Freddy's: Brooklyn Beer Boycott + Best of Cringe

you're welcome

hope you know there was no offense intended in my little wiki sock pocket joke attempt earlier :oops:

I'm not buying it. I'm glad that political donations are public information, but why should I boycott a business with good prices and customer service, and no accusations of bad business practices, just because some of its high level employees happen to be Republicans? When Carnivore says "Boycotting people based on their point of view alone discourages open discourse and contributes to the polarization of our society," I am reminded of that website, because the apparent purpose of it is to allow us to avoid any kind of social or economic intercourse with people we disagree with. I think that does contribute to the polarization of society.

Fair enough point, but I think you are simply arguing about what constitutes "unethical practice" in the mind of the boycotter. The companies who invested in South Africa had the point of view that government practices were no concern of theirs as they weren't making laws - they were merely doing business in another country. I think their opinion was wrong, and I voted with my feet when it was shown my university had significant investments there in the mid 80s. At some point, an opinion is the same thing as an action.

I believe Eminent Domain abuse is unethical. It displaces middle and working class communities who are at the whim of extremely wealthy real estate developers who hijack the police powers of the state for their own purposes. This is easily done in a era when only the very wealthy or those who are controlled by the very wealthy have access to public office. Eminent Domain destroyed many middle class African American neighborhoods during the "Urban Renewal" debacle of the sixties. In my old digs in Knoxville, the entire professional class was displaced in one fell swoop. The government razed the neighborhood, handed them "fair market" value for their homes and then expected them to find homes elsewhere in other neighborhoods whose residents weren't especially welcoming to blacks who had the audacity to want to own their own homes. The practice was abominable then, and it's still abominable today.

If I think either Apartheid or Eminent Domain is unethical, am I contributing to polarization when I choose to boycott businesses who practice willful ignorance of that fact when they make choices about whom to support?

The divestment from South Africa was a different matter. The boycott was trying to make businesses in SA suffer enough that they would advocate for the end of apartheid; it was trying to change their interest. Boycotting the Brooklyn Brewery might have enough of an effect that it would cause the Brewery's owner to begin to oppose the arena, but it's unlikely that he would then convince Ratner not to build it.

I think you've drunk the Ranter PR Koolaid. It's not about whether we can convince Ratner not to build it. It's about whether we can convince the PUBLIC to lethim build it. This is far from a done deal even though the mayor has done everything possible to by-pass local oversight so that the deal could slide through quickly. Ratner absolutely depends on every iota of local support he can get. That's why he pays so dearly for it by securing ACORN's endorsement with promises of future management contracts, and inventing "grass roots" groups like BUILD that have been shown to be created with his money. Hindy is very important to Ratner from a public relations standpoint. If he witdraws his support, then that is definitely a victory for the opposition.

Ultimately, I think it will be Ratner's own investors that pull the plug on this deal. But the grass roots opposition have made that possible by making visible what would have been just another back room deal that the paid for by the public for years to come. This proposal is already two years late and Gehry is still futzing around with the design. Every day of delay is a day closer to death for this project and life for a community driven vision for developing the Atlantic Yards site.

If Bruce Hindy supports the Ratner proposal as planned, then he supports using eminent domain for developer driven deals without public oversight. Even the SCOTUS has declared that this violates the principle of "public good" and would be the one clear case where eminent domain would be unconstitutional. He cannot claim ignorance or hide behind rosy dreams of returning Brooklyn to its Dodgers era glory because we're bringing professional sports back to the borough. We have much more urgent priorities than luxury condos and sports arenas.

it's Steve Hindy and Bruce Ratner.

Accuracy? Who needs it?

I blame my hangover. Too many Brooklyn Lagers last night at the Neko Case concert.

That's real property taking.

"Real" property taking is when it happens to you.

When it happens to somebody else, then it's just a matter of what your personal priorities are. If you like what's being built in place of the homes or businesses then the opposition are obstructionists, if you don't like it then the opposition are committed grassroots warriors fighting injustice.

If you don't want it for your home, but you don't mind it happening to the other guy, then you are a NIMBY.

Personally, I would oppose this project even if they were building a 24 hr. all-you-can-drink bar that offered lifetime freebies to anyone using the moniker "Dope on the Slope." I think it will be disaster for the borough, and I don't like the precedent that's being set for the next several decades. Private profit, public risk. Pardon me for not wanting to be a serf.

How many times do we have to prove that megadeveloper projects never provide the promised return on investment? How many times do we have to show that superblocks destroy cultural and economic viability? Why should Brooklynites foot the bill for an out of town rich guy to build his own personal neighborhood with the help of a self-parodying has-been of a one-trick-pony architect?

This crap project isn't worth seizing even one home. It's not nearly as bad as Apartheid, but I think it's still bad enough for me to stop drinking Brooklyn brew for awhile. I do not want to see a return to the Robert Moses era of "reshaping" this city.

If I'm misguided in that intention, then I'm damned proud of it.

I think opposing Ratner is fine and right on many levels.

I really question making Steve Hindy a focus of your efforts.

Did you see the picture of 500,000 people in L.A. protesting pending immigration legislation. Now that's real citizen action. The people most impacted by the development need to get into the streets. The people most impacted and their allies need to engage in civil disobedience for long periods of time. The people most impacted must be willing to go to jail for their beliefs, their futures, their lives.

As full of potential as the Internet is for bringing about real change and re-envisioning democracy, it is only but a one tool in the struggle for total equality. No number of blogs or boycott of beer will shut down economic development.

And you have to make the case beyond the impact that Ratner will have on the lives of middle class white people. I for one could give a shit less. My political activity is confined to policy decisions that adversely impact the poor, especially women and people of color - policies that contribute to the decades of downward spiraling.

And it all has to square with deals made and accepted by tenent groups and precedents set.

Remember 1989 and MetroTech (also Ratner)? 3 Tenant groups received special benefits, with the total believed to be worth more than $6 million. One group, Survive, received $2 million and negotiated directly with the developer, Forest City Metrotech Associates. And that was paid on top of whatever members received through condemnation of their property or other programs offered by the city and developer, including help in finding new homes and the payment of their moving costs.

So while MetroTech was a miserable failure of urban planning and never delivered on it's promise of jobs and intergration into the surrounding neighborhood, it's developer found a financial jar of vaseline to grease and ease the pain of forced displacement.

I have a very healthy disdain for anything that's "top down" - but I'm cynical enough to wonder who will really end up getting hurt. That's why I belive only public action will shame Ratner into doing the right thing for the people most impacted.

I really question making Steve Hindy a focus of your efforts.

Well, he certainly isn't the focus of my efforts. I focus on working with DDDB during some of my "free" time to educate people about what's wrong with the project and wrong with the process. However, since it takes zero effort for me to switch brands of beer, I'm not too worried about wasting precious energy that could be used more constructively elsewhere. There is really no cost to abstaining from buying beer.

Did you see the picture of 500,000 people in L.A. protesting pending immigration legislation. Now that's real citizen action.

Yes it is, and unfortunately, I didn't even hear about it until this weekend when I read the Times editorial page. I've been too busy at work to read the newspaper in the morning and I refuse to watch cable news. Still, I can't believe I didn't hear of a protest that large until this weekend. Was it front page news this week? I asked my wife about it and she said she thought it was underreported.

The people most impacted by the development need to get into the streets.

We've been on the street for nearly two years. The biggest problem with this development is that it's being viewed as an event rather than part of a larger process. I personally think it's just another symptom of the acceleration of structural economic inequalities, or more accurately, an imbalance of authority vs. accountability. The entire world seems to be headed toward gated communities surrounded by the rabble who will clean their toilets. In my personal view, "cleaning toilets" will soon come to include reading x-rays, submitting legal briefs and designing websites. Unfortunately, most people are too busy trying to hold on to their piece of the pie to band together with others to come up with a different set of rules.

But I digress...

Most people view the hubbub over the Ratner project as a case of really rich white guys vs. upper middle class white guys. And while that's superficially true, it's not ultimately true. What this is really about is the community vs. a government that is increasingly bought and paid for. It's disgusting that the only way to get most of my neighbors in the Slope interested is to talk about the impact on traffic and parking. They couldn't care less about eminent domain abuse or lack of public process because they don't think it affects them. It really depresses me.

No number of blogs or boycott of beer will shut down economic development.

No, but they can be part of a larger program. Also, DDDB doesn't want to shut down economic development. They want economic development to be defined and driven by the community. Reacting to the pipe dreams of developers is not the way to build a city that works for everyone. The poor will ultimately be the biggest victims of Ratners project. You should look into South Brooklyn Legal Services research on what will happen to the median income and who will really be displaced. The affordable housing "promise" in the Community Benefit Agreement is a red herring. Many, many people won't even qualify for the lowest level of "affordable" housing in the agreement because they don't make enough money.

And you have to make the case beyond the impact that Ratner will have on the lives of middle class white people. I for one could give a shit less. My political activity is confined to policy decisions that adversely impact the poor

Good for you. I would be happy to buy you a Brooklyn Lager and explain why I think the Ratner project will ultimately be very bad for the working class and the poor in this city. The short version is that we've already lost the affordable housing battle when we set up a system where the only route to secure new affordable units is through the private sector. I'm skeptical that depending on Bruce Ratner's table scraps is a good proactive strategy for making sure everyone has a roof over their heads. There are many better strategies, including higher taxes and progressive zoning. But we'll save that discussion for later.

