March 21, 2008
With Atlantic Yards Project Fading, Community Groups Demand Review
Two bombshell articles in the Times today may mark a turning point for Bruce Ratner’s plans to build a Nets arena at the Atlantic Yards. Now that Ratner is backpedaling from his initial plans to build 8 million square feet of office space and apartments – some of it for low-income residents – community activists are worried that Ratner will sell off the rest of the site to other developers, replacing Frank Gehry’s comprehensive design with a hodge-podge of expensive condos or barren land. Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn’s [DDDB] Daniel Goldstein says:
The [Times] article makes clear that Atlantic Yards cannot be built as planned, and was never financially feasible. The economic downturn has served to make that crystal clear. Our elected officials cannot allow our public resources, as well as eminent domain, to be used to construct an arena--which only benefits Bruce Ratner--surrounded by vacant lots.
An attorney representing DDDB is now saying that because of the Times's revelation that the cost of the project has more than doubled from the initial estimate to $950 million, “the law and fiscal prudence suggest that the project will have to go back for review and a vote by the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB).” Besides that, a large portion of the land in the arena’s proposed footprint is still owned or leased by private parties who are in court challenging the state’s use of eminent domain.
And 26 community groups, led by DDDB, will be in court in September to challenge the project’s environmental review and approval. A spokesman for ACORN, the housing-advocacy group that supported the project on the basis of its “affordable housing” component, told the Brooklyn Paper that the group would “push the developer to make good on his promises.” Curbed has a timeline stretching back to the project's announcement in 2003, reminding everyone that the arena was to have been finished in 2006.
UPDATE: ACORN has issued a statement about how they have "every confidence" in Ratner:
Forest City Ratner made a commitment to ACORN and to the people of Brooklyn to deliver on a historic plan for affordable housing. While the credit crunch and the downturn in the economy may lead to some delay, we continue to have every confidence they will live up to their commitment. This commitment was the basis for our support and the support of elected officials at the local, state and federal level.[Via Atlantic Yards Report.]
Photo: rynokins
|
I find it particularly amusing that these NIMBY groups got exactly what they wanted (the project stopped) and now are probably going to end up with something worse: barren lots or a hodgepodge of developers over whom they have no collective leverage.
Ah, schadenfreude, you are such a sweet mistress.
yeah they are going to get a wasteland. hhahahahah! It's going to literally look like the WARRIORS! good luck with crime and all that.
It's awesome how all the comments here are taking the side of the billionaire and the corrupt government who are working together to steal people's land in order to make themselves even more money. Way to go, guys.
If you've done even minor reading on the Atlantic Yards project, you rapidly come to realize that it's a fucking travesty that it was ever allowed to be started.
The "NIMBY" groups didn't want this. They wanted organic growth instead of a large scale quasi-legal attack on the current residents.
This is another example of corrupt local/state government and ridiculous corporate welfare under the guise of "sponsoring growth."
That painted sign would have been a lot more clever if they got the wording of the classic phrase right. Oh well.
I'm taking the side of "increasing residential density" to help limited supply meet increasing demand... meaning lower or stabilizing prices for everyone.
Organic growth has done a poor job of keeping up with this.
I do recognize the downsides of having to rely on large developers to do the job, but i think the benefits outweigh the costs.
cwbuecheler @3:52... I have done a good deal of reading on the Atlantic Yards project, and with good reason - I live in the immediate area. I don't think it's "a fucking travesty that it was ever allowed to be started"... I think if built as planned it would be great for the immediate area and for all of downtown Brooklyn... So save the anti capitalist rhetoric will ya?
And the DDDB guy quoted above "Our elected officials cannot allow our public resources, as well as eminent domain, to be used to construct an arena--which only benefits Bruce Ratner--surrounded by vacant lots." What a joke. You think you're going to put in billions of dollars of development and its only going to benefit Ratner?? I suppose you would prefer the area to remain a big unused hole in the ground surrounded with empty lots?
@randomdilemma:
Just for the record, I'm not against developing Brooklyn - not even against aggressively developing Brooklyn. I'm just against the government manipulating laws to make rich people even richer, often at the expense of poor people who have little means of recourse.
Ratner wants to build skyscrapers in Brooklyn? So be it - buy the land and do it. He wants the government to kick people out of their homes and places of business in order to own a single gigantic chunk and maximize his eventual income? Tough shit.
snowman; yes, the arena only financially benefits ratner. it is a loss for the city and state.
BROKELAND...
The arena would be "a LOSS for the city and state"?...really?? You are aware that it's a hole in the ground at the moment right?
Even if Ratner were to pocket every single penny in revenue from the arena forever - the project would STILL be a great stimulus for all of Downtown Brooklyn and thus the city and the state.
The arena would be a financial loss for the city and state. No need to believe me, just ask the Independent Budget Office.
You are suggesting the arena doesn't cost anything. But it does.
And no, I'm not aware that its a hole in the ground at the moment.
Its an active rail yard. Two seet streets and one full block of homes and business.
ain't no hole.
it "would be a great stimulus." really? wheres the evidence of that?
Where is the evidence that it would be a great stimulus for the area you ask? Well for one, there IS quite literally a big stupid hole in the ground (despite what you say) with numerous empty lots around it. So it really wouldn't take much for it to be an improvement over that. This area is 2 minutes out of downtown Manhattan and is far from thriving right now. Does any of that qualify as 'evidence' for you? If you need more evidence of how a multi-billion dollar construction project in a languishing area would be a great stimulus then maybe you should hit up an Eco 101 class for a semester or something.
Take your pic:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2107/1817584742_d05ff5595b_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/509259519_2be89a80de_o.jpg
Re #11:
Park Avenue between 42nd and 96th Streets were once open rail yards and trackage.
snowman if you do any reading on tax-funded arenas at all, you'll see that the math proves that they actually cost taxpayers money. Quite simply, a big empty hole in a ground is LESS EXPENSIVE for the people who live in Brooklyn than funding an arena would be. The "economic stimulus" of local arenas is entirely a myth.
Snowman, you are funny.
these are the two photos you posted. lets discuss.
1.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2107/1817584742_d05ff5595b_b.jpg
That is a photo of the eastern end of the rail yards. The arena would not be located there. Have you heard about this little eminent domain issue? it's an issue because the arena, as I stated above, would require government seizure of people's homes and businesses, condemnation of city streets and part of the western end of the rail yard. So your picture is no evidence of anything.
2.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/509259519_2be89a80de_o.jpg
but this one is even more hysterical. this photo? it's a rendering of the redeveloped World Trade Center site. Not sure why you posted that.
1.
brokeland@ 6:06 - "ain't no hole." ...sure looks like a hole to me... And yes, the arena will be located in an adjacent big empty hole. I realize that eminent domain is at issue here and it is a crappy thing for those it displaces. But overall, the benefits simply out way the costs in this case.
2.
Hmmm.. yes point taken - but I would expect you would have known what I was going for. If you truly did not, my point was that the finished development will be much nicer than the sorry looking area that is there right now.
_____________________________________________
cwbuecheler@ 9:41 -
"Quite simply, a big empty hole in a ground is LESS EXPENSIVE for the people who live in Brooklyn than funding an arena would be." ...d'uh, but then you've got a big empty hole in the ground!
cwbuecheler@ 9:41 -
"The 'economic stimulus' of local arenas is entirely a myth." I live a minute from the AY site and go by it all the time. I KNOW that development there would both improve the site and would stimulate the surrounding neighborhoods. You, on the other hand, live on the Upper East Side. I think that says it all.