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.
 |
| NYTimes, 9/28/10 |
My as of right extension well under the allowable FAR (allowable density which both complaining neighbors certainly benefited from in pricing their house sales), that doesn't use eminent domain, doesn't need a zoning override (or even a rezoning), or a no bid process, or violate construction and environmental protocols, doesn't use subsidies, doesn't bypass the city's planning process, doesn't rely on cronies in government etc etc etc, is, apparently from the Times photo and rendering, Bigger and Taller than the arena! Amazing!
ReplyDeleteMr. Goldstein misses the point. The point is hypocrisy. Mr. Goldstein wants what he wants, and doesn't care what his neighbors think.
ReplyDelete11:57. You are totally fucking wrong, and this is why. Since when law and order substitute by " What his neighbors think" law, I never heard of such a law, do you? Being a good neighbor , doesn't mean I have to listen to any bullshit or kiss any crazy looser ass. If DoB have no objection to Mr Goldstein plans, Why he shouldn't build it ? They don't liked , go and get lawyer , and I wish them good luck to win.
ReplyDeleteThe comment at 12:37 AM pretty much confirms what the 11:57 comment said about Mr. Goldstein's hyprocrisy. Forest City Ratner said the same thing to Mr. Goldstein: "You don't like what we are doing ? Then sue us." Goldstein et al. sued, and lost. Thus, Goldstein is as "good" a neighbor as Foret City Ratner.
ReplyDeleteFor the record and for context, the main target of the lawsuits was the state, which was exercising eminent domain and overriding zoning.
ReplyDelete