Did anyone here get displaced because of Atlantic Yards?

I don't think they are allowed to say.

A close family friend of mine was "displaced" around a year ago as well. After getting paid more than double what he originally paid for his property, he was able to launch a private business that is now making him millions.

escap wrote: A close family friend of mine was "displaced" around a year ago as well. After getting paid more than double what he originally paid for his property, he was able to launch a private business that is now making him millions.

i want to get displaced and make millions. do you have to live near atlantic for that or might it be possible to persuade ratner to level all of p. heights?

now that you mention it, that sounds like a good slogan for marty markowitz: "get displaced and make millions!" ok so it really means "you" get displaced and "he" makes millions, but why quibble? it's good for brooklyn!

You know, I rarely outright lose my temper on this board, but these responses are just ridiculous. Ah, I see, when you have no salient argument, change the subject! That's brilliant.

Displacement? That was the word used, like a military occupation has come in and marched people into concentration camps or exile. Accusations of "leveling" the nabe, from the very people who want to prevent development and keep it flat. Oh, a tall building!! What a horror! Gold help us from Nazis, Satan and Ratner! God, the hysteria is just baffling and infuriating.

The question was about displacement. This word is so preposterous that I just felt the need to point out the truth behind what this "displacement" means--the poor victims are not such martyrs. Yes, market rate purchases--what a bastard Ratner is! You guys are in such a fever of anti-tall-building-itis that no matter what happens you can't see past the foam in your mouths. This debate has taken on the tone of a religious and moral crusade, like we stand on the brink of the destruction of our very social fabric. Everybody just relax. We're talking about the construction of some buildings--it's not the end of the world. Brooklyn will not be "destroyed". The sun will rise tomorrow. Buildings have been built from one end of the borough to the other, and far taller buildings have been erected all over the world without triggering armageddon. Haysoos!! With all the shit happening in this city and the world, THIS is what keeps you up nights? People get murdered and raped every day, there is AIDS and cancer and so much else that we could worry about, but build a building higher than 8 stories, and people call for a revolution.

I hope the buildings get built and all of you move elsewhere and find happiness in a place where brownstones stretch for as far as the eye can see and can be rented or purchased at permanently "affordable" rates, no buildings have too much glass or reach beyond 4 stories, all businesses are owned by moms and pops who employ unionized workers, and neighborhoods never change either demographically or architecturally. I'm sure then you will all be happy. I will then be free to live on the 40th story of a highrise somewhere and gaze out at New York's beautiful skyline in peace....


(...final disclaimer, this rant has been published following the consumption of numerous glasses of wine...any offense caused by drinking and blogging is not intended....)

day took our jabs!

escap wrote:
I hope the buildings get built and all of you move elsewhere and find happiness in a place where brownstones stretch for as far as the eye can see and can be rented or purchased at permanently "affordable" rates, no buildings have too much glass or reach beyond 4 stories, all businesses are owned by moms and pops who employ unionized workers, and neighborhoods never change either demographically or architecturally. I'm sure then you will all be happy.

Funnily enough, such places actually exist in the world. I'm corresponding from a utopia/dystopia matching your description as it so happens. Prices are fixed, development is restricted, the place is aestehtically pleasing, comfortable, and static, for the fortunate establishment. Without mobility and a free market in labor and real estate, power becomes concentrated in the unelected 'community' by heredity and nepotism, rather than by cash, ability, entrepreneurship, hard work. An outsider moving to such a community quickly finds out that it's virtually gated; paradise is a closed shop. By definition, it's almost impossible to move to a neighborhood where the rules prevent demographic and architectural flux.

Without mobility and a free market in labor and real estate, power becomes concentrated in the unelected 'community' by heredity and nepotism

Har! Good parody.

The only "power" here is that of Billionaire Landgrabber Bloomberg and the billion dollar development corporations who depend on him to circumvent the free market and take land using the police powers of the state. In addition, to prevent the establishment of a meritocracy, where competence would determine which developers survive, this community of billionaires has decided to privatize the profit while making the risk public through massive taxpayer handouts. We don't want them to be held responsible for bad project management and financial planning.

Private profit, public risk. What a way to live.

I have to admire the chutzpah of these 21st century oligarchs.

However, many of you obviously do not admire ordinary plebians that band together to protect their property and limited public funds from these goons. Maybe we wear the wrong clothes or listen to the wrong music.

Alex wrote: [quote=Jack Krohn]Escap,

I've always loved your posts, but that, my friend, was your finest piece of work to date. That last paragraph had me in stitches! Don't worry, this project will get built and then you, armchair warrior, and I can all share a round of BROOKLYN LAGERS while watching the Nets win.

