This weekend we went to the Atlantic Antic Street Fair, which to me is one of the better street fairs. Listend to some great drumming and ate some Caribbean food that was spicy even to me. Great stuff.

I was also able to spend some time with the folks from Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN), which grew out of a series of discussions Brooklyn Boro President Marty Markowitz held in the Spring of 2004 with members of a number of community groups to better understand their concerns regarding the proposed development of the Brooklyn Atlantic/Vanderbilt Yards. CBN is composed of community groups, business groups and churches in Community Board Districts 2, 3, 6, and 8. You can see a list of the component organizations here.

What CBN is doing now is analyzing the DEIS report from the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and providing this analysis for people to look at and use. They are also urging everyone to send comments in to the ESDC and to local polticians before the Sept. 29th deadline.

CBN is providing a series of bullitins on the DEIS report, which can be found here. The fifth bullitin contains a summay of their findings. Here is a summary of the summary:

* Many parts of the DEIS read like promotional material for the development, not a balanced analysis of impacts. There is more focus on the presumed benefits of the project than on the costs or problems. The purpose of the environmental review is to disclose potential impacts and identify negative impacts, not promote the project.

* The three alternative plans (UNITY, Extell and Pacific) are never analyzed or discussed in any detail. For the most part they are only described; the relative impacts are never quantified. They are simply discounted as not achieving the project goals that promise more housing and jobs, but the quantitative goals set up by the developer are self-serving. The alternatives would all bring new housing and jobs and result in fewer negative impacts, yet because they don’t achieve the numbers arbitrarily advanced by the project developer they are discounted.

* Mitigations are generally not detailed or clearly defined.

* In the areas of traffic, transportation, noise, and construction impacts where the DEIS says there will be significant adverse impacts, the mitigations proposed are minimal and ineffective. This project, when added to all the other new development in the area, requires major new initiatives in transportation planning to avoid further congestion in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.

* The DEIS does not include several critical analyses that were specifically requested by individuals and community groups:

Security and Terrorism
Environmental Justice
Mental Health

I want to emphasize two things about the process that are often overlooked. First off, as implied in the first point above, the ESDC never even attempted to make a fair anaylsis of the problems vs. benefits of Ratner's plan. Simply put, Pataki and the ESDC had decided in advance of any public input of bidding that Ratner was going to be given the contract and that the ESDC would give him a glowing report. Remember that the ESDC wanted to hire Ratner's own lawyer at Ratner's expense to help review Ratner's plan...that clearly shows the bias that the whole process has been known for. Regarding this process, Sean Patrick Maloney, while a candidate for Attorney General, made the following statement that I think sums it up well:

…I believe that the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards development must be stopped-cold until some tough questions get asked and answered. As it is today, this project is the face of what’s wrong with a corrupt culture that mixes business and politics, profits and tax dollars. My objections to the project stem from the flawed and secretive process by which decisions are made. Decisions that could change the face of the community forever. Decisions that deserve more scrutiny, more tough issues like fairness and transparency and including:

· The Forest City Ratner proposal is a selective bid.

· A profound disregard for community involvement in the decision making process.

· The shameful lack of accountability and transparency by Forest City Ratner by failing to provide a detailed financial report.

· There is little evidence…that the decision making process included concern for the historical character of the neighborhood.

· The Forest City Ratner proposal does not adequately address affordable housing questions posed by concerned members of the community.

· Although the MTA appraised the value of the rail yards at $241 million, the MTA chose the lowest bidder instead of the higher bid from Extell.

This plan, as it is, cannot be allowed to move forward; however, I would support responsible development that earnestly seeks a partnership and synergy with the community rather than an exploitation of our beauty and resources in Brooklyn.

The ESDC and Pataki have followed a very crooked path to bring Ratner this project on a silver platter and that really stinks!

I also want to repeat my contrast of the ESDC's glowing report with the sttement made by Urban Planner and former City Planning Commissioner Ron Shiffman. His comment was this:

After participating in a planning charette sponsored by City Council Member Letitia James in 2004 shortly after the proposal was first announced and after circulating some ideas about the developer’s proposal, I decided not to speak out on the issue in part because I believed that the inclusionary housing component was an important victory and believing that a more rational plan would eventually emerge.

However, that alternative has not emerged. Forest City Ratner (FCR) and, by extension, the City and State of New York, continue to follow a process that is fundamentally flawed in pursuit of a plan that, if implemented, would scar the borough for decades to come...

What the CBN analysis emphasizes is the same thing that Maloney and Shiffman have been saying: the process has been flawed and unfair. I also want to emphasize the part of CBN's statement that indicates that the three alternative plans for the site, the UNITY, Extell and Pacific plans, have never been given a fair hearing. In essence, they were pushed aside in favor of Ratner's plan even though each of these other three plans go much further in compromising with the community while still offering affordable housing and jobs. The ESDC, as well as ACORN and the construction unions, completely ignore these alternate plans, acting as if it is either Ratner or nothing. CBN provides a graphical comparison of the four plans superimposed on the existing view which you can access through here.

This is NOT a conflict between pro- and anti-development groups. This is a conflict between pro- and anti-Ratner forces. Ratner is a private developer out for his own gain who just happens to be a law school buddy of Pataki's. He has been given this project through an unfair and corrupt process that does not measure up to free market standards, let alone community standards. The Ratner plan does not adequately provide for the massive impact of this scale of development on sewage volume, traffic, public transportation, classrooms, fire house coverage, etc. The DEIS report DOES NOT ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. Ratner has a poor record of job creation through his previous development projects and has NO record of producing affordable housing. The affordable housing provisions in Ratner's plan will beging reasonable but are tied to market value which will rise to a degree that will make the housing unaffordable to lower income residents.

Ratner's plan is not the best plan. We need an improved review process that will allow for a fair consideration of all four plans rather than merely handing it to a crony of Pataki's.

Please read through CBN's materials and submit your opinions to the ESDC. Written comments must be RECEIVED by the ESDC no later than 5:30 PM, Friday, September 29, 2006.

Send your comments to:

Atlantic Yards c/o ESDC
Empire State Develpment Corporation
633 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Or email your comments to:

atlanticyards@empire.state.ny.us

Send a copy of your statement to:

Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods
201 DeKalb St.
Brooklyn NY, 11205

or email to cbrooklynneighborhoods@hotmail.com

Please also send your comments to your local paper and local politicians.

I suggest sending your opinion to The Brooklyn Papers, Brooklyn Courier, and Daily News.

Write to the following politicians:

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver
speaker@assembly.state.ny.us
LOB #932
Albany, NY 11248

Assemblywoman Joan Millman
millmaj@assembly.state.ny.us
341 Smith St
Brooklyn, NY 11231

Attorney General (and future Governor?) Eliot Spitzer
contact online here
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn
contact online here
224 West 30th St (Suite 1206)
New York, NY 10001

Councilwoman (soon to be Congresswoman) Yvette Clarke
clarke@council.nyc.ny.us
123 Linden Boulevard
Brooklyn, NY 11226

Councilman David Yassky
yassky@council.nyc.ny.us
114 Court Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201

These are the people who can really be swayed, so PLEASE contact them with your opinion.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |