Atlantic Yards approved
Comments
-
queencallipygos wrote:
Yes but arent you ignoring the fact that a huge part of the site is a railyard that will require 100s of millions to build a platform over - doesnt that negate the possibility of 'organic' lot by lot development for a large portion of the site?
What about renovating existing buildings that are sitting empty? Building on existing empty lots? Designing buildings to fit available space rather than necessiatating evicting homeowners because the available space isn't big enough for what you want to build? That's what I mean. I'll grant you I pulled the "organic development" term out of my ass, but I was always taught that if you can't afford the thing you want -- financially or spacewise -- rather than taking over someone else's resources, maybe you should try to scale back a little. -
Jack Krohn wrote: Organic development is a disingenuous term used by many posters on this board to justify their anger at Ratner while excusing their own roles in gentrification.
Yeah, and using the word "gentrification" or "gentrifier" is a way to dismiss the legitimate concerns of residents of Brooklyn or anywhere else.
I am an active member of various Brooklyn communities- what do I have to excuse myself for? How do you define gentrifier? I was struck in my survey of Prospect Place residents that the most anti-development residents are the people who have been here 30 years or more.Jack Krohn wrote: Please, stop with the "what would you if your home were being seized" question. I have answered this about two dozen times on various blogs, as have many others, with the same line: I would have sold out to Ratner long ago for double the value of my property.
I have a picture in my kitchen of my grandmother's vinyard near Lake Balaton. Even though this was taken away by the Hungarian government decades ago, I am still tempted by the idea of fighting to get that property.
It's nice that you would take double the value of your property, when prices have gone up three times. I'm glad that you are willing to contribute to the profits of the titans of industry!
And going back to my own family, I'm sure the lucky people who got my mother's apartment next to the Danube in Budapest was quite happen at the good fortune of landing new digs with the help of some political buddies. They must have been quite proud of their ingenuity to work with the system.
Government "taking" of private property has a long history. It happens pretty much every generation. A lot of people benefit from it- but I guess your point is that if you lose out, you should be quiet. Is that a public service to shut up if some powerful person wants to take your private property? Is that why you sound so proud? -
friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=queencallipygos]
Yes but arent you ignoring the fact that a huge part of the site is a railyard that will require 100s of millions to build a platform over - doesnt that negate the possibility of 'organic' lot by lot development for a large portion of the site?
What about renovating existing buildings that are sitting empty? Building on existing empty lots? Designing buildings to fit available space rather than necessiatating evicting homeowners because the available space isn't big enough for what you want to build? That's what I mean. I'll grant you I pulled the "organic development" term out of my ass, but I was always taught that if you can't afford the thing you want -- financially or spacewise -- rather than taking over someone else's resources, maybe you should try to scale back a little.
No, I'm not ignoring that fact -- I'm referring strictly to the "evict people" part of the plan. I have no problem with them renovating and building over an existing empty railway yard. It's the "kicking people out of their homes because the rail yard wasn't big enough" part I have a problem with.
And yes, I saw elsewhere in this thread that not many people will be thus effected, but that still doesn't sit right. -
Subject: Re: Atlantic Yards approved
MichaelKeys wrote: I think I read somewhere that what the developer intends to be affordable rental units is for households with a 75K income. If that is indeed the case, then it is not affordable as defined by those in the know. Does anyone know more about this?
This is an important question, and thanks for bringing it up. The Ratner proposal is defined, as I understand it, as a Civic Project, and Ratner uses the amount of affordable housing as a primary selling point. What "affordable housing" means is up for debate, and I support government policy that insures a variety of incomes in New York. There might be some sophisticated justifications of the Ratner proposal on these grounds, but I don't buy them. Here's a look at the numbers, which may have shifted as of this week.
Here's a breakdown from April 2006:
And here is more from http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_Linked.php?id=194 :
# If you or your family earn between $21,270 to $28,360/year 225 units would be set aside for you.
# If you or your family earn between $28,361 to $35,450/year 675 units would be set aside for you.
# The Brooklyn Area Median Income (AMI) is 35,000/year.
# That's 900 units (or 13%) out of a total 6,860 proposed units.
# If you or your family earn less than $21,270 there is no home for you in the proposed project.
# 84% of the units will NOT be affordable to families making less than $56,000/year.
# 40% of the "affordable" units would be for families earning between $71,000/year and $113,000/year.
# The units called "affordable" amount to 31% of the project, not the 50% ACORN continues to claim.
# There would be a total of 4,610 luxury units.
# ALL of the "affordable" units are rentals.
# Most of the "affordable" units would not come on line until "Phase II" of the project, at least 10 years from groundbreaking.
# NONE of the "affordable" housing is guaranteed. NONE.
And when/if the condo market crashes, Forest City Ratner–a publicly traded real estate firm–will have to be legally responsible to its shareholders, not to the Brooklyn community or New Yorkers desparate for housing.
Personally, I think DDDb is being too generous. The median family income in Brooklyn to my knowledge is $32,000, and I would define "affordable" is housing geared towards people earning under the median.
Also, remember that the "affordable" units will have rents based on 30% of income, so a family earning $100,000 will pay $30,000 a year in rent, which $2,500 a month. I just called up a reporter who wrote that 100% of the units would be rent stabilized, but that only applies to units up to $2,000 a month in rent. Many, if not most of the units, will have rents higher than $2,000. -
raulism wrote: I was not placing a value judgement, just being descriptive based on information from the developer. The context of my statements is how the Ratner proposal will effect people in this neighborhood- I'm in Prospect Heights.
I absolutely agree that stable neighborhoods are a good thing and I absolutely agree that AY will change the neighborhood character. But my view of cities is that they are dynamic, changing entities. They benefit from injections of new people, new ideas, and new life. I don't see thousands of new residents who come from outside of Brooklyn to be a bad thing at all. In fact, I think it's going to be a huge benefit. I also think the change in neighborhood character will be for the better. Goodbye rail yards and trash stuck in the cyclone fencing and hello new parks, retail, and housing. And I do think that your view of what makes a stable neighborhood is narrow; it doesn't mean that I'm calling you narrow. I just favor a more expansive view.
Please explain to mean how I have a narrow view of how cities work. Why do think your view of how cities work is broader than mine?
I happen to believe that there is a public benefit to stable neighborhoods, but I am open to learning more about that issue. What articles can you point to that show the public benefit of a transient population?
Of course, if a neighborhood has new residents, that suggests that people have voted with their feet, and are probably investing money into new developments. Since people are already doing that here without government subsidies, do you think the government should subdize a favored developer for what other people are doing on their own dime?
Thanks for letting me know I have such narrow views! I never knew.
One fact about real estate development: no one would have ever, ever, ever built anything on that rail yard w/o public support. And since I very much want to see that rail yard platformed over, I fully expect that some public monies will go into it. -
Subject: Re: Atlantic Yards approved
raulism wrote: I just called up a reporter who wrote that 100% of the units would be rent stabilized, but that only applies to units up to $2,000 a month in rent. Many, if not most of the units, will have rents higher than $2,000.
I don't know the specifics of this for AY but in general, units built today are not subject to RS laws unless a tax break has been given. In this case the $2,000 exemption rule does not apply.
The $2,000 rule applies to units currently in the RS program but that are not currently receiving J-51, 421-a, or other tax breaks.
So if the units in AY are subject to RS laws based on tax breaks they will continue to be subject to RS even if the rent is over $2000/month and will continue to be unit the tax benefit expires.
On the question of "affordable" units, I think the goal is more to have units that are affordable to the middle and not focused on the low end. There are many programs in place to help the poorest out there, Section 8, NYCHA housing, and others.
The people who are struggling the most are the families that make enough to stay off of welfare but not so much that they can afford to live in a decent apartment. These are the families of 4 making $50k, $70k, yes even $100k a year. These are the teachers, police and fire people, etc.
These are the people that are under the greatest danger of being pushed out of NY and these are the people that these "affordable" units are targeted towards. -
Subject: Re: Atlantic Yards approved
raulism wrote: I love it when there are points that we can agree on. Silver has provided us with a shining example of the corruption of New York.
Nice. We have to savor these few moments of agreement.
raulism wrote: # ALL of the "affordable" units are rentals.
Not that I care, but I thought this was now not the case. Every article I read said that some (200?) subsidized condos would also be for sale (which, btw, I don't get, but I'm gonna start another thread on that).raulism wrote: # Most of the "affordable" units would not come on line until "Phase II" of the project, at least 10 years from groundbreaking.
Whoohoo!! I suddenly find myself rooting for the DDDb lawsuits against eminent domain. Maybe they can win just enough to block Phase II! :twisted: It would be a win-win, since ~ a billion or so of public subsidies is tied to the affordability component.raulism wrote: # NONE of the "affordable" housing is guaranteed. NONE.
Please. Don't get my hopes up. [-o< [-o< [-o< -
Subject: Re: Atlantic Yards approved
Ben wrote:
These are the people who are most screwed over by rent control, which creates a two-tiered system composed of the wealthy and the lucky. If you really care about the middle-class (or if you had ever read an economics textbook) you would be vocally calling for the liberalization of the housing market. :x
The people who are struggling the most are the families that make enough to stay off of welfare but not so much that they can afford to live in a decent apartment. These are the families of 4 making $50k, $70k, yes even $100k a year. These are the teachers, police and fire people, etc.
These are the people that are under the greatest danger of being pushed out of NY and these are the people that these "affordable" units are targeted towards. -
Subject: Re: Atlantic Yards approved
escap wrote: [quote=Ben]
These are the people who are most screwed over by rent control, which creates a two-tiered system composed of the wealthy and the lucky. If you really care about the middle-class (or if you had ever read an economics textbook) you would be vocally calling for the liberalization of the housing market. :x
The people who are struggling the most are the families that make enough to stay off of welfare but not so much that they can afford to live in a decent apartment. These are the families of 4 making $50k, $70k, yes even $100k a year. These are the teachers, police and fire people, etc.
These are the people that are under the greatest danger of being pushed out of NY and these are the people that these "affordable" units are targeted towards.
I'm with you 100%, I think that housing subsidies and controls end up doing more harm than good.
I just wanted to point out that in the reasoning by dddb there is the assumption that affordable housing should mean housing for the poor which is not the case. -
Oh, whew!!!!!
/ You just made my day. 
-
8thandPrez wrote: Where are the 15-story lighted signs going to be placed? I haven't seen them in any of the project renderings. I find it extremely hard to believe that this type of signage would be allowed. I would expect some type of illuminated sign on the arena, but signs as large as the ones you describe are only permitted in Times Square.
Here is an article that was on the front page of The Brooklyn Papers:
http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol29/29_48/29_48nets1.html
Here's an image from the Gowanus Lounge
http://gowanuslounge.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-atlantic-yards-fun-15-story.html
You could also go to the front page of BrooklynSpeaks.com for an animated version.
I think you're right that New York City zoning does not allow signs of this size. But the Ratner project will not be subjected to City zoning, since it is a state project. That is one reason why the developer chose to go outside of City laws.
I think there are also city laws that would not allow a 19,000 person arena at this site. Of course, city zoning does not allow this level of density in Brooklyn.
Of course, I believe that the ESDC did not follow state laws in its environmental review of this project. I believe the ESDC did not follow state laws in the way it handled my testimony in the public input as part of the SEQRA/EIS process. -
Hmmm.... the signs are on the corner of Flatbush and Fourth. I agree that that aspect of the proposal is troubling. I'm still more concerned about those ugly brick residential buildings in the background of the photo. Now those are ugly.
-
Subject: Re: Atlantic Yards approved
Ben wrote: On the question of "affordable" units, I think the goal is more to have units that are affordable to the middle and not focused on the low end. There are many programs in place to help the poorest out there, Section 8, NYCHA housing, and others.
I'm sorry if I don't say in every post that I support a broad range of incomes, including people earning $70,000 and even $100,000. I think I've been pretty clear in the past but let me say it again, I support housing for people earning $50,000, $70,000 and even $100,000 a year.
The people who are struggling the most are the families that make enough to stay off of welfare but not so much that they can afford to live in a decent apartment. These are the families of 4 making $50k, $70k, yes even $100k a year. These are the teachers, police and fire people, etc.
