Gothamist's coverage of the new "Battle for Brooklyn" screening raises some old questions

"The Barclays Center's controversial history is revisited at a free event in Red Hook," Gothamist reports (link), citing a screening of the documentary Battle for Brooklyn on Feb. 27.

The article includes interviews with the film's protagonist, Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, and filmmaker Mike Galinsky.

I have a couple of long articles, triggered by rewatching the film, coming in my Substack newsletter. (I won't be at the event, as I'll be out of town.)

But first I'd like to address a couple of things in the article.

Transformative promises

From the article:

According to Norman Oder, a tour guide who maintains a devoted watchdog blog about the development, Atlantic Yards has failed “to fulfill [its] transformative promises of jobs and affordable housing.”

“All of the promises were empty,” added Galinsky in a phone interview.

That's not so, because "empty" is a pretty definitive statement. There are 1,374 units of below-market "affordable" housing, with 2,250 required. The timing is way behind schedule, and the affordability is far less than promised.

By the way, I'm not sure I've ever been described as a "tour guide who maintains" a blog, because that suggests, demeaningly, that I'm an amateur. (Doesn't "maintain" suggest a rather static endeavor?)

I started my tour guide business in 2000, nearly two decades after began my journalism career.

Goldstein's settlement

I posted a comment in response to the paragraph below:

"Ultimately, Goldstein's obstinance was handsomely rewarded. Forest City $3 million in 2010 to leave, quite a raise from the $510,000 the company initially offered him for the apartment,. He'd paid $590,000 for it in 2003."

My comment is below.

That misses clarity & context. He no longer owned his apartment. The state had taken it by eminent domain. (He was not a "holdout.")

The payment was to time his departure at Forest City's desire, to ensure that the Nets sale proceeded.
 
While $3M> $510K, it wasn't "Quite a raise." That $510K was a deliberate low-ball, less than what he'd paid for it in 2003.

Gothamist wrote at the time:

 Goldstein's lawyer Mike Rikon called the low-balling a punishment for Goldstein's outspoken opposition: "I've been practicing eminent domain law exclusively for 41 years and I've never seen this. There is no question it's vindictive and mean."

Forest City had earlier doubled what others in Goldstein's building had paid. Taxpayers reimbursed $100M in property purchases.

After Goldstein's attorney's cut, his total was closer to $2.3M, according to the filmmakers. Other costs include renting & acquiring a new home, plus years of foregone income.