Skip to main content

Crain's poll questions were stunning generalities--and described the CBA as a negotiation

So Crain's New York Business has posted the full results of the poll it commissioned regarding Atlantic Yards.

The conclusion: when asked about the project in stunning generalities, especially deceptive ones about the Community Benefits Agreement, people approve of it. (Yes, polls are by nature general, but we should have gone beyond "jobs, housing, and hoops" by now.)

That's about it, until someone conducts a more specific poll that actually addresses issues of density, public responsibility, facts and promises about affordable housing, and the use of eminent domain.

Below, the poll details, with some comments interpolated.

Respondents 601

1)How closely have you been following news about the Atlantic Yards development project: very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all?
1) Very closely 6%
2) Fairly closely 14%
3) Not too closely 21%
4) Not at all 56%
9) Don't Know/No Response/Refused 2%

Very/Fairly closely 20%
Not too closely/Not at all 78%

So most people are uninformed. The poll informs them only slightly more, but its inadequate information is what they'll have to rely on.

2)The proposal calls for seventeen buildings, including residential housing, a Nets arena and office buildings in Brooklyn, on 22 acres near Atlantic Ave. which currently have MTA rail yards, empty lots, low rise apartments, abandoned buildings and condos.

Are you very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable to this project?
1) Very favorable 23%
2) Somewhat favorable 37%
3) Somewhat unfavorable 13%
4) Very unfavorable 13%
9) Don't Know/No Response/Refused 15%

Very/Somewhat favorable 60%
Very/Somewhat unfavorable 25%

Here are things people have said about this project.

3)There will be significant costs to the city, including more schools and water and sewer services. Does this raise very serious doubts, serious doubts, some doubts or no doubts about it for you?
1) Very serious doubts 14%
2) Serious doubts 20%
3) Some doubts 26%
4) No doubts 35%
9) Don't Know/No Response/Refused 4%

Very serious/Serious doubts 34%
Some/No doubts 62%

Why not try to quantify the costs--in the billions--and to point out that the costs are not simply city services that any development might create but also subsidies and tax breaks?

4)The project is out of scale with the neighborhood - the buildings are taller, including a 62-story office tower, and it will promote gentrification. Does this raise very serious doubts, serious doubts, some doubts or no doubts about it for you?
1) Very serious doubts 11%
2) Serious doubts 18%
3) Some doubts 29%
4) No doubts 37%
9) Don't Know/No Response/Refused 5%

Very serious/Serious doubts 29%
Some/No doubts 67%

How about saying that the scale is out of line with city zoning? Or that it will promote gentrification even though its backers say it won't? Then again, the poll quotes "things people have said" about AY, rather than approaching clarity.

5)The city's land-use review process was not used to consult the surrounding community. Does this raise very serious doubts, serious doubts, some doubts or no doubts about it for you?
1) Very serious doubts 16%
2) Serious doubts 24%
3) Some doubts 32%
4) No doubts 23%
9) Don't Know/No Response/Refused 6%

Very serious/Serious doubts 40%
Some/No doubts 55%

Do people know what the process is? What if it was pointed out that the city process would require four public hearings and a vote by the City Council, while the fast-track state process involves one poorly-managed public hearing, two follow-up community forums (one on the day of the primary election).

Here are some other things people have said about this project.

Notice how the last three questions are all positive things. Also notice how there's much less middle-ground--the equivalent of "some doubts" above is "not an important benefit" below.

6)The project will provide 2,250 low-, moderate-, and middle-income rental apartments. Is this a very important benefit, an important benefit, not an important benefit or no benefit at all?
1) Very important benefit 46%
2) Important benefit 37%
3) Not an important benefit 7%
4) No benefit at all 7%
9) Don't Know/No Response/Refused 3%

Very important/Important benefit 83%
Not important/No benefit at all 14%

And who exactly would be eligible for those apartments?

7)The developers negotiated with neighborhood groups and agreed to provide affordable housing and construction jobs for local residents. Is this a very important benefit, an important benefit, not an important benefit or no benefit at all?
1) Very important benefit 51%
2) Important benefit 35%
3) Not an important benefit 6%
4) No benefit at all 6%
9) Don't Know/No Response/Refused 2%

Very important/Important benefit 86%
Not important/No benefit at all 12%

The developers negotiated? That's a highly-partial reading of the Community Benefits Agreement. For another interpretation, try Good Jobs New York.

8)The project will bring professional sports back to Brooklyn with the Nets arena. Is this a very important benefit, an important benefit, not an important benefit or no benefit at all?
1) Very important benefit 24%
2) Important benefit 34%
3) Not an important benefit 24%
4) No benefit at all 16%
9) Don't Know/No Response/Refused 3%

Very important/Important benefit 58%
Not important/No benefit at all 40%

9) After hearing this, are you very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable to the Atlantic Yards project?
1) Very favorable 30%
2) Somewhat favorable 41%
3) Somewhat unfavorable 13%
4) Very unfavorable 11%
9) Don't Know/No Response/Refused 5%

Very/Somewhat favorable 71%
Very/Somewhat unfavorable 24%

"After hearing this" suggests that the last three positives are the dispositive issues.

Comments

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…

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…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.