These are the people that are under the greatest danger of being pushed out of NY and these are the people that these "affordable" units are targeted towards.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I must also restate that the burden of proof on this project is on Ratner. What are the public subsidies that are coming out of the taxpayers pockets to pay for them? After three years, Ratner still has not provided those numbers, so we can't even discuss the cost per unit, or whether there are better locations to achieve this goal. According to the SEQRA, it is the duty of citizens to critique the EIS process. So you may not like DDDb, but they are doing their duty according to state law.
Over and over and over again, Ratner is selling this project as a low income project. They sucked in ACORN to do their bidding to sell this point, and right now in my building, one of my neighbors posted a Ratner mailer selling this as a solution to housing for the poor.
This project has been rammed though with, in my experience, no meaningful public input. The only thing that will make the project better is by taking it to court. Do you think Sheldon Silver cares about your concerns? This project is not even following the pathetic state procedure, and DDDb is the most effect group making sure that the public goals of this project are met.
The promises that Ratner are completely unenforceable. And I don't trust our state assembly in standing up for us taxpayers. -
Subject: Atlantic Yards
Brooklyn needs more affordable housing, and should reasonably try to accommodate the new influx of residents.
Having said that, the process by which the developer, Mr. Ratner, obtained approval was absolutely unfair. So, as I understand the question from most of the propontents are, who really cares?
Well, everyone should. This is a classic example of pitting the middle class against itself, and against the lower classes. It is a growing and a continuing trend in the economic and the social fabric of our society. The largest pieces of the pie go to the very rich, and the politically connected, and the rest of the people take the scrap leftovers.
Proponents of this plan, who without an overriding valid reason cheer this development on, should be ashamed of themselves. Its not just about what you want, or how great it will be to have a basketball team, its about fundamental fairness and equity. How would you like it if a building you had owned for a generation or more, and put sweat and tears into, was taken by another private individual?
You would not like it one bit, especially when it wasn't for a hospital or a park, but for other private owners, who would reap the benefit of your misfortune.
Of course, the Upper Middle Class will benefit, as WE have money to buy tickets, purchase luxury condos on land recently owned by other property owners, rent parking spaces, and of course, raise our rents as the neighborhood changes from a Brooklyn neighborhood to something else.
I pity all the proponents ... and I am sadden that so many people are willing, as middle class people, to take it up the "shoester."
Ultimately, most of you will be gone from Brooklyn when the few privileged individuals, and families, reap the benefits because of your lack of understanding and just plain misguided opinions. So be it.
Make no mistake about it, the opponents of the Atlantic Yard development are economically, socially and morally correct on this issue.
My father, many years ago, meet Mr. Ratner, and stated he was a real jerk. Look who is the jerk now.
lets keep Brooklyn, Brooklyn.
Charles
Park Slope, bklyn -
Right on the money, Charles!
-
Here's a link to an article that all you pro-development people will appreciate. It's from the NY Sun, which is considered a relatively conservative paper:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-12-19ng.html
Here's a teaser from the article:NY Sun wrote:
Merry Christmas, one and all!
New York ignores the obvious and best solution: get the government out of the way. Yes, there’s a real problem at Atlantic Yards: those nine acres’ worth of uncovered MTA railyards keep the neighborhood from reaching its potential. The city should rezone the space above the yards for residential and commercial construction, so that the MTA can sell or lease the property through a fair, competitive bid to one, or several, developers, just as it’s finally doing with its similar property on Manhattan’s West Side.
-
Raulism, I have no problem with the Sun's take. I think it would be great if the land had been sold off in an open, competitive bidding process and if the government had been far less involved. Less govt involvement means, by definition, less public involvement, however, which directly contradicts your stated goal, so it's a bit odd of you to make that point. The Sun would also likely favor far looser restrictions on such zoning laws as height and density, allowing those developers who did buy the land to do as they liked; and the Sun would surely not favor rent control, so along those lines we'd be looking at a forest of Miss Brooklyn luxury condos and bright commercial signs. If the city followed the general economic policy suggestions of the NY Sun, I for one would be dancing in the streets. You would certainly not be.
