clearly and unambiguously” that the leases could not be transferred without his permission.

A lawyer for Mr. Boymelgreen’s companies, James P. Sheridan, said he would appeal the decision.

Mr. Weinstein had leased the properties, at 762-766 Pacific Street and 535 Carlton Avenue, to Mr. Boymelgreen’s companies in 1999, for a term of 48 years.

In 2003, Forest City proposed the Atlantic Yards project. Forest City is also the development partner for The New York Times Company in building its new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan.

In February 2006, the parties agree, Mr. Boymelgreen’s companies sent a letter to Mr. Weinstein asking permission to sell the leases to Forest City, but sent it to a wrong address. Ten days later, without having heard back from Mr. Weinstein, Mr. Boymelgreen’s companies transferred the leases to Forest City.

Mr. Weinstein said that Forest City must have known that it did not have the right to take over the leases without his blessing. “If you’re buying a lease from somebody and you have thousand-dollar-an-hour, 800-pound gorilla lawyers retained to protect your interest,” he said, “I tend to think that they read the lease and realized that they knew that what they were doing was illegal.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

pete_c

I wouldn't mind seeing the Nets move in, even with the traffic headaches.

Its the eminent domain, 22,000 new housing units, we're rich and well connected and we can do whatever the hell we want, part that really disturbs me.

bill c

i am saddened by this court decision. i was really hoping that the legal concept of being able to sell someone else's property would be recognized. this is a pretty old concept, not as well recognized as it should be in my opinion. of course, it usually involves the transfer of the rights to the brooklyn bridge, often at bargain rates to a less savvy purchaser than someone like bruce ratner. i am glad to see that mr. boymelgreen is keeping this longstanding local tradition alive.

oiseau

I'm glad this set back occured, but I still don't see there being any stopping this. And forget about the schools, traffic, public transportation, etc. - those things are secondary. The primary goal here, and in all of America, is to increase the population of an area through whatever means neccessary. Once you do that you bring in more money. Then, once things have reached a breaking point, you start worrying about how to fix them. It's kind of backwards but it's the American way.

michaelkeys

For obvious reasons this made me think of AY:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyid=2007-03-22T121044Z_01_T166669_RTRUKOC_0_US-JAPAN-MARKSMAN.xml