Atlantic Yards approved

raulism

pureistheword wrote: unless there is something I missed, those graphics skip the income range between 35K and 42K (where I currently fall into).

Oh, you don't have anything to worry about. The PDF on the official Atlantic Yards website does indeed skip your bracket.

But more importantly, Forest City Ratner had a session in July 2006 to discuss the housing opportunities and to let people on to the waiting list. More than 2,000 people showed up, and I had the luck of four separate ocassions to talk to different people who went to the session.

They all independently came to the same conclusion: There was no chance that they were going to get any of the "affordable" units. There will be a lottery for the units, but you will be in competition from people from all over New York, and if it is somehow weighted for how long you've been on the waiting list, then you're already 3 years behind some other people. That's assuming the system is fair, but given the fact that at least the 2,000 people from that housing session have already signed up for the 900 units for people earning $35,450 and under, and the fact that your income band is not represented, your chances are slim.

Of course, that's assuming that Ratner actually builds the units. There are two phases of the project, and many of the "affordable" units won't be finished until at best 2016. Also, project supporters admit that it may take 15-20 years to finish this thing, and to be safe, I would count on waiting until 2026 to be sure that you might get a unit.

For more information on how that housing session went, please visit
http://www.onnyturf.com/articles/read.php?article_id=305
or
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/07/stuckey-lewis-face-restive-skeptical.html

If this doesn't cheer you up, then be thankful that your tax dollars will be subisidizing Ratner to build luxury units that you never had a chance to live in. Giving is really the greatest gift of all, and you're helping a billionaire who has only thought of others, which is really really nice.

escap

Raulism, I'm starting to sense that you and I don't exactly see eye to eye on certain issues.... :-k

capt. planet

That Yarn Guy wrote: [quote=greg]Our more responsible leaders, such as Marty Markowitz and Michael Bloomberg, are trying to make intelligent plans for them, by building housing where it should be built, not willy nilly scattered across the landscape, in South Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Poconos, but near existing transit hubs.

Greg, if the primary goal was to build FCR Affordable Housingâ„¢, that would be the headline on every paper "Afforable Housing For Thousand!!". But that's not the case, it's about an arena. That's ALWAYS how its been.

If FCR's primary plans were to build affordable housing they would have real numbers and projections on that type of housing, enviormental impact, the cost of future utlities, hospitals and schools. If this is in fact their solution, it is the laziest, most irresponsible way to plan the future.

In the case of Carbini Green in Chicago, the restructuring that you call "willy nilly" works, they call it "mixed-income" housing. It took years of planning and a good execution. On the other hand AY has cobbled some slapped-together package that rides on the tail end of an arena.

From the discussions on this topic, the only real allure that someone people are thrilled aobut is that their property value will go up, if only they can survive the unsellable years, if and when construction starts in the area. They reserve the right to sell when they can. So far I haven't heard anyone really say "I LOVE THE NETS" as their opening statement with exception of that nuisance guest poster who has a crush on Daniel Goldstein.

Until we actually see any real proof of a real FCR housing plan we're all just talking about pie charts, Power Point slide and promises. If you can see through the smoke and mirrors you've only seen a scale model that looks like a recycling night mishap.

Cabrini Green helps make my point that our failure to have a federal plan for affordable housing is forcing us to rely such wealthy private sector patrons as Bruce Ratner. The Cabrini Green project was a federal housing project, created and paid for by the federal government. It's conversion to mixed income housing was again paid for by the HUD Hope VI program. NYC was the last major city to attempt a Hope VI project, the infamous Prospect Plaza debacle, still hotly contested by the affordable housing industry.

Hope VI is now at least 15 years old and no longer functional. There is now to my knowledge no new monies available on the federal level for affordable housing construction. Section 8 has been and is still consuming a huge percentage of the federal housing budget but these monies do not create public housing development, just subsidies for private sector developers.

