Skip to main content

From hasty email to Sharpton denunciation: sorting through the flap

I’ve been trying to sort through the flap around the Daily News’s publication of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn spokesman Daniel Goldstein’s intemperate racially-charged email comments.

Had both columnist Ben Smith and Goldstein been more careful, the controversy would have played out differently, and surely not escalated to Smith's Daily News story today, in which the Rev. Al Sharpton attacked three very different people: Goldstein, a sometimes hotheaded community activist; Nick Minucci, accused of uttering racial slurs and beating a black man; and David Yassky, a white candidate for Congress in a black majority district.

(I clarify and correct my own accounts at the end of this post.)

In the beginning

First, it’s worth noting, this all happened on May 26.

Goldstein was CC’d on an email between Smith and another Brooklynite, who had slugged the email a “private” response to Smith’s coverage of matters related to Brooklyn politics and Atlantic Yards. Because several people were CC’d, Smith responded that the email was no longer private. Goldstein, one of those CC’d, retorted:
well, its no longer private. now Ben, when are you going to start outting all the bull shit on the other side of the Atlantic Yards issue? or is their power too scary for you that you have to smack tireless activists while plundering astroturf groups and their wealthy white masters avoid your wicked barbs.

That wasn’t the last email. Goldstein followed up fairly quickly, and I’ll get to that below. But the term "no longer private," at least initially, meant "among more than two people," rather than a public statement.

Column coverage

Smith, in his column Monday, wrote:
The group is known for its own sometimes over-the-top rhetoric. Its main spokesman, Dan Goldstein, e-mailed me not long ago, describing his African-American opponents as tools of "their wealthy white masters."

Were Goldstein’s remarks offensive and intemperate? Surely. (He didn’t even aim for good spelling and grammar.)

Did Smith misquote Goldstein? No, if you narrowly consider that Goldstein did use the term “their wealthy white masters.”

Was Smith fair to Goldstein? Not fair enough. Reporters must use shorthand, but he should have included more clarity and context.

First, Goldstein's phrase “plundering astroturf groups” diverges from Smith's designation of “his African-American opponents.” For example, if some black political leaders are DDDB’s opponents, they certainly don’t qualify as “plundering astroturf groups.” Smith would have been closer if he had written “some African-American opponents” or, better, identified the opponents more specifically as "astroturf groups" that are largely-African American, or as Community Benefits Agreement signatories.

Over the top rhetoric

Is it fair to say that DDDB "is known for its own sometimes over-the-top rhetoric”? Well, the group is much better known for other things, but commenters on some blogs have pointed to a DDDB blog posting headlined "Senator Schumer Hates You," which certainly pushes the envelope. (It's in response to Sen. Chuck Schumer's disparagement of "self-appointed" critics of Borough President Marty Markowitz, and it has since been changed to the more reasonable "No, Senator, we want to grow - just not like this.") So Smith’s jab was defensible.

Was Goldstein’s intemperate email an example of the group’s over the top rhetoric? That’s tougher to argue. On the one hand, Goldstein should know that, when he’s in an email exchange with a reporter, he’s representing the group.

On the other, if Goldstein had been intending to speak on behalf of the group, he surely would have composed his thoughts rather than fired off an email.

Press release or conversation?

Moreover, the comment should have been considered in the context of the sequence of emails. Within 14 minutes, Goldstein had sent another two emails, and, in that third email, clarified that he was referring to BUILD and ACORN, he says. (Then again, as I’ve written, ACORN can’t be considered an astroturf group. And ACORN represents the poor, rather than a specific racial group.)

So: was Goldstein's email like a press release, an item that stands on its own? Or should it have been considered in the context of a conversation, with the other emails? In this case, I’d say it was more like the latter. Thus, Goldstein's identification of BUILD and ACORN, while not in his initial email, was relevant.

Still, if he was on the record, even calling two groups beholden to "wealthy white masters" was way out of line--and he has apologized.

What about the CBA?

Did Goldstein intend to issue a statement from DDDB regarding "wealthy white masters"? Had he wanted to do so, he would've had a week between that email exchange and Smith's column.

He was reacting, apparently, to the fact that the legitimacy of the Community Benefits Agreement has hardly been questioned in the press. There are significant differences between CBA signatories in Los Angeles that refuse funds from a developer and signatories in Brooklyn that accept a developer's support.

Clarifying my own accounts

In my initial article, I wrote that "Goldstein's racially-insensitive email comment about two Community Benefits Agreement signatories had morphed into a larger racial generalization." I should have been more precise and written that the comment was about "astroturf groups" or "astroturf groups, quickly identified in a followup email as two CBA signatories."

In my follow-up, I wrote that Smith had not referred to the two CBA signatories in his coverage today. Smith wrote on the Daily Politics:
The usually-reliable Oder elsewhere accuses me of misquoting Dan Goldstein, and failing to include the context that he was referring to two specific groups. I failed to note that because he didn't say it. You can see the email here.

Ok, as discussed above, it's unfair to describe it as a misquote, and I've deleted any implication of that. As for the context--Goldstein did say it, he just didn't say it in the initial email.


Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…