Moreover, realistically, in the case of a sports arena the absence of city involvement is impossible; public-private partnership is the only way to go. And on the subject of the process, I can't imagine that anyone would disagree with your call for a more transparent, less corrupt process that followed the stated rules and proper oversight and community input. Fine, that's a no-brainer. But it's also, IMO, a separate issue from the merits of the project itself. The project has a lot of great elements, and a handful of terrible ones. If it was all bad and had been properly reviewed, I can't see how that would be better, or if it was all fantastic and had circumvented the process entirely, I can't see how that would be worse. So I agree with your criticisms of the process, but my opinion of the project stands on its own.
As for Charles, I'm happy for you that you live in a world where you think you can simply dictate morality and it will thus be so. There's a certain U.S. president I'd like to introduce you too. :roll: -
hi all.
wha'ts all this talk about Dan Goldstein?
according to state documents there are 60 households, comprising 118 residents, and 13 businesses with 185 employees, left in the footprint who were served condemnation notices on December 12th.
(http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/478122p-402239c.html)
as far as I understand, only one is named Dan Goldstein.
as far as i understand the rail yards are plenty big and Ratner has bought up a substantial amount of property (only with the threat of eminent domain behind his back). that ain't enough for Greedy Bruce?
there are two lawsuits.
one Challenges the constitutionality of eminent domain for a project where the beneficiary of the takings is known before the takings, with no RFP or legislative process, aka a favored developer. there 10 plantiffs representing 24 individuals
the other, a tougher case to make, challenges the ESDC's right to sever rent-stabilized leases. 13 plaintiffs.
so perhaps those attacking Dan Goldstein should find out the names of the 117 other people and the 13 businesses so you can launch new attacks on the fresh meat of those who should happily leave their homes for luxury housing and big room where 10 men in shorts compete over who can throw the ball in the hoop the most times. (i'm a basketball fan, but thats what it is folks)
and Escap, the fact that YOU would sell for "twice what you paid," How exactly is that pertinent? -
escap wrote: As for Charles, I'm happy for you that you live in a world where you think you can simply dictate morality and it will thus be so. There's a certain U.S. president I'd like to introduce you too. :roll:
The fact that both Charles and Mr. Bush make arguments involving moral judgements does not make all moral judgements wrong. And I think comparing anyone here to George W. Bush is hitting below the belt. :twisted: -
Plainwrapper, read the thread more carefully, that was Jack Krohn who said that, not me (although I would have too). And the reason that the man, the legend, Dan Goldstein, gets all the attention, is because he seeks it! He is the spokesman, after all (duh).
Raulism, below the belt was where I was aiming. :twisted: -
uhm, Jim Stuckey gets all the attention for Ratner. is that becaue he seeks it or is it because he is doing his job?
-
and apologies, now i see it was krohn. but krohn or you, how is it pertinent?
-
Subject: News Flash
DeeDee wrote: I'm so pleased that this has been approved. It's important for Brooklyn to move forward and continue to develop into a world-class destination! Affordable housing and an NBA team in Brooklyn -- absolutely fantastic!
DeeDee, define "world class" and "affordable housing". Seems you throw those vague realestate marketing buzz words around like cheap phrases, such as "think out of the box" and "I'm incubating" (circa 1999).
Guess you haven't noticed, but Brooklyn, since it's inception as a pre-borough township has always been an international, diversified mix of people from many different economic means. I've never lived around so many people from diferent countries, socio-economic, cultures and religions. Brooklyn IS "world class". Why in your mind would it take a 33-acre (not 9 acre) mall/arena/luxury complex, or a sports team that is up for sale to anyoen with cash, to make Brooklyn seem world class. If you consider the Upper East side or the White Plains Galaria a world-class destination, why aren't you living around there?
I love Brooklyn for its world class diversity. It's not like any other borough. That will reach it's end in this part of town when nothing is "affordable".
So dear DeeDee, what are your plans if and when that happens: sell, drop and run? Leave your world class neighborhood behind you? You can forget about renting here unless you want to vulture over the Obits for open rentals. -
friendlypitbull wrote: Everyone bemoans ED - but seriously thousands of people will get affordable (according to established definitions) housing as a result of this project. A new school will be built, a ugly hole will be filled and a much needed arena will be built - since when is ED limited soley to road school and mass transit construction?
