What changes might make you support the AY Project?

escap · February 2006

Apologies--I know this subject has been done to death, but I was in the middle of responding to another post, and decided to just make a new thread of this and poll the board. What do you think?

Could there be any changes to the AY project that would make you support it? For example, what if everything stayed the same, but eminent domain was taken off the table? Or if greater public services were guaranteed by the city to meet the increased demand? Or if the height of the buildings were reduced? Or the arena nixed in favor of just housing, or vice versa? Namely, is there any room for negotiation, is there one sticking point, or is this project so far off your radar of acceptible development plans that only its complete cancellation would be satisfactory?

carnivore · February 2006

Take eminent domain off the table, and pay market rates for the property instead of essentially stealing money from the taxpayers by getting a sweetheart deal from the MTA. If the development is such a great idea, it should be able to work on its own merits without relying on hijacking our government to ram this project down our throats. I bet the arena idea would quickly disappear if Ratner had to rely on it paying for itself.

ben · February 2006

my biggest concern is none of the above but rather that it will be a superblock that is cut off to the surrounding area. I don't want to see a Stuy-town or something like that where you never go in it unless you live there or are visiting someone.

I'd also like to see more office space to attract more jobs.

qtrain · February 2006

There was a responsible development alternative to the FCR plan (Extell), which addressed nearly every concern I have about the project. The fact that it was rejected despite offering the higher bid shows that the powers that currently control the process couldn't care less about community input.

communitybuilder · February 2006

in an ideal world:

- a study to consider whether the arena would work at coney island, navy yard or elsewhere in bklyn. basically: real thought and planning about where to put it. if it's best atop atlantic transit hub, fine. but make the case as to why.

- an actual community planning process to start the development, before a developer is selected.

- community beaving reasonably, rationally and creatively during planning process. and understanding that not everything they want will happen. much will be determined by developer and market forces.

- a commitment from city and state to begin processes to REDUCE motor vehicle traffic in northern brklyn in return for community acquiesence to greater density. real transit oriented development. not 4-5,000 parking spaces.

- city oversight and inclusion of existing community groups in planning process, not just groups created in metrotech boardroom by a developer or groups who are being paid off by developer in various ways.

- legit bidding process for the site after community planning process is completed. make the mta get their money's worth for their land.

- eminent domain is totally unnecessary. it should be jettisoned. if developer needs more land, atlantic center and terminal mall and pc richards -- poorly done ratner projects -- should be first properties seized by state.

- green building and green construction guarantees to ensure sustainability and usefuleness in the coming century.

- a development that knits together burgeoning neighborhoods across the railyards gash. connects streets. maintains street life and street-level retail. creates more density but isn't totally out of bklyn scale.

- far fewer tax breaks and subsidies than the $2B that is being offered Ratner. make the developer or developers compete on the open market with other bklyn businesses and developers.

escap · February 2006

Thanks! I agree with almost all of those points. I certainly would like to see the project integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods to preserve street "vitality", etc. I don't drive, but it would be a plus if something could be done about the traffic (doubtful). And though I dispute your $2B figure, if the public is a partial investor in this it should certainly have a say in the design and implementation.

I also would have liked to have seen the MTA honor their duty to taxpayers and accept the highest bid--of course, BUILD claims that the Ratner bid was the highest bid. The MTA also claimed that the Ratner bid was higher, all elements considered. Are they biased? Of course, but then again so is the opposition, so the truth is probably somewhere in between.

communitybuilder · February 2006

escap, i think you give far too much credit to BUILD and the MTA's numbers and the supposed "auction" of the railyards.

the MTA never even sent out an RFP for the project. they made it pretty clear that they weren't interested in competing bids and that ratner's proposal was wired from the get-go. any sane big developer who wants to continue to do business in the state of ny is not going to waste their time or commit political suicide submitting a bid in a situation like this. the guy who runs extell was an exception. he didn't care about the politics and he hates ratner. so he went for it. for BUILD or anyone to say that ratner's "bid" was the highest is absurd from the get-go. there was no real bidding proces and extell's proposal, while good in many ways, was as much a vendetta as it was a development plan. a real bidding process, particularly one that parcelled up the railyards into smaller pieces, would almost certainly have generated much greater revenues for the MTA.