If Bruce didn't create affordable housing, who would? Will the "Don't Develop, Destroy" crowd? Do they have the capacity, the staffing, the funds, etc. etc.?

The whole AY mess just points to how little actual planning is being done in the public sector today. Our elected officials mostly just cater to the loudest of their constitutients, jump in front of parades and then claim to have started them. When real leaders with vision attempt to do development they are instantly vilified by those negatively impacted and thrown from office if possible.

Bottom line: people for the most part don't really give a shit and find it much more entertaining to bitch and moan than actually do the hard work of planning and implementing.

Welcome to the 21st century!!!

raulism

greg wrote: If Bruce didn't create affordable housing, who would? Will the "Don't Develop, Destroy" crowd? Do they have the capacity, the staffing, the funds, etc. etc.?

A nice comparison. Bruce Ratner has about as much experience in building affordable housing as DDDb. I don't think either are very good candidates to build it, and for that matter, ACORN is best known as an advocacy group, and has very little experience in running housing, and that experience has been extremely problematic, as far as I can tell.

If the goal were actually affordable housing, there are much better candidates, such as Fifth Avenue Committee. In any case, having an open bidding process would be a no-brainer, and I wouldn't mind a not-for-profit doing it, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there are many examples of such groups creating affordable housing.

greg wrote: Bottom line: people for the most part don't really give a shit and find it much more entertaining to bitch and moan than actually do the hard work of planning and implementing.

I may find the pro-Atlantic Yards groups distasteful, but at least they are out advocating for their constituents. But thanks for the high praise of DDDb: State law calls for public input as part of the planning process, and there would have been almost none if it were for groups like DDDb to keep the politicians honest. (...or at least slightly closer to honest.)

idlewild

Anonymous wrote: There are more supporters for the site than people thought. Just goes to show you that in a democracy, you can't keep people silent forever.
By the way, Eminent Domain was used to build Lincoln Center and the World Trade Center.
So there is a history of Eminent Domain being used in New York City that has bettered people's lives.
All you nay sayers are hypocrites.
GO RATNER!!!!!

Tell 'em, Revs.

the yarn monkey

greg wrote: If Bruce didn't create affordable housing, who would? Will the "Don't Develop, Destroy" crowd? Do they have the capacity, the staffing, the funds, etc. etc.?

DDDB's role has always been public advocacey against Eminent Domain abuse, not urban planning.

Did FCR in fact create "affordable" housing? They've made pie charts, Power Point slides and promises which so far yet to be presented in a cohesive plan. Has FCR ever created affordable housing? FCR creates malls and corporate parks for sale. Here's the only residential project on the list 111 Worth Street. So far the only listed tentants are Starbucks and Duane Reade.

greg wrote: The whole AY mess just points to how little actual planning is being done in the public sector today. Our elected officials mostly just cater to the loudest of their constitutients, jump in front of parades and then claim to have started them. When real leaders with vision attempt to do development they are instantly vilified by those negatively impacted and thrown from office if possible.

As someone who grew up in projects, I do find the lack of leadership vs. personal interest of elected officials very piss-poor sad, I agree with you on that. And public advocates? If you pay Bertha Lewis enough she'll kiss former foe Bloomie on the lips for public show. But positioning FCR as a new urban planner sounds like a cruel social experiement. They can barely get a rudimentary traffic report together.

Just call a spade a spade. FCR's primary intention is to build an arena, not affordable housing in our area. To look to FCR as a social architect is pretty desperate. That's like going to a dentist to look at a G.I. problem. But if you likes the malls, Bruce is your man. It's what he's done best.

raulism

escap wrote: Raulism, I'm starting to sense that you and I don't exactly see eye to eye on certain issues.... :-k

Ah yes, the "escap pretends to be innocent" trick. I've fallen for that trap before, so I'm wary of your wily ways. :-$

plainwrapper

Bruce Ratner is not "creating" affordable housing.
he is being given enormous tax breaks and cash and free land and below market land, and in exchange he'll build affordable housing, oh yeah, and 4,180 luxury units and money pit arena (also paid for by the public)

give that same sweet deal to any other developer and they'll gladly do the same.

