Straight face: ESD claims "stark contrast" between project site and adjacent blocks (but where was the market study?)
This project was supposed to remove blight. That was the purpose of this project, the fundamental purpose to remove alleged blight that did not exist. And in this Draft SEIS the evidence is there that it never existed. That the ESDC hid information, kept information out that the area was on the upswing, which is the opposite of blight. (D. Goldstein)The response:
This project was to eliminate blight. By your own SEIS, blight has been eliminated if it ever existed. (Carpenter)
The DSEIS contains many references to the expanding retail and residential economy in the study area. It should explain how its current assessment reconciles with the 2006 finding of blight, and whether the project’s goals could now be realized without a UDC project being necessary. (BrooklynSpeaks)
The comments mischaracterize the methodology and conclusions of the 2006 Blight Study, which presented a detailed analysis of the blocks and lots that comprise the Project site. Neither the 2006 Blight Study nor the 2006 FEIS indicated that the neighborhoods surrounding the Project site were blighted or were experiencing downward trends in property values, residential population, or retail activity. The DSEIS indicates that the upward trends in the surrounding neighborhoods that were described in the 2006 FEIS have continued to date. At the time the 2006 Blight Study was authored, there was a stark contrast between conditions on Project site Blocks 1127, 1128, and 1129 (the southern portion of the Project site) and development on adjacent blocks to the south and on blocks north of Atlantic Avenue in the northern part of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA).(Emphasis added)
That contrasted significantly with the Blight Study conducted on behalf of ESD, which concluded that only the Atlantic Yards project could remove the endemic blight pinpointed on the project site.
That Blight Study was supposed to include a market study, including:
--Analyze residential and commercial rents on the project site and within the study area
--Analyze assessed value trends on the project site, and compare to sample blocks with comparable uses in the study area, such as the Atlantic Center
That never happened.
Despite that, ESD concluded that the project site was blighted and that only Atlantic Yards could remove the blight.
That doesn't make sense--blight is supposed to be a corrosive phenomenon.
They never bothered to check with that market study, likely because the results would have argued against blight.