In May 2006, I had a few go-rounds with a New York Times editor who insisted the newspaper did not have to correct a statement that Atlantic Yards opponents "have backed alternative plans for the site, including proposals by rival developers that would include mostly low-rise buildings and would not require eminent domain."
(Emphasis added)
Despite copious evidence, the editor declared, "[W]e've determined that no correction is warranted."
Well, I was just looking at the Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued in November 2006, and Chapter 20, Alternatives, described (p.19) the Extell proposal thusly:
The proposed design would result in eight high-rise structures and one low-rise structure in a curving footprint along Atlantic Avenue...
(Emphasis added)
If they don't believe me, or Forest City Ratner executive Jim Stuckey, or the publication Real Estate Weekly, all cited in my previous post, maybe they'll believe the government.
(Emphasis added)
Despite copious evidence, the editor declared, "[W]e've determined that no correction is warranted."
Well, I was just looking at the Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued in November 2006, and Chapter 20, Alternatives, described (p.19) the Extell proposal thusly:
The proposed design would result in eight high-rise structures and one low-rise structure in a curving footprint along Atlantic Avenue...
(Emphasis added)
If they don't believe me, or Forest City Ratner executive Jim Stuckey, or the publication Real Estate Weekly, all cited in my previous post, maybe they'll believe the government.
Comments
Post a Comment