FCR is not doing anybody any favors. its his poitical cronies doing him favors. if FCR was judged on the merits of its past projects, they'd be blackballed from the NYC development community.

capt. planet

plainwrapper wrote: Bruce Ratner is not "creating" affordable housing.
he is being given enormous tax breaks and cash and free land and below market land, and in exchange he'll build affordable housing, oh yeah, and 4,180 luxury units and money pit arena (also paid for by the public)

give that same sweet deal to any other developer and they'll gladly do the same.

FCR is not doing anybody any favors. its his poitical cronies doing him favors. if FCR was judged on the merits of its past projects, they'd be blackballed from the NYC development community.

No one asked FCR to do the Community Benefit Agreement, it was purely Ratner's idea. There have been none done on the East Coast in fact. No one else, not Trump, not Related, none of the big developers did a CAA. It was Ratner and it is consistent with his families orientation towards giving back to the community. Never forget that Bruce Ratner's brother is Michael Ratner, head of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has filed a lawsuit in German court to have Donald Rumsfeld brought up on war crimes.

The Rose family had the Atlantic Yards site for years and never offered the community squat, and they never developed squat. Ratner reaches out to the disenfranchised with his CAA, to Daughtry, ACORN, BUILD, etc. and voila, something gets built.

This is not rocket science, but then, f its so easy, how come no one else is doing it? Has The Donald ever talked to Rev. Daughtry, Bertha Lewis or James Caldwell? Boy, that would be a sight I'd love to see. But Bruce did it and a lot more.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but all mega developers are not crooks or pimps. Some actually care, and when the history books are written, I believe Bruce will go down as one who did.

plainwrapper

wrong AND naive.
from an expert on CBAs
http://www.ctj.org/itep/gjny/testimony_bay_5_05.htm

Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) issues
The BAY project is the first project we know of in New York City in which the developer has advertised that he seeks to participate in a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). As a sponsored project of Good Jobs First, which provided support for the CBAs negotiated in California and continues to act as a clearinghouse for information on CBAs, we feel it is important to draw the Council’s attention to several major differences between CBAs as they have been used in other parts of the country and the series of negotiations that FCRC is calling a CBA. Perhaps the most striking is that elsewhere CBAs are negotiated by one broad coalition of groups that would otherwise oppose a project, a coalition that includes labor and community organizations representing a variety of interests. The coalition hammers out its points of unity in advance and then each member holds out on settling on its particular issue until the issues of the other members are addressed. This way, the bargaining power of each group is used for the benefit of the coalition as a whole. In the BAY case, several groups, all of which have publicly supported the project already, have each engaged in what seem to be separate negotiations on particular issues.

While certainly a win in the fight for affordable housing, the agreement announced last week between FCRC and ACORN is one example of this piecemeal approach. Significantly, the housing agreement is in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), rather than a legally binding contract with strong enforcement mechanisms. While the developer is also reportedly negotiating with some community groups on jobs and local hiring, it remains to be seen what kind of agreement will be reached. Community residents who have not been part of the negotiation, but have expressed concerns about educational facilities, open space, and traffic, have not had a way to include these concerns in the negotiation process that has taken place so far. We do not mean to say that negotiations on affordable housing and local hiring are without value. Housing and jobs are among the most important reasons to pursue development projects of any kind. However, to use the “CBA” model set forth by the landmark STAPLES Center agreement in Los Angeles for a series of non-binding side agreements between already-supportive community groups and a developer can only set a low bar for future attempts to negotiate for broad-based benefits from major development projects. Without broad, cross-cutting organizing, such “CBAs” can become a mechanism for dividing the community rather than uniting it, and devolve into a mere publicity tool for developers of controversial projects.

raulism

greg wrote: No one asked FCR to do the Community Benefit Agreement, it was purely Ratner's idea. There have been none done on the East Coast in fact. No one else, not Trump, not Related, none of the big developers did a CAA.

