tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post930764625045051484..comments2024-03-18T05:56:29.009-04:00Comments on Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report: Not an error but a "minor imprecision"Norman Oderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07618087999719667586noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post-6011035279517903412008-02-19T11:30:00.000-05:002008-02-19T11:30:00.000-05:00(This is my same comment on the previous, related,...(This is my same comment on the previous, related, post.)<BR/><BR/>The developer's web statement prominently says that "THE ATLANTIC YARDS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BUILT PRIMARILY OVER THE LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD'S VANDERBILT RAIL YARDS."<BR/><BR/>This is inaccurate.<BR/><BR/>The inaccuracy bears on many substantial issues critical to equity and proper public decision making.<BR/><BR/>The public, press and government should be calling for the developer’s retraction of this statement. The New York Times has not done so. (Nor has Spitzer.)<BR/><BR/>The Times Statements in many of its articles ECHO the misstatements by the developer reinforcing the misimpressions the developer is for very important tactical reasons intending to convey.<BR/><BR/>One could say that this ECHO sounds like voice of the developer’s PARTNER.<BR/><BR/>In point of fact, the New York Times is a PARTNER with the developer in the construction of its new headquarters (for which below-cost land was acquired via little reported eminent domain abuse).<BR/><BR/>Decide: Does the voice of the Times sound like: a.) a partner of the developer, or b.) an independent voice attentive to the most important issues in New York City governance?MDDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16693635186364315879noreply@blogger.com