Thursday, August 31, 2006

CBA accountability? Where are the reports to the community?

At the August 23 public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Yards project, we heard rhapsodic praise for the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) that developer Forest City Ratner signed with eight community groups, only a few of which had any track record in the areas which they must contribute.

The CBA includes affordable housing pledges and a 35% minority hiring goal in construction jobs--approximately 525 people a year for ten years--among its main features. It also has led to payments to some if not all of the signatories--a departure from the CBA template pioneered in Los Angeles, where signatories agree not to accept money from a developer.

But we didn't hear much about what's happened since the CBA was signed on 6/27/05. Yes, Forest City Ratner has helped fund signatories to the CBA and has supported a training session for minority contractors, co-sponsored by the New York Association of Minority Contractors, a CBA signatory.

The CBA coalition has launched invitation-only Meet & Greet sessions, but there's little evidence of accountability to the broader community.

What about compliance?

Has the developer funded an Independent Compliance Monitor, as the CBA directs?

Not yet, acknowledges CBA spokeswoman Cheryl Duncan.

The CBA states:
As soon as reasonably practicable after formation of the Executive Committee, the Executive Committee shall publish a Request for Proposals ("RFP") to qualified, independent persons or entities with experience in overseeing compliance with similar arrangements or who have other experience... Such Independent Compliance Monitor ("ICM") shall be selected and hired by the Executive Committee, at an annual payment of up to $100,000 to be paid by the Project Developer, and shall be responsible for oversight of the Project Developer's, Arena Developer's and Coalition members' obligations under this Agreement, investigation of any complaints brought against the Developers or a Coalition member regarding implementation of this Agreement and review of the Developers reports required under Article X (the "Developer Reports").

Environmental assurances

And what about the environmental challenges posed by the project?

After all, the CBA states that, upon execution of the agreement, the Developers will work with FATHC [First Atlantic Terminal Housing Committee] to establish a Committee on Environmental Assurances to address short and long term environmental issues that may affect the Surrounding Community as a result of development of the Arena and the Project.

That was in June 2005. Since then, FATHC has been renamed the Brooklyn Endeavor Experience (BEE). Duncan said that a report on the environmental issue was due soon.

For now, at least, BEE's web site offers little clue. In fact, an Environmental Day, projected for June, never materialized. (Note that the essay on BEE's web site, "What Sustainability Is to BEE," comes directly from another nonprofit site.)

Who's in charge?

Note that the "Mitigation Measures" cited in the CBA refer to issues raised in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and that CBA signatories must defer to the state. All the CBA does is require that the developers consult with FATHC [now BEE] regarding concerns of the Community regarding environmental impacts caused by the development of the Arena and the Project, including, but not limited to: an on-site and off-site rodent abatement program; a staging plan for construction that minimizes the effects of idling trucks; a pedestrian and vehicular traffic plan; and encouragement of all contractors to use low sulfur diesel in trucks operating at the Project. In addition, the Developers shall adopt prudent environmentally sound building practices that will take into consideration the goal of promoting sustainable development in an energy efficient manner.

Those were already planned by Forest City Ratner. Ultimately, the CBA acknowledges, the community has little power:
All potential environmental mitigation measures, the cost to implement such measures, and the party deemed responsible for their compliance is ultimately determined by the State. Therefore, the Developer shall be in compliance with this Agreement by following the state mandated process.
(Emphasis added)

Quarterly reports?

The CBA also sets up some other schedules that do not appear to have been met, in part because the ICM does not exist:
Quarterly Reports. Within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter, the Developers will prepare and submit to the Coalition and the ICM a status report which shall analyze the then relevant initiatives broken down by Development Phase, and, if relevant, specify actions taken by Developers to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement...

Community liaison?

The CBA states that the community should have been provided with status reports:
The Downtown Brooklyn Advisory and Oversight Committee (“DBAOC”) shall be the community liaison for the Arena and the Project and shall provide periodic status reports to the Community on compliance by the Developers and the Executive Committee with this Agreement.

There's no evidence that any status reports have been provided.

Project Implementation Plan?

The CBA also promises a manual:
Upon signing of this Agreement, the Developers, in consultation with the Coalition members, shall create a manual for the implementation of the programs and goals described in this Agreement (the “Project Implementation Plan”)...
(2) Developers shall submit the Project Implementation Plan, as approved by Developers and the designated Coalition members, for comment by the Executive Committee within 120 days from the date hereof. Upon presentation and adoption by the Executive Committee, the Project Implementation Plan will become a part of this Agreement and the ICM shall use the Project Implementation Plan as a tool for judging the Developers’ and Coalitions’ progress in achieving the objectives set forth in this Agreement and the Project Implementation Plan.


Duncan did not respond to several queries about this plan, the quarterly reports, or the community liaison.

BEE's history & goals

For such a publicly quiet group, BEE has some ambitious goals, and a rather sketchy history. Its web site states:

OUR HISTORY
In 1992, a group of friends were eager to tackle the combined problems of Brooklyn. Like many other caring Brooklynites they searched for an organization offering flexible, hands-on volunteer opportunities that were not limiting. After careful consideration, they decided to form a new organization, with a new and unique approach: Brooklyn Endeavor Experience, Inc.


Well, if the group was called the First Atlantic Terminal Housing Committee when it signed the CBA in 2005, it certainly wasn't called the Brooklyn Endeavor Experience all those years.

Perhaps the name was changed because it seemed narrow to have a fledgling group based on one building--the First Atlantic Terminal Mitchell-Lama tower in Fort Greene--shoulder the "community" task of Atlantic Yards environmental monitoring.

The history continues, promising accountability if not coherence:
Since forming this exciting opportunity, their team members have collaborated to produce a preliminary plan that they believe will energize and strengthen their community, and produce long-term benefits for the entire borough of Brooklyn. We are a team of community volunteers with a proven track record in the Fort Greene/Clinton Hill area. Our team is comprised of members who have worked together on numerous successful projects.

Currently, the members are participants in the Atlantic Yards Project and other possible opportunities that can benefit the Brooklyn Community. Our participation is because we want to address not only their interest in the project, but our expectations regarding the project for the good of the Brooklyn Community at large.

We have assembled for this project because of our enormous trust and confidence they have with one another. We understand that right now the plan is clearly a “work in progress” which can only be improved by input from the various stakeholders who care the most about the project in question; keeping in mind that the community at large is not overlooked. With this in mind and a focal point of this huge project Forest City Ratner Companies and the community at large can be assured that the lead partners in our group will manage this project closely and carefully, and be accountable with our participation.

Some of BEE, Inc.’s expectations are to be included in the dialogue of the overall project and vision including, but not limited the following:
1. All environmental Issues and the environmental Impact on the community at large
2. Security and safety issues
3. Need for larger police precinct station house and resources
4. Traffic Issues
5. Sanitation Issues
6. Additional Schools for District 13
7. Job Development – all levels for residents in the immediate area and borough of Brooklyn given preference
8. Housing – all levels for residents in the immediate area and borough of Brooklyn given preference
9. Community Facilities – all levels for residents in the immediate area and borough of Brooklyn given preference
10. Sponsorship for community youth and senior existing and newly developed programs in conjunction with the 88th Precinct Community & Youth Council and program and/or office space for the council members and community within the Atlantic Yards Development. Including but not limited to intergenerational programs, etc.
11. Healthcare facilities for all
12. Small Business Development – all levels for residents in the immediate area and borough of Brooklyn given preference


Note that Delia Hunley-Adossa, head of BEE and chair of the CBA coalition, is president of the 88th Precinct council, which hints at why item 10 above is more detailed. When I contacted her in June about the CBA Meet-and-Greet sessions, she never responded.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

More DEIS hearing coverage

Here's my article from the Brooklyn Downtown Star, which focuses on responses to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Nik Kovac's overview captures a few telling anecdotes, and diarist Kenny Bruno confronts sports, race, development, and the "soul of Brooklyn."

Imagining a 50% scaleback: shrinkage is not surgery

So now there are murmurings of an Atlantic Yards scaleback, and even musings on a 50 percent reduction.

As I noted, there's an argument that a 50 percent cut in the project should've been the ceiling for discussion, in terms of density. What might that look like? I asked graphic designer Abby Weissman to take a crack at project renderings. Above, a look at the project elevations facing south. Below, Weissman's rough attempt at a 50 percent shrinkage, including height and bulk. (Click to enlarge)

First, the renderings don't convey scale all too well. Consider that a 50 percent reduction in the density of three buildings, including the flagship "Miss Brooklyn," would still leave them bulkier than the Williamsburgh Savings Bank.

But there's a certain ridiculousness to the exercise--a reduction in scale wouldn't be accomplished by shrinking the buildings; it would be accomplished by various forms of surgery.

Had the project proceeded via the city's land use planning process, a ceiling would have been set by zoning at the start.

Scale and placement

In an article in the Brooklyn Eagle (registration required), Dennis Holt observes
When people start talking about how tall a building should be, not whether the building should be at all, the argument against the project is lost. And that argument also ignores the real world.
In terms of the Atlantic Yards proposal, the height of new buildings is far less important than how many buildings there should be. Debating how tall buildings should be is easy; debating the number of buildings is very difficult.


Holt suggests that 12 buildings would be more manageable, so perhaps by adding stories the number of buildings could be reduced. This zero-sum change wouldn't do anything, however, about the poor ratio of open space to the number of new residents, or the impacts on traffic and transit.

As for whether the argument is lost, note that Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn has said that scale is only part of the issue.

Whose responsibility?

Holt declares that the number of buildings is a more important question than how many cars will go through a given intersection in plan A versus plan B. Opponents of the plan, whose numbers grew over the years, never became a serious part of possibly serious discussions because they didn’t want to be.

Here Holt turns into a counterpart of Daily News columnist Errol Louis, slamming project opponents for not participating in a nonexistent dialogue with the developer. Once the project was turned over to the Empire State Development Corporation and taken outside the city's land use review process, there was no fair forum for such a dialogue.

Miss Brooklyn vs. the WillyB

Holt writes:
But since people are getting interested in the height of Miss Brooklyn, let’s address that issue here. The height of Miss Brooklyn should be determined by whether what is happening in Brooklyn is rebuilding the old Brooklyn or whether a new Brooklyn is being built. If it is the latter, then Miss Brooklyn should be the tallest building in Brooklyn — it should be the signature structure of all that has come and will come.
Why should the tallest building in Brooklyn continue to be a building that for almost 80 years was a mistake? It was supposed to lead to new change, but the Depression put an end to that. It stood alone and almost aloof. It should no longer signal what Brooklyn is all about.


His point must be music to architect Frank Gehry's ears. Still, the argument about scale is less that the bank should be the tallest building but that views of the bank's clock tower--a "visual resource," according to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement--should not be lost.

Richard Lipsky and the "booty capitalists" of the AY CBA

Credit Richard Lipsky, lobbyist around town against big box stores (yet for Atlantic Yards and other Forest City Ratner projects) for introducing the term "booty capitalists" to the local discussion. Actually, he's used the term regarding Wal-Mart's potential move to Brooklyn, but it's equally apt regarding Atlantic Yards.

As Lipsky has written in his Neighborhood Retail Alliance blog:
We have referred to the potential Wal-Mart partners in this effort as "booty capitalists" and although the term was coined by Karl Marx its modern application refers to some opportunists, especially in the African-American community, who, while having few economic resources of their own, will use their political positions and a company's vulnerabilities to their own personal advantage.

(So "booty" is being used to refer to "treasure," rather than the more slangy you-know-what.)

The CBA

To watchers of the Atlantic Yards project, especially its controversial Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), "booty capitalists" sounds like a description of the several CBA signatories who enthusiastically testified at the public hearing last Wednesday without acknowledging they had received financial support from the developer.

Lipsky wrote:
In the process the booty capitalists will undoubtedly evoke terms like economic empowerment to create an effective symbolic cover for their own aggrandizement. It will also not be surprising if we find out, after the fact, that the development effort cost a great deal more than it should have under normal market conditions.
This is exactly what happened in the original NYC case of booty capitalism: the building of a Pathmark Supercenter in East Harlem...What happened in East Harlem was that Pathmark hooked up with Rev. Calvin Butts and the Abyssinian Development Corporation (ADC). The supermarket development was then transformed into a community empowerment project and the mostly Hispanic independent supermarket owners were effectively pitted against “The Community.” As a result, the development was also larded up with subsidies from the federal government, low interest loans from the city and a grant from the Local Initiatives Service Corporation (LISC), a spin-off of the Ford Foundation.


For "the mostly Hispanic independent supermarket owners," substitute "many residents of the neighborhoods near the proposed AY site," and the analogy becomes somewhat more direct.

Connecting the dots

In another piece, headlined Watch For the Booty Capitalists, Lipsky even began to connect the dots:
Our own point-of-view is that Wal-Mart’s best opportunity is to find a site in and around a low-income community of color and, once designated, hook up with a community group and, a la Ratner, incentivize the relationship with a lucrative community benefits agreement.

Will he criticize Ratner's CBA? Nope. In fact, he called it "a historic first" and contrasted it with that regarding the Bronx Terminal Market:
Now that the ULURP process has begun Related and the Bronx BP have set up a hand-picked group to craft a community benefits agreement. What Ratner and company took over two years to negotiate...

Unmentioned is that, unlike with the pioneering CBAs negotiated in Los Angeles, the Atlantic Yards CBA was negotiated with groups that all supported the project.

Lipsky likes the Atlantic Yards project, with some vague points about housing (who's paying for it?) and jobs (exactly how many?):
There are a number of legitimate reasons to oppose the development, foremost among them is the use of eminent domain to oust long time homeowners. There are, however, even more compelling reasons to support the project, a development that will create 7,000 units of housing and thousands of part time and full time jobs.

And above all, Lipsky touts the value of basketball, as he's done before.

Lipsky's blind spot

Will Lipsky point out that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard should have been put out to bid, as he argued should be the case for the agency's Hudson Yard in Manhattan? No.

He can go only so far. As Lipsky acknowledged in June:
We do have a point-of-view but our pro union stance is usually restricted to the box store issue, since our main focus is on defending neighborhood stores. Our goal is definitely to advance certain issues but we like to inform as many as possible on the various sides of any policy debate. Sometimes this wish is limited, as some readers never fail to point out, by the fact that we are in business to defend our clients' interests.
(Emphasis added)

Lipsky on AKRF

So we shouldn't expect criticism of "booty capitalists" at the Atlantic Yards project, just as we should not expect criticism of consultants AKRF, which worked on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Empire State Development Corporation.

As noted, Lipsky has written, regarding another environmental review process: The AKRF folks are simply rationalizing their job which is to make a great deal of money by minimizing impacts and conducting dishonest research.
In another post, Lipsky deemed AKRF accommodating consultants" and "trained in the abject aping of its master’s whims.

At the end of the day

Lipsky, according to an 11/14/05 profile in the New York Observer, is getting paid by Ratner to organize an amateur sports league at the proposed Brooklyn arena and to do other lobbying for the developer's projects. Lipsky generally opposes projects that require eminent domain, but told the Observer, "If it was bringing in big-box stores or displacing other retailers, we might have different feelings."

Or, perhaps, if he weren't being paid.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Another Atlantic Yards mailer from Forest City Ratner

This one quotes editorials from three newspapers. How much more is there to be said about the New York Times's endorsement, which was dissected in my blog and by the Brooklyn Papers?

(Does the parent New York Times Company's business relationship with Forest City Ratner have any influence on the editorial stance? Well, at least the Times discloses the relationship. No such luck with the mailer.)

NoLandGrab has the details, and further dissection. Nope, again there are no tall buildings. Like this:

Yassky calls (almost) for a 50% AY scaleback

City Council Member David Yassky, a contender for the open 11th Congressional District seat, has publicly called for at least a one-third reduction in the size of Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards complex—but privately he’s been telling potential constituents that he thinks the project should be cut in half.

On August 9, at a debate among the four candidates for the 11th CD, Yassky, who's had a "mend it, don't end it" posture toward the Atlantic Yards project, declared that "the current project is way too big."

I caught up with him afterward to ask him to amplify his statements, and to address reports that he'd told constituents he supports a 50 percent cut in the project.

Q & A

Q: So the question is, have you thought about how big it should be?
DY: I’ve said very clearly that it’s way too big now, it’s got to be taken down very substantially. I’m going to testify certainly at the Empire State Development Corporation hearing coming up, and I will have a full statement then.

Note that his oral statement at the hearing did not address specific numbers.

Q: You said to the Brooklynite something about 33 percent, one-third.
DY: I think it should be brought down more than that.

Q: So how much more? I’ve heard from four or five people that you’ve said 50 percent.
DY: I think 50 percent would be acceptable.

Q: Do you think it should be?
DY: Oh, absolutely.

We were walking, so I wanted to make sure Yassky really meant it.

Q: It should be cut 50 percent, is that what you’re saying?
DY: It has to come down substantially. I don’t know if there’s a magic number.

Yassky’s had to play a cautious game regarding Atlantic Yards, expressing dismay over the potential impact on traffic, yet welcoming the concept of development, and even going to bat for BUILD, seeking city money to fund obligations announced under the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA).

A 50 percent ceiling

Would a 50 percent cut--to about 4.35 million square feet--make the project palatable to community members who oppose the project? Perhaps, for those whose main concern is scale, rather than those who object to the use of eminent domain and the no-bid, no-planning process.

Right now, the project, in terms of population, would be twice as dense as the densest census tract in the country, as the New York Observer has reported. Halving the size of the project would bring it to the level, perhaps, from where the discussion should have started.

(Note that part of the population density would be attributed to a shift from office to residential space. That could shift back somewhat, and Atlantic Yards could have more square feet but a lower residential density if a commercial variant of the project were chosen.)

Backwards planning

Forest City Ratner has said that criticisms of density don’t acknowledge the developer’s significant investment in infrastructure.

And supporters of the project, including Borough President Marty Markowitz and ACORN head Bertha Lewis, have noted that the market-rate housing supports the affordable housing.

But that’s backwards. Infrastructure costs shouldn’t be used by a developer to justify an out-of-scale project. Rather, if development costs are so high, they should be subsidized from the start, by the MTA or the city, which then could have prepared the site for bids—a tactic much like that contemplated for the Hudson Yards on Manhattan’s West Side.

In this case, however, the Empire State Development Corporation overrides city zoning and the density issue is one of tactics rather than benchmarks.

The murmurings of a scaleback, but not of a 50% goal

Everyone expected the Atlantic Yards plan to be reduced somewhat as part of the endgame as state approval approached, and that discussion has now reached the press. A New York Sun article today headlined Pressure Mounts to Curb the Size of Atlantic Yards states:
State officials have discussed with the developer, Forest City Ratner, a reduction in the size of the project, a source said.

Presumably this downsizing, likely to come before the end of the public comment period September 22, would be aimed not simply at the Empire State Development Corporation, but at the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB), the body that would then have to give unanimous approval. (PACB member Sheldon Silver killed the West Side Stadium last year.)

And the Department of City Planning, heretofore publicly silent on the project, apparently will weigh in, the Sun said:
City officials said yesterday that the Department of City Planning is drafting written testimony that it will submit to the ESDC that will include comments about the proposed height and how the project fits in the context of the low-rise neighborhood.

It's still bigger

The Sun acknowledged that the project has grown in size, quoting Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn:
Mr. Goldstein said the latest proposal is about 700,000 square feet bigger than the 8 million square feet that was originally proposed in December 2003. Opponents contend that the developer increased the total square footage to about 9.1 million square feet last September, and then in March scaled back plans by about 5%, or 475,000 square feet, to its current total size of about 8.7 million square feet.

Opponents contend? The press shouldn't have to attribute factual information to a partisan side. It makes it sound like proponents and neutrals would disagree about baseline data.

Goldstein called the scaleback discussion strategic:
"They shoot for the sun so they can get the moon. When they get the moon, they act like they have listened to the criticism and responded," Mr. Goldstein said.

How much would a legitimate reduction be? If the project would be twice as dense as the next most dense census tract in the country, shouldn't 50 percent be a rough ceiling for discussion?

Monday, August 28, 2006

The mysteries of Site 5: blight and development rights

When I wrote earlier this month about the Brooklyn Bear's Garden adjacent to the Modell's and P.C. Richard on Site 5, I noted that, when Forest City Ratner acquired the land for the big box stores in 1997, the city retained development rights beyond the elevations of the planned buildings.

Some 308,000 square feet of development rights remained. Did Forest City Ratner get those additional rights a long time ago in a negotiation with the city? No. It turns out that those rights were transferred, along with 328,272 square feet from the Atlantic Center mall in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 2/18/05 but not revealed until August 2005, when Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn publicized the memo it had acquired.

It's the city

The language of the MOU is vague, but the confirmation is in Chapter 20, Alternatives, of the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement. On p. 13, it states:
Block 927 contains two active businesses in two separate one-story structures. Although higher density development could be achieved given its C6-2 zoning, the City of New York owns the air rights on this site. Therefore, higher-density development could not occur on Block 927 without City approval.

That makes it sound like a huge hurdle, but the city of New York has never attempted to seek development for the site. (Above at right, a rendering of the building planned at Site 5. The arrow points to the garden.)

Blame the city for blight

According to the Blight Study that's part of the General Project Plan, the site was found blighted in the 1960s:
Block 927 is located within ATURA, an area that, as described above, was found by the City to be blighted over 40 years ago. The block is zoned C6-2, a zoning designation that allows for a wide range of high-bulk commercial uses requiring a central location (see Figure 7). C6 districts typically accommodate uses such as corporate headquarters, large hotels, entertainment facilities, and mixed use buildings containing residential, retail, or other commercial uses.


The reason, the study concludes, is underutilization C66:
Lot 1 is in a C6-2 zoning district with an FAR of 6.0. Situated at the corner of 4th and Atlantic Avenues, the lot occupies a highly visible location in the shopping and employment concentration that is anchored by Atlantic Terminal and Atlantic Center. Although the 30,780 sf lot can accommodate up to 184,680 zsf of built space under current zoning, it hosts a single-story 30,300 gsf building, utilizing only about 16 percent of the lot’s development potential. At the time the lot was developed, the market conditions would not support a large-scale development using all of the development rights. As illustrated by Photograph B, the one-story PC Richard & Son building stands in stark contrast to the 34-story Williamsburg Savings Bank building (left), and the four stories of retail (center) and ten stories of office space (right) at Atlantic Terminal. Given its key location in the midst of one of the largest commercial districts in Brooklyn, lot 1 is critically underutilized.
(Emphasis added)

The same determination is made for the adjacent lot with the Modell's store.

Does the study assess the market conditions today or the city's failure to market the development rights? No.

YIMBY! The Williamsburg Hasids want an arena? (Not really)

I already noted that many of the people at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement hearing last Wednesday who wore buttons with a slash through NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) were from neighborhoods far from the proposed Atlantic Yards project site.

Some wore both the slash/NIMBY buttons as well as ones that said "Yes In My Backyard." Probably the least convincing wearers of those messages were a group of Williamsburg Hasidim, as pictured in the Courier-Life chain.

Not only is there no room in South Williamsburg for an arena--the population keeps growing exponentially--but those in this enclave want to keep their distance from people who don't share their ultra-Orthodox beliefs.

As the New York Times explained in a 2/17/04 article headlined 'Plague of Artists' a Battle Cry for Brooklyn Hasidim:
The visitors were from the community of 57,000 Satmar Hasidic Jews who live in south Williamsburg and who have in recent weeks been alarmed by talk of their neighborhood being invaded by ''artisten,'' a Yiddish word that in local parlance is used to describe non-Hasidim who live on the north side.
They had come to the store after seeing fliers around the neighborhood that had portrayed the artisten as a looming threat. One flier even included a drawing of the World Trade Center collapsing, and read, in Yiddish: ''How long did it take the Twin Towers to fall? Eight seconds. How long will it take for Williamsburg??? God Forbid.''


(It should go without saying that most opponents of the Atlantic Yards plan are hardly NIMBY; they support development over the railyards though not at the scale Forest City Ratner has proposed.)

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Pleasantville vs. Brooklyn, and other DEIS hearing footnotes

To a great extent, the news coverage of the hearing Wednesday on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) focused on the speakers--both elected officials and citizens--who made it to the podium during the early phases of the seven-hour epic.

That means those who spoke late, or never even had their names called, didn't get the ink. For example, other than in the New York Observer's blog The Real Estate and my blog, the critical yet convoluted comments of the influential Regional Plan Association got no coverage.

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn attorney Jeff Baker got no coverage outside of my blog, even though his contention--that a privately-owned arena does not meet the definition of a "civic project"--likely will be part of a major lawsuit. And, as I noted, Community Consulting Services and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) offered important criticisms about traffic. They were almost completely ignored, though the Courier-Life chain mentioned TSTC.

And reporters who didn't stay until the end didn't capture a potential metaphor: though project proponents for hours had outnumbered opponents, many of the former left earlier to return home, so by the last hour or so, the opponents--most of whom live closer to the hearing (and project) site--dominated the room.

Pleasantville vs. Brooklyn

One lingering rhetorical image involves Pleasantville, a name so white-bread (or irony-laden) that it was the title of a 1998 film set in the world of the 1950s. As the New York Times reported in its story Thursday, headlined Raucous Meeting on Atlantic Yards Plan Hints at Hardening Stances:
Umar Jordan, 51, a black resident of Bedford-Stuyvesant, said he had come to “speak for the underprivileged, the brothers who just got out of prison,” and he drew loud cheers when he mocked opponents who had moved to Brooklyn only recently. Mr. Jordan suggested that they “just go back up to Pleasantville.”

The Brooklyn Papers, in a lead story headlined Atlantic Yards hearing pits pro vs. con in historic battle for Brooklyn, fleshed it out:
A man from upstate Pleasantville spoke of traffic, the lack of greenspace and how historic restaurant Gage & Tollner was forced to close a few years back because Ratner “failed to live up to the promises he made at Metrotech.”
He was followed by Umar Jordan, who ridiculed his complaints.
“If you never been in the Marcy projects, you’re not from Brooklyn,” he said. “Go back to Pleasantville.”


The Pleasantville resident, Tal Barzilai, has commented on other redevelopment projects, such as in Lower Manhattan. He emailed me to point out that his town isn't considered upstate; indeed, it's a village in Westchester. Despite Jordan's rhetoric, other than Barzilai nearly all the opponents were residents of Brooklyn, many of them longstanding residents.

The reference to Pleasantville made for good theater, but the comments of Barzilai and Jordan were no more representative than the comments of many others who spoke later or whose names were not called. But they were representative of people who had enough time and fortitude to arrive early in the morning for a hearing that started at 4:30 pm.

When the Final Environmental Impact Statement is issued, it will incorporate acknowledgement of and, in some cases, responses to all the comments made, spoken and written.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Democracy vs. demagoguery, and other AY story lines a columnist might've followed

Gather up the press and blog coverage, maybe add some video, and you can approximate the experience of the seven-hour public hearing Wednesday on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). But it really needed a writer with more "voice,” a columnist like Jimmy Breslin or Murray Kempton (R.I.P.).

Why didn’t a metro columnist, or even a sports columnist, from one of the dailies cross the river? After all, it was the day’s—maybe the summer’s--most striking piece of street theater. There were so many threads to follow, building blocks for 800 compelling words, stories with drama and maybe even a moral.

What about all the poor people bused in or organized by BUILD and ACORN, groups that have been paid by developer Forest City Ratner or received donations from them? How does “We need a job so we can eat?” compete with the reality of the relatively few jobs—especially low-skilled ones—the project would produce? (Ditto for the affordable housing.) And how much is their need and pain ignored by our press and politicians?

How many working people, pro and con, who showed up at 5 pm or 6 pm were unable to get in the door because busloads of people organized by Community Benefits Agreement signatories got there first? How many people who spoke in favor of the project were part of groups that have been supported by Forest City Ratner? (How many weren’t? And did the developer pay for the buses, just as it did the lunches?)

What about the construction workers? They want the project, bad, and who can blame them--so many projects in New York are built without union labor. Then again, how many of them were taking up seats from Brooklynites who had questions and doubts about the DEIS? And how many jobs are there, after all?

What about politicians like Borough President Marty Markowitz (in green shirt) and City Councilman David Yassky? They both support the project as long as changes are made, but still won’t specify how much the project should be reduced. Pragmatism or pusillanimity?

Today Marty was the subject of follow-up in the Times, which still didn’t press him on the density issue. (I had asked how he felt about presiding over a project that would be the densest census tract, by a factor of two, in the country. “I don’t know if it’s true,” he responded, “but I know we need the housing very much.”)

What about the use of children as props, those kids in their Nets jerseys and their “In My Backyard” stickers? Did their halting statements at the mike contribute much to the hearing? (Had some children who opposed the project took the stand, it would've been equally questionable.)

What about the regular invocation of ghetto authenticity, as if the project—and Brooklyn—were a rap album rather than a $4.2 billion development of mostly luxury housing? To what degree do such claims distract from the complicated DEIS?

Oh, and for some of the Atlantic Yards opponents, to what degree does sinking to the level of some of your antagonists (they booed City Councilwoman Tish James when she brought up children's asthma) damage your credibility? Does heckling Assemblyman Roger Green--who can dig himself his own hole easily enough--when he’s acknowledging the need for compromise represent a wise strategy?

Where was the columnist who'd been through the civil rights movement, or the police brutality protests of the 1980s, who could comment on the remarkable journey of the Rev. Herbert Daughtry? Once on the outside but now on the inside, Daughtry for three minutes turned the Klitgord Auditorium into a thunderous preaching chamber, declaring the Atlantic Yards project almost a civil rights landmark. [Update: it was nearly six minutes.]

And what about the people who spoke too late for the cameras, like Robert Yaro of the Regional Plan Association, whose complicated testimony deserved notice, or the Brooklyn guy who did some vital research on noise but never got to the podium at all?

Was this democracy, or demagoguery? And to what degree was it an example, as I’ve pointed out, of playwright August Wilson’s description of an inner city development deal: I don't care if somebody else makes some money 'cause of a tax break. I get mine and they get theirs.

The stories remain to be told.

The Times on AY: skepticism about construction jobs, but not about revenue

From the New York Times story yesterday, headlined Raucous Meeting on Atlantic Yards Plan Hints at Hardening Stances:
The $4.2 billion Atlantic Yards project is intended to generate more than 1,500 construction jobs during the 10-year building process, plus hundreds of permanent jobs afterward and $1.4 billion in tax revenue.

1500 construction jobs? Forest City Ratner has long promised 15,000 construction jobs, though construction jobs are calculated in job-years, so that would mean 1500 jobs a year over ten years. And FCR's Jim Stuckey recently began estimating 33,000 direct and indirect construction jobs, based on some more generous Empire State Development Corporation projectings.

I've long urged the media to report the construction jobs figure more accurately. (The point was first raised in the 6/26/04 Brooklyn Papers and was made last December in the New York Observer.)

Rowback?

However, the Times hasn't reported that number before, instead choosing to report the cumulative figures issued by the developer or government supporters. (See my report.) Is the more precise figure a response to the analysis that recently appeared in New York magazine?

Either the Times is wrong, and project supporters should demand a correction, or the Times is slipping in a change without acknowledging it. That's called rowback, which former Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent described in his 3/14/04 column as "a way that a newspaper can cover its butt without admitting it was ever exposed."

Note that the Times practiced rowback on the "Downtown Brooklyn" error before finally publishing a comprehensive correction.

Tax revenue

Atlantic Yards may be intended to produce $1.4 billion in tax revenue, but that's net, not gross. As I've written, there's ample evidence that the net gain would be much lower. The organization doing the intending is the Empire State Development Corporation, which has refused to release documents to back up the claim.

It's irresponsible to use the $1.4 billion figure without adding major caveats or doing some additional analysis.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

AY supporters out in force at epic hearing, but opponents go the distance

It began in mid-afternoon with two distinct shows of strength: hours before the 4:30 pm start of the state hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), hundreds of people—many organized by union locals and Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) signatories—were already lining up outside the Klitgord Auditorium of the New York Institute of Technology on Jay Street in Downtown Brooklyn. (Developer Forest City Ratner catered 1500 lunches.) Across the street, at 4 pm, the developer held what was billed as a press conference but was really a no-question-time rally, an opportunity for politicians, union/civic leaders, and celebrities to vouch their support for the project. (Photo by NYC IndyMedia)

When the epic hearing ended at 11:30 pm (the building had to close), three hours later than billed yet still too soon for hundreds of people who’d signed up to speak, much of the crowd had left. (For hours, there was a line to get into the room, which holds about 800.) Project supporters were by then outnumbered by opponents, whose resiliency—helped, undoubtedly, by their shorter commute home from Downtown Brooklyn—suggested that the controversy over the borough’s largest development would hardly be put to rest.

With cheers and boos punctuating most presentations, the hearing was as much rally as opportunity for comment, especially for the project supporters who touted jobs and housing, while opponents and critics made less-dramatic efforts to pick apart the lengthy DEIS and to decry the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) for providing too little time to analyze the document.

(Clearly Forest City Ratner had learned an organizing lesson, and the hearing more resembled the 11/29/04 public meeting on the project, when project supporters ACORN and BUILD were out in force, than the 10/18/05 hearing on the scope for a DEIS, where project opponents dominated the crowd. An early reader points out that many project opponents and ordinary citizens with questions and qualms were turned away, because Forest City Ratner's CBA signatories and union supporters managed to fill the room, thus helping skew some news coverage.)

The New York Times suggested, in an article today headlined Raucous Meeting on Atlantic Yards Plan Hints at Hardening Stances, but there was some evidence of a potential compromise. Borough President Marty Markowitz, though vague, offered his most forceful words for a project scaledown. Assemblymembers Roger Green and Jim Brennan reminded the crowd of their effort to subsidize a 34 percent reduction in the project’s size. And Kenn Lowy, of Community Board 2’s Traffic and Transportation Committee, drew cheers from opponents when he declared that the project must be reduced by 60 percent.

Yet project supporters clamored for Atlantic Yards to be built now and, while some future scaleback is inevitable, it undoubtedly depends on political pressures. Late in the evening, lawyer Jeff Baker, representing Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the coalition of project opponents, added a new potential angle to the inevitable lawsuit. The Atlantic Yards General Project Plan, he said, declares that the project is a "civic project," though state law does not define an arena in that way.

Two photo ops

Consider two sets of photo opportunities regarding the megaproject (16 towers plus arena) that would dominate Prospect Heights, near the border of Downtown Brooklyn. At the not-quite-press conference, cameras flashed as Markowitz, a diminutive sparkplug, stood between lanky New Jersey Nets stars Vince Carter and Jason Kidd. And that lady with the ringlets, shades, and big, dangly earrings? That was Roberta Flack, expressing her desire to perform in the arena. (Photo from New York Sun)

Across the street, at the hearing, a photographer named Jonathan Barkey snagged one of the first slots for public comment and riveted the cameras with his deliberative and dramatic testimony, hoisting oversize mockups with photos of the Prospect Heights neighborhood where AY would be built, overlaid with renderings of the oversize project. It was a moment when the highly charged crowd—especially the ACORN supporters in red t-shirts and Carpenters union members in orange t-shirts ready to cheer supporters and boo opponents—was hushed.


Bertha Lewis the host

Though Forest City Ratner president Bruce Ratner opened the press event, he quickly turned the podium over to New York ACORN executive director Bertha Lewis (to the left of Ratner), an earthier and more energetic presence. Her role, along with ACORN’s formidable community organizing skills, was testament to the strategic importance of the housing agreement ACORN negotiated with the developer. “Either we are going to have a model for how to build mixed-income housing,” she said, “or we are just flapping our lips.”

Lewis, perhaps caught up in the enthusiasm of the moment, continued by touting the “historic Community Benefits Agreement—legally binding—has never been done before.” (Never in New York City, that is.)

The Nets’ Kidd took the podium, standing in front of at least 30 bigwig supporters and facing perhaps 25 press people and another 60 project supporters. “Getting to know Brooklyn and getting to know the community has proven to me that Bruce is doing the right thing,” declared Kidd, who’s joined the Christian Cultural Center in Flatlands. Added Carter, adding a developer-friendly spin to positive jockspeak, “I feel it’s all about unity in the community.”

United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten was the first to acknowledge the controversy, but declared confidently that “the advantages outweigh the risks,” citing the importance of affordable housing to schoolteachers who want to live near the communities where they work. Mike Fishman, president of SEIU Local 32BJ, cited Forest City Ratner’s commitment to union labor in managing the buildings.

Borough president Markowitz, after high-fiving Carter, took the stage and trumpeted his vision—a new city center, including the Brooklyn Academy of Music cultural district, Downtown Brooklyn, and Atlantic Yards. He wound up nearly bellowing, “Brooklyn is a world-class city and we deserve Atlantic Yards.”

After Flack (right) said a few words, a parade of politicians offered more brief remarks. White-haired Assemblyman Joseph Lentol declared, “I don’t know how many of you realize that Atlantic Yards was supposed to be the new stadium for the Brooklyn Dodgers.” (Actually, it was nearby.) He said he had tried “to figure out what the opposition was saying,” but thought criticism paled in favor of a major league team and “a developer bending over backwards for the people in the community.”

Assemblyman Green, who represents the Prospect Heights district where the project would be built and was the first black elected official to speak, mused about the importance of “stand[ing] with this coalition of conscience.” He praised the effort to acknowledge “African-Americans who have historically been marginalized,” praising “the one developer who fought to create a new covenant” regarding promises for jobs and housing, yet omitting Forest City Ratner’s far less impressive record with MetroTech and the Atlantic Center mall. He praised Ratner for “standing in the spirit of Branch Rickey,” the Brooklyn Dodgers executive who broke the color barrier in baseball, by “breaking the color barrier in the economy.”

Council Member Lew Fidler, who represents neighborhoods in southern Brooklyn, dismissed the project site area as “run-down and doing nobody any good. Get in the real world and join us in the glittering future that the Atlantic Yards represents for Brooklyn.” Assemblyman Karim Camara acknowledged that the project would not solve Brooklyn’s social problems, but would set a precedent regarding affordable housing. The Rev. Herbert Daughtry (above, to the right of Ratner), a CBA signatory, recounted his struggles in getting Brooklyn businesses to acknowledge the community.

Public hearing opens

Some 20 minutes into the public hearing, with hundreds of people still waiting outside, the public testimony had yet to begin. Transportation consultant Philip Habib, one of relatively few people in business attire, spoke in low, bureaucratic tones about the findings in the DEIS. “There really are no subway impacts associated with this project,” he said. A mild heckle emanated from the crowd: “Yes, there will.” (Photo by NYC IndyMedia)

Habib continued: “From a parking point of view, the EIS also does not disclose significant impacts.” (The document is a disclosure document, pointing to potential problems though not necessarily requiring them to be fixed.)

But when Habib offered a boilerplate timeline, saying “Construction is expected to span about ten years,” the crowd erupted in cheers. It was clear it was going to be a long, unquiet night.

Markowitz speaks

Markowitz was the first public official to speak, and opponents hoisted yellow signs saying “Ratnerville Unmitigable” and “Housing Yes Atlantic Yards No.” (The counterparts were signs saying “Affordable Housing Now!” and “Jobs Housing Hoops.”)

He began by spelling out R-E-S-P-E-C-T, a commodity in scarce evidence all evening, and praised the project for providing affordable housing and union jobs. But he offered his own concerns, asserting that the iconic Williamsburgh Savings Bank, at 512 feet, should remain Brooklyn’s tallest building, not to be overshadowed by Frank Gehry’s 620-foot “Miss Brooklyn.” He declared that the building planned for the railyards opposite the Newswalk condos on Pacific/Dean streets—and home to numerous project opponents—“must be reduced.” And two other buildings bordering lower-rise Prospect Heights, he said, must be reduced.

“Next, build a school,” he declared, an acknowledgment that the project would bring many schoolchildren but be forced to disperse them. Make sure the open space is inviting and accessible, he added, echoing criticism from the Municipal Art Society and others that the projected seven-plus acres of open space would be too easily defined as backyards for the enormous residential buildings.

And, he added, “Get real about traffic and parking,” saying that to find “an urban transit solution, we need to engage the best minds.” It was a backhanded slap at Forest City Ratner transportation consultant “Gridlock Sam” Schwartz, who surely is one of the better minds, but whose solutions have been met with much criticism. It also failed to acknowledge critics, such as Community Consulting Services and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, who have called for residential parking permits and congestion pricing for East River bridges.

Markowitz exited to boos and deafening cheers. Earlier, I’d caught up with him when he left the first press event and asked how he felt about presiding over a project that would be the densest census tract, by a factor of two, in the country. “I don’t know if it’s true,” he said, “but I know we need the housing very much.”

Crowd dynamics & race

While the hearing officer reminded audience members to save their cheers and boos for after a speaker’s three minutes had concluded, many didn’t comply, and some of the more polite ones held up signs saying “3” or three fingers to indicate that a speaker had overstayed the allotted time. (Enforcement increased somewhat as the night wore on.) One ACORN supporter frequently waved a large red ACORN flag. A project opponent was kicked out early for relentlessly heckling State Sen. Marty Golden.

There was an obvious—but not simple—racial divide in the audience. Most supporters in the room, outside of the union workers, were black and working-class, many of them organized by ACORN or the CBA signatory Public Housing Communities (which includes several tenant organizations across the borough), and coming from long distances in Brooklyn. (Hence the stickers some wore with a slash through “NIMBY” were somewhat beside the point.) Most project opponents and critics present were white and middle- (and upper-) class, though a small number of black opponents stayed until the end, some of them homeowners in Fort Greene and Clinton Hill near the project.

The more dramatic speakers drew raucous responses, but, at times, some of the most serious criticisms—DEIS dissections—were under the radar. Indeed, the event could not reflect full community sentiment. Many people whose names were called long after they signed up had already left—including 57th Assembly District candidates Bill Batson and Hakeem Jeffries—and written testimony will have the same weight as oral testimony.

A follow-up "community forum" (not quite a public hearing) will be held on September 12, with a priority for those who signed up yesterday but whose names weren’t called. Many in the audience, however, expressed frustration that the hearing would inevitably conflict with their obligations on the day of the primary election. The comment period closes September 22. After that the ESDC will issue a Final EIS and possibly change the General Project Plan.

Once the agency board issues its expected approval, the state’s Public Authorities Control Board must vote unanimously—and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, whose vote killed the West Side Stadium last year, likely will be lobbied hard. If not derailed by the PACB or the inevitable eminent domain lawsuit, Forest City Ratner hopes to break ground later this year, and open the arena in the fall of 2009 and five towers in 2010, with project completion in 2016.

Millman’s criticism

Assemblywoman Joan Millman, who represents Park Slope and other areas near the site, began by expressing her “disappointment with ESDC and the developer for the failure to make this project work for Brooklyn.” (Her phrasing recalled the criticisms issued by the Municipal Art Society.) “I’m outraged by the amount of time” ESDC offered, she said, citing the importance of having the community, including the affected Community Boards, play a role.

She said she agreed that the project should be reduced, then offered some prescriptions that surely conflict with the developer’s economic plan. Build affordable housing and the arena first, she said—even though the luxury housing, as several people pointed out later, is what fuels the project.

Millman cited traffic concerns and said she did not support redirecting Fourth Avenue traffic via narrow (and part-residential) Pacific Street to Flatbush Avenue. (In the hall, posters of the Atlantic Yards plans, including traffic plans, demonstrated the developer’s vision for the site, and at tables visitors could pick up executive summaries of ESDC documents and even hoist binders with the entire DEIS.)

Millman also cited the need for traffic officers to handle traffic on nights of arena games or events, a new school, and sufficient police and fire services. “I object to eminent domain,” she concluded, “not here, not now.” (That would put her advocacy for the arena in question, given that Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn spokesman Daniel Goldstein, whose condo lies near the projected center court, has vowed to be an eminent domain plaintiff.)

Green takes the stage

The crowd dynamic got uglier when Roger Green took the stage. “My remarks will be an attempt to arrive at some creative problem-solving," Green declared, even as hecklers interrupted with “You’re a criminal” and “You’re a crook,” a reference to his misdemeanor record.

He offered the first of one of several highly charged claims to Brooklyn authenticity. “I was born in Brooklyn. I was raised in Brooklyn. I grew up in Brooklyn,” he declared, an echo of his claim, in New York magazine, that many project opponents were Manhattan arrivistes. “I walked these streets before some people got here,” challenging those in the crowd who had not dared to walk into the housing projects he represents in Fort Greene.

He cited Martin Luther King Jr. on injustice and commented that the density of the project needed to be reduced, referencing the bill that he, Brennan, and others had sponsored.

Tish counters

After Coney Island Councilman Dominic Recchia spoke in favor of the project—an obvious disappointment to AY opponents who’ve touted Coney as the natural home of a Brooklyn arena (as Markowitz once advocated)—Councilwoman Letitia James, a staunch opponent who represents the project footprint, took the stage. (Photo by Lumi Rolley)

“ESDC is not and could not be an honest broker,” James declared, citing the schedule for public hearings, questionable claims about revenue, and dubious statistics about such issues as noise. “Growth is good,” she said, “but growth has its limits.”

The DEIS, she said, is flawed, and findings were made without sufficient technical support. “There’s no meaningful discussion of alternatives,” she said. Scoffing at claims about the project’s location near a transit hub, she called it “not a transit-oriented development but a traffic-oriented development.”

She declared that the project would trigger asthma attacks and said it would displace poor residents. She talked about attending a funeral for a child who died of asthma and actually got some boos.

After saying that there’s no rationale given for the height of the buildings, especially the one that would trump the historic and symbolic Williamsburgh bank, she concluded, “Lastly, let me say that this community is not blighted,” citing the developer’s choice to carve out the block with the luxury Newswalk building from the project site.

The people speak

When the public comment period actually began, those called were those who managed to sign up early. Karen Daughtry, the wife of Rev. Daughtry and a fellow member of CBA signatory Downtown Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance (DBNA) cited Malcolm X, apartheid, and the “legendary and legally binding Community Benefits Agreement.” (Remember, the Rev. Daughtry refused to say how much the DBNA has received from Forest City Ratner.)

She was followed by photographer Barkey and then Umar Jordan, who said, “I’m here to speak for the underprivileged.” He played the authenticity card, stating, “If you’ve never been in the Marcy projects, you’re not from Brooklyn.” (That’s where rap impresario Jay-Z, who owns a sliver of the Nets, grew up, and likely a place that most project opponents and Forest City Ratner staff, not to mention most of the potential Atlantic Yards residents, have not visited.)

As for people “complaining about the size of the buildings,” he said, “Welcome to the ‘hood.’” It was a remarkable example of the way the public debate has been polarized; the most vociferous supporters of Atlantic Yards are poor Brooklynites, mostly black, who have a relatively small chance at jobs and affordable housing in a project that is mostly luxury housing—and in which 40% of the affordable housing would rent for more than $2000 a month.

Later, Rev. Daughtry galvanized supporters with his sermon-like testimony. “I don’t remember any developer stepping up,” he declared of past Brooklyn projects. He cast much-criticized Forest City Ratner projects like MetroTech and Atlantic Center as examples of the developer’s vision. He touted the intergenerational center—for seniors and children, but with only 100 day care slots—as a key part of Atlantic Yards, “and guess what, we have participated in the design,” with “an atrium designed by us.”

He and other CBA signatories have repeatedly cited a feeling of inclusion—clearly an issue with as much an emotional as rational component, since the expenditures on CBA components would be relatively little for the developer, and some aspects would have to be publicly funded.

“I’ve walked these valleys all over the world, from Belfast to Bangkok to Baton Rouge,” closed Daughtry, whose House of the Lord Church on Atlantic Avenue is a few blocks from the western edge of the project site, “and now… I don’t even have to get a cab or a plane. I can walk there.”

A teacher, M’balia Rubie, talked of the lives of children she teaches, saying, “they live in shadow right now. She declared, “I cannot prioritize traffic jams and shadows over housing and jobs.”

Darnell Canada, a founder of BUILD and a CBA coalition member, cited the need for jobs among black men in Brooklyn. "I got to fight to get them to keep trying" to look for a job, he said, adding ominously, "If they stop trying, you're the victim." If the project doesn't go forward, he closed, "I guarantee you will have chaos and misery."

Civics criticize DEIS

Representatives of civic groups and community boards around the project site offered numerous criticisms of the DEIS. Lumi Rolley of the Park Slope Civic Council (PSCC) described how the document underestimated transit demand, failing to study the 6-7 pm hour before basketball games. (She's also the lead NoLandGrab blogger.) Lauri Schindler of the PSCC dryly cited the DEIS’s use of the word “queuing—a synonym for gridlock.”

Eric McClure of Park Slope Neighbors (PSN) cited the projection that the site would be the nation’s densest census tract, by a factor of two, and got little reaction from the crowd—which was more attuned to more dramatic pro and con statements. He pointed out that at Battery Park City, the open space was built first, while it would take ten years before the Atlantic Yards open space would arrive. “For families affected by a lack of places to play, ten years is most of a childhood,” he concluded.

Kristyn LaPlante of PSN generated some crowd pushback with a layer of sarcasm, criticizing the designation of the Urban Room—which would serve as the arena entrance, among other functions—as open space. “I don’t know anyone who brings their kids to play outside the Madison Square Garden ticket windows,” she said. Moreover, she pointed out that the publicly accessible open space would close most of the year before the time arena events conclude. “Drunken sports fans won’t be urinating in the backyards of the luxury condos. They’ll be peeing on the stoops of the rest of us.”

Candace Carponter of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN) declared that it was "a virtually impossible undertaking" for the experts hired by CBN under city/state grants to analyze the DEIS in the time allotted. Terry Urban of CBN recounted the "troubling" episode in which a request to the ESDC about procedures at the hearing yesterday was treated as a Freedom of Information Law request, meaning response would be delayed until after the hearing.

Hunter College professor Tom Angotti, a consultant to CBN, pointed out several flaws in the DEIS. "The 'build year' is 2016, but the analysis stops at 2016," he said, suggesting it could not account for the true effects of the project.

CBs want more time

Both individual and institutional representatives of the three affected Community Boards got their say. Meredith Staton of CB8 praised the CBA and criticized project opponents. “They weren’t there when they were closing St. Mary’s Hospital,” he declared. “If you’re going to be part of the community, you need to participate.” (Photo of ESDC staff listening, by NYC IndyMedia)

Jerry Armer, chair of CB6, offered no substantive testimony, but simply asked for more time to review the DEIS and General Project Plan (GPP). “We find the timing… to be an affront to our community,” he said. CB6, he said, would take the full time allotted and submit its comments by the September 22 deadline.

Shirley McRae, chair of CB2, also said the time allotted was too short, and pointed out that the city’s land use review process, ULURP, would require four public hearings. “The Downtown Brooklyn plan was made better by ULURP,” she said.

“I’ve been here in Brooklyn almost six decades,” declared McRae, playing the authenticity card as a member of the black middle-class. “It’s wholly unacceptable to expect that laypeople” can analyze the ESDC documents within the review period.

Politicians come late

While most elected officials testified early, others arrived later in the evening. Councilman David Yassky, a candidate for the 11th Congressional District, offered his “mend it don’t end it” prescription, calling for changes to help realize the benefits and avoid having the project killed.

The project, he said, must be reduced in height and bulk, though he offered no specific numbers. “The impact on traffic will be destructive without serious measures,” he said, adding that he’d submitted a “comprehensive traffic plan”—previously announced but not made available—to the record.

He also added a comment on the CBA that some other elected officials echoed. The promises must be enshrined in the Atlantic Yards approval document, not a side agreement, for them to be binding. “Make these changes so the project can go forward and bring jobs and affordable housing to the people of Brooklyn,” he said.

Councilman Bill De Blasio echoed the CBA accountability issue and cited the importance of addressing the issues of traffic and parking.

Assemblyman Jim Brennan cited his suggestion last October to reduce the project by 50 percent and the more recent legislation that would take it down by 34 percent. He mistakenly suggested that the affordable housing would not begin until Phase II, in 2010. (Both phases would include affordable housing, with Phase I in 2010 and Phase II in 2016.) But he pointed out that the affordable housing is depending on the success of the luxury units, which itself is depending on a shifting market—and that the market for luxury housing at the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues may be doubtful.

A lawyer's warning

Jennifer Levy of South Brooklyn Legal Services, which represents 12 families (among some 60 people) still living in the project footprint, criticized the developer's relocation plan, which "doesn't guarantee that they're going to get an affordable replacement" and thus jeopardizes their rent-regulated tenancy. Rather, she said, "It sounds like they're getting a one-way ticket out of town."

"I want to explode the myth of affordable housing," she said, noting that the project would include only 225 units in the lowest-income bracket, which itself would require higher incomes than "a lot of our clients."

A preservationist's plea

Preservationist Christabel Gough was the only person to cite the destruction of two historic structures, the Long Island Railroad Stables, and the Ward Bread Bakery, observing that the DEIS argues that converting them to housing would destroy their character. “To declare they should be destroyed to avoid changing them is an affront to common sense.” A few people heckled the patrician Gough. “There could be housing,” she responded. “It’s done all over the country.” (The DEIS also says that preserving the buildings would reduce the scale of the project and make it unworkable.)

She brought up the example of the Brooklyn Bridge and some boos still emerged. "I'm going to be booed for wanting to protect the Brooklyn Bridge," she said incredulously.

The unions want to build

While numerous union members were fulfilling a union responsibility by attending the hearing, few of them got to speak. Carpenters union organizer Anthony Pugliese, who signed up early and has often pointed out the numerous nonunion developments in Brooklyn, to protest that the scheduling was unfair. (He was backed up on the scheduling issue by some project opponents.)

One who did speak was ironworker Dan Jederlinic, who said that the opposition “makes it sound like tanks are coming” through their neighborhood. However, he wasn’t backing off much. “The bulldozers are coming,” he said, “and if you don’t get out of the way, they’re going to bulldoze right over you.”

Alternatives dismissed?

Shabnam Merchant of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) addressed the Alternatives section of the DEIS, which dismissed other, less-dense development plans, calling the state’s argument a tautology. “Atlantic Yards has certain goals. The alternatives are not the Atlantic Yards. Therefore, they cannot provide the goals” of the AY plan.

She also cited DEIS claims that, without Atlantic Yards, “that phony blight condition would remain.” She decried a project that would bring a billion dollars of profit to the developer—at least according to an estimate in New York magazine—“while the public takes all the financial and environmental risks.” (Forest City has said they’ve already taken risks by investing in the project, though the property has surely appreciated.)

DDDB's take

At 10:05, DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein took the podium, in a more than half-empty room, to cheers. He offered a response to some of the authenticity issues; members of the coalition had opposed the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, are opposed to eminent domain on Duffield Street downtown, and are helping displaced tenants from the Prospect Plaza Houses.

"Forest City Ratner has absolutely no legal commitment to anybody unless you are a shareholder," he said, asking why, if this was the largest project in the history of Brooklyn, there were no representatives from the Department of City Planning or the Mayor's Office. (There were, but not speaking.)

He urged the ESDC to remove eminent domain from the plan and offered a threat: "Owners and renters will litigate and no project will be built for years, if ever."

DDDB attorney Baker soon afterward declared that the project was illegal under the law establishing the Urban Development Corporation, now the Empire State Development Corporation, because "a privately operated sports arena does not qualify as a civic project."

He pointed to the CBA's promises of job training and other benefits. "Read the agreement--it disavows any obligation by Forest City Ratner to pay for these things... There is no financial obligation to keep it running."

Other voices

William Howard, representing the West Indian Carnival Day Association, offered a rationale for support that had been little heard before. The highly-popular carnival, he said, "needs to the space in the arena to expand."

Fort Greene resident Lloyd Hezekiah, a longtime homeowner, was dignified in his manner but forceful in his rhetoric: "We say dump these plans in the Atlantic Ocean."

Henry Weinstein, who owns a building in the project footprint but has refused to sell to Forest City Ratner, testified, "I will vigorously protect my property rights."

Kate Galassi, a University of Chicago student and Boerum Hill resident, was the only person testifying who cited sports economist Andrew Zimbalist's study for Forest City Ratner. Important assumptions in Zimbalist's work are not cited in the DEIS, she said, and "without this evidence, it is impossible for the public to believe" in the promises offered.

Scott Turner of Fans For Fair Play claimed to have an autographed basketball, then tossed it to the crowd. "It's a fake," he said, "but we're also willing to buy a $4 billion fake project." He also challenged the crowd regarding Ratner, "a rich white guy; you're calling him your savior."

Patti Hagan of the Prospect Heights Action Coalition, the first person to organize opposition to the then-rumored Ratner plan in 2003, sardonically read from the ESDC's blight study, emphasizing the word Empire in the name of the agency.

Near the end of the night, an eccentric fellow named William Stanford (but "that's Mr. X to you," he said at one point), made references to "Daniel Ratner" and pro wrestling, and declared, "The damn project belongs in Queens." He put the timing of the follow-up forum on Primary Day in some earthy perspective: "Are you stuck on stupid?"

Stuckey’s overview

One of those staying to the bitter end was Jim Stuckey, president of the Atlantic Yards Development Group, the project’s mastermind. He was busy taking notes and conferring with a squad of aides, but he took the time, after the meeting closed, to answer a few questions.

No, he didn’t have any opinion on DDDB attorney Baker’s claim that Atlantic Yards was not a civic project; that’s a question for the lawyers. No, he didn’t know the sum of city subsidies that would be used for the affordable housing component of Atlantic Yards. (City officials have so far not answered my question about that, either.) As for his overall observation on the night, he said he was "incredibly impressed" that so many people had taken the time out of their day to express support for the project.

Indeed, Forest City Ratner and its allies helped engineer an impressive turnout. But Stuckey and the ESDC and the politicians and the involved parties have a lot more work before they reach the next stage of the Atlantic Yards endgame.

[This incorporates several updates during the day.]

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

How big? Way big! New graphics show projected AY impact

Mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, as I've pointed out, have done too little to show the public what the Atlantic Yards project would actually look like, so the New York magazine cover story earlier this month was a step forward.

Projections have been the work of inspired bloggers like Jon Keegan and Will James. Now photographer Jonathan Barkey, combining some shots around the Atlantic Yards footprint with graphics, offers some dramatic new visuals, now and projected. (Click to enlarge.)

The Dean Street playground




A view of the arena from Dean Street




Carlton & Atlantic avenues, from Atlantic Terminal 4B housing project


The intersection of Dean Street & Sixth Avenue



An elevated view, from Bergen Street, of the Dean Street playground



A view from the Newswalk roof on Dean Street


Ketcham: Traffic/transit analysis so bad a Supplemental EIS needed

How bad would the traffic be? The Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) suggests it would be a challenge, but not unmanageable, by the time the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is issued.

Yes, 68 of 93 intersections analyzed would be “significantly adversely impacted,” according to DEIS Chapter 12, on traffic, but proposed traffic mitigations would take care of 29 of them, leaving 39 intersections with unmitigated impacts at certain hours by 2016. Moreover, “Additional measures to further address all unmitigated significant adverse traffic impacts will be explored between the DEIS and the FEIS.”

DEIS myopia

To transportation engineer Brian Ketcham of Community Consulting Services, that’s balderdash. “With Atlantic Yards, the entire Downtown Brooklyn area and the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in 2016 will be at a standstill, radiating problems across the region,” he wrote in a recent unpublished letter to the New York Times. “It nearly is now and will be more so with completion of development in the pipeline by 2016, when Atlantic Yards is expected to be fully built.” (Ketcham has pointed out that the DEIS accounts for only about half of the planned development.)

Wrong model

Ketcham pointed out that the traffic model CCS used “graphically simulates the ripple effect throughout the area of delays of more than 10 minutes at intersections along major routes revealed in fine print in the DEIS.” Meanwhile, the intersections in the DEIS are examined “as if they were entirely unconnected.”

Many critics have pointed out that the state review ignores the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway; Ketcham noted that the crowded BQE will push other traffic through local streets. One solution: congestion-based tolls to deter some traffic over the East River bridges.

Ketcham scoffed at Forest City Ratner’s proposal for half-price MetroCards as well as remote parking. “No savvy New Yorker would be believe that a $2 Metrocard discount would get enough $100+ Nets ticket buyers out of their cars to reduce auto use on game nights by 20% (even 2% based on the DEIS logic is optimistic), that the transit pass would do anything for non-game traffic and that it should be subsidized by MTA riders. Discount satellite parking would require a caravan of a shuttle bus a minute (not every 10 minutes as in the DEIS) to get fans to the game on time, add to the drop-off chaos, and necessitate nearby lay-over space and further tax-payer subsidies.”

Supplemental EIS

What to do about “this mockery of State environmental law"? Ketcham proposed a Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) to deal with the problem more accurately, just as a DSEIS was issued to account for the effect of the proposed Atlantic Yards project on the Downtown Brooklyn Development DEIS.

Further warnings

CCS also issued a paper with further warnings. By 2016, with realistic growth, six of 10 subway lines will be over capacity, three with severe “crush loads.” Also, seven of 10 bus lines will be over capacity. The DEIS, doesn’t assess the probability that affluent Brooklynites use autos more than their counterparts in Manhattan.

Despite parking management strategies to divert drivers to more distant parking facilities, some drivers will try to find free on-street parking, and they are not accounted for. The only effective safeguard, CCS says, is a resident parking permit program, not mentioned in the DEIS (but part of the push-poll likely from Forest City Ratner).

Subway stresses?

DEIS Chapter 13, covering Transit and Pedestrians, acknowledges that there could be crowding on platforms, but argues that it would be resolved by additional subway service:
During the weekday 10-11 PM and Saturday 4-5 PM post-game periods, when surges of subway trips generated by an event at the arena would be arriving on the subway platforms, the potential may exist for crowding on the platforms at the Atlantic Avenue/Pacific Street subway station complex under certain post-game conditions. Such crowding, if it were to occur, could constitute a significant adverse impact, which could be addressed by providing additional subway service (i.e., more trains) during post-game periods.

The DEIS continues:
Subway trips generated by the proposed project would be distributed among the numerous subway routes serving Downtown Brooklyn... All subway routes through Downtown Brooklyn are expected to continue to operate below their practical capacity in the peak direction in the 8-9 AM and 5-6 PM commuter peak periods with development of Phase I of the proposed project in 2010, and at completion of the proposed project in 2016. The proposed project is therefore not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to subway line haul conditions in Downtown Brooklyn under CEQR criteria.

At CB2, disbelief

At the Community Board 2 Atlantic Yards hearing on August 3, former CB 2 member Kenn Lowy, representing Friends of Brooklyn Bridge Park, didn't buy the subway claims. He said:
The Atlantic Yards project is massive, and even when it is scaled back, it will drastically change this part of Brooklyn. In 2004, the Traffic and Transportation Committee of Community Board 2 looked at the Downtown rezoning plan, that plan had already been approved, and it’s basically next to where the Atlantic Yards project is... But the vehicular traffic is only part of the problem. The mass transit area is actually even worse. What [Forest City Ratner consultant] Sam Schwartz didn’t tell you earlier is that, in 2004, MTA officials told the Traffic and Transportation committee that Downtown Brooklyn subway stations, and this was in 2004, were currently at saturation. The Downtown rezoning plan is going to add an additional 5000 riders in the morning and 7000 in the evening. If the MTA has no way of addressing those riders, then how will they be able to accommodate the new riders from the arena and the 16 new buildings? This will make a bad situation much worse. I think we all agree a certain amount of growth is welcome in Brooklyn. The question is: how much is too much?

Lowy had in 2004 reported the anecdote on his web site:
At a meeting several months ago MTA officials told The Traffic & Transportation Committee of CB2 that the downtown Brooklyn subway stations were currently at “saturation”. Yet the DEIS ignores this.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

RPA offers more criticism than praise for AY, but says it's too late to go back

On the eve of the public hearing on the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the influental Regional Plan Association (RPA), despite expressing significant and trenchant criticisms, essentially endorsed Forest City Ratner’s project. RPA asserted that it would not be in the public interest to start from scratch, adding that, Within reason, this 'Manhattan-ization' that is proposed for Downtown Brooklyn is part of an ongoing and necessary process.

So apparently a growth process, however initiated, trumps a public process that the RPA rightly sees as inadequate. That’s the essence of a detailed but, at times, convoluted position paper that has been distilled into a none-too-short press release, headlined "RPA Supports Atlantic Yards' Arena Block, Wants Changes in Second Phase of Development."

Indeed, the New York Observer called the position "milder" than the RPA's staunch opposition last year to the West Side Stadium, but didn't point out that the RPA is leaning toward the side of the developer.

The RPA’s summary:
The statement expressed the organization's support for the signature arena block but called for changes to the eastern portion of the site plan to make the open space unambiguously public and ensure design excellence over the full build-out. The statement also warned that the City and State must make additional traffic and transit improvements to support this and other major developments in downtown Brooklyn.

There are good ideas there, including congestion pricing, but the statement doesn't fully cohere. Indeed, there are some fundamental errors, such as the statement that Development on state-owned land, such as the Atlantic Yards, is exempt from ULURP, and can be developed through an expedited state review process.

But the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard would be only 8.3 acres of the proposed 22-acre Atlantic Yards project. You'd hope the RPA wouldn't be making the "over the railyard" error.

How dense is too dense?

RPA, an "independent, not-for-profit regional planning organization that improves the quality of life and the economic competitiveness,” states that “high-value, high-density development is most appropriate in the region’s urban core and in transit-accessible centers.”

That's indisputable, but it doesn’t engage the question: how dense is too dense? RPA seems to be endorsing FCR’s inalienable right to build as big as it wants--right now, the densest development in the country by a factor of two. Nor does RPA assess whether the open space for the project would be sufficient for the new population, despite overwhelming evidence that it wouldn't be.

Regional and community needs

RPA suggests a look not just at the immediate area, but also in the context of the adjacent neighborhoods, the borough of Brooklyn, the City of New York and the entire metropolitan region, especially since the area is rapidly running out of developable land.

Though Brownstone Brooklyn is thriving, this prosperity has not spread to everyone in this part of Brooklyn, so AY must provide the surrounding communities with affordable housing, jobs, quality public spaces and services.

There's no further detail on the actual number of jobs, or the amount of housing affordable to average Brooklynites.

Public process

Given scarce development sites, “megaprojects should not be entered into lightly,” RPA says, contrasting New York City’s six-month Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) with the expedited state review process. The criticism is withering:
Unfortunately, the public review process for the Atlantic Yards project is part of a pattern in which the State and the City enter into an agreement with a single developer prior to a full debate of alternatives. Ideally, this strategically vital piece of public real estate would have been the subject of a planning exercise… open bidding…. Instead, the state worked exclusively with Forest City Ratner while the MTA entered into a truncated bidding process only after a memorandum of understanding had been signed by FCRC, the state and the city. The details of the project were largely devised behind closed doors by the developer, and only minor modifications have been made in response to public criticisms. While the developer has held numerous public meetings and provided information to the community, most of the decisions regarding the site had already been made. As a result, the public has no way of knowing if this project is the best possible one for the site. It is greatly handicapped in assessing potential alternatives, and has less leverage for negotiating changes that would add to its community benefits.

Too late to turn back

Still, RPA thinks the cow's left the barn door:
In this instance, however, it would not be in the public interest to start from scratch. Even an improved process should still likely result in a project approximating the scale and ambition of the Forest City Ratner proposal. The city and the region need to aggressively develop offices, housing, retail and entertainment in appropriate locations, and there are few locations more suited for dense, mixed-use development than the Atlantic Yards.
(Emphasis added)

If an improved process included a rezoning there likely would be many more voices arguing against the densest development in the country. Moreover, the statement that "the Atlantic Yards" is suited for development fudges the difference between development over the railyards and development over adjacent blocks. Note that there is no such place as "the Atlantic Yards;" it's the name of a project.

Also, if the city needs to develop mixed-use projects, shouldn't there be more public input on the components of those projects? Forest City Ratner has changed the program due to its own fiscal needs.

Signature location?

RPA also suggests:
This location at the crossroads of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, at the edge of Brooklyn’s commercial core and in the heart of a burgeoning cultural district, is also the perfect site for a signature project that could elevate Downtown Brooklyn as a destination and a true third Central Business District for the city.

How does a project that's mostly-housing help elevate a CBD?

Cost justification

The RPA cites a Forest City Ratner mantra, that the cost of building requires a certain scale:
Finally, developing a site of this size and complexity over a working rail yard requires a very high level of density to justify the upfront investments and long-term risks. Any project meeting these requirements is likely to appear out of scale with the surrounding low-to-mid rise neighborhoods. Within reason, this “Manhattan-ization” that is proposed for Downtown Brooklyn is part of an ongoing and necessary process that will affect communities in downtowns and transit hubs across the region.

Indeed, cost demands scale, but shouldn't there be a study, as gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer demanded regarding the West Side yards, to determine how much a platform would cost?

RPA’s recommendations

The RPA cites benefits:
Needed housing, both market rate and subsidized, would be built in an area that has the infrastructure to support it. This construction, and the buildings that it will produce, will provide thousands of jobs to fuel Brooklyn’s economy. And the development will create a long-desired signature destination for Brooklyn, bringing people from across the region and country and strengthening the borough’s identity and pride. In addition to the affordable housing, the local community would benefit from added open space and a new sports and entertainment facility designed by one of the world’s leading architects.

This disregards the fact that the destination might not work, and that the added open space would be far too little. And how much pleasure would people get if the project brings enormous congestion? And how many jobs would mostly-residential buildings actually produce to fuel Brooklyn's economy?

Negative impacts

The RPA acknowledges problems:
At the same time, the project will have significant negative impacts on several thriving neighborhoods. An already congested section of Brooklyn will become increasingly crowded, especially before and after major events at the arena. The scale of the development will loom over the surrounding low- and mid-rise neighborhoods, casting long shadows in many places. The decade of construction will add noise, traffic and pollution to the entire area. On balance, the project’s regional and neighborhood benefits justify the public costs and negative impacts.

Without an accounting of public costs, that's hard to judge.

Build the arena block

The RPA offers three categories of recommendations, and one is to build the arena block, with no comment on extreme density and eminent domain:
Regional Plan Association supports construction of the signature western block of the project largely as proposed. This block, featuring the basketball arena and four towers, is an excellent example of city-making that will bring tremendous benefits to the area. These initial towers have been designed by the expert hand of Frank Gehry and, along with the arena, will become iconic images representing the borough soon after their construction.

Still, RPA said the DEIS wasn’t convincing regarding subway station/platform crowding before and after arena events; nor regarding remote parking and use of shuttle vehicles; and said that sidewalks should be tested more.

And the group was silent on the strain of city-making and arena-placing in a residential neighborhood.

Improve Phase II

RPA called the portion of the project stretching from Sixth Avenue east to Vanderbilt Avenue “the riskiest part of the project,” pointing out that, despite some apparently well-designed open space, it still could be “overwhelmed by the massive buildings that contain it” and be uninviting to the public. Moreover, given the time it takes to build, changes in the market, finances, and relationships between the architects and developers would likely change the project.

RPA said it would support the plan if the open space were made “unambiguously public” and mapped as City park land rather than privately-managed space; and that a design review process, as with Battery Park City, is established to maintain a high standard.

Like the Municipal Art Society, RPA proposes open space that fronts on public streets rather than appears in building backyards:
It would likely require some revisions to the allowable building envelopes around a new open space configuration, but the organizing principle should be to design the buildings around the open space, not the other way around.

The public sector's role

The RPA acknowledges strain on the civic infrastructure, but says:
“The developer should not be punished, however, for the public sector’s failure to provide the necessary improvements…. In addition to big ticket investments – like power plants and schools – needed to handle the citywide growth, several specific traffic and transit improvements should be implemented before the project’s full build-out to allow for its success.

Should the project's full costs, however, be toted up?

Transportation improvement vital

The RPA recommends a comprehensive transportation plan that should be implemented to make the project work. It includes congestion pricing to limit traffic over the now-free East River bridges; improved transit, including bus rapid transit; and an effort to havethe Long Island Rail Road better deliver more riders from the eastern and southern portions of Brooklyn, and from Queens and Long Island.

Once more critical

The RPA was once a bit more confrontational. In the organization’s 3/10/06 newsletter, RPA VP Jeremy Soffin wrote:
In fact, almost all of the administration’s most favorite projects – the Atlantic Yards mega-development, the new Yankee Stadium, Bronx Terminal Market, and even Governors Island – allow developers tremendous leeway without demanding substantial concessions in the public interest.

It may not be on the RPA's agenda, but a better accounting of the public interest and the public costs remains needed.

Who's NIMBY? The City Planning Commission on arena locations

The city's decision to turn the Atlantic Yards project over to the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) means that ESDC can override zoning that limits the height and bulk of the 16 towers planned. But let's not forget the zoning that regulates arena locations, as Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN) point out.

As the Executive Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement notes (p.14):
The New York City Zoning Resolution prohibits arenas within 200 feet of residential districts as some of the operations could be incompatible with districts limited primarily to residential use. (Arenas are permitted in most commercial districts allowing for residential use.) The arena block is adjacent to a residential district to the south, and accordingly, the arena has been designed to minimize its presence and effect on the residential uses on these blocks. Primary entrances and signage would be oriented toward the crossroads of two major commercial thoroughfares and away from these residences. Two primarily residential buildings (Buildings 2 and 3) on the arena block would occupy most of the Dean Street frontage, serving as a buffer between uses.

[Wouldn't the "primarily residential buildings" be as much a "district limited primarily to residential use" as a buffer?]

The DEIS continues:
However, the preferred seating entry and entry to the loading area would be located on Dean Street and, while security screening and loading functions would take place entirely within the building, the residences along this street would experience some localized adverse impacts. The Dean Street corridor between Flatbush and Vanderbilt Avenues is lined with and zoned for both residential and industrial uses. The Dean Street corridor has also historically functioned as a transition between the more commercial and industrial uses to the north and the residential uses to the south. The localized adverse land use impacts attributable to the arena activities interspersed with new, compatible residential uses would not be considered a significant adverse impact on land use. (Emphasis added)

It probably depends on who's doing the considering. Note that the photo above, from the New York Times, depicts the north side of Dean Street, which would be demolished for the new buildings. The south side is similar.

Experts commissioned by CBN comment:
• The City zoning policy prohibits arenas within 200 feet of residential district. The DEIS states that the arena is designed in such a way that it addresses the City zoning policy’s objective make an arena use compatible with residential uses. However, the design isolates the arena and reinforces it as a separate enclave. Although there are limited design measures that could make arena compatible, there is no attempt to connect it with the surrounding area.

• In order to understand the true effect of an urban arena, other examples from different cities should be referenced in the DEIS. Based on preliminary analysis, there are no urban arenas 200 ft or less from residential neighborhoods that are positive examples.

Why ignore wind? "Unconscionable," says Pratt prof

Anybody who's walked around the Williamsburgh Savings Bank, Brooklyn's tallest building, knows that the wind can be vicious on a winter day. But the Empire State Development Corporation, in producing the Final Scope for the Draft Environemental Impact Statement (DEIS), ignored the call by the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN) to study the effects of wind created by 16 towers and an arena.

CBN had asked:
Wind tunnel effects are already experienced in downtown Brooklyn and can cause problems for pedestrians, particularly people with impaired mobility. The EIS should study and measure wind tunnel effects caused by new construction, and the associated jobs will arise in proportion to the public cost.

Not blowing away

On August 3, the three affected Community Boards held simultaneous public hearings, and Brent Porter, who teaches architecture at the Pratt Institute, told CB2:
No one is talking about the wind impact. If we were a Canadian town or city, all major cities, Toronto, etc., any time a new building that’s three times the heights of its neighbors, it will create tremendous wind impacts. They require that the architectural plans and engineering studies in early days get submitted to proper testing. Our own Rensselaer University upriver does this. I’ve called for Rensselaer or the University of Western Ontario, which is really the primary source for wind tunnel studies, for a project like this--why this was never called for and why the EIS statement says nothing about it, is unconscionable.

Indeed, a British consultancy on wind observes:
Wind effects are an extremely important aspect in the design of tall buildings. Wind loading can often be the dominant load case, with significant increases in loading due to dynamic effects. Dynamic response can also lead to high accelerations which affect occupant comfort. In addition, tall buildings tend to deflect high-level winds down to ground level, affecting the local wind environment at the base of the building

Will FCR do testing?

Even if it's not required under the DEIS, it's likely that Forest CIty Ratner would conduct wind tunnel testing for insurance purposes. As a June 2000 article in Civil Engineering reported:
Wind tunnels provide vital information for a variety of structural designs. Even on more modest buildings, those of 10 to 20 stories, wind tunnel testing is becoming common. "In this day and, with insurance what it is, any building over forty stories will be wind tunnel tested," adds Robert C. Sinn, an associate partner in Skidmore, Owings & Merrill's Chicago office who has worked on many of the world's tallest towers, including the tower proposed for 7 South Dearborn Street.

Note that five of the 16 towers at Atlantic Yards would be more than 400 feet, with a sixth at 397 feet.

CBN Data Bulletins dissect DEIS

Experts commissioned by the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN) have started providing preliminary analyses of the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Details here, especially the latest.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Historic districts? DEIS downplays preservation history around AY site

So what helped revive the neighborhoods around Downtown Brooklyn in the 1960s and 1970s? If you read Chapter 1, Project Description, of the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement, you'd conclude that somehow it was governmental investment in urban renewal, including condemnation.

And if you read the Chapter 7, Cultural Resources, the same message recurs.

But unacknowledged is the parallel process in Brownstone Brooklyn of mostly private reinvestment and revival via historic preservation, which was hastened by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission.

A segment in Chapter 1 titled FOCUS ON RENEWAL (1960-2000) begins with this long paragraph about city programs to reinvest in struggling neighborhoods:
The situation in the area surrounding (and including) the project site, as well as other areas of Brooklyn and throughout the city continued to worsen into the 1970s. Buildings were abandoned and burned, and the city lost more than 800,000 residents. City policy focused on stemming the tide of disinvestment, first through urban renewal, supported by a range of subsidized housing programs available at the time primarily through the federal government. Beginning in the late 1970s, under Mayor Koch, the City began an aggressive program of housing renewal. Using a range of financing options and funding sources, the City developed a variety of programs, all geared to support the reclamation of its damaged neighborhoods. These programs used properties acquired primarily by foreclosure on properties in tax arrears and also through condemnation, and they were responsible for preserving, renovating, and rebuilding more than 150,000 housing units. This effort resulted in marked improvements in several low-income neighborhoods, including Bedford-Stuyvesant, Bushwick, and East New York. Today, nearly all of the in rem (tax-foreclosed) properties have been reclaimed—in August 2005, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) issued its last major RFP (Request for Proposals) for developers to create housing on City-owned land taken in rem.

What about historic districts?

There's more to the story, which seems written to argue for major government action. The neighborhoods mentioned above are farther away from the proposed Atlantic Yards site than several historic districts, the rise of which goes unmentioned.

Constrast the DEIS with a 1974 city study, titled Preliminary Study of Feasibility: Brooklyn Sports Complex (available in the New York Public Library), which set the context for a proposed arena development. (The 1974 study is cited in the Project Description chapter regarding Coney Island.) It states:
Downtown Brooklyn is almost totally surrounded by reviving brownstone residential neighborhoods. Of the five distinct neighborhoods that ring the downtown, four have been cited by the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission for their outstanding examples of 19th century townhouse architecture and have been designated Historic Districts. These four neighborhoods are Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill, and Park Slope. The fifth neighborhood, Fort Greene, has applied for landmark designation and is expected to be honored with a designation in the near future. The Historic District designation carries with it a requirement for authentic restoration and preservation.

Note: Fort Greene was designated as a city Historic District in 1978, as was the Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District. Clinton Hill was designated in 1981. Prospect Heights was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1983.

It's all urban renewal

The DEIS, in the second and final paragraph in the Focus on Renewal section, focuses on urban renewal, but not the buildings at right (which are just below the renewal zone):
During this period, the City continued to use the planning and development powers of urban renewal as a tool for reversing the decline in its communities. In the late 1960s/early 1970s, several urban renewal plans were mapped in Downtown Brooklyn. Of these, the ATURA Plan (1968) applied directly to portions of the project site (see Figure 1-2). All of the blocks touching Atlantic Avenue on the project site form the southern boundary of the urban renewal area, which extends northward in an irregular shape to Hanson Place/Greene Avenue, and encompasses all or portions of the four blocks on both sides of Flatbush Avenue between Pacific Street and Lafayette Avenue. ATURA, which has been amended 10 times in the past 35 years, began as an ambitious plan to move the Fort Greene Meat Market to Sunset Park, demolish deteriorating housing and replace it with 2,400 units; and build a new Baruch College campus to span the rail yard on the project site and Atlantic Avenue; a high school (also over the LIRR tracks), other schools, parks, and shopping. Over the years, the plan underwent a number of changes, reflecting the improving real estate market in the area in the 1980s and the realities of the public’s inability to fund major construction projects, such as the Baruch College plan. Today, virtually all of the urban renewal area north of Atlantic Avenue has been redeveloped. Some 1,300 housing units have been built, either directly by a public agency (i.e., the New York City Housing Authority [NYCHA] and the New York City Housing Development Corporation [HDC]) or by a non-profit entity using public subsidies. Major retail development has taken place along Atlantic Avenue at and near Flatbush Avenue, and a large office building, the Bank of New York Tower, sits above a shopping mall above the LIRR Atlantic Terminal. Only the blocks on the southern side of Atlantic Avenue, hampered by the difficulty in building over the LIRR rail yard (which the urban renewal plan recognized in its Fourth Amendment [1976] when it removed the railroad sites from the list of properties to be acquired), have resisted development. At this point, the project site’s depressed rail yard and dilapidated, vacant, and underutilized properties perpetuate a visual and physical barrier between the redeveloped areas to the north of Atlantic Avenue and the neighborhoods to the south.

Note that the focus then was on government and nonprofit entities building subsidized housing.

[In the map above, anything in red (including a grayish red, but not the gray alone) is within ATURA. The blue-and-red striped areas between Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Street are within both ATURA and the Atlantic Yards footprint. The blocks in solid blue, which continue down to Dean Street, are within the Atlantic Yards footprint but not ATURA. Note that they seem narrower than the blocks just above them because the ATURA boundaries include the streetbed of Pacific Street, but not the buildings on the south side of the street.]

Just outside ATURA

Unmentioned are the conversions of former manufacturing/warehouse buildings in and around the proposed Atlantic Yards site, including the Newswalk building (not in the footprint) that dominates Pacific Street between Sixth and Carlton Avenues, the Atlantic Arts building at 636 Pacific Street, and the former Spalding factory at 24 Sixth Avenue. (The latter two are pictured one paragraph up.) Also unmentioned is the potential to adapt other intact buildings, notably the Ward Bakery (third building, in background) and another former manufacturing plant (foreground).

Cultural resources

And here are the final two (of three total) paragraphs in a section of the Cultural Resources chapter headlined CONTINUED 20th CENTURY DEVELOPMENT:
Following World War II, the elevated subway lines were demolished (including the Fulton Street elevated subway just prior to the war in 1941)—an action which would have been expected to improve the area. However, this coincided with a middle class exodus to the suburbs. As lower-income groups moved into the residential neighborhoods, rowhouses became rooming houses and many were abandoned. In Prospect Heights, Washington Avenue was the site of riots and arson that destroyed many buildings in the 1960s. The industrial district along Atlantic Avenue also began to decline as much of the area’s manufacturing base moved out. The Fort Greene meat market was no longer able to meet federal meat packing standards. Also, there were a large number of abandoned and structurally unsound buildings.
In response to these conditions, the City created the Fort Greene Meat Market Urban Renewal Area in the 1960s. Five years later, it was renamed the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA). The goals of the ATURA Plan were to encourage development and employment opportunities in the area; create new housing of high quality and/or rehabilitated housing of upgraded quality; and provide community facilities, parks, retail shopping, and parking. Slowed down by the City’s financial crisis in the 1970s and amended many times, all of the new development north of Atlantic Avenue between Flatbush and Carlton Avenues is attributable to ATURA, including the large-scale commercial development at Atlantic Center, and the streets of small-scale rowhouses on South Oxford Street, Cumberland Street, and Carlton Avenue that are reminiscent of the surrounding historic residential neighborhoods.


Again, this is a very narrow view, focusing strictly on the project site and adjacent blocks. Move a few more blocks and the historic districts emerge.

Acknowledgement elsewhere

It's not that the authors of the DEIS don't know the history. Chapter 16, Neighborhood Character, does acknowledge the surrounding neighborhoods:
In contrast to the underutilization that characterizes much of the project site, the surrounding area includes portions of several distinct and vibrant neighborhoods containing well-defined building types, streetscapes and densities, including Boerum Hill, Downtown Brooklyn, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Prospect Heights, and Park Slope. However, the character of these neighborhoods changes as they approach the project site. The areas closer to the project site lack the cohesive character of the cores of their neighborhoods, indicative of the transitional character of these areas.

Well, the "transitional character" of the real estate to the north of the project site is because of urban renewal--for example, land cleared for the Atlantic Center mall--while the "transitional character" of the neighborhood south of the railyard was in the process of being transformed privately, thanks to some spot rezoning before the Atlantic Yards plan was announced.

The question is how to transform the transition. What might have happened had the city sought a rezoning--as it did for the Greenpoint/Williamsburg waterfront--rather than embrace one plan that would override zoning?

What's at stake: a "sense of place"

Are Brooklyn residents near the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint who are concerned about overdevelopment merely selfish owners of "million-dollar brownstones," as a push-poll suggested?

Or is there something more going on?

A Columbia University master's thesis, "Historic Preservation and the Changing Face of Large-scale Redevelopment Projects in New York City: An Analysis of the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project,” [Large PDF file] teases out some concerns about the largest project in the history of Brooklyn.

Framing the claim

As author Shirley Morillo, who earned her degree this year in historic preservation, points out, it's not easy to make claims about what would be lost. What's at stake is not a historic district but less tangible elements like scale and neighborhood character, less clear benefits than jobs and housing.

(Then again, given the public costs and subsidies, it's hardly clear that the jobs and housing are a bargain.)

Gentrification/preservation

Some of those fighting the Atlantic Yards project have been criticized as gentrifiers who want to preserve their comfortable lifestyle. Still, Morillo points out that the preservation of the neighborhoods was a form of development, which led to new investment and conversion of industrial buildings to residential ones.

For example, in 2002, the old Spalding sporting goods factory (above) at Pacific Street and Sixth Avenue was converted to loft apartments.

Indeed, such conversions came a few decades after adjacent neighborhoods were revived via historic preservation--a phenomenon given short shrift in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The blocks beyond the railyards that would be taken for the Atlantic Yards project are a mixed bag--few nicely-converted factory spaces, some row houses, some vacant lots and moribund buildings, and just two buildings--one of them the historic Ward Bakery on Pacific Street--that are considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement as losses.

In 1998, the former Daily News plant at 535 Dean Street was converted to the Newswalk condos. In 2002, along with the Spalding factory, the Atlantic Arts building (right), an eight-story, 1924 warehouse at 636 Pacific Street was converted to housing.

Conversions less valuable?

Morillo notes that recently-converted buildings lack some protections available in other fights over development and preservation:
Namely, that reused manufacturing or warehouse buildings adapted to housing, from a use for which they are no longer viable, are subsequently be no longer eligible for preservation using traditional tools such as Landmark designation or National Register listing.... [I]t is likely that the converted industrial buildings on the site, though successful as both real estate endeavors and as housing, have been sufficiently compromised to warrant their demolition at any time.... So adaptive use, which is often viewed as a positive use of existing structures to prevent their decay and for use as alternative housing, becomes an opportunity for redevelopment.

Part of it is also political. Forest City Ratner decided to exempt the Newswalk building, likely not because it was any more structurally sound than the other converted industrial buildings, as the Village Voice reported, but because it had a larger population of owners, some of whom might resist selling or hold out for large sums.

The former Ward Bakery building has been cited by the Municipal Art Society as a historic resource worth saving, and the state Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation office has said it's eligible for state or national historic registers.

However, the DEIS, in Chapter 21, Unavoidable Impacts, declares that, though the demolition of the former bakery and also the former LIRR Stables and the former Ward Bread Bakery complex would "constitute a significant adverse impact on historic resources," conversions of the buildings would compromise their historic character and "constrain the goals of the master plan."

Neighborhood value

Though there are historic resources in the surrounding neighborhoods, as evidenced by the Municipal Art Society map at right, it's tougher to argue for less tangible issues in and around the footprint, Morillo adds:
The shift from preservation of the object to preservation of more subjective characteristics of culturally and politically constructed places, only deepens the dilemma due to the fact that no recourse exists for effectively making these claims except for participation in a public process, which has, in the case of the proposed Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project, been seriously restricted.
Other area resources include less fixed, and more difficult to quantify factors such as scale, the skyline, view corridors, and sense of place. Inherently a challenge to measure, claims for these characteristics are made more difficult because the scope of the project’s true area of impact is so difficult to limit. It is additionally difficult because natural growth and organic development of the city often impacts these factors and is not always, nor frequently, to be considered a negative effect. In the case at hand, however, the scope of proposed Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project is challenging the scale of the area to a shocking degree.


Could redevelopment work? Not this one, Morillo suggests, citing the project’s planned departure from the contextual grid, open space patterns, and scale.

Multiple losses

The thesis relies in part on cultural anthropologist Setha Low, who points out that a lost sense of place is “not just an architectural loss but also a cultural and personal loss in terms of…meaningful environments of human action and expression.”

Morillo observes:
In terms of impact to the area’s historic resources, the scale of the proposed Atlantic Yards project will have effects to tangible factors such as the buildings to be demolished in the footprint, rising land values that will likely lead to additional displacement within the community, rapid redevelopment of other sites at a larger scale than is appropriate, obstructed historic view corridors and skyline. The most significant effect of the proposed project’s scale as well as the most difficult to quantify, however, will be its impact on the area’s sense of place.

What is to be done

Morrillo identifies a growing need to identify the ways that cultural significance and sense of place, as important social elements, can be included as essential parts of both historic preservation practice and redevelopment projects.

While traditional preservationists have had a relatively small role in the process, Morillo note that community groups and advocates have formed to provide accurate information about the injustices of the project planning process, the anticipated impact to historic resources, quality of life, diversity, and sense of place. ... The final challenge for these groups remains to more firmly establish that preservation efforts need not hamper new housing, job opportunities, and economic development.

A failure in planning

Indeed, a failure in urban planning is at the core here. Morillo points to a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the developer, the city, and the ESDC, which states that, following the issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the signatories will agree on urban design guidelines, including “building massing and heights, streetwall locations and heights, building articulation, distance between buildings, lot and tower coverage, retail continuity and glazing, signage, streetscape improvements, public open space use and design guidelines, sidewalk locations and dimensions, loading and truck access, parking location and vehicle access, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and ground elevations.”
(Emphasis added)

The DEIS is now out, but all of the above, Morillo suggests, should've come first.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Railyard platforms on W. Side and Sunnyside get critical look, but Brooklyn?

The potential for development over Metropolitan Transportation Authority-owned railyards is all over the news these days, and that raises a question about Brooklyn: why doesn't the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard, the key component of Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards plan, get the same treatment?

Spitzer questions West Side proposal

An article headlined Spitzer Steps Up Criticism of City’s Railyard Proposal in yesterday's New York Times reported how gubernatorial candidate (and Attorney General) Eliot Spitzer called the city's plans to by the MTA's West Side railyards for $500 million "woefully inadequate." It stated:
In a letter to the transportation authority, Mr. Spitzer said that the best way to move forward was to conduct a new appraisal of the 26-acre property along 11th Avenue, between 30th and 33rd Streets, and to sell it to the highest bidder at an auction. He also asked for an engineering analysis to determine the cost of building platforms over the railyards, something that would have to be done before developers could erect any buildings there.

Spitzer said in his letter:
Only by a thorough, fair and open process can we be certain that the MTA receives full value for these extremely valuable assets and fulfills its fiduciary duty.

He called for:
A full new appraisal of the Western Rail Yard based on a range of zoning assumptions... an engineering study that determines the cost of a platform over the Western Rail Yard... a public auction once the property is rezoned.

And in Brooklyn?

All the above requests have been missing from the MTA's posture toward the Vanderbilt Yard. Eighteen months after Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project was announced as a fait accompli, the MTA put the railyard out to bid; even though a rival bidder, Extell, offered $150 million to FCR's $50 million, the MTA chose to negotiate solely with FCR, which raised its bid to $100 million, well under the $214 million appraisal.

The developer argues that the contribution toward a new platform should be added to the value of the bid, but there's been no engineering study, as Spitzer demands for the West Side Yards.

As the New York Observer pointed out:
More significantly, the letter drips with distrust: First, Sptizer suggests that M.T.A. staff, and not Kalikow, conduct the negotiations with the city, which are taking place this month and early next.

Kalikow infamously dismissed the MTA's own appraisal as "just some guy's idea of what it's worth."

Note that Spitzer has expressed support for the Atlantic Yards plan, though he hasn't publicly confronted the parallel issues in Brooklyn.

New platforms coming?

The Observer's Matthew Schuerman this week described how the city is working on what Mayor Mike Bloomberg described as a “sweeping interagency, five-borough Strategic Land Use Plan," aiming to provide, among other things, housing for the city's inevitably increasing population over 20 years.

One solution involves platforming over highways and railyards:
One way of increasing prime real estate would be to build a platform over the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway in Carroll Gardens, where it now lies in a ditch. The move would bring the Carroll Gardens waterfront, presently isolated from the rest of the neighborhood, within the burgeoning and rapidly gentrifying reach of neighboring areas.
Similar platforms will be considered for the M.T.A. rail yard in Sunnyside, Queens. That site has been under consideration for numerous housing plans over the years but none of them were judged very feasible.


The Sunnyside solution

Aaron Naparstek's StreetsBlog got a preview of the plan developed by Alex Garvin & Associates. Naparstek quotes the Garvin Report: "The city must invest in its public realm to prevent unplanned growth from undermining its competitive advantage." Besides platforms, the city could built on underused waterfronts, and invest in surface transit "to stimulate development in areas without nearby subway service."

The chapter on platforms suggests that the Sunnyside Yard could support a 168-acre development, with 18,000 to 35,000 new housing units. That's a ratio of 108 to 211 units per acre.

Even at the highest density, that would be far less dense than the Atlantic Yards project, which would have 6860 units over 22 acres, or 312 units per acre.

Extreme density on the way?

Still, a density of 211 units per acre, as with the proposed one-third Atlantic Yards scaleback proposed by Assemblyman James Brennan, would still be much more dense than other major housing developments in the city--and likely the densest development in the city, and country.

LEEDing the way? Some perspective on FCR's sustainability efforts

"Atlantic Yards is committed to achieving LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification of all 16 buildings and the arena, with a goal of LEED Silver, when possible," Jim Stuckey, president of the Atlantic Yards Development Group, told three community boards on August 3.

It sounds good--and efforts to achieve LEED certification certainly represent progress, since most developers don't try.

Still, as the New York Times reported on August 13, LEED Silver--FCR's goal rather than promise--is not the highest rung, since LEED Gold and LEED Platinum demand greater commitment.

The article, headlined Getting Easier to be Green, notes:
The green designation is conferred on buildings that incorporate recycled or renewable materials and that slash energy use and water consumption with features like photovoltaic cells, internal sewage treatment systems and roofs covered in soil and vegetation

Green construction can make buildings more marketable; there are only six LEED-certified apartment buildings in the city as of now, while more are under construction, and some office towers have LEED certification. The designation is conferred by the United States Green Building Council. [Update: originally I wrote that there were only six green apartment buildings, but there are more; not all green buildings are LEED-certified.]

A new city requirement

New York City is becoming a LEED pioneer. The city's new "green buildings law" requires new buildings and major alterations to be designed according to LEED standards. In fact, it requires LEED Silver for certain buildings, mostly office space:
(1) Each capital project with an estimated construction cost of two million dollars ($2,000,000) or more involving (i) the construction of a new building, (ii) an addition to an existing building, or (iii) the substantial reconstruction of an existing building shall be designed and constructed to comply with green building standards not less stringent than the standards prescribed for buildings designed in accordance with the LEED green building rating system to achieve a LEED silver or higher rating, or, with respect to buildings classified in occupancy groups G or H-2, to achieve a LEED certified or higher rating.

Occupancy groups G and H-2 include schools, libraries, and hospitals. Buildings that are solely residential are exempted.

The law also applies to all capital projects that receive $10 million or more from the city and, as we know, the city has pledged $100 million in direct subsidies for the Atlantic Yards project: The law states:
This section shall not apply to capital projects of entities that are not city agencies unless fifty percent (50%) or more of the estimated cost of such project is to be paid for out of the city treasury. This exemption shall not apply to any capital project that receives ten million dollars ($10,000,000) or more out of the city treasury.

It's unclear whether the law would apply to the Atlantic Yards project, since it won't apply to projects that receive money from the city treasury before 2007. (The money has been pledged, but has it been delivered?) The Atlantic Yards buildings would be mostly residential, but with retail and some office/hotel components.

Strategy and cost

The Times reports:
To receive a LEED rating, completed buildings must be evaluated, and points are awarded for their green features.

And does it cost more? For the higher levels, yes:
Developers say that features necessary for a gold LEED rating generally add 6 to 8 percent to the cost of a building.

It's not clear how much LEED Silver, or some notch below that, would add to the cost of the Atlantic Yards project. Perhaps that's a question for Pamela Lippe, the developer's sustainability consultant--who worked on the Condé Nast Building at 4 Times Square, the country's first 'green' skyscraper.

Regarding Atlantic Yards, the e4 web site states:
e4, inc. is supporting the project team in all aspects of sustainable design including site planning, stormwater management, high performance building strategies, alternative waste treatment systems and distributed generation possibilities. e4, inc. will also be working to maximize the incentives available for the project.
(Emphasis added)

So there's some green in going green. Indeed, as the Department of Buildings web site states:
New York State is unique in the financial incentives it provides for green building. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) offers financial assistance for energy-related projects, and the Green Building Tax Credit provides tax incentives to owners.

And so far there's no evidence that the value of those tax incentives has been calcuated into the fiscal impact of this project.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Gaps in ESDC's fiscal impact study: another look at unmentioned costs

After another look at the numbers from the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) it's easier to see what the agency left out in its fiscal impact study and where other studies challenge it.

The fundamental point (and thanks to the commenter on my previous post) is this: the ESDC assumes that the present value of the public contribution is $545 million, and much evidence suggests that public costs would be much higher.

Perhaps the ESDC will be more forthcoming. Spokeswoman Jessica Copen e-mailed me yesterday, "We have received comments on the economic impact, expect more at the public hearing and will consider releasing further information once we have had chance to digest all comments."

ESDC calculations

In the General Project Plan, the ESDC states:
On a present value basis, the Project will generate $845.5 million of City tax revenues and $1.1 billion of State tax revenues. Thus the Project will generate $1.4 billion in net tax revenues in excess of the public contribution to the Project.

If city/state tax revenues reach a total of $1.945 billion and the net tax revenue figure is $1.4 billion, that suggests a public contribution of $545 million, all expressed in present value, which [updated] is defined as "today's value of a future payment, or stream of payments, discounted at some appropriate compound interest, or discount, rate." (The cumulative revenues and costs would much higher.)

Why $545 million?

How does the ESDC get to $545 million? That number undoubtedly includes $200 million in direct subsidies and $292.9 million from mortgage recording and sales tax exemptions, as noted in a 7/24/06 Bond Buyer article. (The direct subsidies are expressed in present value; however, it's not clear whether the tax exemptions are.)

There's no evidence that the ESDC is including public costs for schools, sanitation, and public safety.

Large public costs

There are costs beyond the direct ones. Forest City Ratner consultant Andrew Zimbalist estimated a present value of all public sector costs at $572.6 million, including $200 million in direct subsidies and $321.4 million in operating costs.

But the Independent Budget Office (IBO) said Zimbalist's estimates on operating costs were too low. The IBO estimated a present value of $475 million in operating costs, which is $153.6 million more than Zimbalist's estimate of $321.4 million.

Thus, adjusting Zimbalist's total with the IBO's operating cost estimate leads to a total, in public sector costs, of at least $726.2 million ($572.6 million + $153.6 million).

Tax exemptions

But Zimbalist didn't consider the mortgage recording and sales tax exemptions. The IBO did calculate sales tax exemptions worth $9.1 million in present value. The IBO said that "Mortgage recording tax savings are not likely to be significant because the arena construction is being financed through PILOT-backed bonds."

However, the Bond Buyer, drawing on information from the ESDC, calculated a much higher number of $292.9 million.

Housing subsidies

None of the reports apparently include the value of housing subsidies.

As noted, the Brooklyn Papers reported last year:
Officials from the Housing Development Corporation, a city housing fund that finances development projects, committed $67.5 million in subsidies. An article this week in the New York Sun estimated as much as $76 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies.

It's unclear whether these subsidies are expressed in present value.

Unmentioned costs

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) calculated $1.929 million in subsidies, expressed in cumulative total rather than present value, and, even though those numbers can be challenged, they include some other costs that deserve discussion.

In addition, DDDB points to an unspecified amount of extraordinary infrastructure costs, including the relocation and installation of public utility infrastructure, as well as brownfield tax credits.

Unmentioned by DDDB, but also likely, are state "green building" tax credits, for which Forest City Ratner likely will apply.

Public cost: over $1 billion?

Not including DDDB's numbers or the "green building" credits, the ESDC's calculations still require major adjustments. Assuming that the other subsidies have been expressed in present value, it's possible that the $292.9 million in tax exemptions and $76 million in housing subsidies should be added to the total of $726.2 million. That would increase the public cost to well over $1 billion.

And the net fiscal impact would not be $1.4 billion but $778 million.

That still sounds like a significant sum, but that's 44 percent less than the ESDC estimate.

My numbers may be off, since it's unclear whether some of these figures are expressed in present value or cumulative total.

Still, this exercise shows that, without more information, we can't rely on the ESDC's numbers. We know the costs have not been fully tallied. That also raises questions about the calculations regarding benefits. The net fiscal impact remains a mystery.

Atlantic Yards gets plug at AVP Brooklyn Open

So the AVP pro volleyball tour has come to the beach at Coney Island, and the temporary stadium just west of KeySpan Park brings a bit of Southern California to the boardwalk. Forest City Ratner, via its affiliate Brooklyn Sports & Entertainment, is one of several sponsors of the Brooklyn Open--the stadium is a logo-fest--and, as noted, Atlantic Yards has been added as a sponsor.

Despite some good publicity for the tournament, attendance last night was paltry--the stands were less than one-quarter full, and that's including those with VIP and volunteer passes. I had prepurchased tickets and got a call earlier in the week encouraging me to upgrade to a higher priced bracket for no service charge

Perhaps the attendance will be higher today and Sunday, when the action will be taped for television. Still, it seems that the tour sponsors made a pricing error. At $20 for the cheapest seats, the tournament--unlike, say, a Brooklyn Cyclones game--was beyond the means of many families and impulse purchasers.

That's too bad, because beach volleyball is a terrific sport--fast, acrobatic, and with barely-clad, taut-bodied athletes of both sexes. (It seemed a little retro to have the cuervy Cuervo Girls toss t-shirts to the crowd not long before the bikini'd but kickass women's volleyball players took the court. Olympiac gold medalist Kerri Walsh dominates the net like, say, Shaq during his younger days.)

Given the number of passers-by who tried to get a peek at the action through the fence, and the number of people in Coney Island generally, there's definitly a market out there.

Also part of the mix: a table next to the ticket booth promoting season tickets for the Nets--not the New Jersey Nets but the basketball Nets, who would move to Brooklyn at some time in the unspecified future.

(Below, a view of the cheap seats and, above it, a VIP section. As the sky darkened, the iconic Parachute Jump was lit, and it's a great backdrop for a night in Coney Island.)

More hints of Ratner support for Boyland's run against Montgomery

There are more hints of Forest City Ratner support for Tracy Boyland, challenger to longstanding State Senator Velmanette Montgomery (right), a vocal opponent of FCR's Atlantic Yards plan.

As I reported July 30, a push-poll from Pacific Crest Research, which had conducted a previous push-poll regarding Atlantic Yards, aimed to influence listeners to vote for Boyland. (As I pointed out, it's likely that FCR is Pacific Crest Research's client.)

Same consulting firm

The Crain's Insider added some details yesterday:
Suspicion is growing that Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner is behind former City Councilwoman Tracy Boyland's bid to oust state Sen. Velmanette Montgomery. Boyland [right] supports the $4.2 billion project, and Montgomery opposes it. Insiders say that Boyland is using the same consulting firm--Knickerbocker SKD--that Forest City used to produce its Atlantic Yards literature.

Knickerbocker SKD was responsible for the Forest City Ratner's notorious no-towers brochure and two other pieces of direct mail.

The money trail

Crain's added:
An insider says that Forest City executive Bruce Bender is also helping Boyland raise money. Knickerbocker SKD's Micah Lasher and a Forest City spokesman both declined to comment, but project opponents will connect the dots when Boyland files a campaign finance report revealing vendors she worked with. She has missed two deadlines to do so, but requested filing software from the Board of Elections this week.

On Wednesday, when Montgomery told me about some dirty campaign tactics, she was more exercised about the disclosure issue. "She hasn’t filed any financial statements," Montgomery said of her rival. "It would tell you who’s paying for the campaign. We see evidence of lots of dollars being spent, but no information. We don’t know who’s funding her."

"Some white woman"?

Mongomery reported evidence of some underhanded campaign tactics.“One of my constituents in Bed-Stuy told me some people came to her home and asked her to support Tracy Boyland," Montgomery recounted. "She asked who Boyland is running against and was told, ‘some white woman named Montgomery.’”

At Montgomery's campaign kickoff Wednesday at Habana Outpost in Fort Greene, she got support from several veteran politicians, including City Council Member Al Vann and Assembly Member Annette Robinson.

City Council Member Letitia James, whose district overlaps with Montgomery's and is the most vocal political opponent of the Atlantic Yards project, declared Boyland “nothing more than a pawn… of wealthy developers.”

Friday, August 18, 2006

Sloppy Times says: Brooklyn arena is a done deal

A Times Metro section article today on the fate of the shopping and entertainment complex slated for the Meadowlands, headlined Some Call for New Jersey to Intervene to Save Xanadu Project, states:
The Nets basketball team is abandoning the Continental Arena for Brooklyn, and the Devils hockey franchise is moving to Newark.

Well, the Nets aim to move to Brooklyn, but the Atlantic Yards project hasn't been approved. In fact, the Nets are hedging their bets and are discussing an extension of their lease through the 2011-2012 season.

DEIS hearing or Atlantic Yards rally? BUILD, ACORN, community groups muster the troops

In some ways the hearing Wednesday on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is just a public relations exercise. After all, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) is expected to approve the project after community comments are incorporated into a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

But advocacy and community groups are rallying their troops to criticize the DEIS and to urge for the project's approval--and to shape the media portrayal of the debate. So expect an energized, possibly raucous crowd at New York City Technical College's Klitgord Auditorium, from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (Location: 285 Jay Street @ MetroTech, between Tillary & Johnson. Poster at right from Fort Greene Association & Society for Clinton Hill.)

Among the pre-meeting messages is an explanation for the July 11 Affordable Housing Information Session, in which Forest City Ratner and ACORN told some hopeful but frustrated New Yorkers about housing that was at least four years away.

Now ACORN is encouraging attendees--remember, they filled out information sheets so they could be reminded of housing information--to lobby for the project next week. The session last month was, among other things, a recruiting meeting.

What's at stake

The DEIS is a disclosure document, not a decision document; it discloses adverse impacts on issues like traffic, open space, and noise, but does not require mitigation. The ESDC will hold a follow-up forum on September 12 (the day of the primary election) and accept comments through September 22.

Once the ESDC board receives the FEIS and approves the General Project Plan, an associated document, then the political fight resumes. Assuming that the project is not delayed in court over an eminent domain challenge or a challenge to the validity of the DEIS, the project would eventually go to the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB).

Approval requires a unanimous vote of the PACB, which is controlled by representatives of the governor, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

While Silver killed the West Side Stadium, he has expressed no such dismay about the Atlantic Yards project; in fact, one explanation for the downsizing of office space in the Brooklyn project is that it wouldn't compete with space in Silver's Lower Manhattan district. (Other explanation: a weaker Brooklyn office market and more lucrative condo possibilities.)

Rallying the troops

To BUILD, whose leaders have been among the project's most fervent advocates, the only potential adverse impacts are traffic, shadows and "building heights."

In the flier BUILD is sending to supporters, those issues are no match for, among other things, "the Historic Community Benefits Agreement, Jobs, Affordable Housing, Business Opportunities, and a Brooklyn NBA Team."

BUILD is advising its members to get to the meeting at 3:30 p.m., an hour before it begins. Given the number of people who likely want to speak, it could be a long night. (Note that most of the photos regard the Nets. Click to enlarge.)

ACORN's alert

A NY ACORN alert, sent to those who signed up at the Affordable Housing Information Session, states that New York ACORN will be speaking out on:
The need for affordability and not luxury.
2,250 affordable rental apartments for low to moderate income families.
10% of the rentals for senior citizens.
Tell the ESDC that We Support the Atlantic Yards Project and We Need Housing!
Speak up for Atlantic Yards! Speak up for Housing! Speak up for Brooklyn!


Note that the "need for affordability and not luxury" is a reference to Atlantic Yards in the context of several other development in Brooklyn, not a description of the project as a whole. Of 6860 apartments, 2250 would be considered affordable, but 900 of the affordable apartments would rent for more than $2000 a month.

As noted, some two-thirds of ACORN followers surveyed on the Atlantic Yards project have household income under $30,000; they'd be eligible for some 900 of the subsidized apartments.

In other words, the pledge of 50 percent affordability glosses over the fact that low-income New Yorkers could access fewer than half the units deemed affordable.

ACORN will form a group at the corner of Jay Street and Willoughby at 6 p.m., which is after the hearing begins but an acknowledgement that those interested have jobs and travel obligations.

ACORN in the Voice

NY ACORN executive director Bertha Lewis, in a letter to the Village Voice this week, criticizes an article by C. Carr, Life in the Footprint, writing that Carr completely ignored the larger context. This development is about finding solutions to New York's affordable-housing crisis....ACORN has worked with Forest City Ratner to guarantee that 50 percent of the 4,500 new units planned for Atlantic Yards will be rent stabilized and affordable to low, moderate, and middle-income families.

Note that there would be 6860 new units, not 4500, and thus the project would not be a 50/50 affordable plan; the affordability applies only to the rentals. And Lewis leaves out the larger context of to whom the units would be affordable.

The critics and opponents

Some community and activist groups concerned about the project are emphasizing the potential impact of the projects. The poster at top, emphasizing the project's scale, was issued by the Fort Greene Association and the Clinton Hill Society, both of which specified that they are critical of the plan as it stands.

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn has posted this message and will hand-deliver it to thousands of Brooklynites:
This narrow window for public comment on the "Atlantic Yards" DEIS is symptomatic of a process that has severely limited the community’s input and scrutiny from the outset. By scheduling the hearing in late August, the ESDC appears to be trying to minimize public criticism of the DEIS, so it’s crucial that we don’t let them get away with it. Please prepare as well as you can: the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, the Atlantic Yards Report and the Brooklyn Papers have some great info to get you started; arrive at the DEIS hearing as early as possible, and sign up to speak; and let the ESDC know what you think.

Addendum: NoLandGrab offers a waggish edit of the BUILD poster. (Click to enlarge)

A $1.4 billion boon? The mystery of the ESDC's fiscal impact calculus

The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) claims that the Atlantic Yards project would provide a huge fiscal boost, $1.4 billion in new city and state revenues in excess of "the public contribution" over the next 30 years.

The problem: there's no way to see how the ESDC, in the General Project Plan (GPP), arrives at that calculation.

How exactly is "the public contribution" toted up? Does it consist of direct subsidies? Yes. Some tax breaks? Yes. Costs for public safety, education, and sanitation services? Subsidies for housing? There's no evidence that it does.

The GPP, along with the associated Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), goes into great detail about the projected benefits of Atlantic Yards. But they provide scant information on the costs, rendering these lengthy documents much less useful than previous reports by the Independent Budget Office and even Forest City Ratner consultant Andrew Zimbalist.

Professor Tom Angotti of the Hunter College Center for Community Preservation and Development points out that the ESDC “gives us no information about the public costs, and we need to know that to assess the costs and benefits.”

ESDC: not yet

The ESDC hasn't been forthcoming. When I asked for the documents that explained how the fiscal impact was calculated, s spokeswoman Jessica Copen responded: "When we go back to our Board with the final GPP and EIS, we will release supplementary info on the economic benefits with a more detailed explanation."

In other words, only when the ESDC is ready to vote on the project--and a 'yes' vote is inevitable--would the public be able to scrutinize the claims made for the project.

Perhaps, as noted below, this issue deserves scrutiny from State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who has conducted independent audits of other economic development projects.

What the GPP says

A section of the GPP, headlined "Economic Impact," states:
ESDC has performed an independent economic impact analysis of the Project. ESDC has Projected that the Project will have the following impacts during construction and for the first 40 years of operations:

[Note: 40 years? The standard period for analysis is 30 years. Copen told me weeks ago that it's a typo. But it hasn't been corrected yet.]

(i) Construction of the Project will generate 15,344 new direct job years and 26,803 total job years (direct, indirect and induced);
(ii) Direct personal income related to construction activities will be $721.0 million and total personal income will be $1.5 billion (direct, indirect and induced);
(iii) Total construction employment will generate $50.4 million in City personal income tax and sales tax on consumption expenditures and $109.5 million for New York State;
(iv) Operations at the Arena and additional spending in the region will support an annual average 6,573 new jobs in New York City (direct, indirect and induced) and an annual average 7,378 jobs (direct, indirect and induced) in New York State (inclusive of New York City); and
(v) On a present value basis, the Project will generate $845.5 million of City tax revenues and $1.1 billion of State tax revenues. Thus the Project will generate $1.4 billion in net tax revenues in excess of the public contribution to the Project.


The Thus in the last paragraph glides over some complicated issues. Even if the benefits calculated are accurate, we don't know the costs. Note that the $1.4 billion is expressed in present value, which is the value of the money as if it were in hand today.

Public contribution vs. public costs

In a section headlined ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF AND PUBLIC FINANCING FOR PROPOSED PROJECT, the DEIS Executive Summary cites jobs, taxes, and other benefits, citing a total effect on the local economy, measured as economy output or demand, is projected at between $5.1 and $5.2 billion in New York City and between $6.7 and $6.8 billion overall in New York State.

It discusses both direct contributions and tax breaks, but not public costs for additional public services like schools and public safety:
The City and the State would each provide $100 million in funding to the proposed project. State funding would be used for infrastructure improvements necessary to construct the arena and for the redevelopment of the rail yard. City funding would also be used for necessary infrastructure and rail yard improvements. The City’s contribution could also be used for acquisition costs related to the arena site...

Also discussed: an exemption from sales taxes on construction materials; exemptions from State and City mortgage recording taxes (customary for affordable housing developments); and tax-exempt and taxable bonds for construction, issued by a local development corporation.

$200 million in capital investment

Despite acknowledgement of tax breaks, the document reverts to the narrow analysis that the project would require only $200 million, at least as expressed in capital investment rather than public costs.

It states:
As noted above, the public benefits generated by the operation of the proposed project would be substantial, including thousands of direct and indirect jobs as well as substantial tax revenues over and above real estate tax revenues. The proposed project would generate substantial revenues for the City and State exceeding their combined $200 million capital investment after the second year of operations.
(Emphasis added)

$492.9 million in subsidies?

A 7/24/06 article in the Bond Buyer, headlined NEW YORK TALLYING ARENA AID, quoted the ESDC as saying that the total in subsidies would be $492.9 million, including $200 million in direct assistance plus $292.9 million from mortgage recording and sales tax exemptions.

That number, however, significantly underestimates the total costs of public contributions. According to the IBO:
In his analysis of the Atlantic Yards proposal, Andrew Zimbalist provides a present value estimate of $321.4 million for the combined costs for sanitation and education services over 30 years. (Zimbalist assumes that the new police and fire expenses would be negligible.) IBO’s present value estimate for these costs is $475 million.

Subsidized housing costs

None of the documents estimated the public subsidy for affordable housing, which could be substantial. The Brooklyn Papers reported last 7/16/05:
[O]fficials from the Housing Development Corporation, a city housing fund that finances development projects, committed $67.5 million in subsidies. An article this week in the New York Sun estimated as much as $76 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies.

FCR's numbers

Zimbalist concluded that "there is a net positive fiscal impact with a present value of $1.55 billion in the General Project Plan," which is $150 million more than what the ESDC calculated.

Zimbalist's conclusion, however, deserves some major footnotes. First, as the IBO estimated, public costs likely would be much higher than his estimate. Second, Zimbalist's revenue figures depend on calculating the income taxes paid by new residents, a dubious tactic which the ESDC explicitly chose to ignore, as noted in Chapter 4, Socioeconomic Conditions:
For either variation, projected tax receipts do not include income tax paid by the residents at the proposed project or income tax from secondary employment generated by such residents. Such revenue would be additional.

The ESDC came up with a fiscal impact figure much like Zimbalist's total by using a completely different methodology.

Can Hevesi help?

More insight is needed, and perhaps it's a job for State Comptroller Hevesi. On August 10, he took a skeptical look at a proposal to build a major resort complex at Belleayre Mountain in Catskill Park. The proposal, Hevesi charged, understates the potential environmental impacts and economic risks of the project and is based on faulty assumptions regarding profitability and comparable developments in other areas.

He continued:
There are simply too many unknowns in the Belleayre proposal as it stands now. Information put forth by the developer to date has not adequately acknowledged the huge environmental impacts and economic risks of this planned resort complex, and appears to have been skewed to discourage consideration of scaled-down options,” Hevesi said, citing worries that state taxpayers would have to pay for "filtration systems for the New York City water supply and other major infrastructure improvements.

Hevesi's report points out that a Department of Environmental Conservation administrative law judge has identified deficiencies in the developer’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and permit application materials, and set 12 issues for further adversarial proceedings.

Most of the issues are environmental, but some are economic. For example, the judge found that the DEIS lacked sufficient economic detail to permit adequate analysis of development alternatives.

What triggers an audit?

I contacted Hevesi's office and asked how the report came about. It was "based on our ongoing interest in economic development issues around the state,"
Deputy Press Secretary Dan Weiller told me.

The Comptroller, who serves as the state's chief fiscal officer, is charged with auditing government operations, including
Conducting management and financial audits of State agencies and public benefit corporations;
Issuing reports on State finances;
Overseeing the fiscal affairs of local governments, including New York City;
Reviewing State contracts, payrolls and payments before they are issued;
OSC monitors, reports on, and coaches other public entities, and works to ensure that governments at all levels are discharging their responsibilities in an efficient, effective, and timely manner.


Weiller said audits by the comptroller's office can be triggered by a range of things, including press and public interest. He said the office welcomes citizen input, though a request from the public does not guarantee an investigation.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

More groups call for extension of AY review; large crowd at community meeting

Several more elected officials and community groups yesterday joined the call for the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to extend the time for review of the Atlantic Yards project—but there’s no evidence the powers that be are listening yet.

State Assembly member Annette Robinson and a representative of Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez joined the elected officials—including State Senator Velmanette Montgomery and City Council Member Letitia James—at a press conference yesterday afternoon at City Hall.

Still, none of the officials who had previously asked for more time to consider the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) had heard anything from the ESDC--and Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a booster of the plan, has refused to join the call. “The response from the mayor is he believes that Atlantic Yards should go forward,” James (at podium above) said.

“It’s a funny place to have a press conference,” observed Kent Barwick, president of the Municipal Art Society (MAS). “There isn’t anybody with an office behind us who will get a vote.” He said an extension of the review period beyond the announced 66 days was “essential for confidence in government.”

The ESDC released documents on July 18 and scheduled a public hearing for August 23, with September 22 the close of the comment period.

A bigger coalition

Joining MAS, the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN), and representatives of Brooklyn Community Boards 2, 6, & 8 were advocates from Citizens Union, the NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign, New Yorkers for Parks, and the Women’s City Club. Also present was Bill Batson, candidate for the open seat in 57th Assembly District, which would encompass the project, and a representative of Congressman Major Owens.

Those assembled agreed on the need for an extended review, some saying 30 additional days, and more advocating two additional months, pointing to other projects that had received at least 120 days for review, including the Yankee Stadium project. Still, they differed in their posture to the project in general; some clearly oppose the project, while others, like Robinson, confined their criticism to the process.

Dan Wiley, an aide to Rep. Velazquez, offered sharp criticism of the process: “We know this is basically a developer’s plan, not a community plan.” Later, he clarified that, while Velazquez has not taken a position on Atlantic Yards, “she believes in the ability of communities to plan their future.”

Montgomery, who’s campaigning hard for reelection against a last-minute entrant, Tracy Boyland, who supports the Atlantic Yards project, called the process “an outrage,” adding that it was an insult to have a follow-up forum on September 12, the day of the primary election. “They’re saying, either you concentrate on your campaign, or you focus on this humongous project.”

CBN’s Jim Vogel early in the press conference hefted two bulky binders containing some two thousand pages of documents from the DEIS, and pointed out that an associated document, the General Project Plan, was also more than a thousand pages.

More specifics needed

Tom Angotti of the Hunter College Center for Community Planning and Development said that experts reviewing the DEIS in anticipation of the planned August 23 hearing and September 22 close for comments are facing enormous pressures. “To begin, we have to have all the information,” he said, citing insufficient details in sections like transportation, air quality, and infrastructure.

Just Wednesday, he said, the group received some of the basic data it has requested. “At the same time, we also have a five-page request for additional information” on issues like traffic, open space, and urban design, he said.

For example, he said, in order to evaluate the impact on open space, those studying it need to get sufficient details on existing open space, but the DEIS does not provide sufficient information. Moreover, it’s difficult to assess the impact of the planned 7+ acres of open space at the project, he said, because the DEIS does not specify its location or the footprints of the buildings around it.

While letters from the police and fire departments in the DEIS say that the project would not adversely impact response times, Angotti said there were no background documents that allowed evaluation of such statements.

Crowd at community meeting

Last night, a community meeting on the DEIS sponsored by the Fort Greene Association and the Society for Clinton Hill drew several hundred people to the Church of All Saints. (I counted 150 early on; see comment for an organizer's statement that there were 300.) CBN’s Vogel and Deb Howard led the audience through the seemingly complicated task of searching the DEIS and focusing on specific chapters or topics of interest. They also advocated attendees to lobby state officials about the review process and the plan.

Despite the concern in the room, the screen was small and the sound system flawed, so many in the racially-mixed crowd didn’t stay through to the end--but they did tote away numerous documents and posters to share with neighbors and recruit people to the hearing next Wednesday.

Vogel advised those reading the DEIS to look for errors of fact, missing information, lack of clarity, and methodology that leads to predetermined conclusions. “Write from your heart," he said. "Rewrite from your head.” Further advice is on the CBN web site.

Some in the crowd snickered when Vogel declared that the DEIS said there were no adverse impacts on the infrastructure, the Gowanus Canal, and the sewer system.

Will traffic trip it up?

One person in the audience asked what of the many sections in the DEIS was most vulnerable to criticism. Vogel demurred, saying that CBN’s job was to assist the community in general.

Council Member James, however, felt no such stricture, and she suggested that "the most important issue is traffic and congestion. I think that will have an impact on the decision."

She declared that "this is not an issue of simple slogans--'jobs and affordable housing'"--adding that she had been a longtime advocate of affordable housing.

She pointed out that the DEIS didn't address the affect of the project at the Cumberland Gardens senior center across Atlantic Avenue, and that the project would exacerbate asthma at the Atlantic Terminal 4B public housing project.

The racial divide?

One questioner had earlier suggested that there was a racial divide among supporters and opponents of the project. Indeed, many of the most vocal community proponents are black, while a majority of the most vocal opponents, while part of a more diverse group, are white.

James doesn't believe that represents community sentiment. "The silent majority of people, black and white, tell me this project is too large," she said. "I will not let anybody exploit the issue of race, as Forest City Ratner has done."

DEIS dismisses Coney Island arena option

What happened to the Coney Island site next to Keyspan Park for the proposed Brooklyn arena? After all, that was Borough President Marty Markowitz's original idea, which he maintained fondly through early 2003. (Graphic from the Brooklyn Papers 1/31/04).

Despite that, the Empire State Development Corporation, in the Project Description chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, dismisses the much-discussed Coney option, thanks to project guidelines supplied by developer Forest City Ratner.

Feasibility study

The DEIS cites a 1974 city-sponsored preliminary feasibility study for the Brooklyn Sports Complex, a 15,000-seat arena that could accommodate professional basketball and other sports, and also supply sports facilities for local school and college athletic programs, and community athletic facilities. Multiple sites were suggested, especially those around Downtown. The DEIS recounts:
Of the five downtown sites considered, plus Fulton Ferry, only two appeared to meet the key criteria for size and accessibility. Both sites were listed in ATURA. One is the current site of the Bank of New York Tower and the two shopping centers: Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal. The other is the site currently being proposed for the Atlantic Yards Arena. In the 1974 report, the arena site extended from the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues eastward along Atlantic Avenue to Carlton Avenue. The site extended southward along Flatbush Avenue to Dean Street, continued eastward to 6th Avenue, then northward to Pacific Street and eastward to Carlton Avenue. In short, the site encompassed the arena block and Block 1120.(Emphasis added.)

Note that the 9.5-acre site (right, in red) that was proposed for the arena is not the same as the 22-acre site proposed for the Atlantic Yards project, which would incorporate two large blocks east of Carlton Avenue to Vanderbilt Avenue, and also encompass the streetbed of Pacific Street. The project also would include a rectangle of land 100 feet east of Sixth Avenue between Pacific and Dean streets, as well as Site 5, the wedge west of Flatbush Avenue where it meets Atlantic and Fourth avenues, and Pacific Street.

What's different

The DEIS continues:
The desire for a first-class professional team continues to be strong in Brooklyn. The overall benefit of an arena for such a team as a focal point for investment and development in Downtown Brooklyn remains an opportunity. The site that could accommodate such development, identified more than 30 years ago, is still underutilized today. What is different now is the presence of a developer and team owner willing to locate an arena and related development on the project site.

Note the difference, again, between the "project site" and the "arena site." And also note that had the site been put out for bid, many developers might have made proposals.

Sports facilities themselves are not necessarily spurs to development and investment; the main reason the Brooklyn arena is projected as successful is that it would absorb revenues from New Jersey, current home to the Nets.

Sites considered--and dismissed

The DEIS states that Forest City Ratner checked out other sites in Brooklyn, under the following siting criteria:
• The site should be large enough to accommodate an arena with a minimum footprint of 240,000 sf. In addition, the project site footprint should also allow for other mixed-use development. Recent experience with new arenas, such as the MCI Arena in Washington, D.C., and San Diego’s PETCO Park (the signature component of its “Ballpark District”), has shown that these facilities thrive in combination with a strong mix of urban land uses, e.g., offices, shops, restaurants, and housing.
• The site should be readily accessible to mass transit, which could serve the arena patrons, workers, residents, and other visitors who would travel to the site regularly.
• The site should be close to or within a Central Business District, so that the office component of the mixed-use development would add to the critical mass of business activity.
• The site should have access to appropriate infrastructure—transportation, roads, sewer, water, etc.—to support the mixed-use development.
• The site should be large enough and close enough to major arterial roadways to accommodate truck deliveries for a range of arena events.
• The site shape and size should be adequate to provide security and access control around and beneath the arena and related development.


Note that Coney Island would seem to fit nearly all of these criteria, except for the item regarding a Central Business District (CBD). But, as I've pointed out, the office component of the Atlantic Yards plan has diminished by two-thirds, so proximity to a CBD would be less crucial. In Coney Island, the mixed-use aspect could emphasize entertainment and recreation.

Indeed, Thor Equities has recently proposed a 10-acre condo/hotel/entertainment venue, though the renderings released (right) were apparently preliminary.

What about Coney?

The DEIS dismisses the sites considered in the 1974 study. The Brooklyn Navy Yard would displace active businesses. Other sites would be too small or are no longer available. The Coney Island site is unavailable, because it "is now home to KeySpan Park."

That was indeed the original site proposed. However, after KeySpan park was announced, local advocates, including Borough President Markowitz, shifted their sights to another site, next door in the vast parking lot serving the antiquated Abe Stark rink, as noted in the top graphic. That effort goes unmentioned in the DEIS.

The AY site?

The DEIS winds up:
This leaves only Site 1a, which, as noted above, covers the proposed arena site plus the block on the south side of Atlantic Avenue between 6th Avenue and Carlton Avenue. Although ultimately project planners concluded that this site plus the two blocks to the east (from Carlton to Vanderbilt Avenues between Atlantic Avenue and Dean Street) would be best for the proposed project, they considered variations in this general location in response to community suggestions.

This fudges the difference between the previous plan and the Atlantic Yards plan, which would be more than twice as big. The Atlantic Yards plan encompasses two large blocks east of Vanderbilt Avenue between Pacific and Dean streets so the developers could build housing.

What about variations?

Forest City Ratner, the DEIS says, did consider building the arena at another nearby location:
One was to build the arena on a span over Atlantic Avenue. This would require that the base of the arena be at least 20 feet above street level, so that the entire structure would appear larger than an at-grade building and would hover over the street and be visible from long distances. The elevation of the arena would create serious operational problems—loading/unloading would be a major hardship and keeping the arena secure when it sits above an active major thoroughfare would also be problematic.

The concern about security for an arena built over Atlantic Avenue is legitimate; after all, an arena would be a target. But the DEIS doesn't discuss a simpler solution that was also proposed and dismissed: building the arena at the site of the Atlantic Center mall. Forest City Ratner apparently plans to build towers over that property.

The DEIS continues:
The project planners also considered the possibility of building the arena at grade in the bed of Atlantic Avenue while relocating the street to the south above the Vanderbilt Yard. While the challenge of building over an active railway tunnel and relocating major utilities could be met, this alternative would not produce a footprint large enough for both the arena and related development. The realignment of the street would break up the site, so that development parcels would be fragmented. This arrangement would also inhibit implementation of a comprehensive master plan, with cohesive design and a site plan that provides substantial contiguous publicly accessible open space. Furthermore, this realignment would bring Atlantic Avenue, one of the borough’s major thoroughfares, farther from the commercial uses to the north and closer to the residential neighborhoods to the south.
It was clear after consideration of alternative sites that only the project site would be large enough to accommodate a cohesive, comprehensive development containing the arena and a mix of synergistic uses, while offering extraordinary transportation access, proximity to a Central Business District, and substantial publicly accessible open space designed to foster pedestrian activity and promote connections with the surrounding neighborhoods.


This reads like a predetermined conclusion. After all, open space that "promote[s] connections with the surrounding neighborhoods" can only do so at a site that serves as a transition between neighborhoods rather than a site within a neighborhood.

Alternatives & questions

However, even within the general plan proposed, there are alternative locations or configurations for the arena--moved slightly east, so streets would not be demapped, as the Municipal Art Society has proposed, or moved toward Vanderbilt Avenue, as in Doug Hamilton's Pacific Plan. But the DEIS is written to reach certain conclusions, so the conclusions are not unexpected.

It could just have easily acknowledged that the publicly accessible open space is too little for the expected population and that the demapping of streets might stymie connections with the surrounding area.

And the size of the project may have just as much to do with selling sufficient market-rate housing to ensure the developer's profits than to "accommodate a cohesive, comprehensive development."

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Owens needles Yassky as 11th CD candidates take on AY

At a debate August 9 at Medgar Evers College among the four candidates for the open 11th Congressional District seat being vacated by Major Owens, the issue of Atlantic Yards inevitably came up--and the answers were predictable but telling.

State Senator Carl Andrews and City Council Member Yvette Clarke offered supportive generalizations. City Council Member David Yassky expressed both qualms and support. Community activist and former health care company manager Chris Owens savaged the project--and also took the opportunity to needle Yassky and point out contradictions in the positions of his rivals.

An insufficient question

The candidates were asked, “Please explain your position on Atlantic Yards, which has been criticized as 'instant gentrification.'" Few of them directly addressed the question, which is an important one.

At this point, no political candidate should be allowed to simply offer general support for the project. They should be questioned as to whether they support the project at its current scale--the densest residential development in the country--or how much they believe it should be cut.

[The transcripts are verbatim, except for a few places where my tape was inaudible.]

Carl Andrews

I support Forest City Ratner’s project. I believe that there are some very good things in the project. Affordable housing for senior citizens, and low-income housing, and economic development. There’s also a Community Benefits Agreement, the second one of its kind in the nation. Is it a perfect project? No. Are there some things that need to be worked out? Yes. But the overall concept I support.

Note that the Community Benefits Agreement is not the second of its kind.

Yvette Clarke

When I look at the crisis of affordable housing in the 11th Congressional District and the crisis of unemployment and lack of economic opportunity for Central Brooklyn, I had to weigh the benefits and the burdens of the Atlantic Yards project. And having been an economic development practitioner myself, I can tell you that, when someone says to me that the jobs are just temporary, in a community where people are unemployed for generations, I think there’s an issue around class, there’s an issue around race that has to be addressed. And those who say that perhaps this project will regentrify, well, I tell you it’s happening today, without that project. This is the first project we’ve ever had with that number of affordable housing units in Central Brooklyn in generations. I believe we have an opportunity to help shape it in a way in which the benefits will outweigh the burdens.

Indeed, the DEIS says that gentrification is already happening--the question is whether this would accelerate it. As for the class and race issue, among the people who've criticized the temporary nature of the jobs is former Black Panther Bob Law. As for the "opportunity to help shape it," Clarke should be asked what she means.

David Yassky

On Atlantic Yards, the current project is way too big. There’s no place for 60-story towers in Brooklyn. I believe the project will create traffic nightmares unless it’s [inaudible] back. I want to see a way to make this project go forward so we can realize the benefits that it does promise--good jobs, affordable housing—but without destroying the neighborhoods around Atlantic Yards. I’m the only candidate here who’s put out a specific traffic plan for how to deal with the traffic that will be created by that project.

I later asked Yassky's spokesman Evan Thies about that traffic plan, and was told it had been submitted last year to the Empire State Development Corporation as part of the response to the Draft Scope for an environmental impact statement. Thies didn't forward me to the document, but did respond to a follow-up question: "David has spoken about his ideas for traffic remediation repeatedly at forums and with voters."

Chris Owens

I’m opposed to the project. I’ve been opposed to the project. I don’t believe you jump on board a development that drops 18,000 people in an area—you jump on board and say, ‘Yes, it’s wonderful’--without asking the tough questions. Not one of my colleagues was asking tough questions a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, in fact, all of them, particularly David, were walking around supporting it unconditionally. It took place, David. So the reality is: they weren’t asking the tough questions when there was an opportunity to change it, and now they try to make it sound like we can change it.

The bottom line is, we either go forward or we don’t go forward. We have to shape it by providing our position. I was there opposing it, and I know that the impact on housing, regardless of the number of so-called affordable housing units that will come in, the impact on housing will be devastating. I had a meeting with a woman in Fannie Mae who said to me that she does not know how poor people are going to live in city in 15 years. The ripple effects of this project have yet to be felt and public housing residents… are next, it’s just a matter of time before folks who can’t afford to live here are pushed out… and if you say [inaudible] jobs, make it enforceable, because it’s not that.


I emailed Owens afterward to explain what he thinks about the promises of jobs in the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement, which others have also criticized as unenforceable. I was told yesterday that a response was in process; when I get it, I'll post it.

Owens takes on Yassky

Given the opportunity to ask a fellow candidate a questions, Owens, son of the retiring Congressman, pointed out that Yassky had announced support from the family of slain Council Member James Davis, which was later withdrawn, and a number of people who had signed the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement (CBA): Do you have any supporters in the African-American community who are not seeking a dollar from you or a major developer?

Yassky stayed cool: There are really good people, in every part of this district, people from one end to the other, people like the head of the residents’ association of Wyckoff Gardens—

I question her, Owens interjected. (She’s Charlene Nimmons, a signatory of the CBA.

—and the head of the residents’ association at the Van Dyke houses at the other.

I question her too, Owens continued, to laughter.

Yassky went on to cite support for his work on affordable housing and gun control, and how he attracts a range of volunteers.

In closing, Owens again took on Yassky:
We have people who talk about their commitment to stopping asthma, but they support a project that is going to increase the amounts of traffic in Brooklyn and is going to destroy air quality all across Eastern Brooklyn. We have people who say they want to support jobs, but I’m still the only person on this stage who wrote a piece demanding a specific assignment of jobs to people who live in Brooklyn, to people of color, but nobody is willing to support that, because they don’t want to set guidelines out for those businesses that might move into Forest City Ratner. So who’s standing up for the people? We talked about education, and we talk about how No Child Left Behind should be gutted. Well, that’s easy to say, but the reality is our education system is failing in large part because we support—we allow a war to continue to suck all of the life out of the education system….These guys in Washington play for blood. If you can’t stand up to a Ratner and some of the big donors, how can you stand up to Bush and the Republicans?

A response to John Atlas on ACORN & Atlantic Yards

In August 14 issue of City Limits Weekly, in a letter headlined YOU GOTTA GIVE IT TO ACORN, John Atlas, who's writing a book about ACORN, made some fundamental errors in his analysis of ACORN and its role in Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.

Atlas wrote that "ACORN received the commitment from Forest City to include 50% non-market affordable housing." That's incorrect, and ignores a far more complex sequence. The developer originally promised the public a 50/50 affordable/market split for all the housing in the project. By the time ACORN signed the Housing Memorandum of Understanding in May 2005, the 50/50 agreement applied only to the rental units.

Presto: condos

Once ACORN was on board, less than ten days later, Forest City Ratner announced plans to add thousands of market-rate condos. The projected number of condos, once 2800, has since been reduced to 2360. That means that 2250 of 6860 onsite Atlantic Yards apartments would be affordable. That's less than 33 percent.

(Forest City Ratner has promised to build 600 to 1000 offsite affordable for-sale units, though that promise is not memorialized in the documents being considered by the Empire State Development Corporation. That could lead to 38 to 41 percent affordable units in the entire project.)

Consultation with members?

Atlas wrote that ACORN consulted with its members, convening neighborhood meetings and conducting a telephone poll. "It is rare for low-income people to be part of a planning process for a large urban development," Atlas wrote.

What he didn't mention is that the telephone survey included leading questions likely drafted in consultation with the developer. One question--I've seen a copy of the survey--asked whether people would be more or less likely to support the plan "if the proposal created 15,000 construction jobs and 10,000 permanent jobs."

Did listeners know that construction jobs are calculated in job-years, so that meant 1500 jobs a year over ten years? Or that the permanent jobs were office jobs hardly available to most ACORN members--and that many of the jobs would be relocated from Manhattan rather than new? (Now, given that office space has been slashed dramatically, the developer projects about 2500 office jobs.)

Another question: "How important is it to you for the proposal to set aside at least half the units for affordable housing?" Of course, the number was never more than half, and now would be less.

More importantly, the concept of "affordable housing" was not clarified. Those polled were not asked about affordable housing accessible to those in your income bracket.

Finally, ACORN members were asked their opinion of the plan, "[h]aving heard that thousands of jobs could be created, families might not have to be displaced, and thousands of units of affordable housing could be built."

Affordable to whom?

By use of the general term "affordable," ACORN encouraged support for the plan by members who would not qualify for most of the subsidized units. One ACORN Nets Arena Survey that I have shows that 65 percent of respondents reported household income under $30,000, 11 percent $30,000-$50,000, 8 percent $50,000+, and 16 percent wouldn't answer.

However, much of the Atlantic Yards project would be closed to them. Only 225 of the units would be available to families earning under $28,000, with another 675 units available to families earning under $35,000. That means that families in ACORN's core constituency would be eligible for only 13 percent (900 of 6860) of the onsite units. Another 225 units would be available to families earning under $56,000.

After all, 900 (40 percent) of the affordable units would go to families earning at or above the Area Median Income (nearly $71,000), which itself is well over Brooklyn's median income. Note that earlier 900 of the 2250 affordable unites were promised to moderate-income people earning 50%-100% of the AMI; now that group would be eligible for 450 units.

The affordable housing information session held last month by Forest City Ratner and ACORN showed that many attendees were disappointed by the cost of the affordable housing, the delay before it would become available, and their chances for getting access to it, since 50 percent of the units would be reserved for people living in the three nearest community board districts.

Real housing for the real Brooklyn?

Atlas seems to be joining Daily News editorialists, who called the project "real housing for the real Brooklyn," asserting that it would benefit "families who languish for as long as eight years on waiting lists for public housing and Section 8 vouchers."

However, those waiting for Section 8 vouchers would be eligible for fewer than half of the affordable units, and those waiting for public housing would be eligible for about half of the affordable units. There's an argument for subsidizing housing for the middle-class, but ACORN wasn't telling its members that.

Also, if those off-site condos are built, it's likely they wouldn't be available to most ACORN members. The Housing Memorandum of Understanding states, "It is currently contemplated that a majority of the for-sale units will be sold to families in the upper affordable income tiers."

Half and half?

Atlas writes that "it is extraordinary for New York (or any other city) to have a development where half the residents would pay market-rate rents and live side by side with the other 50 percent," and that "poor and working-class people will have more affordable housing."

Again, he misreports the percentage, and suggests that the affordable housing would be designated for "poor and working-class people." Moreover, as the graphic shows, the rents for 900 of the 2250 affordable housing units would start at more than $2000 for a family of four. That's easily market-rate in the nearby area. (Click on graphic to enlarge)

Middle-class vs. the poor

Atlas observes shortsightedly that "This battle over Brooklyn captures the tensions between middle-class professionals who want their particular vision of the city to reign, and the poor who need the new jobs and housing that a big development project like Ratner's can provide."

It's hardly a particular "middle-class" vision to scrutinize what would be the densest residential community in the country, by a factor of two. It's a civic responsibility, especially when ACORN's Bertha Lewis says she must worry about housing, not issues of density or the environment.

Also, those criticizing and opposing the Atlantic Yards project are not monolithically middle-class. City Council Member Charles Barron, an ex-Black Panther who represents poor neighborhoods in eastern Brooklyn, has called the plan "instant gentrification." The group also includes longstanding affordable housing groups like the Fifth Avenue Committee and the Pratt Area Community Council. Scott Sommer, host of WBAI's Housing Notebook, has called Atlantic Yards "a boondoggle for rich developers."

In other words, the Atlantic Yards project has split progressives.

Community groups and corporations

Atlas concludes that, "In a conservative era, where government has substantially withdrawn from supporting the poor, community groups have no choice but to directly wrench concessions from private corporations."

That may be a trend, but there are significant differences between the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), signed by ACORN and seven other groups, and the CBAs developed in Los Angeles.

“As a matter of principle, groups in our network don’t take money from developers. We want to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest,” John Goldstein, National Program Director of The Partnership for Working Families, said. At least four of the signatories to the Atlantic Yards CBA have received money from the developer, and Forest City Ratner has refused to answer whether others have been paid.

ACORN's best deal?

Atlas is correct that there's been a failure of government. Because our elected officials have moved too slowly to cope with a real estate market distorted by subsidies for luxury housing, ACORN agreed to support an out-of-scale project, in which the Empire State Development Corporation would override local zoning and bypass the scrutiny of local elected officials. (Earlier this year, ACORN forcefully criticized the subsidies.)

In City Limits, ACORN's Lewis called Atlantic Yards "the best deal" available, and history will be the judge. But there are alternatives. The inclusionary zoning model, as demonstrated in the rezoning last year of the Williamsburg-Greenpoint waterfront, allows for greater density if affordable housing is added. That rezoning was negotiated by the City Council, while the Atlantic Yards density is what I've called a privately-negotiated affordable housing bonus.

The waterfront rezoning has been criticized for its scale and allowing off-site affordable housing. But the affordable housing would be permanent, rather than the guaranteed 30 years at the Atlantic Yards project.

And the income range reaches down to 20 percent of AMI, encompassing more ACORN members than the 30 percent figure for Atlantic Yards. And the income cap is 125 percent of AMI, not 160 percent, as would be with Atlantic Yards.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

East of 6th Avenue: 100 feet of (arbitrary) blight

Why exactly does Forest City Ratner need a 100-foot-wide piece of land--the first five houses (right) east of Sixth Avenue on Dean Street, and counterpart property behind it on Pacific Street and Sixth Avenue, just southeast of the planned arena? According to the Empire State Development Corporation’s Blight Study, the 22-acre project area “is characterized by blighted conditions that are unlikely to be removed without public action.”

But blight is a weak argument, because those five houses, only some of which exhibit characteristics of blight, aren't much different from their neighbors, as I discuss in detail below. Rather, this rectangle of land likely has more to do with the developer's plan for staging and parking.

There are a couple of vacant lots just around the corner on Sixth Avenue, but, as noted yesterday, there’s new construction down the block.And dominating the block between Sixth and Carlton avenues is the 170-unit Newswalk luxury condo complex, converted a few years ago by developer Shaya Boymelgreen, and conspicuously omitted--likely because of the costs of buyouts or condemnation--from the Atlantic Yards plan. (Click on all graphics to enlarge.)

Self-inflicted blight?

Given that construction, a main reason for alleged blight at the west end of the block--a vacant lot and property where development has yet to occure--may be the Atlantic Yards plan, which, after the December 2003 project announcement, froze development in the proposed footprint.

The blight designation seems arbitrary.For example, the large grayish building in the right of the photo, at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Pacific Street, is occupied and not considered blighted, yet it is included in the Atlantic Yards plan because it is needed to assemble the planned site.

However, the smaller buildings next to it east along Pacific Street, in the foreground, and the vacant lot further along (just before the Newswalk condos, whose water tower is visible in the top photo) are not part of the Atlantic Yards plan. And the vacant lot, by the ESDC's definition, is blighted. Apparently, the dimensions of those lots do not fit the developer’s plan.

What are the chances?

Despite the apparent dodginess of the blight claims, a legal challenge would be tough. Courts must "give an immense amount of discretion to government bodies that make a finding of blight," Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss said. He added that Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision allows for a broad reading of the Constitution's "public use" clause, and that state courts have interpreted eminent domain broadly.

Several states, though not New York, have in the past year tightened up their eminent domain laws. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, legislators in 27 states have passed bills regarding eminent domain. In several cases, they have redefined blight to emphasize detriment to public health or safety; in those cases, the new laws might exclude properties--as are included in the Atlantic Yards blight study--that are economically underperforming because of vacancies or failure to build to their development potential. In other cases, they've prohibited transfers to another private owner, rather than a government entity.

Is it relevant that the Atlantic Yards plan doesn't include some nearby parcels that are blighted under the ESDC's definition. Reiss said that wouldn't make for a legal challenge: "I don't think that you could fault an exercise of eminent domain for failing to clear all of the blight in a community."

Arena outline?

The ESDC, in the Project Description chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, explains the process of site selection, hearkening back to a 1974 city-prepared preliminary feasibility study for a Brooklyn Sports Complex. One of several sites considered was "the site currently being proposed for the Atlantic Yards Arena." (At right, the outline of the Atlantic Yards plan, with designations of blight.)

But the arena site is not the project site, since 30+ years ago no developer was planning 16 towers along with the sports facility:
In the 1974 report, the arena site extended from the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues eastward along Atlantic Avenue to Carlton Avenue. The site extended southward along Flatbush Avenue to Dean Street, continued eastward to 6th Avenue, then northward to Pacific Street and eastward to Carlton Avenue. In short, the site encompassed the arena block and Block 1120. (Block 1120 is the center block of the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard. See graphic outlined in red.)

Or, in other words, it excluded the entire eastern third of the site, between Atlantic Avenue and Dean Street, and Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues. And it excluded that 100 feet of property east of Sixth Avenue between Dean and Pacific streets, as well as Site 5, at the west end below Flatbush Avenue.

Why that 100 feet?

So why does Forest City Ratner need that 100-foot plot of land just east of Sixth Avenue? (The developer, by the way, has purchased only one of the eight properties.) The construction sequence planned for the project offers a hint.

The site, just across from the arena block, would be used for staging and temporary parking for years, and then be the location for the last building constructed, by 2016. In other words, the site is needed more for the construction project than to remove blight.

The Blight Study blames the railyards for blight, but also contends:
However, an equally important reason for the continued blight is that the project site has historically been held under the ownership of multiple parties, and this diversity of ownership has hindered site assemblage that is necessary for redevelopment.

Defining blight

The Blight Study contends that 51 of the 73 parcels on the project site (70 percent) exhibit one or more blight characteristics, including: buildings or lots that exhibit signs of significant physical deterioration, buildings that are at least 50 percent vacant, lots that are built to 60 percent or less of their allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under current zoning; and vacant lots. (Those lots in color are considered blighted.)

Note that, of the parcels on the block at issue, two small empty lots and one of the six buildings (five houses + industrial building) do not fulfill their development potential, which would be buildings, depending on the footprint, of perhaps three to six stories. The tower that Forest City Ratner plans for the site, known as Building 15, would be 272 feet.

Sixth and Pacific

Regarding Block 1128, the study states:
The westernmost 100 feet of Block 1128 lie within the project site and are occupied by six buildings and an empty lot. At the corner of Pacific Street and 6th Avenue is a three-story, gray stuccoed warehouse building (lot 4) with wire mesh security screens covering the Pacific Street windows, and rolling metal security screens covering the building’s loading docks and entrances, many of which have graffiti.
(As noted, the two lower-rise buildings next to the three-story building at the corner are excluded, as are the adjacent vacant lot and Newswalk condos.)

It goes into detail: Lot 4 is occupied by two attached three story commercial buildings, and though the buildings have some graffiti and rusted metal grating, as well as 24 open building code violations dating from 1993 to 2004, they contain several functioning small businesses and are not considered blighted.

The houses on Dean

The study states:
The Dean Street portion of Block 1128 is occupied by five two- and three-story residential buildings.

As for those houses, Lot 85, the easternmost that would be taken, is in good shape, and occupied, but because the 1200 square foot building uses less than 60 percent of the allowable square footage, it’s considered blighted. (Then again, so would be the Atlantic Center mall.)

Lot 86, the three-story house next door, is occupied and in good shape, and thus not blighted. Lot 87, the three-story house in the middle of the five, uses 72 percent of the parcel’s development potential, but has 17 open building code violations issued between 1993 and 2005 and contains two vacant residential units—indications of blight.

Lot 88, the second from the corner, contains a three-story house, now owned by Forest City Ratner. While the building is in good shape and uses 91 percent of its development potential, it was delivered vacant and is thus blighted, though the ground floor unit is being temporarily rented.

Lot 89, the building at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Dean Street, is occupied by a three-story building with ground floor commercial space; it uses all of its development potential. The residential units are occupied and the commercial space is vacant, though leased.

While it has a cracked sidewalk and graffiti, and five five open building code violations, that doesn't rise to the level of blight. Note that the graffiti that the ESDC captured in a photo hardly rates as alarming by New York standards.

Vacant lots

The study states:
The mid-block area along 6th Avenue (lots 2 and 3) is overgrown with weeds, enclosed by a chain-link fence, and occupied by several parked cars, many of which appear to be abandoned.
(Note: the ESDC meant to identify lots 1 and 2, not 2 and 3)

They are described as partially paved, and appear to be used for parking and to store broken down automobiles.

Note that a photo I took last Wednesday (right) suggests that there are fewer automobiles, with just one visible in the back right of the lot.

Lack of potential?

Not only are they vacant, but they’re not used to fulfill their development potential. Thus, they’re blighted—except that their owner is marketing them for $2.25 million.

As noted, the properties have been billed as being near but not within the Atlantic Yards project. One explanation may be that the owner is testing the market to establish a value for negotiation with the developer or the ESDC.

A little bit blighted?

Just like there's no way to be a little bit pregnant, there's apparently no way, at least under the ESDC's definition, to be a little bit blighted. Most of the properties exhibit few if any blight characteristics, but if they exhibit some, they're blighted. And, as noted, the most blighted properties--the empty lots--likely could be sold for a lucrative development.

Does one blight characteristic make a property blighted? It's unclear. Law professor Reiss said that he "failed to find a single reported case that discusses the statutory definition of blighted area, making me think that this is not a heavily litigated issue for those who oppose condemnations."

The statutory definition is vague. It comes in Article 18-C of the MUNICIPAL REDEVELOPMENT LAW, section 970-C:)
a) "Blighted area" means an area within a municipality in which one or more of the following conditions exist: (i) a predominance of buildings and structures which are deteriorated or unfit or unsafe for use or occupancy; or (ii) a predominance of economically unproductive lands, buildings or structures, the redevelopment of which is needed to prevent further deterioration which would jeopardize the economic well being of the people.

This raises a question: do "economically unproductive" properties by definition require redevelopment? If not, what's the test to examine whether "further deterioration" would jeopardize the public well-being?

Blight chart for Block 1128

(Remember, FAR = Floor Area Ratio, or the measure of square footage allowed for the plot.)

Significant physical deteriorationAt least 50% vacantLots at <60%>Vacant lots
Lot 1MAYBEYESYESYESBLIGHTED
Lot 2MAYBEYESYESYESBLIGHTED
Lot 4NONONONONOT BLIGHTED
Lot 85NONOYESNOBLIGHTED
Lot 86NONONONONOT BLIGHTED
Lot 87NOYESNONOBLIGHTED
Lot 88NOYESNONOBLIGHTED
Lot 89NONONONONOT BLIGHTED


What next?

The New York State Bar Association's Special Task Force on Eminent Domain issued a report in March, recommending, among other things, that the 30-day statute of limitations for judicial review of eminent domain determinations should be expanded, since it gives property owners too little time to respond. While the task force recommended that eminent domain not be restricted to certain public projects, it called for a temporary state commission to examine eminent domain.

Could it be that state law gets reformed after the Atlantic Yards project moves forward?

Two maps of blight: what a difference a railyard makes

The blight map compiled by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) suggests a nearly unbroken skein of blight on the proposed 22-acre Atlantic Yards footprint, as indicated by the map at right. According to the ESDC's Blight Study, the 22-acre project area “is characterized by blighted conditions that are unlikely to be removed without public action.”

The study states that, in the blocks beyond the railyards, "51 of the 73 parcels on the project site (70 percent) exhibit one or more blight characteristics, including: buildings or lots that exhibit signs of significant physical deterioration, buildings that are at least 50 percent vacant, lots that are built to 60 percent or less of their allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under current zoning; and vacant lots."

Much of that can be challenged, as I've noted, which means some of the dark cross-hatching could be removed from the map.

The railyard as villain?

But what about the railyard? The study states, "This continued blight is due in part to the presence of the active, but below-grade open rail yard that creates a significant visual and physical gap in the urban landscape of the Atlantic Terminal area and creates a sense of desolation on the project site."

So, imagine what the blight map would look like if it began from the assumption that the railyard was not, in fact blighted.

Last month, on the Brian Lehrer Show, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn attorney Jeff Baker disputed the ESDC's determination:
They’re counting as an element of blight, the Vanderbilt Yard railyard. I’m not sure it qualifies as blight; it’s an active use by the MTA and LIRR… There’s been no effort by any state or city authority for at least the last 30 years to develop it. It could also be considered an asset.

Monday, August 14, 2006

AY vs. waterfront rezoning: affordable housing for 30 years or in perpetuity

How good a deal is the affordable housing component of the Atlantic Yards project? The difference is in the details.

For the Atlantic Yards project, negotiated by Forest City Ratner and ACORN, the Community Benefits Agreement says (p. 24) that the affordable housing program would be "consistent with any applicable governmental programs," not necessarily participating in them.

Forest City Ratner and ACORN officials have said the units would be rent-stabilized, but that promise is not in writing.

Then again, the project would gain from city and state subsidy programs, so participation in rent stabilization may be required. That should be publicly clarified.

30 years or longer?

And there's a time limit. According to the CBA (p. 24), units must remain affordable "for a period of 30 years after such unit is first placed in service."

That seems contradicted by some other statements. According to a May 2005 Brooklyn Papers article, ACORN's Bertha Lewis said it “equally important that there is a guarantee that this housing is permanently affordable.” And HPD spokeswoman Carol Abrams, who estimated that the mortgages would last 30 years, said that units “would be subject to whatever the rent stabilization rules” are after that.

It's better upriver

The 30-year limit is not atypical, but better deals have been negotiated. In the Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning (p. 7), the Inclusionary Housing program requires:
• Registering units into rent stabilization
• Ensuring that rents will be affordable in perpetuity and that future occupants meet maximum income guidelines

The Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning has been criticized for allowing out-of-scale buildings and for affordable housing to be built offsite. But it also shows that public negotiations can lead to permanent affordable housing and guaranteed participation in government rent regulation.

The "housing will go to those that need it the most"? A closer look

So what's "affordable housing," anyway? It means that people pay 30 percent of their income in rent, according to the federal department of Housing and Urban Development.

Affordable housing can serve a variety of groups: low-income, moderate-income and middle-income, even though supporters of the Atlantic Yards project, like Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, have argued, "The jobs and the housing will go to those that need it the most."

The affordable housing plan for the Atlantic Yards project would provide 2250 affordable rentals (of 4500 rentals, plus 2360 market-rate condos), but only about 1125 apartments, half the affordable rentals, would serve those currently waiting for public housing or Section 8 vouchers. That's 16.4 percent of 6860 units.

That's because the plan is better described as a 50/30/20 mixed-income program, with 50 percent of the rentals at market rates, 30 percent for middle- and moderate-income renters, and 20 percent for low-income renters. After all, some 900 of the affordable units would rent for more than $2000 for a four-person family.

"Affordable"=low-income?

Indeed, the term "affordable" was initially used to describe only the lower-income housing, as noted in the accompanying graphic published in a 2/3/06 article from Courier-Life chain. (The graphic, apparently from Forest City Ratner, is obsolete, because it refers to only 4,500 total units, and also because it uses the seemingly-retired "Jobs, Housing, & Hoops" slogan.) The three categories track the city Housing Development Corporation’s 50/30/20 Mixed-Income program, from which the Atlantic Yards project would gain subsidies.

Indeed, at a 5/4/04 City Council hearing, FCR VP Jim Stuckey described the planned project as “50% market, 30% middle-income, 20% affordable.” Now he and others are using the term "affordable" more broadly. It's not inaccurate, but many people don't realize the range that the concept encompasses.

Affordable under $50,000?

At the 5/4/04 hearing of the City Council Economic Development Committee, there seemed to be agreement that affordable housing--meaning lower-income housing--should go to families earning below $50,000. (Click on Forest City Ratner's recently-issued rent chart to enlarge.)

James Sanders, chair of the Council's Economic Development Committee, said:
I would think a lot of us would agree, you are talking 20, 30, 40 thousand in annual income for a family, that is genuinely what we are looking for in the way of affordable housing. And if you are talking about moderate-income, you know, perhaps 50, 60, 70 something like that.

Borough President Marty Markowitz, a former tenant advocate, said:
Well to me affordable housing, middle-income housing is somewhere in the area of 50 to 80 thousand dollars, affordable housing is below that.

Housing cap should be lower

What should be the maximum income for a family eligible for subsidized housing in the Atlantic Yards project? At City Council hearings, Forest City Ratner and ACORN representatives contrasted the Atlantic Yards cap, which then was about $100,000 for a family of four, with affordable housing programs that have income limits as high as $140,000. (Note that the AY cap, according to the graphic at top, now would be above $113,000.)

But the appropriate contrast is the city’s 50/30/20 program, which then had a typical cap of about $110,000. In other words, Atlantic Yards plan offered only a slight improvement in terms of the cap.

When asked for ballpark figures regarding the income limit for affordable housing, however, politicians didn't think the cap should be as high as that eventually negotiated. At a City Council hearing, Markowitz suggested $80,000, while Sanders suggested $90,000.

Stuckey points lower

Council Member Bill DeBlasio noted:
And someone said that that figure could be upwards of 150,000 as an annual income for a family, on the high end of your moderate figure. I have a problem with that…

FCR’s Stuckey responded:
[I]f you are earning $140,000 that that is not considered to be an affordable housing unit or that you created. But if you have created a unit where somebody could, or a family could be earning 30, 40, or 50 thousand dollars, that that is very well an affordable unit.

Stuckey was leaving out a large percentage of the affordable units, but this was before the time that Forest City Ratner was consistently terming all the subsidized rentals "affordable." As initially projected, only a small majority (60% of 2,250, or 1,350) of the subsidized apartments would have been available to families earning $50,000 or less. Now, as I recently pointed out, fewer than half the units would be available to those families.

Actually, an improvement

Quizzed by City Council Member Charles Barron, FCR’s Stuckey tried to explain modifications of the subsidized component of the 50/30/20 program:
I think that we have an opportunity here today to create housing that goes beyond the program that exists today, so that we can reach deeper in to where the housing is really needed.

Stuckey seemed to be pointing to not only a lower cap but a broader range of incomes within the category of subsidized housing. Indeed, many affordable housing programs target only the poor or the relatively well-off, leaving a gap for those families earning 50%-100% of the Area Median Income, or AMI.

In the Atlantic Yards project, originally 900 of the 2250 affordable apartments were targeted to moderate-income people earning 50%-100% of the AMI.

That number has shrunk and, while the effort to reach moderate-income people still represents progress, the distribution of affordable rentals has skewed somewhat toward those better off. Now, only 450 units would go to people in that moderate-income category, with 450 additional units going to those earning above the AMI. Thus, some 40% of the units in the affordable allotment would have relatively high rent; a family of four would pay more than than $2000 a month.

Barron grills Markowitz

At the 5/26/05 hearing of the City Council Economic Development Committee, held a week after the Housing MOU was announced, City Council Member Charles Barron (right) grilled Markowitz. Barron argued that the project was not truly affordable, would foster gentrification, and was not as good as could have been negotiated with proper oversight.

Barron: The housing. Fifty percent is luxury, correct?

Markowitz: Market rate.

Barron: Market rate. That we can't afford.

Markowitz: Right. That's correct.

Barron: That we can't afford.

Markowitz: Yours truly as well.

Barron: That's right. Truly. Truly. Thirty percent moderate, right?

Markowitz: Moderate middle.

Barron: Moderate middle. Most of us can't afford that either.

Markowitz: That's not true.

Barron: Most of us can't. You can say not that's true all you want.

Markowitz (right): I know you can afford it.

Instant gentrification?

Barron: That's 80 percent. Eighty percent. Eighty percent. It's not about me and it's not about you, it's about the people. Eighty percent of our people who are in low-income brackets cannot afford this housing coming in. Twenty percent will be able to afford it. That's the reality. So, when you all say 50 percent affordable housing, that's not true. It is 20 percent low-income, and 80 percent is moderate to high. It's a market rate, cute little term. But 80 percent we can't afford. This is going to be instant gentrification. That community has already been gentrified. And with this proposal it will be instant gentrification. But you don't care about that because the Nets are coming. You gotta play ball. And let me tell you something else, and I'll let you --

Markowitz: I'll wait until you ask me a question, Councilman.

Was this the best way?

Barron: Yes. So those...You know we will, once you say jobs and affordable housing to us, the process goes out the window, and that's my concern here, that I think we could have gotten, even though you got a sweetheart deal you might think from Ratner, we could have done better if he had proper oversight, if we had the power over remapping, rezoning, upzoning, if he had to come through a body with power, that we would do better than what is happening now.

Markowitz: By the way, Council member, as much as those that need housing that make $20,000 a year and $30,000 a year, let me tell you also there are people that have worked for the City of New York that are teachers, firefighters, cops, regular civil service workers, that may earn 45, 50,000 dollars a year that are in dire need of housing too…. The jobs and the housing will go to those that need it the most.
(Emphasis added)

As noted, fewer than half of the affordable rental units would go to families earning $50,000 a year or less. A family with two wage-earning civil servants, with a total income over $100,000, would qualify near the top of the affordable housing category.

In New York these days, such families still face money struggles. But no one at the City Council hearings seemed eager to support subsidies for families with six-figure incomes.

$2.25M worth of blight? Two lots for sale (?) on 6th Ave. in proposed footprint

For some mental whiplash regarding the issue of blight, check out conflicting descriptions of two small lots, approximately 70' x 40' combined, on 6th Avenue in Prospect Heights, between Dean and Pacific streets.

The sunnier description comes from real estate brokers Massey-Knakal, whose advertisement states:
This prime development site of approximately 2520 square feet is situated on 6th Avenue between Dean and Pacific streets. This residential development site allows for approximately 5,880 square feet. This site is located half a block from Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project. This is a great residential development opportunity.
(Emphasis added)

The price tag : $2.25 million.

The location is off

The site, however, would not be located half a block from the Atlantic Yards project, it would be within the project footprint. When I pointed that out to broker Chad Castle of Massey-Knakal last Thursday, he responded that they would update the listing. (It hasn't been updated yet.) The property, he said, has been on the market "for a few months."

Note that the property has not been purchased by Forest City Ratner. That suggests that the owner may still be in negotiations with the developer—or that the lots would be subject to condemnation by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), which must pay fair compensation.

Is the ad simply an error? Or, more likely, is the sales effort an attempt to test the value of the property--which could aid in negotiations?

Lots of potential

Still, empty lots in that area do have valuable development potential. A block east, on the southeast corner of Dean Street and Carlton Avenue, a new residential building is under construction on a 2000-square-foot site.

Up the block from the new construction at Dean Street and Carlton Avenue, a row house is being built on a 1600-square-foot lot on Carlton one building below Pacific Street (below, behind trees).

Though both new buildings would be across the street from the Atlantic Yards project, the potential construction nearby has not deterred development in the hot real estate market. The project excludes most of Dean Street between 6th and Carlton avenues; a Village Voice article suggested that it would've been too expensive to buy out the condo owners in the luxury Newswalk building, which dominates the block.

Challenging the blight study

These new developments challenge the opening sentence of the ESDC's blight study:
This report finds that the 22-acre area proposed for the Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project (“project site”) is characterized by blighted conditions that are unlikely to be removed without public action.

But it's blighted

To the ESDC, which conducted a blight study, the lots on Sixth Avenue represent a textbook definition of blight. The study states, in part:
Both properties are small, vacant, irregularly shaped lots. They are partially paved, and appear to be used for parking and to store broken down automobiles
Unsanitary and Unsafe Conditions
As shown in Photograph B, lots 1 and 2 are surrounded by a chain-link fence topped with barbed wire.
Weeds grow on both the inside and outside of the fence. The weeds on the outside of the fence encroach onto the sidewalk. As shown in Photograph C, the lots themselves are partially paved with weeds growing in unpaved areas and through cracks in the pavement. The sidewalk bordering lots 1 and 2 is cracked in many places, and weeds grow along the curb and through some of the sidewalk cracks.
Underutilization
As indicated above, lots 1 and 2 are in R6B and a C4-4A zoning districts, respectively. Current zoning permits 1,800 zsf to be built on the 900 sf lot 1 and 8,160 zsf to be built on the 2,040 sf lot 2. The lots are currently vacant, utilizing none of this development potential.


Current conditions

While these properties are underutilized, it's hardly clear that public action is needed. The real estate listing, along with the examples of market-rate development down the block, suggests that a blight determination is not required to spur development--only the Atlantic Yards development, which would lead to a tower (No. 15) of 272 feet, some five to seven times taller than current zoning allows.

Also, the photographs and description portray the lots in a less flattering light than than their current condition. While the study states that the lots appear to be used to “store broken down automobiles,” and the pictures do back that up, when I stopped by last Wednesday morning, there was only one car inside the fence, on the right side of the photo, near the back of a building.

Atlantic Yards: Why the rush?

My column in today's Metro newspaper:
The Atlantic Yards project to build an arena and 16 towers would not only be the largest development in Brooklyn’s history, but it has generated a Draft Environmental Impact Statement of epic length and complexity. That’s why both supporters and critics of the project have urged the Empire State Development Corporation, the state agency that must approve the project, to provide more time for review.

More than 2-1/2 years after the project was announced, the ESDC on July 18 issued the DEIS and associated documents, scheduling a public hearing on Aug. 23. Not only would many people be away at the end of the month, but that’s simply not enough time for a serious review. The ESDC plans a follow-up forum on Sept. 12, which also happens to be the date of the primary election, when public and media attention will be elsewhere.

A quick look at the documents suggests several questionable claims. Would the addition of more than 15,000 new residents — in what would be the densest residential community in the country — and thousands of arena-goers strain subway service?

The DEIS says no, even though rush-hour riders through the Atlantic Avenue/Pacific Street complex might beg to differ. The state claims that the proposed 22-acre site is blighted, but blight is a fuzzy concept. One blight characteristic: if a building uses less than 60 percent of its allowable square footage under current zoning. By that measure, many parts of the city are blighted.

The DEIS declares that the project wouldn’t displace poorer Brooklynites because, among other things, the percentage of affordable rental units in the project would be similar to the existing percentage of affordable rentals nearby. But “affordable” simply means that people pay 30 percent of their incomes in rent, and the rents at Atlantic Yards would be higher than those nearby.

Traffic congestion is probably the biggest community concern, and developer Forest City Ratner has proposed some innovative solutions. Still, the developer-friendly DEIS declares some problems “unmitigatable,” a red flag that demands more scrutiny.

City Council Member Letitia James, a project opponent, and Assemblyman Roger Green, a project supporter, both represent the Prospect Heights area where Atlantic Yards would be built and have called for more time. So have gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. So has the Municipal Art Society, a respected voice on planning issues, and the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, a coalition that’s been scrambling to coordinate a detailed response.

Because Mayor Mike Bloomberg allowed Atlantic Yards to proceed under the auspices of the state agency, which would override local zoning, there’s no meaningful city oversight for the project. The two-month review schedule — is it so Gov. George Pataki can preside over a groundbreaking before he leaves office? — detracts further from democratic legitimacy. Even the smaller Yankee Stadium project — albeit under the city’s jurisdiction — got a four-month review.

The Atlantic Yards project, if built, would have an enormous impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and strong ripple effects on the borough and city. It deserves a brake.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Hudson Yards project got three months for review

Here's another example in which the enviornmental review process for a large project in New York got more time than the Atlantic Yards project, and avoided a late summer hearing. As with the Yankees project mentioned yesterday, the Hudson Yards project proceeded under the auspices of New York City, rather than the Empire State Development Corporation.

Here's part of the timeline:
June 21, 2004: Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS)
September 23, 2004: Public Hearing on the DGEIS held by the City Planning Commission and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in conjunction with the ULURP process
Ten days later: Close of public comment period

That's more than three months, as opposed to 66 days for the Atlantic Yards project.

Magazine calls AY "a defining moment" in NYC development politics

An article in the August issue of the Next American City, a quarterly magazine that addresses "socially and environmentally sustainable economic growth," is headlined A New Dynamic: Atlantic Yards Challenges Brooklyn Progressive Politics.

While there's not much new for Atlantic Yards-watchers, and some information is dated or inaccurate (the project now would be 6860 apartments, not 7300, and Atlantic Avenue divides Prospect Heights and Fort Greene rather than serves as a Prospect Heights thoroughfare), the article does point out to a national audience how the project has fractured some typical community alliances, notably among progressives. The article cites criticism of the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) but not the important template established in Los Angeles, where CBA signatories, unlike in Brooklyn, agree not to accept money from a developer.

Rapid gentrification

The article states:
Gentrification of Brooklyn has been so rapid that those left behind seek any intervention that promises economic relief....“The project per se won’t be displacing the long-term residents of the area,” observes Mafruza Khan, Associate Director of the Pratt Center for Community Development. Khan explains that “demographic shifts have already occurred” in Prospect Heights: since 1980, more affluent whites have moved into what was a predominantly working-class African-American community. If approved as planned, the biggest impact of Atlantic Yards will be to radically change the scale of development considered appropriate in Brooklyn.

The DEIS also points to ongoing gentrification, but there's also evidence that the Atlantic Yards project would accelerate rising rents.

A defining moment

The article points to the relatively concentrated benefits yet broader social costs:
Because of the wide scope and high profile of Atlantic Yards, the project is sure to be a defining moment in New York City development politics. If successful, Forest City Ratner will have generated a road map for future developers: get a group of powerful elected officials on your side, choose a group of disempowered, but vocal, supporters in the community, and make an unenforceable promise to provide a few goods that the public sector has failed to deliver, such as community facilities or affordable housing. Because the public review process for Atlantic Yards is so limited and vague, a handful of organizations have negotiated on behalf of the community as a whole. Yet the entire community must bear the impacts on public services and infrastructure of such a large-scale project.

And it concludes by pointing to the constrained political process:
Can Forest City Ratner obtain political approval with a partial, but vocal, segment of the community on its side? This may hinge on whether opponents can cultivate allies in the State Capitol, where they are making steady, but limited headway. Whatever happens, it is sure to be controversial and the outcome will affect the development debate in the city for decades.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Gubernatorial frontrunner Spitzer likes AY, but needs a primer

So what does frontrunning Democratic gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer think of the Atlantic Yards project? He likes it, he tells the Courier-Life chain this week, but his comments show he doesn't understand it too well.

An excerpt from the newspaper's interview, headlined Exclusive Courier Interview With Eliot Spitzer:
Q. You recently wrote a letter to the Empire State Development Corporation in favor of extending the public hearing date for the Atlantic Yards DEIS. Do you still basically agree with the plan and how would you work with more developers to ensure more affordable housing gets built in the Downtown Brooklyn area?

A. A couple of quick observations. I have not been involved in the approval process.
I conceptually am in favor of development of that site. I think building the arena is good for Brooklyn. It’s good for the city. We want to maximize the amount of affordable housing we get. We want to make sure the developments are scaled appropriately for the community and I’ve been generally supportive of the project, leaving it to those who have been involved to determine whether the size is increased or decreased or shifted one way or another based upon the zoning and based upon the capacity of the community to absorb additional people.
So lest anybody think I’m changing my position, I am not. I’ve always been in favor of development there. I think the plan that is on the table is basically a good one, but should be reviewed methodically and carefully, which is why I favor giving it the extra 30 days so the review can be done properly.
I don’t like to rush those decisions, but let’s make some decisions, get agreement and then get it moving because it’s better to have the housing and the arena than a hole in the ground.

(Emphases added)

A closer look

Maximize the amount of affordable housing? If the city and state wanted to maximize the amount of affordable housing, wouldn't they have issued an RFP (request for proposals) for such a project? And would they have encouraged the building of the most expensive arena ever?

Scaled appropriately? Does Spitzer know that, at the current scale, Atlantic Yards would be the densest residential development, by a factor of two, in the country?

Those who have been involved? The only people involved who can decide are the unelected ESDC, with an assist from the Mayor's office, and then the Public Authorities Control Board, which is controlled by Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and the governor. The City Council and local community boards are bypassed.

Remember, New York magazine called it an "absolute absence of democracy."

Based upon the zoning? The ESDC plans to override local zoning.

A hole in the ground? Lest we forget, the railyards would be about 8.3 acres of a 22-acre project. The city never talked to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) about putting out an RFP to build over the railyards.

Double standards

Spitzer thinks "the [AY] plan that is on the table is basically a good one, but should be reviewed methodically and carefully."

Contrast that with his take on the city's plans to bid on the MTA's Hudson Yards, build a platform, and then open up the property to proposals. Spitzer said:
The city has proposed that it acquire the West Side Rail Yards from the MTA for $500 million. This is an amount grossly under market value.
The city seeks to fast track this purchase and hopes to have the sale approved at the MTA's July board meeting. Any sale of an asset of this magnitude, size, and value must only be approved after a process that is open, transparent, and provides an opportunity for public bidding.


Two elements would be part of a healthy public process:
--a fair and openly-arrived at price for the railyards
--an open process for the city to seek proposals for the property

Regarding the Hudson Yards, Spitzer believes that the price isn't fair, so even though the city wants an open process, he's calling for a closer look.

Regarding the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard, a key element of the Atlantic Yards project, Spitzer apparently hasn't examined whether the price was fair or whether an open process might have led to a better proposal.

Perhaps that's because he thinks the site is a hole in the ground. It's time for him to get beyond generalizations and get up to speed on what would be the biggest project in Brooklyn's history.

Yankee Stadium project got twice the time Atlantic Yards has for review

So how much time is appropriate for concerned parties to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and other documents released regarding the Atlantic Yards project? The minimum is 30 days, but larger projects get a longer review period.

For Atlantic Yards, the time frame is 66 days, The schedule has been defended by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and Borough President Marty Markowitz.

Frontrunning gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer and several local elected officials have called for 30 more days. The Municipal Art Society has advocated "significantly increasing" the time for comments.

The Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods has called for an additional 60 days, pointing out that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement "itself is over 2000 pages and the General Project plan is in excess of 1000 pages."

Four months for the Yankees

Is there any precedent for a four-month review period? Perhaps not from the ESDC, but other agencies that have examined major projects have granted more time.

For example, the city's Yankee Stadium project received a nearly four-month review, as the notice, issued on 9/23/05, stated that "Written comments... will be accepted by the NYCDPR [NYC Department of Parks and Recreation] until the 10th calendar day following the close of the public hearing."

The public hearing was held on 1/11/06, so the comment period closed 1/21/06, a stretch of nearly four months. And the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which incorporated additions to the DEIS, was "only" 730 pages long.

Politics and pragmatism

So there is a precedent. But politics may trump precedent; the sooner the project is approved, the more likely groundbreaking may occur under the administration of Gov. George Pataki, rather than his successor, likely Spitzer.

Then again, the inevitable lawsuits regarding this project could delay the approval process whether or not the hearing proceeds on August 23 and the comment period closes September 22.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Landlord says Ratner has "unclean hands" in lease dispute

Are Bruce Ratner, Brooklyn’s leading developer, and Shaya Boymelgreen, another bigfoot, collaborating to deceive Henry Weinstein, a smaller player who leased Boymelgreen some key properties within the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint? That’s what Weinstein charges in court papers, citing a curiously misaddressed letter, even as Boymelgreen claims that Weinstein is at fault.

It’s unclear how much difference the dispute might make in the long run, since the state could still use eminent domain to take the properties whether or not Ratner controlled the lease. But the transfer of the lease has been used to portray publicly that Forest City Ratner “controls” Weinstein’s property, Lots 5, 6 & 13 on the map; the asterixes hint at the dispute. (And should Forest City Ratner control the lease, that would mean one less commercial lease to be canceled in an eminent domain proceeding.)

Boymelgreen, in his legal complaint, argues that Weinstein is using the legal fight to shore up his negotiating position with Ratner, while Weinstein responds that the collusion would diminish the value of his property in anticipation of a buyout or condemnations.

Weinstein believes that FCR’s behavior disqualifies the developer from the project. “When people don’t agree, he’s just running them over,” he said on August 3 at the Community Board 8 hearing on Atlantic Yards. “A private developer with unclean hands should not be allowed to benefit” from the use of eminent domain.

Weinstein's legal complaint charges that FCR's Jim Stuckey last year "made a verbal offer to buy defendants' properties--which FCRC refused to confirm in writing--coupled with the threat that, if defendants did not reach an agreement with FCRC, then the ESDC would take defendants' proeprties by eminent domain."

The properties at stake

Companies controlled by Weinstein own a six-story yellow former manufacturing building at 752-766 Pacific Street, as well as two adjacent lots, used as a parking lot. The building, formerly a typewriter ribbon and carbon paper manufacturer, looks sound, and it is, though Weinstein and his tenant Boymelgreen have made several repairs to the building.

Boymelgreen wants the state Supreme Court to compel Weinstein to consent to the assignment of the lease of those properties to Forest City Ratner. FCR has for now leased back the properties for Boymelgreen's use, and Boymelgreen operates offices in the top two floors.

The leases between Weinstein and Boymelgreen, for just under 49 years, were signed in October 1999, long before the Atlantic Yards plan was contemplated, and about six months after Boymelgreen bought the nearby former Daily News printing plant, which was subsequently converted to the Newswalk building of luxury condos.

Who’s reasonable?

The leases provide that the tenants may assign their leases with the consents of the landlord, which “shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.” At issue is whether Weinstein has unreasonably withheld the lease. (At right, outdated photo of grass-filled parking lot from the ESDC's blight study.)

Around 3/31/05, Boymelgreen and Ratner agreed on a one-year option for Ratner to acquire Boymelgreen’s lease. (That was about the same time that Boymelgreen agreed to sell two nearby properties to Ratner for $44 million.) On 2/16/06, they asked Weinstein by letter to consent to the agreement, according to Boymelgreen’s complaint. Weinstein didn’t reply, so on 3/2/06, two weeks later, they closed the transaction.

But Weinstein says Boymelgreen’s sequence is fishy. In his legal filing, Weinstein says that, back in 2000, he had given Boymelgreen an address on Long Island, rather than Brooklyn, for all business mail, and Boymelgreen had been sending rent to the correct address. However, the lease request was mailed to Weinstein's outdated Brooklyn address. (While the Secretary of State’s Corporations Division does list a Brooklyn address for Weinstein, the official address for mail is on Long Island.)

The dispute builds

According to Boymelgreen’s complaint, Weinstein’s lawyer questioned the assignments in a letter dated 3/21/06, and Ratner’s lawyer responded with a letter dated 5/1/06. That letter, according to Boymelgreen’s document, provided requested financial information about Ratner’s company. (At right, photo of parking lot taken yesterday.)

In court papers served on 5/9/06, Weinstein, according to Boymelgreen, for the first time disclosed that the 2/16/06 letter had been sent to the wrong address. On 6/9/06, Weinstein sent a letter saying he wouldn’t consent to the lease transfer.

It’s about the money

The only reason for Weinstein to withhold consent, Boymelgreen charges, is to increase the value of his interest in negotiation with FCR or in contemplation of use of eminent domain by the ESDC.

But Weinstein responds that his posture is reasonable, for a number of reasons, including "a means concocted by plaintiffs and Ratner to diminish defendants' property value in anticipation of a buyout or condemnation, which had already been secretly consummated almost a year before defendants' consent was sought." In the legal filing, he points out that the February letter did not disclose that Ratner agreed to lease back the properties to Boymelgreen for 36 months.

Boymelgreen contends that Weinstein is not acting in good faith, because in October 2005 he stated at the ESDC’s scoping hearing that he was aware of Ratner’s option. (Weinstein identified a “wholly false statement” that Ratner controlled three properties he owned.)

But Weinstein says no details were provided for months after that, and alleges more chicanery. In the answer filed in response to Boymelgreen's complaint, Weinstein charges that, in February 2006, Boymelgreen had misrepresented the fact that he had signed a deal with Ratner a year earlier, since “proposed” assignment agreements were unsigned with a 2006 date, suggesting that they had not yet been consummated, and that they did not disclose that Ratner had already agreed to lease back the properties to Boymelgreen.

Weinstein, having filed the most recent legal documents, has the last word for now, but Boymelgreen will respond, in court at least, in a few weeks.

Lawyers for Boymelgreen and Ratner wouldn't comment, according to the Brooklyn Papers (whose article misidentified the building as the former Ward Bakery down the block). And Weinstein has offered his property up for anti-Ratner protest art, by the Prospect Heights Action Coalition. [Update 8/12/06: A new version of the mural is below.]

Btw, it's blighted

The Empire State Development Corporation lists the building at issue as blighted (see Figure 1, p. 5 of the PDF) because it has one or more blight characteristics--but they likely could be attributed to the tenant, Boymelgreen, rather than the owner, Weinstein. The ESDC acknowledges that there are no unsanitary or unsafe conditions, the building structure does not seem substantially compromised, and the lot is fully utilized. However, the study states:
Building Code Violations
Lot 13 has 23 open building code violations, 10 of which were filed between 2000 and 2005. All of the violations issued after 2000 are for elevator-related issues. Four of these violations are for working on the elevator without a permit.
Vacancy Status
The building on lot 13 was previously vacant and undergoing some renovation when [Forest City Ratner's] AYDC began negotiations with the principals of [Boymelgreen's] 752 Pacific. Under an agreement between AYDC and 752 Pacific, AYDC has agreed to permit 752 Pacific to occupy a portion of the building (and use the parking area on lots 5 and 6) for up to two years after the closing under that agreement. In accordance with this agreement, a portion of the building is now occupied by 752 Pacific.


However, most of the building code violations, according to Weinstein's legal answer, are attributable to the tenant, Boymelgreen. And though it unclear that the building was actually vacant during the time frame referenced--when did negotiations begin?--the building had already been leased to Boymelgreen.

MAS, Hillary call for more time on DEIS

The Municipal Art Society has joined gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and several Brooklyn elected officials in calling on the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to provide more time for citizen response to the massive Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Senator Hillary Clinton made a campaign stop Wednesday in Sunset Park, which was reported in several news outlets, but a front-page story in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle yesterday, headlined Hillary Visits Sunset Park, Chimes in on Issues Affecting Brooklyn, reported in detail on her views regarding Atlantic Yards. (Link works for subscribers only.)
While the senator did not take a position in favor or against the project, she agrees with state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer that more time should be allowed for public comment.
"My concern is that people are listened to, and that the voices of people who will be directly affected will be heard," Senator Clinton said. She mentioned the need for affordable housing, noting that there may be many sides to the debate.
She agreed that eminent domain could be misused and advised the community to use the political process in a way that ensures people are not taken advantage of.
She added that she hopes it is worked out in a fair and transparent way.


A Daily News article yesterday about Clinton's opposition to Brooklyn Bridge Park also noted that she had joined those calling for an extension of the ESDC review. (The article, headlined "HIL BACKS CRITICS OF PARKLAND LUXURY CONDO PLAN," is not online.)

Also, City Council Member (and Congressional candidate) David Yassky said Wednesday night that he had sent a letter to the ESDC requesting more time for the review.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Why ownership & control would reduce eminent domain less than promised

Forest City Ratner, according to the developer's web site, "now owns or controls 90 percent of the land needed for Atlantic Yards." And in May 2005, before City Council, FCR asserted in a presentation (right) that it had “substantially reduced the need for condemnation,” citing the large numbers of properties it owned or controlled.

But ownership and control aren't so simple. First, as a lawyer for several Forest City Ratner tenants has charged, ownership of a property with rent-regulated tenants means that the developer needs "friendly condemnations" by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to move the tenants out.

And controlling the property needed for the project does not necessarily mean that Forest City Ratner can demolish a building to construct a skyscraper. A contract to purchase, which is one definition of control, could indeed lead to demolition, but a lease for a property wouldn't provide that power--and Forest City Ratner claims to control at least three properties that are leased.

I queried Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss, who explained, "The mere fact that FCR controls the lessee's interest in a ground lease... would not necessarily mean that the Empire State Development Corporation could avoid condemning that parcel. This is because ESDC might need to extinguish the owner's interest in the parcel as well. Thus, if the owner of the parcel chose not to sell the parcel, ESDC would need to bring a condemnation proceeding."

There might be exceptions, such as if the lessee had an option to purchase the parcel, but no such exceptions has been announced in ESDC documents, and there is no option to purchase three properties at issue. It seems that, by conflating ownership with (claimed) control, FCR’s presentation to City Council was misleading.

A dispute in court

The developer claims to control three properties near the corner of Pacific Street and Carlton Avenue, two parking lots and a six-story building. (The building and one lot are at right.) The properties are owned by company controlled by Henry Weinstein, who had leased them to a company controlled by Shaya Boymelgreen, the developer responsible for the nearby Newswalk renovation and several other Brooklyn projects.

In turn, Boymelgreen assigned the leases to an affiliate of Forest City Ratner. Weinstein has objected, and their dispute is in court. That lawsuit is gingerly acknowledged in the Property Ownership and Control map, though the color purple indicates that the property is under FCR's control.

Lots 5,6,13 of Block 1129 have asterixes that say "FCRC has closed on an option to take by assignment the lessee’s interest under the ground leases for these properties. However, the property owner has objected to such assignments." (Emphasis added)

The property owner has not merely objected, he has gone to court to challenge those assignments.

Were Weinstein to lose his dispute, and the lease assigned to the Forest City Ratner affiliate, that still doesn’t mean the leaseholder could tear down the building or build on the lots. Rather, the properties would have to be acquired by eminent domain. (Click on the map to enlarge.)

Is it 90%?

However, by proclaiming ownership and control over some 90% of the properties needed, Forest City Ratner and the ESDC suggest that only a small fraction of the properties would be subject to eminent domain.

Instead, that fraction is larger, because, as stated, ownership does not necessarily mean control, and control does not necessarily mean ownership. That subtlety can be lost in the public discourse. For example, the New York Times reported in April:
The company owns nearly 90 percent of the square footage it needs to build the development.
In March, NY 1 reported:
He now owns nearly 90 percent of the land he needs for his project.
Last November, Metro NY reported:
Ratner currently owns roughly 90 percent of the property in the footprint.
And last month, in my own error, the Brooklyn Downtown Star reported:
Developer Forest City Ratner owns about 90 percent of the property.

The conflation of ownership and control leads to an inaccurate figure, which can not only be used to pressure holdouts, it can be cited to assure the public that there is little need for eminent domain.

Looking at the document

The General Project Plan suggests that "control" means "contract to purpose," though it leaves room for an unspecified other explanation:
As indicated on the Site Plan, the Project Site is comprised of numerous parcels of land, (i) most of which are either currently owned by FCRC or under contract to purchase by FCRC, (ii) a significant portion of which is comprised of the Yard which is owned by LIRR and MTA, (iii) a small portion of which is currently privately owned and not under contract for sale to FCRC and (iv) a small portion of which is owned by the City.... Based upon the foregoing, FCRC currently owns or controls a very substantial portion of the Project Site. (Emphasis added)

In another paragraph, the GPP uses the word "control" once but doesn't follow up:
The current ownership and control of the parcels comprising the Project Site is illustrated on Exhibit E attached hereto. FCRC continues to negotiate to acquire the remaining private properties within the Project Site. Parcels that are not owned by MTA/LIRR or which FCRC is unable to purchase would be acquired by ESDC through the exercise of the power of eminent domain pursuant to the Eminent Domain Procedures Law. (Emphasis added)

So, even if the developer controls a parcel, it may not be able to purchase it. Weinstein and Forest City Ratner have not come to an agreement regarding the properties at issue.

So those properties that FCR “controls” via the disputed lease would be subject to eminent domain. For a less confusing ownership map, the properties that are merely controlled deserve something other than the color purple.

August 23 hearing covers a lot of ground: not just DEIS but GPP & eminent domain

The four-hour hearing scheduled by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to begin at 4:30 p.m. on August 23 doesn't just cover the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), a document that's so long several political figures have called for a postponement of the hearing.

It's also a hearing on the General Project Plan (GPP), the project overview, which includes findings regarding eminent domain, as indicated by the notice (right) posted on the door of a Sixth Avenue building in the project footprint.

According to the Public Hearing Notice, the hearing will encompass a) the GPP; (b) the proposed acquisition by condemnation of certain property; (c) the terms of proposed leases and conveyances; and (d) the DEIS.

Multiple purposes

With only four hours of hearing time schedule, the public hearing statutorily must cover a lot of ground: (1) informing the public about the project; (2) providing an opportunity to comment on the GPP; (3) providing an opportunity to comment on the proposed leases and conveyances; (4) reviewing the public use (see below, and also see architect Jonathan Cohn's analysis of the tautological goals) to be served by the project; (5) advising on what properties would be acquired by eminent domain; and (6) providing an opportunity to comment on the DEIS.

Note that, after the public hearing and a 30-day public comment period, the ESDC will complete a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and ESDC Directors will be asked to issue the FEIS and affirm or modify the GPP and make statutory findings under the eminent domain procedure law and the state environmental review statute. (At left, a broader view of the western side of 6th Avenue between Pacific and Dean streets, including the door where the notice was posted.)

According to state law, any property owner who may wish to challenge the condemnation of their property in court must "do so only on the basis of issues, facts, and objections raised at the public hearing."

Deadline for comments: September 22

Comments on the GPP, DEIS, the proposed condemnations, and the terms for the proposed acquisition and conveyance of the project site must be received within 30 days of the public hearing (on or before 5:30 p.m. on September 22). Written comments should be delivered to ESDC, at 633 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017 (Attention: Maria Mooney), or may be submitted by e-mail to atlanticyards@empire.state.ny.us.

Comments may also be made verbally at the public hearing or at a community forum that also will be held at the New York City College of Technology (Klitgord Auditorium), 285 Jay Street, Brooklyn, from 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m on September 12.

Public uses

In case you're wondering, here are the stated public uses, according to the GPP:
--a state-of-the-art arena to accommodate the return of a major-league sports franchise to Brooklyn while also providing a valuable athletic facility for the City's colleges and local academic institutions, which currently lack adequate athletic facilities, and a new venue for a variety of musical, entertainment, educational, social and civic events;
--thousands of critically needed rental housing units for low-, moderate- and middle-income New Yorkers, as well as market-rate rental and condominium units;
--first-class office space and possibly a hotel to ensure that Downtown Brooklyn can capture its share of future economic growth and new jobs through sustainable, transit-oriented development;
--publicly accessible open space that links together the surrounding neighborhoods;
--new ground level retail spaces to activate the street frontages;
--community facility spaces, programmed in coordination with local community groups, including a health care center and an intergenerational facility, offering child care as well as youth and senior center services;
--a state-of-the-art rail storage, cleaning, repair and inspection facility for the LIRR that would enable it to better accommodate simultaneously its new fleet of multiple-unit series of electric propulsion cars operated by LIRR which are compliant with the American with Disabilities Act (the "MU Series Trains") and other transit improvements;
--a subway connection on the south side of Atlantic Avenue at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues, with sufficient capacity to accommodate fans entering or leaving an event at the Arena, eliminating the need for pedestrians approaching the Transportation Hub from the south to cross Atlantic Avenue to enter the subway, and thereby enhancing pedestrian safety;
--sustainability and green design through the application of comprehensive sustainable design goals that make efficient use of energy, building materials and water; and
--environmental remediation of the Project Site.


Cohn observes::
What's the point of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the enormous study developed by the same group of not disinterested individuals who are promoting the real estate development scheme for the site? The reasons for the project are neatly developed in the Executive Summary: “The overarching goal of the proposed project is to transform a blighted area into a vibrant mixed-use community, incorporating principles of environmental sustainability”. And then, after conceding that there would be “significant adverse impacts” “in areas such as schools, cultural resources, shadows, traffic, transit and pedestrians, and noise”, the authors opine: “notwithstanding these impacts, the proposed project is expected to achieve the long-term State and City goals of 1) enhancing the vitality of the Atlantic Terminal area; 2) providing substantial new housing, including much needed affordable housing; and 3) improving railroad facilities and pedestrian access to Brooklyn’s largest transit hub”. There you have it, in a nutshell, the project’s purpose is to achieve goals 1, 2, and 3. Nothing more or nothing less. These long-term State and City goals are the only justification for the project. So as it turns out, there is no real need to read past the first page, because it’s just full of problems that ultimately don’t really matter as long as the “goals” are achieved

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Why the Atlantic Center mall is blighted (and it's not the design), as per ESDC

Nobody likes Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Center mall very much. Urban planner Ron Shiffman (now on the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn advisory board) has described the mall as the "only pre-existing blighting influence" in the area around the Atlantic Yards project. Architectural historian and critic Francis Morrone (also now on the DDDB board), writing in the New York Sun (ABROAD IN NEW YORK, 2/23/04), called it "the ugliest building in Brooklyn."

Forest City Ratner president Bruce Ratner has tried to explain the forbidding interior design, in a New York Times story (Rethinking Atlantic Center With the Customer in Mind; 5/26/04):
The isolation of stores and lack of gathering locations inside the building was intentional, said its developer, Bruce Ratner of Forest City Ratner, driven by the needs of skittish national retailers and the notion that urban malls had failed because they became magnets for loitering teenagers who frightened the shoppers away.
“It’s a problem of malls in dense urban areas that kids hang out there, and it’s not too positive for shopping,” Mr. Ratner said. “Look, here you’re in an urban area, you’re next to projects, you’ve got tough kids.”


Those observations, along with the mall's blank exterior walls, have contributed to the conclusion, held by some in Brooklyn, that the mall represents blight.

The ESDC says: blighted

But the mall could be considered blighted under one of the criteria used by the Empire State Development Corporation in the blight study that is part of the Atlantic Yards General Project Plan. The ESDC states that 51 of the 73 parcels on the project site (70 percent) exhibit one or more blight characteristics, including: buildings or lots that exhibit signs of significant physical deterioration, buildings that are at least 50 percent vacant, lots that are built to 60 percent or less of their allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under current zoning; and vacant lots. (Emphasis added)

Atlantic Center, according to data on Property Shark, contains 767,748 square feet, at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 4.67. That's less than half the maximum allowed FAR of 10, which would allow another 877,126 square feet. That's a total of 1.645 million square feet.

That number may be slightly off, given that a Memorandum of Understanding signed last year indicates that FCR would develop up to 875,000 square feet of commercial space and up to 711,000 square feet of residential space at the Atlantic Center site (for a total of 1.586 million square feet).

Even with the smaller total of 1.586 million square feet, the current mall is built to less than half the allowable density, which constitutes blight under the definition cited above.

Plans for the mall

Note that, as reported in May, there are strong hints, including three towers visible in a Frank Gehry model, that Forest City Ratner plans additional towers on the site of the Atlantic Center mall. My estimate was three towers, each some 30 stories.

Do the developer's long-term leases with tenants contemplate the potential demolition of the mall? Commercial leases, notes the Villager, almost always contain demolition clauses. Still, if some tenants resisted, how would they be evicted? A determination of blight would be handy.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Brooklyn Bear's Garden faces the (shadowy, noisy) future

It is a testament to how far Brooklyn has come, this wedge of land between Flatbush Avenue, Fourth Avenue, and Pacific Street, known as Site 5 of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA).

Now, in one tiny (.12-acre) triangle within the wedge, it houses the Brooklyn Bear’s Garden, a human-engineered patch of nature, growing peaches and tomatoes, flowers and herbs. Boston ivy climbs the 27-foot cinderblock wall of the adjacent Modell’s store, even wrapping its way around the Pacific Street side.

Another big box store, P.C. Richard, sits at the fat end of the wedge, sharing a parking lot with Modell’s. And looming in the future, replacing those structures, would be a 350-tower, a central element of Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards plan.

The project would exclude the garden, but the garden hardly fits the plan. As the Empire State Development Corporation states, in bureaucratic but assertive language in the General Project Plan:
Two parcels of land, Site 5 and the western-most portion of the Arena Block… present the most significant potential for mixed use and commercial development due to their location on the two major commercial arteries…and their ability to connect directly to the Atlantic Terminal subway station…. This location is a very prominent and unique terminus, well suited for high density development with an emphasis on superior architecture and urban design.
Both parcels are significantly underutilized. Site 5 contains two one-story retail buildings and a parking lot. Blank walls with no glazing and few breaks or entrances abut four public streets.


Site 5 history

Such current underutilization actually represents progress, since the site stagnated when the city took it over in 1969. A quarter-century ago, the triangle was a gravel-top parking lot for the Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM), an ad hoc use after the plot was cleared for urban renewal. By the 1980s, the bordering Pacific Street strip was a haven for drug dealers and hookers, often servicing workers at the Daily News printing plan down the block. Abandoned buildings were handy for a quickie.

In 1982, neighborhood activists, disgusted by the brownstone rubble in the lot, began clearing it, with BAM’s consent, for a community garden, one that’s won citywide recognition. The name, Brooklyn Bear’s, came from a teddy bear found among the debris. “That’s when this neighborhood was truly blighted,” garden coordinator Jon Crow asserts.

Longtime Pacific Street resident Jim Vogel attributes the block’s improvement to several factors, including general economic growth, the purchase and renovation of buildings, and the slowing of prostitution after the closing of the Daily News plant and the advent of AIDS. “But it's very accurate to say that without the garden, Pacific Street today wouldn't be nearly as charming and successful as it is,” said Vogel, who is also secretary of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods. It's a testament to what local folks can do when the big money planners stay out of the way.”

By the mid-1990s, FCR began construction on the Atlantic Center mall just across Flatbush (and Atlantic Avenue), on another long-empty lot within ATURA. FCR also looked across the street and, in March 1997, acquired the triangular lot from the city for the negotiated price of just $1,470,000, without bid or auction.
(The photo, which shows traffic on Flatbush Avenue in front of the garden, was taken from Pacific Street in the proposed project footprint by Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, a Bear's Garden member.)

Even before that, according to a chronology provided by Bear’s coordinator Jon Crow, FCR plowed through the garden fence to conduct drilling test, a first warning of future development. It was winter, but several vegetable boxes were run over.

The city retained development rights beyond the elevations of the planned buildings. (When did Forest City Ratner get those additional rights, some 308,000 square feet? At the same time it gained a transfer of 328,272 square feet from the Atlantic Center mall? I haven’t found out yet.) The duly noticed public hearing generated no testimony, and the city’s daily newspapers covered the land transfer only in light of threats to the garden.

Garden under threat

Would the 7500-square-foot garden be expunged? Bear’s stalwarts feared as such, and gathered 4000 signatures during the winter for a banner hung from the garden fence. Gardener Suzanne Chambers told the Daily News in March 1997 that the garden served its community broadly: "We're a botanic garden, we're a park, we're a nature center, we're a safe haven, we're a performance space, we're a community center.” (At right, poster from the Bear's Garden anniversary celebration in May.)

Borough President Howard Golden negotiated a compromise, allotting $250,000 to preserve the garden, and convincing Forest City Ratner to scale back its development plan by 5000 square feet, allowing for a smaller garden. In a letter to garden-supporters, Golden called the garden the “gateway to Downtown Brooklyn.”

The garden was entirely uprooted, as the site served in part as a staging area for construction. Gardeners removed some 5000 bulbs, shrubs and perennials, but a grove of 30-foot white birch trees couldn’t be moved and met their demise.

The process went slowly. As Crow wrote in a 10/9/97 letter to the Times, “We dutifully abandoned our garden early last spring, working in often inclement weather, to fulfill our part of an agreement meant to preserve a smaller, permanent space for the Bears at the same site. It wasn't until late September that construction actually began. You can imagine how sad it was to be treated like unwanted trespassers on the very land we nurtured for more than 15 years.”

Garden reestablished

Several months later, the garden was reestablished, albeit on a smaller footprint, the former 4’x8’ plots halved in length. Tussles with FCR continued. The developer promised that the garden would be restored with three feet of clean fill and two feet of topsoil, but only after several complaints was the garden restored in part. Golden’s letter promised a wrought-iron fence, but only an aluminum version arrived.

The big box stores, with anti-urban blank walls, were by design placeholders, “taxpayers” in the architects’ parlance, built to generate revenue before being replaced. The Atlantic Yards plan would not encompass the garden, now deeded to the Trust for Public Lands, but it would extend Downtown Brooklyn into neighborhood Brooklyn, notably across Flatbush Avenue on Pacific and Dean streets.

And Pacific Street between Fourth and Flatbush avenues, reinvigorated over the past decades, would be under new stress. Serving the mixed-use tower planned for the site, a 400-space parking garage would have a midblock entrance, and the residential (on one side) street would experience new much new traffic, as the plan proposes that northbound traffic on Fourth Avenue be diverted via Pacific Street to Flatbush Avenue. “We fought hard for traffic calming,” Crow says of the changes negotiated years ago—no left turns off Flatbush allowed. [Update: This corrects an earlier version that said Pacific would be two-way. Image from 8/19/06 Brooklyn Papers.]

Add the arena, and the “Miss Brooklyn” tower planned across Flatbush, and residents worry about noise and shadows and arena crowds, an exponential change on top of the current bustle, which includes the Atlantic Terminal mall and Bank of New York tower across Atlantic Avenue (right).

I sat in the garden on a recent Sunday with Crow, with the iconic Williamsburgh Savings Bank in the background, and the honking of cars and the rumbling of buses hardly muffled. We were surrounded by green, with sunflowers peppering the scene.

Behind him, a compost bucket was inspected by a garden volunteer. A mom brought her son to help with their plot. Looking east, along Pacific Street, the eight-story Atlantic Arts building is visible. But Frank Gehry’s iconic “Miss Brooklyn” would be closer--and eight times taller.

“It’s always been nasty and loud,” Crow said of the crossroads. “It needed calming.” But calming would be even more of a challenge. He has joined the vocal opposition to the Atlantic Yards project.

Shadows on the green

The lot sits in shadow, literally and figuratively, of the Atlantic Yards project. The 620-foot (650-foot, with mechanicals) Miss Brooklyn would stand diagonally across the street and deny sun to the garden until at least 11 a.m. May through August, prime growing season, according to the the Shadows chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) from the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC). The 350-foot building next door, on Site 5, surprisingly enough, would cast shadows for only 45 minutes at the end of the day in June.

The Brooklyn Queens Land Trust, which includes the Bear’s garden as a member, warned the ESDC that “several high-rise buildings” on Site 5 would reduce afternoon sunlight by at least three hours a day. Only one building is planned, so perhaps the testimony overstated the impact, but expect comments challenging the DEIS’s conclusions.

Lots of noise

Building a major project is hardly a dainty process. In fact, construction of the building at Site 5 would require a 16-foot barrier, but even that wouldn’t shield the garden from noise.

The garden would face “significant adverse noise impacts during some portion of the construction period,” the DEIS acknowledges in the Unavoidable Impacts chapter, with “no feasible and practicable mitigation.”

Out of context

If the Bear’s garden is the gateway to Downtown Brooklyn, by implication, it’s also the gateway to neighborhood Brooklyn. (Across the street: row houses.) The building on Site 5 would have a base of retail around the ground floor and then rise with a series of setbacks and angular forms, designs intended to engage the community and “activate the streetscape.”

Still, the DEIS acknowledges, in the Neighborhood Character chapter:
Although this building would relate well to Downtown Brooklyn to its north, it would be of a scale and density new to Pacific Street on its southern face. This building, its scale and the intensity of activity it would engender, would create a localized adverse impact in neighborhood character for the rowhouses along Pacific Street between Flatbush and 4th Avenues.

And, by implication but not admission, to the garden itself.

Bright lights

And what about the bright lights? The DEIS acknowledges, in the chapter on Urban Design and Visual Resources:
It is anticipated that the proposed lighting and signage for the arena and Building 1 would be visible from some sections of the study area closest to this part of the project site, with views concentrated on Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues. Most residential areas would not have direct views of the lighting and signage. It is not anticipated that the proposed lighting and signage would result in significant adverse impacts on the study area.

In the chapter on Neighborhood Character, the DEIS acknowledges:
These changes would not come without localized adverse neighborhood character impacts in the areas closest to the project site. These include changes in character for residential rowhouses facing Site 5, within sight of the arena’s brightly lit signs.

That would obviously include the garden, but it isn’t mentioned. Crow suggests that bright lights would “stress” the garden.

What to see

The garden is a thriving, improbably patch of green in the urban scene. But its harmonious charms were not acknowledged in the chapter on Urban Design and Visual Resources, which states, “Currently, the project site does not include any visual resources and has a blighted character.”

Actually, the garden is not part of the project site. But the chapter on Open Space, the DEIS says of this and other gardens:
However, they do serve as important visual and passive recreational resources to the community.

Effects ignored

In testimony regarding the Draft Scope, the Brooklyn Queens Land Trust warned that increased wind speeds at ground levels created by the new towers—witness the wind whipping around the existing Williamsburg Savings Bank—would cause significant drying at the garden. Reflective building materials would result in reflective glare and more drying. The thousands of people driving or walking past the garden before and after arena events would increase trash. But those issues were ignored.

In their own statement to the ESDC, the Bear’s Garden said, “The development as conceived (creating a neighborhood from scratch) stands to potentially destroy our garden, open space that has been a perfect reflection of and complement to the existing—thriving—community and environs.”

Questions of roots

The garden now has about 30 active members, though, a decade ago, there were 60 members, with at least 40 active. Part of the change could be attributed to the loss of space, but also to changes in neighborhood demographics, with fewer working-class gardeners.

In January 1997, Crow told the Times: "The reality is, once you've had a garden over 10 years, and the trees are up to the sky, you establish roots—literally and figuratively.”

The same is true today. Any development on Site 5 and across Flatbush Avenue—and some development is inevitable--might impinge on those roots.

But as-of-right development, as opposed to the ESDC’s override of zoning, would be more limited. It’s hard to imagine a development that would impinge more. So the gardeners have put another banner on their fence.

Monday, August 07, 2006

New York magazine gets the big picture: "absolute absence of democratic process"

Finally the epic Atlantic Yards story has been given some sustained attention, in New York magazine political reporter Chris Smith’s cover story, Mr. Ratner’s Neighborhood, subtitled “Manipulative developers, shrill protesters, and a sixteen-tower glass-and-steel monster marching inexorably forward.”

Smith, who lives in Fort Greene, writes that he’d stayed out of the debate, having “shrugged off the complaints of Atlantic Yards opponents as shrill and reflexively obstructionist.”

But after immersing himself in the story, he comes out deeply troubled. While he acknowledges the concerns and claims of supporters, he's not fully convinced of the benefits, and, above all, he concludes that the project is profoundly undemocratic. It's a notable counterpoint to the credulous, compromised, and contradictory New York Times editorial published yesterday.

Smith does make a few small errors, some of which I’ll mention, but he gets the big picture and, in some instances, adds to it.

The big picture

First, he sees what's at stake:
As a political reporter, I know that money and spin usually win. But in looking at Atlantic Yards up close, it’s outrageous to see the absolute absence of democratic process. There’s been no point in the past four years at which the public has been given a meaningful chance to decide whether something this big and transformative should be built on public property. Instead, race, basketball, and Frank Gehry have been tossed out as distractions to steer attention away from the real issue, money. Ratner’s team has mounted an elaborate road show before community boards and local groups, at which people have been allowed to ask questions and vent, and the developer has made a grand show of listening, then tinkering around the edges. But the fundamentals of the project—an arena plus massive residential and commerical buildings—has never been up for discussion. Ratner, with Gehry’s aid, has built a titanium-clad, irregularly angled tank and driven it relentlessly through a gauntlet of neighborhood slingshots. And Bloomberg and Pataki—our only elected officials with the power to force a real debate about Atlantic Yards—instead jumped aboard early and fastened their seat belts. What at first seemed to me impressive on a clinical level—a developer’s savvy use of state-of-the-art political tactics—ends up being, on closer inspection, positively chilling.

Indeed, it’s the first time someone in the mainstream media has made much of an effort to analyze the content of the developer’s tactics, not merely the phenomenon of them. The New York Times ran two stories, one in October 2005, and another in June 2005, that described but did not evaluate those tactics.

Smith could have made an even stronger case had he pointed out the contrast with the current plans to develop the MTA’s Hudson Yards—with the city willing to solicit bids from developers—or the accelerated schedule for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a process has raised qualms even among some project supporters, like Eliot Spitzer.

Also, he could have observed, when mentioning (twice) the “seven acres of publicly-accessible open space,” that it would be far less than what the city recommends for the population the project would bring.

A sense of scale

In a second important contribution, the article opens with a rendering (above) of what the project would look like from the adjacent neighborhood, skyscrapers as viewed from a row-house scale. Will James of OnNYTurf offered such renderings in March, and Forest City Ratner followed with its own renderings—some of them rather deceptive—in May.

But the New York Times hasn’t printed such crucial images and, on the day, the new project design was released, printed a photo of three project principals in front of an out-of-context rendering.

And Smith's article takes the issue to another level by illustrating (right) the shadows the buildings might cast. (Any shadow imaging analysis is somewhat complicated because shadows would fall for only certain hours.)

Profit projections

Third, Smith attempts an educated guess regarding Ratner’s projected profits: $1 billion, according to a reading of Ratner’s nearly-illegible and brief pro-forma cash flow statement filed with the MTA, or $700 million to $1 billion according to “real-estate expert Jeffrey Jackson” (whose firm specializes in appraisals).

That's a 25% profit, the article says, but maybe it's more if you calculate the variety of tax breaks. The point is that the financial analysis deserves greater discussion.

Does a 25% profit mean that the project could be reduced only by a relatively small amount for the developer to be comfortable? This is a variant of FCR's statement that the infrastructure costs require a certain scale for profit. But that's backwards--the city could have, as it has proposed for the Hudson Yards, absorbed some of the infrastructure costs and then put the property out for bid, rather than let the developer determine the scale.

Green and the opera

Assemblyman Roger Green offers a notable misreading of race and class:
“Here’s the question: If we were building an 18,000-seat opera house, would we get as much resistance? I don’t think so. Basketball is like a secular religion for most Brooklynites. The opposition to the arena is actually coming from people who are new to Brooklyn, who lived in Manhattan, mostly. And who have a culture of opposing projects of this nature. People who opposed the West Side Highway project; people who opposed the Jets stadium; people who opposed a host of other things. That’s the reality. There’s a class of people who are going to the opera. And there’s another class of folks who will go to a basketball game and get a cup of beer.”

Well, I’ll point to my recent piece listing the numerous opponents, including two former Black Panthers, who hardly fit Green’s stereotypes.

Also, the issue isn’t the arena, it’s how the arena has been used to get politicians and the public on board for the larger project, which includes 16 towers. The arena would be only about one-tenth of the entire project.

(For those who are curious: I’ve never lived in Manhattan. I’ve rented in Brooklyn for about 15 years, and basketball is my favorite sport. My criticism of this project comes from looking at it closely.)

On the CBA

Smith allows that the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) includes “terrific and creative commitments”—well, perhaps not, as the New York Observer has written--but that the payments to community groups mean that critics say the “community” has been bought.

While that’s not untrue, it’s another example in which “critics” bring up a point that the reporter could make independently; as I’ve noted several times, in Los Angeles, where CBAs have been pioneered, signatories don’t take money from developers.

Some footnotes

Some issues are so compressed as to require footnotes. Smith writes:
Still, forming a clear-cut opinion isn’t easy. Ratner is building subsidized housing in a city where there’s a cruel 3 percent vacancy rate.

But public subsidies would support the housing, and those subsidies could be used to build housing elsewhere.

He continues:
He’s forecasting $1.5 billion in new tax revenues for the city and 3,800 new permanent jobs.

Actually, he’s forecasting $2.1 billion in new tax revenue to the city and the state over 30 years, and about $1.5 billion in net revenue. Of course those numbers can be challenged. And the number of jobs would be far fewer than previously promised.

Smith offers a first-impression misdescription of the site:
Most of the site for the proposed project, the Long Island Rail Road yards, is quite literally a hole in the ground, flanked by a number of decaying buildings.

Hold on. The railyards would be about 8.3 acres of a 22-acre site. Some of the buildings are decaying, some are not, and some have been recently rehabilitated.

Smith also describes the project site as a Brooklyn neighborhood defined by four-story brownstones.

Well, mainly brownstones, though there are taller industrial buildings, some converted to housing, in the footprint, and even taller buildings nearby across some major thoroughfares.

"One unknown man"

Smith devotes several paragraphs to my work, calling me “one unknown man.” (Hey, what happened to “obscure”? Anyhow, some know me as the "Mad Overkiller.")

He also dubs me “the opposition’s greatest resource.” I wouldn’t claim that, especially since I aim to be a resource for the general public discussion of the project.

But I would aim to be, as described, "a skeptic in the tradition of I.F. Stone." I told Smith I was inspired by Stone, who found good stories in overlooked documents.

I've raised numerous issues independently, but some of the findings attributed to me—the fact that 15,000 construction jobs are actually 15,000 job years, or the fact that the developer’s purported scaleback was nothing of the sort—were not exclusive to me. The Brooklyn Papers, for example, first raised the construction jobs issue, though I've repeatedly reminded readers of it.

As for the residential density, I’ll take credit for coining the phrase “extreme density,” but the cogent point that the project would be double the next densest census tract should be attributed to the New York Observer’s Matthew Schuerman.

Smith later in the article refers to “density trivia,” which unfortunately trivializes the issue. The details are important, because few people are against density at a site that could support some significant density; the question is how much.

It's too bad that Smith didn't mention the role of NoLandGrab, which is a comprehensive compilation, with commentary and analysis, of nearly every scrap published related to the Atlantic Yards issue.

The point is that the media coverage has been inadequate, so unknown critics create their own media, a counternarrative--more analytical and accurate, I'd say--to the picture drawn by the media, the politicians, and the developer.

Reading the DEIS

Smith makes a yeoman effort to try to translate the bureaucratic language of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to on-the-ground reality. Would subway service be fine? Not in Smith’s test of the Atlantic Avenue station.

What does it mean, regarding traffic, to experience a “significant adverse impact” at an intersection? Delays greater than 80 seconds per vehicle. Smith offers a simple way to think about it: count how long cars typically wait before their drivers start honking.

As for the proposed mitigation for public schools, scattering the new students across two school districts, Smith suggests that, in human terms, that could cause chaos.

ACORN's challenge

Bertha Lewis of ACORN offers a challenge: “Talk to me about what your resolution is to the resegregation of Brooklyn.” She's right to point out that any development should have affordable housing, especially given the failure to include it in much new development.

But should the presence of affordable housing, as Ron Shiffman writes, “become the stalking horse for an ill-conceived development”?

And would this project stop gentrification or contribute to it?

"A bad deal"

Smith, who acknowledges his family is a cliché—they bought a brownstone in Fort Greene in the 90s after moving from Manhattan post-parenthood—may come off to some as an I-got-mine homeowner concerned about the traffic on his block. But he defends against that:
I care plenty about tomorrow for myself and for the city. And no matter how I look at it, in the end, I can only conclude that Atlantic Yards is a bad deal.

After observing that the issue is money, he offers a cold-water corrective from a Democrat who says that the project is a fait accompli. However, Smith concludes:
The small warm neighborhoods around Atlantic Yards will become moons orbiting a cold planet. Shadows and noise can be modeled on computers, but their emotional effects can’t.
Brooklyn is changing every day, all the time; I wouldn’t want to live here if it didn’t. I don’t kid myself that all the changes are “organic” or even desirable. But it’s an evolution instead of a cataclysm imposed from above. The opposition to Ratnerville is sometimes vitriolic, unsympathetic, irrational. Sign me up.