additionally, BUILD really needs to be kept at arm's length. the organization was literally founded in the forest city board room at metrotech. we know from tax records that it has been funded by ratner since its inception. and they lied about that for a long time. they have no experience in jobs programs unlike many other good local groups that do. BUILD simply can't be considered a legit community organization. they should be considered as something much more like employees of forest city ratner.

alafairnadia · February 2006

I'm mostly concerned about congestion. I realize this sounds bitchy, but I don't care what is built on empty land. but I regularly get cars home from midtown and will need to reroute them through williamsburg/bedstuy to get home at a normal time if that crap is built.
oh, and I hope it doesn't bring in idiots that will make our awesome bars, like indigo and soda and sepia and tavern on dean suck. cause those places are amazing but are generally bursting at the seams. add an arena and gigantor housing complex, I'm not sure how it'll all work out.

kw · February 2006

What about the other awesome bar Freddy's? That certainly is not empty land, nor are all of my neighbors' homes in the footprint!?!

alafairnadia · February 2006

kw wrote: What about the other awesome bar Freddy's? That certainly is not empty land, nor are all of my neighbors' homes in the footprint!?!

the eminent domain issue is probably my second major concern in this whole thing. I don't care what happens to the empty land (atlantic yards). I don't care what happens to land that people freely sell. I do care about abuse of government power.

raulism · February 2006

alafairnadia wrote: the eminent domain issue is probably my second major concern in this whole thing. I don't care what happens to the empty land (atlantic yards). I don't care what happens to land that people freely sell. I do care about abuse of government power.

The WHOLE project is about government abuse for me: eminent domain is inevitable when there is no public accountability. If the citizens (and other residents) of Brooklyn don't demand transparency, we have created a power vacuum that the powerful are glad to fill. So they come up with projects like Ratner's, which is not only completely out of scale, unsustainable by the public infrastructure, uses eminent domain for fun and personal profit, but then asks the asks the public to subsidize it. It's not just that Ratner wants direct subsidies of $100,000,000.00 from the City and $100,000,000.00 from the State, but then there are the other subsidies which are probably at least $1,000,000,000.00. Our eyes glaze over at these numbers, and that's the idea.

There are so many aspects of this project that disgust me, like the outrageous decision to negotiate exclusively with Ratner a few days after receiving an alternate proposal for three times the money.

So I don't want to be an extremist, but I have to say that I would not want any project designed by Ratner & Friends. The 23 or so acres including 8.4 acres of MTA land are extremely important to the future of Brooklyn. We, as Brooklynites and New Yorkers, need to be in control of the process. We need to decide what we want, and then find a developer(s) to fill our vision. If Ratner can do that, then I will support him, even if it involves an arena.

This is not to say I am against development. I would love a massive project if it really helped people, and I suspect that a better place for this would be Brownsville, where developers are afraid to go but where it would have greater public benefits.

But the public needs to be in control of this development plan, and until we take back control, I oppose it.

~r

escap · February 2006

Just a few words in support:

First of all, many of the subsidies are arguably justifiable, in that they are granted in exchange for concessions by the developer. For example, there is an enormous opportunity cost in offering housing at below market rates; as a developer, you are literally losing hundreds of millions of dollars if you fail to meet market rates, so if "affordable housing" is a public goal, then it's only fair that the public bear the cost. Much of the rest of the public contributions stem from similar logic, including the natural role the state plays in developing infrastructure used by the community as a whole--you'll never find a large-scale project that isn't somewhat aided by public funds, for this reason. There's nothing wrong with that.

To the extent that the actual $ figure exceeds the "fair" amount, this is indisputably the result of the lack of competition and bidding for the area. This, in turn, is the fault of a) govt corruption (as you all correctly pointed out); and b) 50 years of repeated failures by any other developer to lay a single brick, which has largely scared off would-be investors.

The weakest arguments I've seen so far are for the project to be done elsewhere. The subway convergence makes this an ideal spot for such a project, a million times better than Brownsville, Coney Island or anywhere else in Brooklyn. And does anyone seriously believe that if Ratner tried to erect 20 skyscrapers in Brownsville that the community protests there would be anything short of deafening? Come on.

