Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, DDDB, is distinguished by a very unfortunate combination of factors: their cause, a re-examination of a real estate project that faces significant community opposition, is fundamentally worthwhile. However, their spokespeople seem to find particular enjoyment in cultivating a with-us-or-against-us model of discourse that often amounts to a scorched-earth approach not just against outright opponents, but against people and interested parties that may be persuadable. Take two recent stories. As far as I'm concerned, coverage of the Atlantic Yards fiasco should concentrate on eminent domain abuse and the sheer obscenity of pouring huge amounts of taxpayer dollars into subsidizing this project; last I checked, the real estate market was doing quite nicely indeed and doesn't need public funds. But what has been in the news recently is, drumroll, Daniel Goldstein describing project supporters as Tools of "Their Wealthy White Masters" and, via Ben Smith, the story of a meeting between DDDB and Spitzer, in the course of which both sides claim to have been yelled at. Given DDDB's track record, frankly, I'm inclined to think that they did most of the yelling; that seems to be the standard response to anything less than Xerox-like support of every single thing they demand. What was that old saw about catching flies with honey and vinegar? And now, before I get added to the enemies list, if I'm not on it already, I should note that I think the agenda of Develop Don't Destroy is not unsound for reasons of good government alone. But arguably, this largely sound public cause could be better represented in public, and I hope it will be soon. Normally, public support isn't built by alienating persuadables or those people, like Eliot Spitzer, whom it's better to have as a friend. I hear the man may be elected governor. [Update]: Oh, it gets even better. Check out this DDDB release titled Senator Schumer hates you. "How to make friends and influence people" it ain't.