It is a testament to the "voice" allowed in magazine journalism that Smith could (mostly) try to evaluate conclusions himself, without feeling obligated to balance every quote from each side, as "objective" newspaper coverage too often must attempt.

Who's in charge?

The fundamental issue isn't Forest City Ratner. Any developer would press its advantage, with varying degrees of sincerity, dexterity, and deviousness.

To engage some key constituencies and to do the right thing, FCR has agreed to union labor and environmental sustainability, and to some degree of affordable housing and job training. Meanwhile, it has issued deceptive brochures, claimed community consultation when it didn't exist, and (likely) sponsored a disturbing push-poll.

But in the end, our government officials are responsible--or not.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Credulous Times editorial endorses AY; more voices needed

In an editorial today in the City Weekly section, headlined The Atlantic Yards Project, the New York Times wrings its institutional hands a bit, calling for some tweaks in the project and a delay in the environmental review, but nonetheless repeats its endorsement, again with too little scrutiny of some contested issues.

I'll repeat for the record that limiting the editorial's audience to readers in the five boroughs is a disservice to the public. Not only would state subsidies be part of the public support, the project would have an impact in the tristate region and also nationally. It deserves broader scrutiny.

The editorial begins:
If there was ever a place in New York City to put a development that combines housing, businesses and a sports arena, it ought to be the Atlantic Yards site in Brooklyn, an underdeveloped area near the borough’s downtown that has ready access to nine subway lines and the Long Island Rail Road. Yet the proposal by the developer, Bruce Ratner, has been controversial from the start, mainly because of opposition from area residents who fear it would change the character of their neighborhoods.

Actually, a Michael Sorkin has suggested, there are other good sites for a sports facility. And is the site "underdeveloped"? Parts of it have developed just fine.

The opportunities

The editorial continues:
After watching the project evolve for the past few years, we feel — with a few caveats — that it deserves to go forward. The opportunities it presents, and the nearly 7,000 apartment units it will provide a housing-starved city, outweigh the problems it would entail. These advantages have been repeated endlessly by Mr. Ratner, who is also The Times’s partner in building its new Manhattan headquarters. More than 2,200 of the apartment units would have rents targeted to low-, moderate- and middle-income families. The Nets basketball team would bring major league sports back to Brooklyn. The buildings designed by Frank Gehry would add a sense of excitement to the entire area. And, when finished in 2016, the project will add substantially to city and state tax revenues.

The apartments aren't a gift to a housing-starved city. Of the 6860 projected units, 4610 would be market-rate, and a good segment of the affordable units would rent for over $2000 a month. Yet the project would be getting significant subsidies, for intrastructure, and for each affordable housing unit.

The buildings would add a sense of excitement? Or would they overwhelm the area?

And how exactly can the Times be sure that the project would add substantially to city and state tax revenues? Why hasn't the Times commissioned its own analysis of the fiscal projections by Forest City Ratner or the Empire State Development Corporation?

Traffic worries

The editorial continues:
The developers have addressed some of the community’s early objections, particularly worries about traffic. The most important promise involves improvements to the subway stations that would make it easier for riders to move from one line to another, or to the L.I.R.R. That should be a boon to local residents, who deserve to be rewarded for enduring what will be almost a decade of construction.
The plan also calls for changes in traffic light timing and a reconfiguration of traffic flow around the arena; satellite parking for basketball fans; and a program that would combine game tickets with Metrocards to keep as many fans as possible on the subways. Traffic will still be an issue when the project is finished, but the developers are not obliged to hold the neighborhood harmless. Their job is to demonstrate that their buildings will not make a bad situation intolerable, and the promises made by Mr. Ratner and his associates seem like reasonable responses to that challenge.


But how successfully have the developers addressed worries about traffic? Traffic engineer Brian Ketcham thinks the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate. Has the Times talked to him lately?

Community outreach?

The editorial continues:
Community outreach has been far better in the Atlantic Yards project than it was, say, in the now-defunct plans to build a Jets stadium in Midtown Manhattan. Mr. Ratner has worked hard to deal fairly with the property owners who would be displaced by the project, but he must also take care to accommodate the rent-stabilized tenants who will have to leave.

How does negotiating with residents constitute community outreach, especially when there's a gag order attached to the negotiation? And why hasn't the Times published an article about what the rent-regulated tenants actually face?

Public process

The editorial takes note of the hearing timetable:
A project of this size should have a meaningful public hearing process, so it is troubling that this one has not. It would help if the 60-day public review period on the draft environmental impact statement released last month — at the height of summer — were extended another month, to late October.

Why doesn't the Times follow the skein of "troubling" to a central problem with the project--the absence of any oversight from local elected officials in Brooklyn? And why can't the Times editorialize the way it did in December 2004:
But New Yorkers seem to have little say in this enormous commitment of public money for what would be the most expensive professional football stadium ever, although they have been subjected to a crop of he-said, he-said TV commercials. The approval process is on something beyond a fast track - it's more like a runaway train. And it's time to pull on the brakes.

More on the Times's curious inconsistency from NoLandGrab and Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn.

Note that the December 2004 editorial appeared on the main editorial page, which circulates in all editions.

Subsidy questions

Today's editorial continues:
And while the Ratner company will finance much of the project, taxpayers are still being asked to underwrite $200 million in direct city and state subsidies. Some $40 million, for example, is for land acquisition for the arena, which should be a developer expense. The project may require the city to build more classrooms, expand sewer and water services and provide more police on game days. It is up to Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration to demand from the developer every reasonable contribution to defray these extra expenses.

Why haven't these issues been on the table already? And what leverage does the administration have?

Questions of density

The Times acknowledges some density issues:
Finally, there is the matter of density — the biggest, and most reasonable concern. At 8.7 million square feet, the project remains enormous, even after coming down 5 percent. The non-profit Municipal Arts [sic] Society, a respected voice on urban design, came up with a still smaller version by applying city zoning standards, and parts of it are appealing, particularly in how it envisions more publicly accessible park space.

Shouldn't the Times acknowledge that the 5 percent scaleback still represents a larger project than originally announced?

And why exactly is the Times quoting a Municipal Art Society zoning analysis that hasn't actually been released for public discussion? (The design principles regarding parks have been released.)

15 percent cut?

The editorial concludes with an odd effort to distinguish density from scale:
A more important issue is scale. The project would benefit if the square footage came down at least another 15 percent, which in turn would lighten the load on infrastructure, including the streets. Opponents of the plan have pressed for a more dramatic downscaling, pointing to the contrast with the surrounding, low-rise neighborhoods. But the planners are correct in seeing an opportunity to build something grander and doing it at the one place in the borough that can handle it.

Now how exactly does the Times come up with a 15 percent cut in square footage? Wouldn't that still make the project by far the densest residential community in the country?

Maybe the Times has talked to city officials and asked what kind of cut they'd accept. Or perhaps the Times's editorialist has talked to Forest City Ratner.

I don't believe that the parent Times Company's business relationship with Forest City Ratner, in which they are building the Times Tower on Eighth Avenue together, affects news coverage. However, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger has been known to intervene in editorials, so it's plausible that the Times is committed to nudging this project along. After all, the Times Company guaranteed a loan to Forest City Ratner, and a successful Brooklyn project would be in the Times's interest, so as to avoid the loan.

That's speculation, of course, but I'd like to hear other explanations for the Times's inadequate analysis.

Blight and eminent domain

Note that the editorial completely ignored the highly-charged blight issue, which is a component of the crucial eminent domain claims. The blight issue has been analyzed recently in the Times, and the report was quite skeptical. If the area isn't blighted, then that would stall or stop eminent domain, and thus the project. (Is the Times convinced by the crime study?)

But blight is a tough issue for a Times editorialist to grapple with; after all, the Times Company itself benefited from eminent domain in the state's assemblage of land for the Times Tower.

If the Times is going to run such conflicted editorials, it owes its readers some more voices. So far, the newspaper has published just a single op-ed piece on the Atlantic Yards project in the two years and eight months since its the plan was announced. Surely some experts who've analyzed the DEIS deserve to be heard.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

What about the renters? FCR's Stuckey asserts, "We will take care of them"

At the Community Board 8 hearing on Atlantic Yards Thursday, Shabnam Merchant of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn read a statement from South Brooklyn Legal Services (SBLS). It warned that rent-regulated tenants left in the proposed project footprint remain vulnerable, given the relocation agreements that Forest City Ratner (FCR) has offered.

FCR's Jim Stuckey later said no, that the tenants would not be left out in the cold, yet he was unwilling--at least for the time being--to provide documentary evidence of that.

What the agreements say

Yes, the agreements sound good. They'd pay the difference between their current rent and that charged for a new apartment, and they'd be guaranteed a space in the Atlantic Yards project at their previous rent.

However, the relocation agreements, according to SBLS, “leave [renters] vulnerable.” The agreements would pay the differential in rent for only three years, which means that, given that the project wouldn’t be finished until 2010 at the earliest, the tenant would be left paying a high rent for some unspecified period.

Indeed, as the excerpt above from one agreement offered last year shows, the differential would last three years.

Gag order and more

Also, if Forest City Ratner walks away from the project for any reason, the deal is void. Finally, the agreement requires that the signers cease from any opposition to the project (right). By contrast, tenants in rent-regulated apartments are guaranteed many more protections if their building is to be demolished.

Stuckey says it's ok

I caught up with Jim Stuckey, president of FCR's Atlantic Yards Development Group, after his statement to CB8, and asked him about the relocation agreements.

“The three years was never meant to be a period that we would leave people out in the lurch," he said. "And if it turns out for any reason at all that we have to contribute to subsidizing them for a longer period of time, that we will certainly do that. This was negotiated with people earlier on, and the project has actually taken on new life, but there’s no question in my mind that if it takes longer, we will take care of them.”

The document I've excerpted was dated 2005, so "earlier on" is relative, though perhaps it was the same document offered a year earlier. Also, as the excerpt at right shows, another segment suggests that the contract would offer protection for five years, not three, which would be a greater degree of protection.

Was that contradictory draftsmanship aimed to mislead, or just a careless discrepancy?

What's the policy?

So, has the developer agreed to subsidize differential rent for longer than three years for the renters who've already left the footprint? “I just won’t—even though it would be to my benefit to do so—violate confidentiality," Stuckey responded. "I just won’t do it.”

Well, FCR did agree to waive confidentiality agreements for an April New York Times article about condo owners and others who sold their property to the developer, and the article was favorable enough to make an Atlantic Yards e-newsletter.

If Forest City Ratner has agreed to subsidize differential rent for as long as necessary, that would be news, and redound to the developer's credit.

What should a tenant do?

I reminded Stuckey that current tenants are being advised by SBLS that the agreements leave them vulnerable.

“I think maybe their attorney’s saying that,” he responded.

So, I asked, what agreements are how being offered to people still left in the footprint?

He wouldn't specify how many years of differential rent would be paid. “I think the answer is: 'we’ll take care of them,'" he said. "What I’m not going to do is get into the specifics with individuals.”

It would be good, I said, to see it in writing.

“In time,” he responded.

Errol Louis: a defense of MetroTech, weak math, and the walls of the ghetto

Errol Louis, in his August 1 column in the black-oriented Our Time Press, continues his staunch support for the Atlantic Yards project, his badmouthing of opponents, and his casual relationship to facts.

The first segment of his Commerce and Community column is headlined Endgame at Atlantic Yards. I've already discussed some errors in both this column and his most-recent Daily News column, but some choice lines still deserve response.

Eminent domain

He writes:
As die-hard opponents of eminent domain, which is the government’s power to compel holdouts to sell their property at fair market value to benefit the public good, the antidevelopment groups would have opposed the redevelopment of Times Square, the creation of Lincoln Center, the hundreds of units of affordable housing created by the Melrose Commons Project in the Bronx and the Nehemiah Homes in East New York.

Opinions about eminent domain differ, but the important thing is to analyze the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which raises major questions about whether use of eminent domain is legitimate if there has been no public planning process and it favors a specific developer.

MetroTech

Louis defends Forest City Ratner's MetroTech:
The antibuilders would also have opposed the creation of MetroTech – many of them not knowing, as newcomers to Brooklyn, that in the mid-1980s half of the buildings near Polytechnic University were in poor condition, and that 17% of the buildings in the area were vacant and another 22% of the area was made up of vacant lots and parking lots. No buildings had been constructed in the area for 20 years.
Thanks to a billion in private investment dollars and use of eminent domain by the city, the MetroTech area now has more than 22,000 jobs and eliminated a major crime zone. That, in turn, made it possible for the wave of new apartment buildings now scheduled to be built east of Flatbush Avenue near the Manhattan Bridge.


Louis doesn't mention that large public subsidies were required--justified, in the city's mind, to keep Wall Street firms from migrating offices to New Jersey.

He leaves out a major beneficiary of those subsidies: Forest City Ratner. In fact, in his entire column, he doesn't mention the name of the Atlantic Yards developer.

As for the jobs at MetroTech, Louis is quite selective. Many of those white-collar jobs were retained, not created, and as Matthew Schuerman wrote last year in City Limits:
Seventeen years later, while the buildings are still enjoying a property-tax holiday, no one knows how many low-income residents of adjoining neighborhoods are working at the complex. But business leaders and community activists agree that the number is very low.

The CBA defense

Louis writes:
Meanwhile, groups and local leaders with deep roots in our community and knowledge of the area’s past have been fighting the good fight, trying to ensure that jobs, contracts and housing will be created and distributed fairly as Atlantic Yards moves forward. Thanks to organizations like ACORN and leaders like the Rev. Herbert Daughtry, Freddie Hamilton and James Caldwell – people whose long track records and integrity have been maliciously attacked by the anti-development yuppies – a package of legally binding promises has been negotiated.

Malicious attacked? Is it malicious to point out, yet again, that in Los Angeles, where Community Benefits Agreements were pioneered, signatories don't take money from developers, but in Brooklyn, they do? (Or is it myopic for the press to ignore this?)

Is the Rev. David Dyson of Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church an anti-development yuppie? He's the longstanding social activist who told Norman Kelley of the Brooklyn Rail last year:
This project has actually split lifelong partners in the progressive movement. We feel that Reverend Daughtry and ACORN have been brought in by Ratner not as advocates for the community but as private business partners in the deal. We’re trying to prevent the misuse of eminent domain, trying to increase the number of affordable housing units, trying to decrease the number of high-rise luxury office buildings. Those are the kinds of issues that a community group should have, but the Reverend Daughtry—who’s also an old friend—and our friends at ACORN are trying to cut a personal deal so that they can be brokers over whatever little piece or crumb of this pie falls from Ratner’s table. Ratner has been to Brooklyn what Karl Rove was to Ohio and Florida—brilliantly able to play on people’s worst instincts in order to get what he wants in a way that he wants it.

Louis's math

He writes:
Do the math: if even 3% of the contracts and jobs from the proposed $4.2 billion project ends up in local hands, it will mean $126 million for a community in desperate need of revitalization. And the creation of 2,250 subsidized apartments, 900 of which would be affordable to the very poorest New Yorkers, will be a priceless benefit.

Louis neatly conflates "minority businesses" and "local hands." As noted, many of the minority businesses that have benefited from the CBA aren't even in Brooklyn.

A New York Times article published today describes Forest City Ratner and its partner, Turner Construction, helped organize a special eight-week instruction program company for small, minority-run contractors. The three examples cited:
--a Pakistani immigrant (male) who lives on Long Island and runs a subsidiary of a firm based in Long Island City, Queens
--a Chinese immigrant (male) who manages a firm based in Queens
--a Harlem woman who runs her small company out of her apartment.

The program may be worthy, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the Central Brooklyn ghetto Louis cites later in his column.

Looking at the housing

Louis writes that 900 apartments would be "affordable to the very poorest New Yorkers."

Actually, even the most affordable apartments planned for the Atlantic Yards project would go to families earning between $21,270 and $28,360. The city has just announced a plan to offer affordable housing to "very hard to reach" populations, including those earning below $21,250.

No feasible plan

Louis writes:
The antidevelopment crowd, which has attacked the benefits agreement as inadequate, has no feasible plan to create more jobs or more affordable housing than the Atlantic Yards planners. In fact, they have only promised to try and stop the project in court.

This is a neat trick. He's blaming the "antidevelopment crowd" for not having a plan, while the way to create a plan is to send out a request for proposals, which is what the city and state do for many, many other sites.

Remember, the city made no effort to launch a plan involving the MTA's Vanderbilt Yard in Brooklyn. But now the city wants to buy rights to the MTA's Hudson Yards in Manhattan, build a platform, and solicit bids from developers.

Guarding the walls

Louis closes:
But it’s too early to celebrate: New York has a long history of worthy projects that have been stalled or killed by small groups of middle-class people with loud voices and access to the media. Many of them are liberal, but they still end up serving as sentries guarding the walls of the Central Brooklyn ghetto, keeping people bottled up inside with too few jobs, too little income and not enough affordable housing.
That’s why it’s so important for ordinary people to understand what’s at stake and to show up at the August 23 hearing.


If only Louis looked a little more carefully, he might tell his readers that, for example, there would be an average of 41 two- and three- bedroom apartments per year for people who otherwise could qualify for Section 8 vouchers or public housing.

And he might read the DEIS and conclude that the document, despite itself, warns that displacement would be a problem and that this project might, in its own way, shore up the walls of the ghetto.

Friday, August 04, 2006

Council Speaker Quinn calls for ESDC to extend DEIS schedule

Like Eliot Spitzer (as gubernatorial candidate rather than Attorney General) last week, New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has asked the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to extend the time for review of the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Citing the size and scope of the development, the fact that community boards are in recess, and the potential conflict with residents' summer vacation, Quinn asked that the public hearing scheduled for August 23 to be pushed back for 30 days.

"Additionally, as you may know, the City Council, along with the State Assembly, provided funds from the recently executed 2007 budget to support an independent analysis of the DEIS. An extension would allow both time for meaningful public input and for the study to be completed," she wrote.

ESDC & Marty respond

After Spitzer's comments, I asked for a response from the ESDC and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, for an article I was writing for the Downtown Brooklyn Star. Their answers weren't too encouraging to those who seek an extension.

Excerpts:
ESDC spokeswoman Jessica Copen, asked to comment on Spitzer's letter, said the agency "is committed to the public process and will be giving the public more opportunity to comment on this project than is usual. Besides scheduling a public hearing on August 23, we have also scheduled a community forum on September 12. We believe that the addition of this venue gives the public ample time to review and comment on the Atlantic Yards DEIS."
Critics have noted that the primary election will be held on September 12, as well, and could distract from attention to the community forum.
Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, a strong supporter of the Atlantic Yards plan, defended the ESDC's timetable: "Extending the public-comment period to 66 days - more than double the required 30 for a DEIS - and holding two open public sessions, including one in September, instead of the required one," he reasoned, "represents a fair attempt by ESDC to address the concerns of some in the community regarding a summer hearing."

Errol Louis, negotiation, and the CBs' lost dialogue

In a Daily News column today headlined Losing Brooklyn's uncivil war, Errol Louis argues that not only are opponents of the planned Atlantic Yards project likely to lose before the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC):
Ironically, the deal is likely to end up bigger than it might otherwise have been, because somewhere along the way, the anti-project groups abandoned important tools - the ability to be reasonable and civil, and the willingness to negotiate - that seasoned New York activists deploy to great advantage.

But negotiation depends on a framework for decisionmaking. The ESDC was always going to approve the project, and there's no check on scale, given that no local elected officials have a vote. The main negotiation was for a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) that makes certain promises regarding local/minority hiring, affordable housing, and contracts for minority-owned businesses.

Such CBAs represent an innovative aspect of development deals, but--this apparently must be repeated again and again--there's a crucial difference between the pioneering CBAs negotiated in Los Angeles and the CBA negotiated in Brooklyn: signatories in L.A. don't take money from the developer.

Confrontational politics?

Louis writes of project opponents:
More than two years into a struggle they have lost at every key turn, the main project opponents insist on attacking, confronting and insulting every politician, community leader and journalist - including yours truly - who didn't immediately agree to join them in trying to kill the project.

Lost at every turn? Remember, the project was supposed to break ground in 2004 and the arena was supposed to open in 2006. Now it would be 2009 at best, and the developer is talking about extending the Nets' lease at the Continental Airlines Arena well beyond that.

And now there's the news about the dissolution of Forest City Ratner, which has faced its financial struggles, into its Cleveland-based parent, Forest City Enterprises. The press release is murky, so we'll stay tuned for more interpretation, but NoLandGrab calls it a setback.

Looking into the mirror

How civil is Louis? Cataloging the language in Louis's latest column in Our Time Press, Lumi Rolley finds Louis describing opponents as:
-yuppies,
-antidevelopment protesters,
-antibuilders,
-antidevelopment brigade,
-antidevelopment groups,
-antidevelopment crowd,
-anti-development yuppies,
-middle-class people with loud voices, and
-liberal... serving as sentries guarding the walls of the Central Brooklyn ghetto.

That's quite a list.

The ex-Panther yuppies

And how correct is Louis?

Sure, a good segment of project opponents might be tagged as yuppies, but a good segment of project supporters might be said to be... paid.

Do City Council Member Charles Barron and fellow ex-Black Panther Bob Law count as anti-development yuppies? Do the Reverends Clinton Miller, David Dyson, and Dennis Dillon? Do grassroots affordable housing groups like the Fifth Avenue Committee and the Pratt Area Community Council? The coalition of the concerned is much broader.

Also, it's hard to trust a columnist who still can't get basic facts straight, as he claims more than once that the project would include 4500 apartments. Actually, that's just the rentals. There would also be 2360 condos, which would help make the project the densest residential community in the nation, by far.

More negotiation?

Louis raises an interesting point about patterns of activism. Would greater civility have worked in this case? He acknowledges that sometimes the situation requires confrontation, as with Act Up! during the early days of the AIDS crisis. He writes:
What should have been a dialogue is set to turn into a showdown. When the opponents go down in flames, they will have nobody to blame but themselves

Well, what about the Community Boards, the oh-so-mainstream bodies that represent a broad spectrum of the community? They didn't get much of a chance to negotiate.

In May, CBs 2, 6, & 8 sent a letter to Forest City Ratner after the developer claimed the CBs participated in "crafting" the CBA. The letter said:
We are writing to express our belief that this statement overstates our participation. As you may or may not be aware, we were invited to play a limited role that ended months before the agreement was signed when some eventual signatories barred us from attending the working sessions. Furthermore, we were not given the opportunity to review a final draft of the document despite assurances from Mr. James P. Stuckey, in a letter dated March 23, 2005 to Community Board 2, that FCRC intended to do so.
Given the very limited role played by the three community boards in crafting the CBA and FCRC's overstatement of that fact, we are requesting that you discontinue all mention, in any form, of our participation.

At CB8 hearing, old arguments--and new warnings on the DEIS

The hearings held last night by Community Boards 2, 6, & 8 were scheduled hastily, given the need to prepare for the August 23 hearing on the Empire State Development Corporation’s (ESDC) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

So it’s no surprise that, judging from the CB 8 meeting I attended, 1) community members who spoke often trod predictable ground and 2) not many civilians had read much, if anything, of the DEIS.

So, in a sense, the hearings themselves backed up a message many people offered: the ESDC should postpone the hearing and delay the environmental review to allow for more time to review the massive and complicated documents.

More than 75 people packed a meeting room at the Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation on Prospect Place in Crown Heights. Sentiments were divided for and against the project, though, at least according to the applause, the crowd leaned toward opposition. A majority of black attendees seemed to express approval, though two spoke against it and some others applauded opponents. Nearly all nonblack attendees opposed it. (I’m told that the mostly-white crowd at the CB6 hearing was pretty much against the project.)

[UPDATE: The Brooklyn Papers provides a quick tally on pro vs. con speakers:
CB2: 29–5 (3)
CB6: 24–5 (3)
CB8: 30–21 (6)
The numbers in parentheses account for the speakers who are Forest City Ratner employees, consultants, or Community Benefits Agreement signatories. Quick quote: “I personally apologize for the process. It is the most corrupt [development process] being done in America,” said state Sen. Velmanette Montgomery.]

Transportation nightmare?

One noncivilian, transportation engineer Brian Ketcham of Community Consulting Services, had read the document, and his warnings were dire. He charged that the DEIS was vastly underestimating the amount of development in the area, and thus the impact of the Atlantic Yards project.

“What we’ve done is research and map all of the development in and around Downtown Brooklyn not included in the No-Build” scenario of the DEIS, he said. “It’s more than half of the development.”

“They included 12 million square feet,” he continued. “There’s 25 million in and around Downtown Brooklyn,” as well as another 25 million square feet in more distant locations like Greenpoint and Williamsburg that still would affect downtown traffic and transit, especially given that the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway is already over capacity.

Ketcham also scoffed that “the DEIS comes to the remarkable conclusion that there’s no impact on subway crowding.”

Ketcham’s three minutes ran out, but he had more to say. “One of the tragedies of this whole process is limiting us to couple of minutes when we have hours of information to discuss,” he lamented.

An editorial in this week’s Brooklyn Papers takes off on Ketcham’s analysis, pointing out that the DEIS ignored “14 sites that already exist—such as large buildings at 9 MetroTech and 330 Jay St., plus the new Federal Courthouse—and also ignored another 13 projects that are already approved, under-construction or nearly completed, such as the Marriott hotel’s expansion, the renovation of 110 Livingston St., two large New York City College of Technology projects, and two large residential towers being built near Flatbush Avenue Extension and Gold Street.”

The subway link from Fort Greene

A set of Forest City Ratner staffers arrived early to sign up FCR officials as speakers, and those speakers, accompanied by a phalanx of aides, made it to each of the three board meetings.

Speaking well before Ketcham was Sam Schwartz (aka “Gridlock Sam”), transportation consultant to FCR, so Ketcham’s analysis went unrebutted.

Schwartz described several of the recommendations made to get arena visitors to take public transit more and drive less, including parking spaces limited to high-occupancy vehicles, and the possible integration of game tickets with MTA fare collection.

Not only do ten subway lines and the LIRR stop at the Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street complex, he noted, three subway lines pass within two blocks, the C at Lafayette Avenue and the G at Fulton Street.

“We have asked that street amenities be made to South Portland Avenue improving the link between these two trains and the Yards,” Schwartz said. “We also ask for consideration of having the A train stop at Lafayette St. [sic] pre- and post-game.”

“An intelligent parking system designed with the technology of 2009 is being developed that will allow people to know where they’ll find a [remote parking] space, even reserve it, thereby minimizing circulation—always a major contributor to congestion at events.”

With other FCR speakers, Schwartz--headed for another hearing with no time to take public transit--left in a limo.

Stuckey’s statement

Jim Stuckey, president of the Atlantic Yards Development Group, in his written statement reprised issues he’d stressed in previous public appearances: the project’s inclusion of affordable housing amid a housing shortage, the emphasis on sustainable design in the buildings, a transportation and traffic management plan.

New estimates of jobs

His analysis of economic benefits, however, included new estimates of jobs, taking off from the more generous estimates from the ESDC. While Forest City Ratner has promised 15,000 construction jobs (or 1500 jobs a year over ten years), and 3740 permanent jobs,
the ESDC calculates direct and indirect jobs in the city and state.

So Stuckey said, “Construction and operation of this project will create over 33,000 direct and indirect construction jobs and between 10,200 and 22,100 direct and indirect permanent jobs.”

Actually, the ESDC, in the DEIS Executive Summary, states that “Phase I construction would create between 14,300 and 14,900 direct and indirect jobs in New York City and between 17,600 and 18,400 direct and indirect jobs overall in New York State” and “Construction of Phase II would generate approximately 12,300 direct and indirect jobs in New York City and a total of approximately 15,300 jobs in New York State.”

Add 18,400 to 15,300 and the total tops 33,000, but that’s in the state, and that is job-years.

The General Project Plan uses different calculations with more precise description: “Construction of the Project will generate 15,344 new direct job years and 26,803 total job years (direct, indirect and induced).”

Stuckey on offense

In his oral statement, however, Stuckey was more combative, pointing out that, in contrast to many other buildings going up in the area, “What I thought was very interesting that, unlike the responsibility we have at Atlantic Yards, very few of the single-user buildings have the responsibility to look at issues like jobs or housing or open space, or how to deal with the Gowanus Canal.”

(Well, are the other buildings the largest project in the history of Brooklyn, or seeking as much in subsidies? And doesn’t any construction create jobs?)

Stuckey avoided the question of density, but he was eager to take on the issue of scale: “I understand that you’ll hear people tell you that it’s three times the Empire State Building. They won’t tell you that it’s 12 times the Empire State Building’s footprint. They’ll tell you that it’s 23 times the Williamsburg Savings Bank, but what they won’t tell you is that it’s 53 times the Williamsburg Savings Bank’s footprint. And what they won’t tell you about is the thousands of families that don’t have housing, about the seniors that will be housed… They won’t tell you about the two- and three-bedrooms that are meant to keep families in the neighborhood.”

Or they will.

Neighborhood worries

Several people living in Dean Street just across from the development warned of the impact—traffic, noise, air quality—on their daily lives. “We’re in the heart of the blight neighborhood,” Michael Rogers, a resident of the high-end Newswalk condos, said wryly.

He recalled how residents were rehabilitating buildings, but said, “in the middle that wasn’t blight, it was railyards.” He said representatives from his building did warn the Metropolitan Transportation Authority that the area around the railyards wasn’t being maintained, “but they ignored us.”

“We’re being exposed to the biggest, cruelest science experiment,” he warned, citing the influx of some 16,000 people, which would make it the densest neighborhood, by far, in the country. “When it turns out it doesn’t work, we’re going to be stuck.”

Questions of blight

Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn spokesman Daniel Goldstein called on the community board to oppose this “colossal blunder,” saying that “there are many alternatives that create jobs and housing.”

Though Goldstein’s home in the footprint is just outside the boundaries of CB8, he said he chose that meeting because he thought the impact of the project would be strongest there. “According to definitions in the Draft EIS,” he said, “the whole district is blighted,” given that there is multiple ownership of underutilized buildings.

“Community Board 8 is ripe for eminent domain abuse. Community Board 8 is ripe for overdevelopment,” he said. “If it happens with Ratner’s project, why wouldn’t it happen with the next developer’s project?”

Patti Hagan of the Prospect Heights Action Coalition (and DDDB) talked about how she and others reclaimed the neighborhood, then took a broad swing at FCR’s projects. “Where’s the blight? Ratner’s Atlantic Center mall. Ratner’s Atlantic Terminal mall. P.C. Richard. MetroTech.”

(While the Atlantic Terminal mall and MetroTech have their critics, the Atlantic Center mall and Site 5, with P.C. Richard and Modell’s, have faced far harsher judgment--and, indeed, if underutilization of potential development rights is a definition of blight, are blighted because of that.)

Project supporters

The project supporters who spoke didn't comment directly on the EIS but cited the need for housing, jobs, and development.

Several spporters testified from BUILD, the job-training group that provided crucial support for the project as it negotiated a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA)--and denied being funded by FCR before admitting it. CEO James Caldwell observed, as has often been voiced by CBA signatories, that Forest City Ratner gave people of color “