Finally, as for eminent domain, this is one issue I wish Ratner would take off the table. I'm not sure I see the necessity (though I don't think his motive is "fun" or inherent sadism), and it seems the legal battles will cost him more than he stands to gain. I do believe that eminent domain is SOMETIMES justifiable, even to aid private development, but it should be a last resort and it would certainly take a huge issue off the table in this case.

On the upside, I think the project will create enormous vitality in the area, be a huge boon for small and large businesses and the local economy, lead to an explosion in restaurants, bookstores, cultural venues, retail shops, etc. It will make the neighborhood safer at night (no more desolate streets), provide jobs, create a large tax base that can be used for schools/police/etc., and ultimately raise real estate values. And in general, I think it will make the area more vibrant and fun. That's obviously just my opinion.

I'm glad to see that most people are willing to accept the project with changes. There are definitely problems and dangers with the project, and the more the community can be involved in a constructively critical way, the better. The more a gap is created between supporters and opponents by hurling insults and vitriol at each other, the worse off the project and the neighborhood will be in the long run.

ratnerville4ever · February 2006

Subject: arena

Escap. the arena itself cannot be built without eminent domain. what to do?

alex · February 2006

Subject: Re: arena

ratnerville4ever wrote: what to do?

Get yourself a Brooklyn Nets cap.

stacey · February 2006

Ratnerville - I thought the arena could be built without using eminent domain since Ratner owns the property it would be built on but the housing complexes would require eminent domain. Am I wrong?

stacey · February 2006

Alex please dont use my body as your avitar

alex · February 2006

stacey wrote: Alex please dont use my body as your avitar

qtrain · February 2006

escap wrote: For example, there is an enormous opportunity cost in offering housing at below market rates; as a developer, you are literally losing hundreds of millions of dollars if you fail to meet market rates, so if "affordable housing" is a public goal, then it's only fair that the public bear the cost.

An all market-rate project would be politically impossible, so it doesn't serve as a meaningful benchmark. The opportunity cost is $0.

escap wrote: The more a gap is created between supporters and opponents by hurling insults and vitriol at each other, the worse off the project and the neighborhood will be in the long run.

And I suppose, once we learn to love each other, Bruce Ratner himself will sweep us up in his mighty arms and gently place us at the table of access?

gringcorp · February 2006

Ratner's key ploy has been to use the arena to justify the eminent domain. This is, as far as I can tell a fallback in case his "blight" justification is not possible. The arena will use eminent domain.

I'm also not sure that the confluence of subway lines means that the Atlantic Yards is the only possible location. Coney Island has a huge station and is served by several lines. Much more than Flushing (Shea) or Yankee Stadium. Atlantic at present is hugely ill-suited to processing huge waves of passengers of the sort that a game would create.

Yeah, and trying to bullboze Freddy's is VERY BAD FORM.

ratnerville4ever · February 2006

Subject: eminent domain

Stacey, yes you are wrong. Ratner needs eminent domain for the arena itself and the housing/commercial.

and whether Ratner/ESDC argue "blight" or "public use" (because of the arena) they have Justice Kennedy's Kelo concurring opinion to contend with.

as for whoever above wrote that the transportation hub doesn't make this this the best place for an arena and that Coney Island is a very good alternative site to consider, well that poster is absolutely correct. PLUS the city already owns land in Coney Island where an arena would fit. PLUS an arena at Coney Island would turn Coney Island into a year round destination, rather than just a summer destination. and subway terminals are better for crowd control than a subway hub is.

communitybuilder · February 2006

escap wrote: as a developer, you are literally losing hundreds of millions of dollars if you fail to meet market rates, so if "affordable housing" is a public goal, then it's only fair that the public bear the cost.

escap, there are plenty of other good ways to do affordable housing other than handing over the kind of public money we're being asked to give to ratner. on 4th Avenue, for example, developers are permitted to build bigger buildings than zoning would typically allow if they agree to include some amount of affordable housing. no big subsidies there. i believe the fancy new building on court and atlantic also had a deal like this.

at the park slope forum the other night michelle de la uz, the director of fifth avenue committee, really an expert on affordable housing as that's what she does professionally, and not a big axe-grinder about ratner or the arena or any of that, explained that dollar-of-subsidy-for-unit-of-housing, the atlantic yards project is simply a bad deal. her argument was really strong and rational and based on lots of experience about how affordable housing gets built in NYC.