I have a very healthy disdain for anything that's "top down"

At least we agree on that.

I'm beginning to find this thread somewhat funny. I don't give a turd if Hindy has a 'contract' with Ratner yet or not. Fact is, he's openly supported the arena project, to which I am opposed. Therefore I will not buy his product. If I went to see some band play, and they announced they support the project, I would not buy tickets to a show or records by that band. If the Met Food on Vanderbilt put up a "We Heart Ratner" sign in the windows, I would stop buying my Marshmallow Mateys there. There is nothing illogical about any of this-- money has twice the franchise of a vote.

And, to repeat, it is not Hindy's money that Ratner wants. It is his status as prominent Brooklyn resident and businessman. Public legitimation, in other words.

pensodyssey wrote: I'm beginning to find this thread somewhat funny. I don't give a turd if Hindy has a 'contract' with Ratner yet or not. Fact is, he's openly supported the arena project, to which I am opposed. Therefore I will not buy his product. If I went to see some band play, and they announced they support the project, I would not buy tickets to a show or records by that band. If the Met Food on Vanderbilt put up a "We Heart Ratner" sign in the windows, I would stop buying my Marshmallow Mateys there. There is nothing illogical about any of this-- money has twice the franchise of a vote.

And, to repeat, it is not Hindy's money that Ratner wants. It is his status as prominent Brooklyn resident and businessman. Public legitimation, in other words.

You're right. While we're at it, we should just run all the Republicans around here right out of town. "This is a Blue State, muthafuckas, and if you want to do business around here, you'd better pretend to believe what we do!"

Of course, I guess the same thing might happen in the Red States...

And people wonder why our country and our government have become more and more polarized.

metulj wrote: Apples. Oranges. Deciding to express yourself by not buying a product because you do not agree with a political decision that a product's manufacturer has made is free and democratic speech grounded in ones own ethics. As a long time resident of two Red States, I can tell you that the explicit code of "do as we say or pay the consequences" has everything to do with 'values' and 'beliefs' long shed by most residents of Blue States. No one is dragging Brewery's owner to a tree, kicking and screaming, because boycotting is in no way analogous to lynching.

The free speech issue is totally irrelevant. Of course the government can't force you to spend your money in ways you don't want to (except to pay taxes). However, just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean it's productive.
I don't know where the lynching reference came from, because I didn't say anything about that.

reductio ad absurdum

What's up with this? Haven't seen or heard from it since way back in the day when Jesuits tried to force feed me Latin and all of a sudden it's on these boards twice in the same week!

Freakish! And oh so literati.

pensodyssey wrote: No, no, no. You're right. We should only use a free and open discourse to combat issues that are ultimately determined by cash flow! You always try to put out a fire by blowing on it!

Besides, who's talking about running people out of town? I'm quite sure many of the people supporting the project are democrats. You're attempting reductio ad absurdum where none is germane.

Which is it about, speech or cash flow? All Hindy has done is speak, and yet you're combatting it with cash flow.
I say address speech about opposing points of view with debate, and address cash flow with boycotts or other things targeting cash flow.

Let's get real. Half of this boycott talk is empty posturing anyway. I don't think Brooklyn Brewery makes bourbon, so they're not really missing your business, right?

Jack Krohn wrote: I propose that we boycott DailyHeights, because it permits posts by people who frequent Soda, whose owner profits from a beer brewed by Steve Hindy, who supports Ratner, who is engineering the utter and total destruction of Prospect Heights.

Viva la revolucion!

fwiw, hindy's beer is also available at sepia and le gamin. and probably more nabe places - I'm just terribly insular and boring.

Jack Krohn wrote: Excellent point, Alafairnadia.

Hence, I propose that we boycott Prospect Heights, because it justifies the existence of DailyHeights, which allows posts by people who frequent numerous establishments that profit from a beer brewed by Steve Hindy, who supports Ratner, who is trying to destroy Prospect Heights. Full circle: We'll boycott Prospect Heights in order to save it!

To the ramparts!!!

Carnivore wrote: I say address speech about opposing points of view with debate, and address cash flow with boycotts or other things targeting cash flow.

Support for the Atlantic Yards project is the official position of Brooklyn Brewery, not the personal opinion of Steve Hindy. Beyond that, sponsorship money goes from the brewery to Ratner's Nets to Ratner's stadium complex.