Ratner Secrecy and MTA Reprimand

This comes from the first link:

Goldstein: "This second MOU lays out plans for an even larger development, and more development rights, for Bruce Ratner than the public MOU."

"... The second MOU, or 'MOU 2,' allows new development rights for FCR to develop millions more square feet over their Atlantic Center Mall and the PC Richards/Modell's mall ... These sites are directly adjacent to the disclosed footprint of Ratner's proposed Brooklyn Atlantic Yards (BAY) ...

"MOU 2 also refers to a mysterious previous MOU from May 2004."

"It also provides for a state takeover of yet more acres in addition to the 21 acres in the public MOU. This would add more than one million square feet to what is already 8 million square feet of development in the BAY plan, and what is already an overburdened traffic intersection and public transportation hub."

--
I don't get the significance of the second link, "MTA reprimand." I skimmed it and it looks like DDDB is saying, "we sent a letter to MTA and they didn't reply."

I'm commenting on the press release, not the letter itself.

The press release essentially says, "our attorney wrote a letter to the MTA and they ignored our concerns." Why would you write a press release about that?

It's also really weird that they would put out these two releases on the same day. If this "secret MOU" story is really so substantial, then why would they dilute the airwaves with this other release?

IMHO --- and I hate to sound overly simplistic or cynical, but I don't think it's a matter of conspiracy versus non-conspiracy theories. It's just the way business is done in New York City, or any other city for that matter. It's just a matter of scale. When there is so much money, and therefore power, at stake there will inevitably be corruption. Public agencies, for all their good intentions, are clearly not immune -- from top to bottom.

A couple of cliches seem to be at work here: "it's not what you know, but who you know" and "you can't change City Hall."

Seriously though, most of these posts seem to focus on the usual suspects: Ratner (of course), Bloomberg and Markowitz (of course) and the sundry other local politicians and opinion leaders who have signed on to the FCR team. But as one person on this site noted, the MTA is an agency chartered by the State of New York. Where does Pataki stand on all of this and what is his role in the decision-making processes? As well, a name I don't recall seeing here (and if I missed it, sorry) is Peter Kalikow, the head of the MTA, an appointee of the Governor and formerly a pretty serious and influential NYC real estate developer in his own right.

Ultimately (and I offer not an opinion here, nor a solution, just an observation) the real question for us "little people" is whether or not the best interests of the neighborhood, Brooklyn and the City at large are being served here, EVEN IF all the decisions are being made by a small cabal of insiders.

Private Memo Guarantees Ratner Space

http://www.nysun.com/article/18795

Thanks: pdberger.com

Yes, he is.

Isn't it possible that the mayor, governor, borough president, mta officials and the rest of the "cabal" actually feel that the project would be good for the city? In other words, their motivation for pushing the project through is that they think it's good policy rather than because they have been bought off or are corrupt? Again, I think it's inconceivable that anyone could buy Bloomberg off. Then, and maybe this is a bad excuse, but they resort to backroom dealing because they know any project that faces full public scrutiny is doomed to sink into an endless morass of redtape (note the WTC, for example).

I don't know, I'm not sure what the balance is supposed to be between the public transparency that's necessary in a democracy and the need sometimes to cut through all the red tape in order to actually accomplish grand projects. My instincts tell me that the govt should always be open and transparent in its dealings and avoid backroom deals; but I sure wish there were a way to be open and at the same time actually get something done!

Fair enough, I can see how their views for what is best could definitely differ from yours or other locals. You know I disagree that their plan comes at "our expense"--I personally think I will benefit from the project if it happens, but we've already been down that road and I definitely know where you stand.