finally, and most important: unless you have seen fcr's spreadsheets and know what their profit margins are on this project, you simply have no idea how much the affordable housing component is costing them. this is a major problem in determining what is a fair scale for the project. what's a fair profit margin for the developer? i would venture to guess that fcr's profit margin is pretty darn healthy even with the all of the "affordable" housing that they have included. until they're willing to share with the public what kind of margin they need to earn to make this project work for them, i wouldn't be too worried about their costs.

escap · February 2006

So wait, you would be in favor of allowing Ratner to build even TALLER buildings in order to make up for any opportunity cost? I doubt that there's broad support behind that idea. Also, the "he's making enough profits already" argument isn't going to get you very far. By that logic the MTA made "enough" even though it didn't (allegedly) take the highest bid on the table.

(btw, i know this will enrage some people but the best way to get rid of those subsidies is to eliminate the stipulation of below-market rate units in the first place, but there's already been a long thread on that...)

As for qtrain's point that there's no cost because market rates are politically unfeasible, I believe that sentence is the word for word definition of a "tautology" in Webster's.

If Ratner feels he must use eminent domain, then I guess it's up to the courts to decide. Again, I do believe there's a time and a place for its use--whether or not this is the time and place should and will be decided by our glorious legal system.

ratnerville4ever · February 2006

Subject: time and place

Escap, thanks for this thread and your posts.

I think anyone being honest can see that this is NOT the time or place to use eminent domain. and no project like this one is a proper use.

but with this one in particular, all of the projected benefits can be achieved w/o any eminent domain. but instead eminent domain has been a first resort instead of last.

the use of eminent domain in this project is, in my view, nothing but greed, and focuses a bright light on the project as a land grab.

ltjbukem · February 2006

Subject: my take

though i have mixed feelings on the project, i would like to take escap to task on the following:

'On the upside, I think the project will create enormous vitality in the area, be a huge boon for small and large businesses and the local economy, lead to an explosion in restaurants, bookstores, cultural venues, retail shops, etc. It will make the neighborhood safer at night (no more desolate streets), provide jobs, create a large tax base that can be used for schools/police/etc., and ultimately raise real estate values. And in general, I think it will make the area more vibrant and fun. That's obviously just my opinion. '

'enormous vitality' - last i saw, droves of people are hoping to move into fort greene, park slope, prospect heights and boerum hill. witness the rising rents, the $1700 1 bedrooms, the $2500 2 bedrooms, etc.

'...lead to an explosion in restaurants, bookstores, cultural venues, retail shops, etc.' - last i checked, vanderbilt is experiencing a renaissance on the order of smith st and 5th ave, even before all this was happening. don't make me list the new restaurants on vanderbilt, sorrel on carlton, all the 5th ave restaurants, on fulton and dekalb aves...i just saw a new bookstore open up on south oxford betwen fulton and lafayette, around the corner from the tire shop..

cultural venues-- see bam, mark morris dance center, the new library that's having trouble funding itself..(http://www.tfana.org/capital.html)

..ad nauseum...we don't need no stinkin' arena!!! or do we???

escap · February 2006

ltj, are you still bitter about the "linking yourself to your own links" comment...? :roll:

I agree with you 100%. I wasn't suggesting that the nabe was currently lacking vitality, only that this project would have a net positive impact on what's already a great place. Good to better, not bad to good. The added population will be great for BAM and all the other places you mentioned.

I also agree with you about the arena. I'd personally much rather see a mix of housing, office and retail space go in than an arena, which could potentially have a very bad impact on the neighborhood.

communitybuilder · February 2006

escap wrote: So wait, you would be in favor of allowing Ratner to build even TALLER buildings in order to make up for any opportunity cost? I doubt that there's broad support behind that idea. Also, the "he's making enough profits already" argument isn't going to get you very far.

ok, escap. i think this'll be my last post:

the developer is being allowed to build taller to make up for his "opportunity cost." he is not being restricted by any existing zoning regulations. he is putting forward whatever plan he wants without any constraints from city planning or any other public oversight body. every time he shows a new plan it is bigger than the last one. no public body questions the size of his project when he says, "it needs to be this big to cover my costs." so, i'm not sure how you or anyone could be so worried that this developer isn't covering his "opportunity cost." i'm quite sure he's making sure to take care of himself here.

