BrooklynSpeaks responds to Community Engagement draft: respondents' skew affects affordability; open spaces praised are public, not private; subsidies ignored; accountability sought

The coalition BrooklynSpeaks this morning circulated an email to its mailing list, titled What we learned from ESD’s community engagement report.

While the message doesn't credit my earlier coverage, Draft Community Engagement Report Backs (!?) Developers' Aim to Downplay Low-Income Housing, there is significant overlap.

BrooklynSpeaks, though, offers valuable focus.

"The median annual income of most participants and respondents was more than $150K."

BrooklynSpeaks notes, as I'd pointed out, that the income skew likely affects the respondents' purported support for more expensive below-market "affordable housing," though, according to a respected housing organization, "moderate and middle income levels make up only about 7% of the more than one million rent-burdened households in New York City."

BrooklynSpeaks asks: shouldn't Atlantic Yards address where the need is greatest?

"The open spaces cited by participants as examples of what is desirable at the site are all public parks, not private space controlled by developers and landlords."

As I noted, the participants cited nearby public parks as a model for future Atlantic Yards open space. I pointed out the contrast between those spaces and the high-rise, high-density plans for the railyard. 

BrooklynSpeaks notes--as I should have reminded people--that that those parks are overseen by the city, while "Pacific Park" is managed "by a private non-profit organization controlled by the project’s developers and property owners."

BrooklynSpeaks asks: how can the public be represented?

"Participants were not told the developers would seek hundreds of millions in new subsidies."

As I'd written, the failure to disclose subsidies, as well as the value of other public benefits, was a failure of transparency.

BrooklynSpeaks asks: "Will ESD commit to providing an independent financial analysis reconciling project cost, subsidy and public benefit?" 

I appreciate that statement, because some previous statements by BrooklynSpeaks, or its leaders like Gib Veconi of the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council, have focused on the project's financial feasibility, which does not necessarily address the balance of public benefit. 

As I’ve written, the financial expectations of the developers deserve analysis.

"Participants went out of their way to demand better accountability."

BrooklynSpeaks points out that neither in the three previous workshops nor in the online workshop was there an opportunity to discuss improving oversight and accountability, though previous failures in accountability--the state's willingness to enforce the May 2025 affordable housing deadline--have prompted a change in developers.

So BrooklynSpeaks makes the important point that participants--likely many on its mailing list--made it an issue.

BrooklynSpeaks asks: "What changes to project management, oversight and accountability does ESD propose to ensure future Atlantic Yards promises are fulfilled?"

We don't know yet.

I think there's even more reason to be skeptical. As I wrote, the report re-framed accountability as simply ensuring that the project gets done in a timely manner. That bypasses the many failures of transparency I'd cited.