I'm not an expert on Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs), but there are at least two that I know about for projects that are further along than the Atlantic Yards. The Yankees did one, and there was another for the Bronx Terminal Market.

Here's an article talking about Bloomberg's comments that the Yankee's CBA was "ransom":
http://therealestate.observer.com/2006/04/the-bronxs-ransom.html

Here are something from the Gotham Gazette from April 2006:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/community/17/views/371

Also, The Real Estate Observer ran this piece comparing the Bronx Terminal Market CBA to the Ratner deal:

http://therealestate.observer.com/2006/02/the-cba-tourney.html

And here's something about a CBA in with the Yale-New Haven Hospital in Connecticut:
http://www.ctneweconomy.org/CBA.html

So as a statement of fact, did you not know about these other CBAs, or did I not understand what you meant by saying that there have been none on the East Coast?

greg wrote: It was Ratner and it is consistent with his families orientation towards giving back to the community. Never forget that Bruce Ratner's brother is Michael Ratner, head of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has filed a lawsuit in German court to have Donald Rumsfeld brought up on war crimes.

I have great respect for Michael Ratner's CCR work. That doesn't mean that this project is good. It's a pretty unconvincing argument to bring up Bruce's brother's other activities to justify the details of the current issue.

greg wrote: The Rose family had the Atlantic Yards site for years and never offered the community squat, and they never developed squat.

That doesn't mean that the Ratner project is any good.

Are you saying that because Ratner wants to build there we shouldn't even consider any other developers?

greg wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble, but all mega developers are not crooks or pimps. Some actually care, and when the history books are written, I believe Bruce will go down as one who did.

You know, Bruce Ratner may have a pure heart, but I have some real problems with his CBA in particular.

I think I can sum my problems with the CBA in my questions with three words: "Community," Benefits" and "Agreement."

Let me start with the last word. I had a long conversation with Assemblyman-elect Hakeem Jeffries and his found the AY CBA highly flawed. I'm not a lawyer, but he found the language in the CBA deeply problematic in that it was so skewed to benefit the developer. I think he said something like "a first year law student would be able to see right through this."

As far as "benefits" go, I think Ratner is giving very little to get a huge huge humongous amount of benefits for his company. As far as I know, Ratner will get fined $500,000 for breaking the CBA, but he probably has bought lunches that cost more than that. He's been losing $20,000,000 a year keeping the Nets, so that's not even chump change for him.

But he has given money to various CBA signatories. Compare that record to this quote from one of the Staples CBA people:

John Goldstein, National Program Director of The Partnership for Working Families wrote:
As a matter of principle, groups in our network don’t take money from developers. We want to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.... We have advocated in CBAs that developers give to the communities they're developing in.

You can read more about this here:
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/06/conflict-of-interest-350k-to-cba.html


And let's look at the "community" question. First of all, unlike the truly history Staples CBA, which involved I think about 300 diverse organizations, there are only 8 "community" organizations that signed on to Ratner's agreement. Let's go over who they are.

First of all there's BUILD. The common criticism of BUILD is that it was created by Ratner, which makes it looks like a pre-fab ready-made community- the so-called astroturf group. This criticism was given credence when they were caught getting funding from Ratner and then lying about it repeatedly.

To give some background, the story of their highly suspicious funding broke here on the Brooklynian. It's probably the biggest news scoop from this site. Here's the link:

http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1055&highlight=build

For more details on DDDb's crit, go here:
http://dddb.net/php/press/BUILD/index.php

ACORN may or may not be a wonderful organization. But it is a NATIONAL organization, so it is incorrect to say that it's a Brooklyn community organziation, despite the fact that it does have some community roots here. And I can't bring up ACORN without including this photo:



Oy, I'm getting a little tired writing this response, but basically, unless you're one of the signatories to the CBA, you're probably not going to benefit at all from this project, IMHO. And if you are a signatory, your chances improve slightly.

