Moskowitz's overall arguments are worth engaging, but for now I'd like to address one specific paragraph regarding Atlantic Yards. (deMause's book more extensively addresses Atlantic Yards, if inevitably tilted to the early part of the controversy, while Hymowitz's book goes elsewhere.)
Moskowitz's brief focus on Atlantic Yards is another example of how (inevitably?) complex things get boiled down awkwardly or incorrectly for future consumption. I've seen this in other books, as well. It's unfortunate, because future readers and historians may not re-read original sources, or may use original sources that are incorrect.
Looking at the details
I've bolded certain sections for further explication:
Yes, the arena has had "gentrification ripple effects," but so too was Prospect Heights gentrifying. In fact, the project was pitched as a response to gentrification--and there eventually will be 900 low-income units--but it hasn't worked that way.
Yes, independent stores have closed, though many of the chains that have arrived are homegrown ones, such as Doughnut Plant or Four & Twenty Blackbirds.
The city and state haven't already "subsidized more than $2 billion of the deal," especially since the project is still in its early stages and that estimate was aimed at the full project.
That's a very unofficial estimate, published in April 2008 in the New York Post, based on an analysis by urban planner and activist Michael D.D. White.
At the time, I called it "an apparent no-risk plan to build the arena." I should note that, in 2010, the New York City Independent Budget Office cast doubt on that assumption, and only assigned savings based on tax breaks, not the use of tax-exempt bonds to finance the arena.
The IBO didn't find that Atlantic Yards would cause a net loss to city revenue, but rather estimated that the arena would. It didn't even address the full project, though it made some estimates of costs.
Did nearly every politician "approve of" the project? Well, if that means they endorsed it. But that doesn't mean that they approved it, because they didn't have a vote.
Marty Markowitz, of course, was the Borough President, not the Vice President, a title that doesn't exist. (Rather, there's a Deputy Borough President.) He actually didn't go to China--as noted in my report, which Moskowitz cites--but rather appeared on a video aimed at Chinese investors.
It would've been worth adding that Markowitz's assistance in recruiting investors was for the EB-5 program, in which immigrant investors--who put $500,000 into a purportedly job-creating enterprise to get green cards for themselves and their families--gain reassurance from the role of government officials. The EB-5 fundraising continued in two more rounds. And now EB-5, as a national policy, is under a lot more scrutiny.
Looking at the details
I've bolded certain sections for further explication:
The most egregious example of recent redevelopment planning is Atlantic Yards, across the East River in Brooklyn. The project, recently renamed Pacific Park, includes thousands of apartments and a new arena for the Nets basketball team. It was spearheaded by the Empire State Development Corporation, a state agency that isn't required to elicit the same kind of public input for projects as a truly public project would. State land in downtown Brooklyn was given away to developer Bruce Ratner at under market price, but the thousands of jobs promised never materialized, and the new arena has had gentrification ripple effects... forcing independent stores to close and be replaced by chain stores that can afford higher rents, and pushing up rents for residents anywhere in the vicinity of the project. The city and state subsidized more than $2 billion of the deal. The city's own Independent Budget Office found that Atlantic Yards would cause a net loss to city revenue, but nearly every politician in New York approved of the project anyway. The borough's Vice President at the time, Marty Markowitz, even took a trip to China to find investors for the project. "Brooklyn is 1000 percent, 1000 percent, behind Atlantic Yards," he said. "There's nothing better than China and Brooklyn together."Yes, the land was sold/contracted at below-market price--indeed, Moskowitz's source notes cite my article--though "given away" shouldn't be taken literally.
Yes, the arena has had "gentrification ripple effects," but so too was Prospect Heights gentrifying. In fact, the project was pitched as a response to gentrification--and there eventually will be 900 low-income units--but it hasn't worked that way.
Yes, independent stores have closed, though many of the chains that have arrived are homegrown ones, such as Doughnut Plant or Four & Twenty Blackbirds.
 |
| From How to Kill a City |
That's a very unofficial estimate, published in April 2008 in the New York Post, based on an analysis by urban planner and activist Michael D.D. White.
At the time, I called it "an apparent no-risk plan to build the arena." I should note that, in 2010, the New York City Independent Budget Office cast doubt on that assumption, and only assigned savings based on tax breaks, not the use of tax-exempt bonds to finance the arena.
The IBO didn't find that Atlantic Yards would cause a net loss to city revenue, but rather estimated that the arena would. It didn't even address the full project, though it made some estimates of costs.
Did nearly every politician "approve of" the project? Well, if that means they endorsed it. But that doesn't mean that they approved it, because they didn't have a vote.
Marty Markowitz, of course, was the Borough President, not the Vice President, a title that doesn't exist. (Rather, there's a Deputy Borough President.) He actually didn't go to China--as noted in my report, which Moskowitz cites--but rather appeared on a video aimed at Chinese investors.
It would've been worth adding that Markowitz's assistance in recruiting investors was for the EB-5 program, in which immigrant investors--who put $500,000 into a purportedly job-creating enterprise to get green cards for themselves and their families--gain reassurance from the role of government officials. The EB-5 fundraising continued in two more rounds. And now EB-5, as a national policy, is under a lot more scrutiny.
Comments
Post a Comment