Oh yeah, thousands will get affordable houseing... new shools wil be builtt... future utilities wil be created to compensate. People will all live, work, and play in about 20 years in Queens under this project. Nothing was ever been defined by FCR as to how and where these "thousands" will live. But they sure got real perty brochures filled with happy stock photos. This sounds much like the middle class affordable housing promsie of Co-op City in the Bronx. Have you been there lately? -
friendlypitbull wrote: Everyone bemoans ED - but seriously thousands of people will get affordable (according to established definitions) housing as a result of this project. A new school will be built, a ugly hole will be filled and a much needed arena will be built - since when is ED limited soley to road school and mass transit construction?
Historically, you have a point. Eminent domain has been used for centuries to destroy the homes and businesses of the underclasses. Nothing new there.
I once tried to find out what the "established definition" of affordable housing is. I couldn't find it, though I would appreciate if you could find it. There will be 900 units (using the old numbers) of units for households earning $21,000 to $35,000 and they would probably be small units as well, so I think it's shaky to say that thousands of people will get affordable housing.
My main problem reading the DEIS was that the Ratner plan was proposed as the only solution to various problems, like lack of housing. If the goal was really to create affordable housing, the Ratner proposal would not be the solution. Changing 421a laws would be one possible example of a more cost-effective way to build more affordable housing.
If the goal was economic development, there are much better places that could use the boost than Prospect Heights. There are much more cost-effective ways of doing this.
If the goal was to create jobs, there are much better ways and places to put our tax dollars.
What is the cost to the taxpayer for unit of "affordable" housing? What is the cost per job? Ratner has not offered these numbers, and so we have no way to make a cost-benefit analysis.
The Ratner project is about grabbing valuable real estate. It is about working with a corrupt political system and taking maximum advantage of that. Eminent domain is only a symptom of the greater problem.
There are better ways to achieve the supposed goals of the project. The real goal, as far as I can tell, is to create huge profits for Ratner and friends. And that is not an acceptable use of eminent domain. -
Also, a buddy of mine just did a good blog posting connecting corruption to Ratner at
http://dailygotham.com/blog/mole333/pataki_ratner_silver_and_bruno_crony_capitalism_at_its_worst
And nobody's going to my friggin posting at http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31990
What's with that? Should I fake people out with political rants when I really want to talk about music? Don't y'all know that I'm just fighting Ratner as a way to advance my music career? -
raulism wrote: [quote=friendlypitbull]Everyone bemoans ED - but seriously thousands of people will get affordable (according to established definitions) housing as a result of this project. A new school will be built, a ugly hole will be filled and a much needed arena will be built - since when is ED limited soley to road school and mass transit construction?
Historically, you have a point. Eminent domain has been used for centuries to destroy the homes and businesses of the underclasses. Nothing new there.
I once tried to find out what the "established definition" of affordable housing is. I couldn't find it, though I would appreciate if you could find it. There will be 900 units (using the old numbers) of units for households earning $21,000 to $35,000 and they would probably be small units as well, so I think it's shaky to say that thousands of people will get affordable housing.
My main problem reading the DEIS was that the Ratner plan was proposed as the only solution to various problems, like lack of housing. If the goal was really to create affordable housing, the Ratner proposal would not be the solution. Changing 421a laws would be one possible example of a more cost-effective way to build more affordable housing.
If the goal was economic development, there are much better places that could use the boost than Prospect Heights. There are much more cost-effective ways of doing this.
If the goal was to create jobs, there are much better ways and places to put our tax dollars.
What is the cost to the taxpayer for unit of "affordable" housing? What is the cost per job? Ratner has not offered these numbers, and so we have no way to make a cost-benefit analysis.
The Ratner project is about grabbing valuable real estate. It is about working with a corrupt political system and taking maximum advantage of that. Eminent domain is only a symptom of the greater problem.
There are better ways to achieve the supposed goals of the project. The real goal, as far as I can tell, is to create huge profits for Ratner and friends. And that is not an acceptable use of eminent domain.
