nolandgrab - could you clarify please?

friendlypitbull wrote: Can you cite even one serious proposal to develop the site in the last 30yrs?

Does that include Ratner? :P

And even if Ratner's plan (which has not withstood independent review, despite the protestations of DDDb and other community groups) is considered serious, and ignoring all the other proposals (Pacific, Unity, Extell, Rose, early Marshall plans, plans more than 30 years old, etc.), are you suggesting that because Ratner is the first plan that we should stop considering all other plans?

The public money ($449 million, not just the $100 million friendlypitbull cites) far outstrips the cash awards the city and state and federal governments are simply giving Ratner. There are also tax breaks, housing subsidies, loss of tax revenue, loss of MTA revenue by accepting a far lower bid from Ratner than Extell, additional infrastructural costs not in the Memorandum of Understanding, increases in public services to accomodate a developement bigger than the the WTC, and PILOT programs -- risky in that taxpayers front the loans and don't get paid back until, or if, Ratner starts making money.

Family of four, family of six, it's still just two wage earners. There are lots lof families of six making over $100,000 that would qualify for "affordable" apartments in the Atlantic Yards -- families that don't need subsidized housing the way ACORN's constituency do.

Yeah, 900+ families -- IF Ratner builds every unit he's promising, IF he's allowed to collect federal subsidies after using eminent domain for a private development, IF he stops the slide on the number of affordable and low-income units (50 to 31 to 12 percent), IF his sliding numbers for low-income familes in need of housing don't begin to mirror the fall-off in pernament jobs (10,000 down to 2,300 with only a few hundred newly-created), IF he hires an experienced housing agency to pull off the low-income unit, IF he doesn't place the low-income units off-site somewhere (which the "CBA" doesn't prevent him from doing), IF the housing market still permits him to even offer 900 units...then yeah, it's a good deal.

Further reading:

http://www.dddb.net/subsidies/subsidy.pdf
http://www.dddb.net/economicstudies/KimPeebles.pdf

i can already see escap and jack krohn joining forces to become a thorn in the sides of fffp, nolandgrab, dan goldstein, etc.

heck, they could very well be molls for fcrc...

Escap, you're saying that because some vague proposals for the railyards twenty years ago were defeated that it justifies what's happening now? The use of eminent domain, the huge city and state subsidies, the rejection of the highest bid by the MTA, the absence of community input? All this is now justified?

Does anyone on the board know the last time an REI - Request for Expression of Interest was issued for this site? Was any other developer offered similar subsidies? Did other developers have the chance to buy two city streets for two bucks? Were other developers permitted to use eminent domain (or the threat of it) to acquire neighboring properties and then given the green light to override zoning and double the FAR on these properties?

Should we be surprised, then, that without these forms of support, no other project has been proposed for this site?

escap wrote: If Ratner builds only to find out that there's a housing glut, he'll be forced to sell at low prices, which would fulfill the oft-stated demand for lower priced housing in downtown Brooklyn. The biggest loser would be Ratner.

So what's the problem?

The main problem that I have with the project is that it depends on a non-transparent process- basically a back room deal. If a big project is done by a developer making deals with some favored politicians without oversight, the public will inevitably get screwed. The abuse of eminent domain for me is only a by-product of this type of process.

You ask what the problem is, and I'll give my take: We don't know any of the details. The basic elements of the Ratner proposal have not been addressed. We the taxpayers are basically asked to buy something and we don't know the price, the benefit, the alternatives. When we start asking questions, we hear things like this:

friendlypitbull wrote: Can you cite even one serious proposal to develop the site in the last 30yrs?

It does not matter if Ratner is the only proposal. As citizens and taxpayers, we need to demand that there be an independent analysis of the project. Let's assume that escap is correct that Ratner would be the biggest loser: Isn't that highly suspicious? Why would some multi-billionaire risk a three point something billion dollar project at the risk of losing his shirt?

Or let's say he's lucky and he makes a huge windfall on the project. The public needs to know about that scenario as well. A successful development means that the developer takes risks and that the public benefits and the developer gets incentives (that usually means money) for this risk.

friendlypitbull wrote: 1.5 billion is an out and out fabrication -
It will be 100M in CASH from taxpayers

The 1.5 billion figure is based on figures that are explained in some detail here:

http://dddb.net/subsidies/index.php

ltjbukem wrote: i can already see escap and jack krohn joining forces to become a thorn in the sides of fffp, nolandgrab, dan goldstein, etc.