But on the subject of the evilness of the Ratner team, I have to be blunt. I know some people might take offense to making moral judgements, but I don't care. I consider AKRF, the company that did environmental study for Ratner, evil. Yup. Evil. And here's why.

In Downtown Brooklyn, on Duffield Street, especially buildings numbered 227, 229 and 233, there is very strong historical evidence that there is an important stop on the Underground Railroad. These houses were very likely places where individuals stood up to the legal enslavement of African-Americans. And AKRF is working hard to destroy these properties.

This is a much worse abuse of eminent domain that at the proposed Atlantic Yards site. AKRF, Bloomberg and those other slime want to destroy these buildings using eminent domain to build an underground parking lot.

So to respond again to this quote:

greg wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble, but all mega developers are not crooks or pimps.

Yeah, but AKRF are frakkin pimps. Or worse. I don't care if Michael Ratner is a saint, AKRF's involvement with AY should give pause to anyone who thinks slavery is a bad thing.

And if you care about these properties, please come to my Kwanzaa performance on Thursday. I will be playing with one of my African bands at 227 Duffield Street on 12/28 at 8ish.

capt. planet

Raulism, I wish I had the time to get into a lengthy rebuttal of your numerous observations. However, suffice it to say, I was a non-profit developer for 15 years and can say this from experience: it's no cake walk. While it's fine to be able to pick apart the work of others, it's entirely another thing to actually create affordable housing.

Regarding the other CBA's you cite, I believe both were inked after Ratner's. The fact that they are further along is primarily due to the fact that there was less opposition to these other projects and they of course are also infinitely smaller and less complex than Atlantic Yards.

Enjoy the holidays!

jack krohn

Your post makes an important point, Greg. You have genuine experience with this topic, whereas Raul does not (as far as I know, he’s a musician, not a developer). Even so, he is not taking you seriously, because his intentions are not based in reality. He and his fellow AY opponents are guided by idealism, and focus on what *should* be rather than what can be. That’s why their efforts to block or reduce the size of the towers and stadium have failed on all fronts. In all honesty, it’s a mystery to me why they cling to tactics that have brought them nothing but failure. I would give them some credit if Chris Owens, Bill Batson, or Gloria Mattera had been elected; or if they had succeeded in blocking demolition of the Underberg or other buildings; or if they had convinced Silver to delay the project until 2007; or if Extel had been awarded the bid for the yards; or if the press had discontinued using “Prospect Heights” rather than “Downtown Brooklyn”. And the list goes on. There seems to be no effort to build bridges or persuade the larger public, only to round up those already in lockstep with their outlook and view anyone else as an enemy. When a small, militant band of people rigidly adheres to an incredibly unrealistic plan, failure is guaranteed. At some point, I would think it wise to re-examine these tactics and try to come up with something that actually works. Instead, they point fingers at everyone but themselves. If they fail to achieve their objectives, it’s because of corruption and misinformation, not their own ineptitude. But that gets back to the idealism, as well as the woeful lack of experience. Community organizing requires specific skills and, from everything I’ve seen, those opposing AY are sorely lacking in them.

I, too, am through with this thread. The project was approved and no amount of debating (or lawsuits) will change that. Happy New Year!

raulism

greg wrote: Raulism, I wish I had the time to get into a lengthy rebuttal of your numerous observations. However, suffice it to say, I was a non-profit developer for 15 years and can say this from experience: it's no cake walk. While it's fine to be able to pick apart the work of others, it's entirely another thing to actually create affordable housing.

I have great respect for people who work for non-profit developers, and I hope my comments do not come across as dishonoring your service.