the problem is that we have no way of actually calculating the developers opp cost, do we? you keep seeming to want to remind us: the developer needs to build X million square feet of market rate luxury housing and these humongo buildings to cover the cost of all of the affordable housing (and the world's most expensive arena) that brooklyn is asking him to add to the project.

yet, the public has no way of evaluating this statement unless we have a better understanding of ratner's costs and the profit margins that he needs to make this project work for him.

there are three needs to balance here: the scale of the project, affordable housing, and the developer's need to make a profit. you seem to be mainly focused on just that last bit: the developer needs to make a profit.

i believe all three needs can be balanced successfully. but only in an honest, open process. ratner has been gifted so much over the course of this project, that i don't think it's a lot to ask of him to open his books.

raulism · February 2006

A friend of mine was unable to post her comments, but here is another pair of cents to throw into the pot:

Like [raulism], I think we should find another developer, not
Ratner. I believe in a mix of low rise housing, park space and no arena;
housing to be mixed income, mostly affordable. No eminent domain to be
used. We have unused office space in this city so I doubt that more of it
makes much sense, either. Preferably, encouragement to small businesses,
current and future. Above all, keep the character of the neighborhood at its
best and involve residents in final decision. Get rid of those awful Gehry
designs.

I would just like to reiterate that it's impossible to confidently say that the Ratner proposal will offer any economic benefits. Not because there won't be any, but because we have not had a true unbiased economic analysis of his proposal. Nor has there been an independent comparison of the different proposals, including the Extell plan.

How can we throw taxpayer subsidies at Ratner if we don't even know what we're getting? He's asking us to buy something, and we don't know what it is, how much it costs or whether we want it. We need to demand all of that information before we can even consider the question of eminent domain and the other range of costs of his proposal.

qtrain · February 2006

escap wrote: As for qtrain's point that there's no cost because market rates are politically unfeasible, I believe that sentence is the word for word definition of a "tautology" in Webster's.

Incorporating below-market housing into the project was a political decision made by FCR for the purposes of winning government approval, rather than an economic one based of the balance of lost opportunity costs with public subsidies; to argue that FCR deserves compensation is to ignore the fact that FCR has already accepted those lost opportunity costs as a political necessity. My point was not to refute the existence of opportunity costs, but to suggest that you are not going to find a counter sum on the balance sheet; without FCR making that concession, there would be no balance sheet. I'll admit to being glib, but don't accuse me of being logically incoherent.

mamalink · February 2006

It is impossible for me to support the Ratner project because the process is corrupt. The developer has called the shots of the project and the govenor with his appointee, Charles Gargano, head of the ESDC then sets out to make the project happen. The project goes forward with no input from local elected officials or the community. Did you see this quote on nolandgrab: "Winston Von Engel from the City Planning Department explained, 'We are an agency that listens to the mayor, and supports the mayor, who has expressed his support for the project." Yup, that's our City Planning, serving at the pleasure of the Mayor. Gives the concept of 'Planning' a whole new definition.

The elements of the project are insignificant compared to this dishonest process which was designed to have no local elected, or city agency involved in shaping the project. Once Ratner determined that he wanted to takeover this land (the land grab) which extends the huge acreage already in the control of this one developer then everything else that has happened has been calculated to make HIS decision palatable to the public. He spreads his money around liberally to get people and politicians to say they find benefit in the project.

Remember that not one word that comes out of the Ratner camp is improvised. Every word is carefully crafted and approved by public relations companies. When a Ratner employee, like Marie Louis, from BUILD mispeaks she is disappeared and forbidden to speak in public or the press. The community is fighting PR teams, not any kind of process, not any kind of dialogue.

Eminent domain was on the table from day 1 yet the developer and his political lapdogs will repeatedly say "eminent domain will be used as a last resort." Those who watch ED cases around the country will tell you that that is an often repeated refrain of developers right up to the moment that the bulldozers destroy the houses and businesses of the less politically powerful.

From my point of view it is missing the point to speak about the individual elements of the process without understanding that our Mayor and City Council (with the exceptions of Tish James and Charles Barron) have given up their duty to be a steward of City Land. The only possible solution is to stop this Ratner land grab and begin again with an honest process.

What changes might make you support the AY Project?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories