Times jumps on year-old story: Goldstein's the heavy because of legal home renovation (and what about violations of construction protocols in building arena?)
Almost a year ago, the Daily News published a tabloid-y article equating Atlantic Yards foe Daniel Goldstein's as-of-right home expansion project, which angered his immediate neighbors, with Goldstein's opposition to the mega-development that used eminent domain, public subsidies, and other governmental help.
Gothamist and the Observer were more sober in their follow-ups, the former getting Goldstein's neighbor-to-be to admit she said she hoped his house burned down.
The Times weighs in
Today, as if payback for the more-skeptical-than-previous (but still too gentle) Sunday article on Atlantic Yards, the New York Times publishes another version of the story, headlined For an Old Foe of Atlantic Yards, a Smaller-Scale Battle, portraying Goldstein as the heavy.
The comments so far either suggest Goldstein is a hypocritical NIMBY or, as one wrote:
Just because Ratner built the Times' new HQ, does that mean it needs to do his dirty work and trash his enemies for no obvious reason?
|From the article posted today/Robert Stolarik for NYTimes|
Also consider the Times's news judgment: back in 2007, after Mayor Mike Bloomberg quietly added $105 million in taxpayer subsidies to the budget for Atlantic Yards, the Times buried the news.
Fun with photo angles
It also strikes me as a rather irresponsible decision to choose a photo shot from the perspective of someone's foot; that skews our view of the addition.
By contrast, the Times regularly publishes architectural renderings that provide an unrealistic "helicopter" view--it's done so more than once regarding Atlantic Yards.