Yo, we all go to many public meetings are we've all had many arguments with paid hacks who are willing to twist numbers. So a little honest discussion is a nice warm-up for breakfast. There are some intelligent, well-meaning people who support Ratner's proposal, and I do wish that my fellow opponents of Ratner refrain from calling ALL the supporters evil (only some of the them are :twisted:).

The financial, policy, traffic, architectural and other questions about the Vanderbilt Yards and surrounding areas are extremely complicated, and to say that the Ratner will "only" cost us $100,000.00 does not represent the full story.

But we can't rely on the meager resources of DDDb, which relies completely on individual donations (Get the hink?!?! Click here: http://dddb.net/donate.php ) to survive. Ratner supporters will say that Ratner is the only person who can build on the area and that it is a horrible burden to ask for accountability. Let me repeat our alternate vision: We, the people, have the power to create something great in the heart of Brooklyn. WE CAN DO IT- but we need to take on the responsibility.

Escap,

I searched the archives of the New York Times and found some examples of what you were saying about past development efforts:

June 21, 1999 (from “Mall Builder Sees New Brooklyn, but Neighbors See Trouble”): “Residents who attended a session with the mall’s developers on Thursday night catcalled and hooted when told the 75-foot high structure would benefit their neighborhoods instead of dwarfing their brownstones, attracting more cars to their streets, and strangling the area’s nascent shops.” In the end, Ratner got his way and this site is now home to one of the highest grossing Target stores in the nation.

July 21, 1996 (from “New Hopes, Old Worries over Big Mall”): Today, Mr. Shapiro, 58, fears that his sporting goods and Army surplus store [Triangle Sports] will fade into history, like those $3.50 Army cots.” Here it is, nearly 10 years later, and Triangle Sports is still very much alive.

February 23, 1975 (from “Brooklyn Arena Study Halted”): “Paul Kerrigan, head of the Fort Greene Nonprofit Improvement Corporation, which has been a leader in the fight against a sports arena in the Atlantic Terminal Area, declared , ‘We are delighted that the way has been cleared for us to proceed with the construction of additional middle-income cooperative housing.” While one co-op building exists on South Portland Avenue, much of the land remained vacant until Ratner came along. He’s been responsible for the housing on South Portland, South Oxford, and Cumberland. Without him, the sites where the Atlantic Center and the Atlantic Terminal now stand would surely be vacant today.

June 17, 1973 (from “Brooklyn Renewal Slowly Advances”): “Though the project will not cause relocation problems – the most common source of neighborhood opposition – because it is to be built on land that has long been vacant, community groups have attacked it. They contend that a plan to group the subsidized units together rather than scatter them through the development amounts to segregation.” This reminds me of the trap now being laid out regarding Ratner’s proposed housing, namely that if it’s located on site, it will be too congested, but if it’s moved off site, then it amounts to segregation.

April 5, 1970 (from “Atlantic Avenue Renewal Stirs Dispute in Brooklyn”): “Yesterday, in fine demonstration weather, about 500 protesters paraded around the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues chanting ‘Kill the bill’ and waving placards declaring, ‘Underhanded politics degrade democracy’. Most of the protesters, who stopped traffic for a half-hour, were drawn from the white middle-class families that have bought brownstones in the area in the last 10 years.” Doesn’t that demographic sound familiar?

So, Escap, you are correct. Here we are, several decades later, and the story remains the same. But I think that things will be different this time around. We have a billionaire mayor who bought his way into office and does not have to worry about pleasing constituents. Plus, every one of Ratner’s projects has come to pass so far, so why should this be different? And should I even bother to try to deny that I work for Ratner? Is there any hope that opponents of the arena and housing are capable of understanding that some people actually support this project?

Nah.

One tidbit of the June 17, 1973 article was amusing. When commenting on the challenges of marketing proposed housing units near Atlantic Terminal, the article stated: “Noting that an unassisted two-bedroom apartment in the project would rent for about $427 a month, Mr. Hayden said that the UDC’s main concern was about the marketability of the units. ‘Remember,’ he said, ‘we’re talking about Brooklyn, not Manhattan.”

How times change!

Or course, Raulism.

Sometimes I just get sick of hearing the "you must work for Ratner" refrain. It really does get old

Aw, shucks! Isn't it nice when everyone gets along? :P :P :P