Courier-Life: (unreliable) Gilmartin says sticking point for Goldstein was money; Goldstein says it was the gag order

An article from CNG--dubbed Courier-Life but written by Brooklyn Paper reporter Stephen Brown and first appearing on the New York Post web site--has the overhyped headline Ratner exec: Goldstein was in it for the money! Gilmartin: 'He was in it for the money!'.

Surely even Forest City Ratner officials don't think Daniel Goldstein spent more than six years fighting Atlantic Yards for the money. He could've doubled the value of his home in 2004. Rather, the headline refers to the action last week.

The article states:

Forest City Ratner officials abandoned their diplomatic talk on Tuesday to explicitly portray Daniel Goldstein, who ended his long holdout in the Atlantic Yards footprint for $3 million last week, as an opportunist looking to make as much money as possible.

Countering Goldstein’s own spin that his fight against Atlantic Yards was a principled stand against eminent domain abuse, Forest City Ratner Executive Vice President MaryAnne Gilmartin told us that last week’s final negotiations did not bog down due to Goldstein’s insistence that he be allowed to continue criticizing the project, but simply over how much money he could get out of developer Bruce Ratner.

“The sticking point was how much money he wanted,” Gilmartin said.

...Later, Goldstein called Gilmartin’s assessment simply false.

“The money amount was settled pretty quickly,” he said. “The sticking point that led to nearly four hours of discussions was Ratner’s insistent desire to bind me to some sort of gag order.

Um, how is it that Goldstein has a "spin" but the Scarsdale-dwelling Gilmartin has an "assessment"?

Given that the developer has consistently wrung additional subsidies and concessions out of public bodies, it's fair to say that Forest City Ratner always been the "opportunist looking to make as much money as possible."

Remember, Brown originally reported:

Goldstein’s lawyer, Mike Rikon, explained that the sticking point of during two hours of negotiations on Wednesday in the chambers of Justice Abraham Gerges in Downtown was Ratner’s demand that Goldstein relinquish his right to speak out against the project.

In the end, Ratner backed down because “[Goldstein] would have walked away from any offer if he lost his First Amendment rights,” Rikon said.