Gothamist: With Atlantic Yards Project Fading, Community Groups Demand Review

snowman

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:46:51 -0500

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.

brokeland

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:59:17 -0500

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.

cwbuecheler

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:41:53 -0500

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.

Think twice

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:26:13 -0500

Re #11: Park Avenue between 42nd and 96th Streets were once open rail yards and trackage.

snowman

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:05:10 -0500

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

brokeland

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:06:49 -0500

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?

snowman

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:17:57 -0500

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.

brokeland

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:00:38 -0500

snowman; yes, the arena only financially benefits ratner. it is a loss for the city and state.

cwbuecheler

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:53:51 -0500

@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

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:51:05 -0500

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

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:29:44 -0500

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.

sj

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:29:40 -0500

That painted sign would have been a lot more clever if they got the wording of the classic phrase right. Oh well.

Mike D

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:56:14 -0500

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."

cwbuecheler

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:52:01 -0500

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.

babyhitler

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:03:39 -0500

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.

randomdilemma

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:50:23 -0500

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.