It certainly is a great challenge creating affordable housing, and I share your commitment to it. There is a lot of animosity on both sides of the Atlantic Yards debate, and I will do the best to challenge my allies to lay off the scurilous language.

It is possible to have strong views and to work fearlessly for a cause and not use undue personal attacks. If there are people who bear personal responsibility, it should be the leaders, not the footsoldiers.

In the end we all do need to live together. That is what I am striving for. That's why some people oppose AY, and that's why some people support it.

Most of us agree on many many issues, and I will fight like hell for the things I believe in, but in the end we need to maintain our humanity.

Of course, forums like this promote some puffery and snarkiness. We shouldn't take that too seriously either.

Happy holidays, and I look forward to finding more common ground in the year to come.

bill c

I'm not sure who the "reality-based" community is in this conflict but arent the AY opponents correct in stating that the stadium will be built in Prospect Hgts, not downtown Brooklyn? That should be simply a matter of journalistic integrity, rather than the popularity of Daniel Goldstein/ DDDB or whethr or not their tactics are overly idealistic.

Also, while eminent domain is a longstanding legal concept the the use of eminent domain to take property from private citizens and give it over to another private citizen (albeit one intent on including some community benefits in his plan) is of relatively recent vintage. The concept really took hold following a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court involving a neighborhood on detroit's east side called Poletown in the early 80's.

At that time the automobile industry and particularly the city of Detroit were in a terrible economic depression, with unemployment at roughly 25- 30%. The city wanted to use a recently closed Chrysler plant, the dodge main facility, and seize land from the adjacent Poletown neighborhood and give it to GM/Cadillac to build a state of the art plant. the mayor reasoned that the city was desperate for jobs and needed the new cadillac plant to keep some economic development in the city.
The Michigan Court uphled the city's use of ED and that decision led to thousands of other communities exercising eminent domain under the economic development as "public purpose" rationale put forward in the Poletown decision.

A few years ago the Michigan Supreme Court had cause to revisit their Poletown decision and overturned their decision. The stage was set for the US Supreme Court to examine this rationale in the recent Kelo v. City of New London case

In Kelo, the Court's plurality rejected the argument that economic development does not qualify as a public use. Rather, economic development was itself a traditional and long accepted government function even where such takings often benefit individual private parties.

Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion, however, constituted the Kelo holding, the part with precedential value, because his vote was necessary to obtain a plurality. He emphasized that a taking intended to benefit a particular private party, with only incidental or pretextual public benefits would not pass muster under the Court's public purpose test.

In reviewing, a court must decide if the stated public purpose -- economic advantage to a city sorely in need of it -- is only incidental to the benefits given to a private parties under the plan. A reviewing court must scrutinize the record to decide whether the devleopment plan is of primary benefit to the developer and private businesses which may locate in the plan area and in that regard provie only incidental benefit to the city.

In Kelo, the devloper (pfizer corp) met that burden by showing (inter alia): new london's depressed economic condition; the substantial commitment of state funds to the project occurred before most of the private beneficiaries were known; and that the city reviewed a variety of development plans and chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than choosing a particular developer beforehand. Thus the plan was designed to revitalize the local economy not serve the interests of the developer (Pfizer).

Moreoever, the taking in Kelo occurred "in the context of a comprehensive development plan meant to address a serious city-wide depression and the economic benefits of the plan cannot be characterized as de minimis" and "the city complied with elaborate procedural requirements that facilitate review of the record and inquiry into the ciyt's purposes."


these will presumably be the factors examined by our ny courts in the upcoming AY litigation.

ratnerville4ever

BillC, you nailed it. that is the case. this should keep those who think the case is CHALLENGING KELO form repeating that myth.

the case is about the process, as Kennedy describes and you repeat.

that is why its a tough case for FCR/ESDC; what Kennedy described is clearly something they are worried about.

and just to be clear, the case is in federal court.