1,000 Pages of Atlantic Yards Study to Sift Through

I can't imagine what NYC developers consider affordable housing, but I'm sure its far more than a low-income family can actually afford. A Brookings study recently defined low-income in San Francisco at somewhere around 70,ooo a year per household or lower (hardly a poverty income). Also, new, expensive condos tend to attract out-of-towners so they don't actually bring down rents but simply increase the city's population. Its pretty much a general rule that these sorts of redevelopment plans =gentrification and if evictions don't remove poor people from the area, rising rents and upscale stores that push out cheaper services will. I don't live in NY anymore and don't know too much about this project but the level of community input on this project seems pathetically low.

Where do these facts come from Mr. Bob a booey (and you are a thief of a man who is respectable by using that name!) Oh you wise one you!

If your made up statements are true, then why are seniors strapped for housing and why are there 38,000 homeless people in this city. If Ratner gave a Rat's you know what about housing people, he would build on the land he owned, and make it 80% affordable. This man is not jesus, he is not moses, he is a rich, wealthy white guy, who mysteriously never even speaks!

Brightliner--

The REALITY is that developers include low income housing in practically every new amenity filled high rise that goes up these days because they get enormous tax breaks for doing so. So they actually make lots of money. FACT.

A large number of apartments are being allocated to seniors and low income families and that the tenants won't be able to be evicted for paying cheap rents. FACT.

That's the reality of this project.

[12] Posted by: Bob A Booey | July 19, 2006 02:45 PM

I wonder where Bob a Booey lives, in a hole?

What is so called blighted was created by Ratner!!

And I don't know what world he lives in but no renter is being compensated. But I wish I lived in the naive world you did...it must be nice.

Look up NIMBY, dust thinks you doust know not what it means!

I wonder when the harness that will hold people in the air while it takes ten years to build about 229 "affordable" apartments will go?

to say the project "can't " be made smaller is to say you can't make less pasta. It's gluttony, its greed...but luckily bob a booey will be out on the street if its built...with the rest of us.

Ummm, that's not right, either, my friend.

I admire your passion for this and certainly any outer-boro community in this city could use more jobs.

But the deals you speak of have a habit of falling apart. There are loopholes, there are cost overruns, and then the developer goes back to the politicians pleading to recut the deal... or they will leave a half-finished building on the block where people once lived. That's exactly what happened in BPC. Believe me, I saw this more times than I can count when I was living off Fordham Road in the Bronx. God save that borough from the developers who are going to do only good things for the community.

Ask yourself, if Ratner was really interested in the community, then why wouldn't he change his plans to build something more in scale with the area? As I said, you still get the jobs (which Brooklyn needs), you get more stores (which it also needs) and you get managed growth that doesn't swamp the infrastructure. Why wouldn't Ratner do that?

Because, let's face it, that's not what this is about. It's about Ratner making money, and throwing people out of their homes to do it (which, we know, is always wrong).

And with all the condos being built in NYC today, ask yourselves... how far down have housing prices come in the last decade? Not much.

With this EIS in hand, the Mayor and the boro president should go to Ratner and say, you want the deal? Fine, but we need new roads, a couple of more subway stations, better water drainage, and three new schools. Then we'll talk. And, oh, yeah, you can't throw anyone out of their home.

Brightliner--

The REALITY is that developers include low income housing in practically every new amenity filled high rise that goes up these days because they get enormous tax breaks for doing so. So they actually make lots of money. FACT.

A large number of apartments are being allocated to seniors and low income families and that the tenants won't be able to be evicted for paying cheap rents. FACT.

That's the reality of this project.

affordable vs market is almost irrelevant when you bring that much housing on-line. this development along with some of the others coming up should bring down housing costs regardless of if the units are subsided or not - and for the bulk of people not just the lucky ones to win the housing lottery.

I'm sick of hearing these insanely wealthy people bitch and moan about something that could potentially help a lot of struggling people, just at a light inconvenience to their massive wealth and luxury.

While a lot of arguements against the Atlantic Yards are ridiculous like the fact that it will block the view of the Williamsburg Bank building, the city and Ratner have not explained how the area will sustain the influx of people and cars. Flatbush Avenue already has horrendous traffic and both the Atlantic Station and the 7th Avenue B/Q station are heavily used. Adding residents without addressing these issues is bad planning.

As for all the talk of nimbys and the "insanely wealthy people" who live in the area, well that is just petty and ignorant. We live in in a co-op in Prospect Heights and were lucky to find a place we loved and could afford in a neighborhood we felt safe in. If eminent domain laws were used to buy us out, after repaying the bank, we probably wouldn't have enough to just pick up and move somewhere else in the area nor would we want to live in a Frank Gehry building--like his work actually, just not the sort of thing we would live in.

The Atlantic Yards will be two blocks from my home. Am I thrilled about it, not really, but I'd have a lot easier time swallowing this idea if the city was talking about increasing the number of trains on the lines that run through the area, building enough schools, and providing a solution to traffic congestion. Just because you rent and can't buy doesn't mean those of us who are struggling to put our feet on solid ground in the city should accept bad planning at face value.

Bob... wrong again, dude.

If you take the money, you're not being thrown out. If you choose to stay in your home and find a wrecking ball in your living room, you're being thrown out.

And if anyone thinks there will be one unit of affordable housing in this monstrosity ten years after it is built, I have three words for you...

Battery.

Park.

City.

If this doesn't make sense to you, do a little research.

That all of this conversation is about trashing opponents of the AY project while nobody can come up with any real positives for building this oversized monstrosity speaks for itself.

I'm sick of hearing these insanely wealthy people bitch and moan about something that could potentially help a lot of struggling people, just at a light inconvenience to their massive wealth and luxury.

It's like this all the time ... people who can stand to do without, insist on monopolizing resources at the loss of the people who really need them. And yet, these yuppies are the same who protest against Bush? They all sound like they're on the same page to me.

Take note, anemic Williamsburg and Park Slope residents.

"Bottom line is, there's no reason this thing has to be this big."

I dunno folks, if everyone would like their rents to decrease, increasing the supply of housing - or in this case perhaps oversupplying - helps us all.

"Oh, yeah, and you wouldn't be throwing hard-working taxpayers out of their homes, which, as we've noted before, is always wrong. Always."

You have a point there - eminent domain is out of control.

When talking about “Throwing taxpayers out of their homes”, you neglected to mention the large sums of $$$ as compensation (for renters) or well above market price buyouts (for owners) these “taxpayers” received for their inconvenience and the first priority for apartments (at discounted prices) in the new buildings if they want to return.

I think all the NIMBYS should have their Brownstones demolished so we can return Brooklyn to be the bucolic farmland it used to be before their precious Brownstones ruined everything.

i may not love the architecture, but the area is indeed blighted and has been for years. This is also a city, and as such you expect density, construction, crowds, etc... so that being the case, I say let them build. NYC can definitely use the housing.

What's interesting about this is that it came from the ESDC, which is in the pocket of developers. One wonders what they left out.

Bottom line is, there's no reason this thing has to be this big. It could easily be half the size if Ratner's priority was to build Brooklyn instead of line his pocket and stroke Frank Gehry's member.

And with a smaller AY you wouldn't have half the problems mentioned in the EIS, you'd still have jobs and commercial devleopment, and you wouldn't have to root for a crummy basketball team.

Oh, yeah, and you wouldn't be throwing hard-working taxpayers out of their homes, which, as we've noted before, is always wrong. Always.

60 days is plenty of time for all the unemployed nimbys to go through the document.