Count me in

Thanks!! I look forward to it.

muteflute wrote: escap, you say that you're interested in letting property owners do what they please. at the same time, you say that other property owners have to swallow what other people do even if it results in a falling of their property values. that makes no sense. the government needs to enforce basic standards that ensure that people don't get dispossessed of their investments--for instance, would you like it if I built a building that completely obscured your window? a nice brick, or rather, shiny glass facade, right in your face? no. but according to your model, there's nothing you could do about it. you shouldn't protest, because big buildings are not the problem. if I got a zoning variance, there's nothing you could do about it. (except move!) I just don't see how you can support a project that represents the worst of urban planning and philosophy.

This is a key point. When you make any investment, you need to be aware of the risk. Let's say I open a business selling software, and things are good. A year later, competitors emerge that either cut into my profits are downright drive me out of business. Well, that stinks for me but that's part of the risk of any investment, and the possibility must be taken into account ahead of time. Government intervention to protect my establishment represents exactly the kind of private-public collusion that you just claimed to abhor.

escap wrote: [quote=muteflute]escap, you say that you're interested in letting property owners do what they please. at the same time, you say that other property owners have to swallow what other people do even if it results in a falling of their property values. that makes no sense. the government needs to enforce basic standards that ensure that people don't get dispossessed of their investments--for instance, would you like it if I built a building that completely obscured your window? a nice brick, or rather, shiny glass facade, right in your face? no. but according to your model, there's nothing you could do about it. you shouldn't protest, because big buildings are not the problem. if I got a zoning variance, there's nothing you could do about it. (except move!) I just don't see how you can support a project that represents the worst of urban planning and philosophy.

This is a key point. When you make any investment, you need to be aware of the risk. Let's say I open a business selling software, and things are good. A year later, competitors emerge that either cut into my profits are downright drive me out of business. Well, that stinks for me but that's part of the risk of any investment, and the possibility must be taken into account ahead of time. Government intervention to protect my establishment represents exactly the kind of private-public collusion that you just claimed to abhor.

OK. But a business is different from a home. Many people purchase real estate for profit--then it is indeed a business like any other, subject to rises and falls, risks, and so on. And yes, i believe businesses should, by and large, be allowed to operate in the free market, assuming they meet basic guidelines laid down for the good of everyone involved--like labor laws, environmental laws, basic disclosure laws, etc. Anything in the competitive area, though, should be opened up. We could get into an extended debate about this, but I feel I am pretty consistent about it, even when we get into the whole globalization thing. but. there is something more basic here, and it can best be encapsulated by that very daily news editorial:

<quote="dailynews">A small number of property owners is holding out, potentially requiring the use of eminent domain if futher negotiations are fruitless.</quote>

"Property owners" "negotiations" "potentially requiring the use of eminent domain"

That's like, well, these are not PEOPLE who own THEIR HOMES. They are "entities" that are "obstructing the public good." And while I tend to agree with some other points in the editorial (providing large amounts of affordable housing is good, for instance), I disagree with this mentality altogether. These are people who own their HOMES. Not "assets" or "profit-driven businesses" but HOMES. Why is it Ratner's right to dispossess them if they refuse to sell to him? That's some bullsh*t. And yeah, maybe a few of them are "just being difficult" but if only one person genuinely loves their home, to the point where they would forgo the potential profits of selling out and moving on, to the point of distraction or that oh-so-uneconomic-term IRRATIONALITY, they should be allowed to keep it. Maybe I'm just being ridiculous, but I really resent developers who posture in the name of the public good but who really are just money-grubbing investors. And maybe they wouldn't have had to push those folks out if they had consulted with the people first, instead of just grandly establishing a plan, drawing up drawings, and enlisting governmental support.

Because the person who owns that home just wants their home. And while there are risks there, they should be protected by their elected officials from this sort of ridiculous grab. Not always, maybe--but in this case, yes, I am unequivocal about it. And that's also why you have a lot of people who want to destroy this whole process: because it reeks of insensitivity and "throw-money-at-them-until-they-shut-up." Oh, and also, "and if they don't, throw them out." That's not a way to treat a community of people.

Also, I hate Gehry so much--mostly because I hate most of his new designs, but also because he deigns to lecture people on what their neighborhoods are like when, really, he should just have said he liked the building and thought it would look nice.

And maybe they wouldn't have had to push those folks out if they had consulted with the people first, instead of just grandly establishing a plan, drawing up drawings, and enlisting governmental support.

Besides, consulting people first is good business. Check out the link below:

May I Build Something In Your Neighborhood