Second look at oft-prescient 2006 article: CBA won over housing advocates, though it wasn't enforceable. Atlantic Yards would "radically change the scale" of appropriate development.

In August 2006. when I first read an article in Next American City, then a quarterly magazine (and now the online NextCity) headlined A New Dynamic: Atlantic Yards Challenges Brooklyn Progressive Politics, I suggested:

While there's not much new for Atlantic Yards-watchers, and some information is dated or inaccurate (the project now would be 6860 apartments, not 7300, and Atlantic Avenue divides Prospect Heights and Fort Greene rather than serves as a Prospect Heights thoroughfare), the article does point out to a national audience how the project has fractured some typical community alliances, notably among progressives.

Upon re-reading Michael Freedman-Schnapp's article, I think he was significantly prescient, in part, though his analysis still seems somewhat contradictory: unskeptical at one point, but skeptical in its conclusion. 

(As of the publication, Freedman-Schnapp was Senior Policy Associate at the New York Industrial Retention Network. He went on to become Director of Policy for Council Member Brad Lander, Director, Policy & Innovation Division at the New York City Council, and is now Managing Director at

Forsyth Street Advisors, working on affordable housing and other issues, according to LinkedIn.)

His summary:

Because of the many delicate issues involved - scale, density, traffic, the sale of public land, inclusionary housing, and gentrification - the community has split over support for Atlantic Yards in unusual coalitions. The far-right Manhattan Institute, generally expected to toe the developer’s line, has come out vociferously against the project’s proposed use of eminent domain and state subsidies. In turn, progressive groups often seen as anti-development have supported the project because of its inclusion of affordable housing and its commitment to hire minorities during the construction process. A closer look at the Atlantic Yards debate sheds light on the complex, changing politics of development in New York.

(Emphases added)

The Manhattan Institute also has a libertarian bent, hence its opposition to projects like Atlantic Yards. On some issues, it may be considered center-right these days. 

About the CBA

In a section headlined "Pact With the Community or a P.R. Whitewash?," the author writes:

One of the most controversial components of Atlantic Yards is the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), signed by Forest City Ratner and eight community groups. While Mayor Bloomberg witnessed the CBA, the government is not an official party to the document. The CBA commits the developer to make 30 percent of the 7,300 housing units affordable to low- and moderate-income families, to hire 20 percent minority-owned construction firms, and to bring local residents, people of color, and women into the skilled and unskilled construction jobs in the project. The signatory groups and politicians have hailed the CBA as a historic commitment to affordable housing and local hiring.

The inclusionary housing component of the CBA alleviates the concerns of advocates for affordable housing. “There are a wide array of significant benefits that will advance building an economically diverse, cohesive community,” said Jonathan Rosen, a spokesperson for ACORN New York, a liberal advocacy group for housing and poverty issues. Rosen hailed the CBA as a “historic commitment to affordable housing.” The minority hiring component of the CBA has sold many others on the project - even Rev. Al Sharpton, a frequent opponent of City Hall - to come out in support of the project.

The language here, especially in retrospect, was ill-advised. The CBA related only to the 4,500 rentals, and the then-2,800 condos were reduced to 1,930. The CBA, as many suspected then and now know, was unenforceable, since the Development Agreement instead holds sway.

As to whether the housing component "alleviates the concerns," well, the article didn't mention that ACORN was obligated to support the project, as part of signing the 2005 Affordable Housing Memorandum of Understanding.

Fun fact: Rosen and his firm BerlinRosen now represent developer Greenland Forest City Partners, not ACORN. Were Rosen consistent, rather than a hired gun, he might, on ACORN's behalf, criticize the failure to uphold the "historic commitment." 

But that's the job, primarily, of former New York ACORN head Bertha Lewis, now at The Black Institute--and she hasn't done so.

Enforceability?

From the article:

But not everyone is happy with the plan. Some organizations originally included in negotiations refused to sign the final CBA. The African-American Baptist Brown Memorial Church, just five blocks away from the proposed site, is one of those groups. Its pastor, Rev. Clinton Miller, supports large-scale development and affordable housing at Atlantic Yards, but he became frustrated by the lack of mechanisms to enforce the developer’s promises during negotiations. “We always felt that if we went in and made a quick bargain, there was the risk that the developer would modify the contents of the initial deal farther down the road,” he said.

Miller, history shows, was right. No Independent Compliance Monitor was ever hired.

About race, and class

In a section headlined "It’s Race And Class”… Or Is It?" Freedman-Schnapp noted:

Support for Atlantic Yards is not divided along strict racial lines, but proponents have no hesitation about using race or class as a way to distinguish themselves from opponents. The most vocal supporters are largely African Americans who emphasize opportunities for economic advancement and affordable housing....

Gentrification of Brooklyn has been so rapid that those left behind seek any intervention that promises economic relief.

That's not wrong, but Rev. Miller noted, presciently, "How can developers be responsible for some of these things when their only concern is the bottom line?”

About displacement, and changing scale

From that section:

Atlantic Yards may have a softer economic blow on the surrounding neighborhood than other developments: “The project per se won't be displacing the long-term residents of the area,” observes Mafruza Khan, Associate Director of the Pratt Center for Community Development. Khan explains that “demographic shifts have already occurred” in Prospect Heights: since 1980, more affluent whites have moved into what was a predominantly working-class African-American community. If approved as planned, the biggest impact of Atlantic Yards will be to radically change the scale of development considered appropriate in Brooklyn.

Khan wasn't wrong regarding Prospect Heights, but the larger study area around the project, stretching into parts of Bedford-Stuyvesant, indeed was--and has been--vulnerable to displacement, as disclosed in the 2006 Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements.

But Freedman-Schnapp was more right than not in suggesting the "biggest impact" would be to "radically change the scale of development." 

Of course, the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning had already been approved, unlocking large-scale development in a much broader area. So too had a rezoning along Fourth Avenue, at the edge of Park Slope, leading up very near to the proposed Atlantic Yards site.

But Atlantic Yards expanded on those, pushing more clearly into the edge of lower-scale districts and, as we now know, unlocking development to the east along Atlantic Avenue, with new projects proposed just east of the project site past Vanderbilt Avenue. 

Also, the presence of the arena encouraged a certain number of businesses--notably food/beverage, and hotels--in the area.

Questions of precedent

In a final section titled "A Question Of Precedent," Freedman-Schnapp's tone got tougher:

Because of the wide scope and high profile of Atlantic Yards, the project is sure to be a defining moment in New York City development politics. If successful, Forest City Ratner will have generated a road map for future developers: get a group of powerful elected officials on your side, choose a group of disempowered, but vocal, supporters in the community, and make an unenforceable promise to provide a few goods that the public sector has failed to deliver, such as community facilities or affordable housing. Because the public review process for Atlantic Yards is so limited and vague, a handful of organizations have negotiated on behalf of the community as a whole. Yet the entire community must bear the impacts on public services and infrastructure of such a large-scale project.

Indeed, the promise was unenforceable, though the "few goods"--in this case most prominently affordable housing and jobs--were considered, by proponents at least, to be significant goods.

He was right to critique the "handful of organizations" for being allowed to represent the community, and that challenge continues, both on the side of project supporters and project critics. As we've learned, some of the impacts are diffuse--the absence of promised jobs and job training--while others are notably concentrated.

Residents of adjacent neighborhoods do not, in the main, bear the brunt of event-day traffic (except for certain driver-heavy events) nor impacts from construction or construction-related vehicles. But residents of a smaller number of adjacent blocks do face those impacts, and the city and state have not protected them.