Skip to main content

"Breaking a circle or making a circle": Why divisive arguments drove Steve Espinola to "dream logic" at hearing Wednesday

To many of the people in the room Wednesday near the end of a long public hearing on the 2009 Modified General Project Plan, Prospect Heights resident Steve Espinola's seemingly spacey musings about "making a circle or breaking a circle" and how we all "eat" each other served as comic relief.

But, as shown when he responded to hecklers--"You can take out due process; you can turn a hearing about it into a public mockery”--Espinola was trying to make a point about the enterprise at hand. (Transcript below)



The "irrational energies"

He emailed me an explanation:
"You're either making a circle or breaking a circle" is something a Native American elder told me. (Native Americans generally have a strong experiential understanding of the process and dynamics of land grabs.) I figured it was time to try a little dream logic or illogic to break through the dichotomous arguments. This process has been all about dividing people, destroying existing and potential connection and community. In other words, breaking a circle.

Making us define ourselves as "Pro" or "Against" on the hearing's sign-up sheet is a part of that tactic, even if it is claimed that it is for the sake of programmatic "balance." It seems to be limiting the range and potential creativity of the testimony. It's a mindset I no longer want to play into.

A room full of people had just jeered a woman who was talking about her asthma,
[excerpts below] and I was shocked at the lack of empathy. I was even shocked that I was shocked. Then, Maureen [Shea] from the Green Party had made an excellent, grounded, nondivisive speech which said every rational thing I would have wanted to say, and better than I could have said it.

My first impulse was to say simply "I agree with Maureen," but I decided to talk about respectful cannibalism instead and out-irrationalize the irrational energies in the room, from as calm a place as I could muster. I didn't even want to fight the violence anymore, so I was trying to work with it, and present it as a conscious choice that had choices within it.

It wasn't a prepared speech, but I knew what I wanted to convey. Given that I had a nice, long, sweet conversation with an elderly and concerned member of ACORN afterwards, something good and connecting came out of it.




(Videos shot by Jonathan Barkey; edited by Norman Oder)

Update: the Espinola transcript

Because the audio on the YouTube excerpt is unclear, here's the transcript, as supplied by Espinola.

Steve Espinola: I have no idea what I'm gonna say, I, uh….I keep changing my mind on that, but um….(pause) You're either making a circle or breaking a circle at any moment. That's what I was starting to think, and then I was thinking….You know, we're all just animals here, after all, right, that's all we are, we're all animals, and we all just gotta eat. So I was out there and I had the….

Audience man: You are an animal!

Espinola: …the "For" or "Against" [a column in the signup sheet where speakers had to state their stance as "For the Project" or "Against the Project"] and I was trying to figure that out, and I was just kinda like, "Let's Eat." That's what I wrote down. And, when, back when I was a tiger, you know, I had to eat some other animals. And there's a way to eat animals in a respectful way…

Audience woman: What?

Espinola: …and a way to eat animals in a disrespectful way. So I guess I'm just sayin', you know, if this thing gets built the way it's going forward right now, it's not respecting, the animals….

Audience man: Who the hell you callin' an animal, bro?

Espinola: Me! You. Everyone, everyone here is an animal. So…..if I get eaten I hope it gets done in a respectful way. So I just invite anyone who's gonna eat me….Eat me….to do it, you know, respectfully, you know, have a conversation. That's all, that's all I'm saying. Make a circle, make a circle. We can all be, we can all be eating each other in a good way. It doesn't have to be so ferocious, you know…..[drowned out] ..Not, greedy….

Some audience members: Build it now! Build it now! Build it now!

Espinola: Well, I mean, there's something to be said for _that_. There's something to be said for that. You can just do it, you know, no democracy, you can just dismantle democracy, you can just take all that out. (laughs) You can just take it all out, you can take out due process, you can just turn any kind of hearing about it into a public mockery….

Moderator: Everybody, if he's interrupted he will be getting an additional minute or two.

Espinola: You can pay people, you know, to come and interrupt other people or something like that. [drowned out] So that's all I'm saying. Think about it, making a circle vs. breaking a circle, you know, think about how, _how_ you're eating people, other peop-- other creatures. And is it respectful or disrespectful. Thank you. And eat, eat! Let's eat.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But official…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back at planning

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