As with many things in NYC lately (Sean Bell?) AY has generated a lot more heat than light. Why you were unable to get the breakdown of the affordable housing units in AY is an example. The details have been published in the Community Benefits Agreement for over a year and are also on the AY official website. Here's the link:
http://www.atlanticyards.com/downloads/housing_chart.pdf
While it's convenient to tar "greedy Bruce" as the problem, I feel the bigger reality is that there have been big population shifts in the US in recent years. No one is hearing about mega developments in Buffalo, Utica or many of the Plain states. They are hearing about them in NYC because the Census expects NYC to add 1 million new people in the next 20 years. All the ranting about eminent domain will not make them go away.
Our more responsible leaders, such as Marty Markowitz and Michael Bloomberg, are trying to make intelligent plans for them, by building housing where it should be built, not willy nilly scattered across the landscape, in South Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Poconos, but near existing transit hubs.
Bear in mind that Brooklyn's population in 1950 exceeded 2.7 million, 200,000 more than now. They survived by using trolleys instead of cars. Back to the future anyone? And what about bike paths? Cars are not only an outmoded way of getting around, they contribute to obesity and global warming. Surely bikes and trolleys are a better solution on every level. -
greg wrote: AY has generated a lot more heat than light. Why you were unable to get the breakdown of the affordable housing units in AY is an example. The details have been published in the Community Benefits Agreement for over a year and are also on the AY official website. Here's the link:
Yo, dude, I posted a graphic from your PDF above. I was unsure about the details of the Ratner promises because it may have changed when Silver decided to do some last minute horse trading.
http://www.atlanticyards.com/downloads/housing_chart.pdf
As I have written before and reinterated several times, I don't agree with Ratner's definition of "affordable" housing, and the point of my posting that you were responding to was that I was curios about more "objective" definitions of affordable- that is, definitions by neither pro- or anti-Ratner people.
And thanks for bringing up the CBA- I think Ratner's penalty for breaking it is $500,000- but can you please confirm what the enforcement provision of the CBA are? Thanks.
While I'm reiterating points here, let me remind you about this graphic:
The Ratner project would drastically increase the percentage of high-income units and eliminate all units for people earning less than $21,000. There may be more units for peole earning in the $30s and $40,000s in the footprint, but in my understanding, there would also be secondary displacement, so that people earning less than $50,000 or so would be displaced from the nearby neighborhoods.
I don't agree that people units for people earning $113,000 a year are "affordable," and I want to encourage housing for people earning less than $21,000, unlike Ratner who want to get rid of that income bracket in Prospect Heights.
For more reading about the CBA, please visit
http://www.nolandgrab.org/archives/2006/04/community_benef.html
http://therealestate.observer.com/2006/03/the-cba-at-atlantic-yards-but-is-it-legal.html
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/03/modern-blueprint-in-cba-discussion.html
or for more articles, go to
http://dddb.net/php/reading/agreements.php
Oh, and just in case you can't find the graphic I posted, here it is again: -
unless there is something I missed, those graphics skip the income range between 35K and 42K (where I currently fall into).
-
greg wrote: Our more responsible leaders, such as Marty Markowitz and Michael Bloomberg, are trying to make intelligent plans for them, by building housing where it should be built, not willy nilly scattered across the landscape, in South Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Poconos, but near existing transit hubs.
Greg, if the primary goal was to build FCR Affordable Housingâ„¢, that would be the headline on every paper "Afforable Housing For Thousand!!". But that's not the case, it's about an arena. That's ALWAYS how its been.
If FCR's primary plans were to build affordable housing they would have real numbers and projections on that type of housing, enviormental impact, the cost of future utlities, hospitals and schools. If this is in fact their solution, it is the laziest, most irresponsible way to plan the future.
In the case of Carbini Green in Chicago, the restructuring that you call "willy nilly" works, they call it "mixed-income" housing. It took years of planning and a good execution. On the other hand AY has cobbled some slapped-together package that rides on the tail end of an arena.
From the discussions on this topic, the only real allure that someone people are thrilled aobut is that their property value will go up, if only they can survive the unsellable years, if and when construction starts in the area. They reserve the right to sell when they can. So far I haven't heard anyone really say "I LOVE THE NETS" as their opening statement with exception of that nuisance guest poster who has a crush on Daniel Goldstein.
Until we actually see any real proof of a real FCR housing plan we're all just talking about pie charts, Power Point slide and promises. If you can see through the smoke and mirrors you've only seen a scale model that looks like a recycling night mishap.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds