Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report

Over several posts in an occasional series, I'll revisit various Response to Comments documents in separate environmental review or project approval processes, pointing out, with the asset of hindsight, unwise or unfounded assessments by either commenters or the Empire State Development Corporation (now called Empire State Development), the state authority overseeing and shepherding the project. I previously wrote about the  lack of institutionalized oversight , the  wobbliness of project promises , and the justification for taking private property . Several commenters warned that the project might last much longer than ten years, and thus the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was inadequate: The dates for analysis are inadequate. Community responses to the Draft Scope proposed looking 20-40 years ahead to assess potential impacts. While such lengthy time horizons may not be feasible for every measure, they are essential to assess major project impacts. The...

Over several posts in an occasional series, I'll revisit various Response to Comments documents in separate environmental review or project approval processes, pointing out, with the asset of hindsight, unwise or unfounded assessments by either commenters or the Empire State Development Corporation (now called Empire State Development), the state authority overseeing and shepherding the project. I previously wrote about the lack of institutionalized oversight  and the wobbliness of project promises . Project opponents and those facing displacement criticized a developer-initiated process: ESDC has never solicited proposals from other developers. The project was initiated by [Forest City] Ratner and Ratner presented the project to ESDC. It was beyond a doubt that Ratner would be the primary beneficiary before the plans for the project were formulated or a substantial commitment of public funds was made. (468; representatives of several potential eminent domain plaintiffs) Th...

Over several posts, I'll revisit various Response to Comments documents in separate environmental review or project approval processes, pointing out, with the asset of hindsight, unwise or unfounded assessments by either commenters or the Empire State Development Corporation (now called Empire State Development), the state authority overseeing and shepherding the project. I previously wrote about the "project concept, evolution, and process to evaluate changes." These comments are from the first round of project approvals, in the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement, bottom. Emphases are added. How sturdy were promises? Commitments made by the project sponsors should be legally binding. (23, Council Member David Yassky; 143, Malcolm Armstrong) Promises made will be null and void as soon as the current governor and current mayor leave office. (349, Robert Ohlerking) What mechanisms are being set in place to assure compliance with applicable codes and that c...

Over several posts, I'll revisit various Response to Comments documents in separate environmental review or project approval processes, pointing out, with the asset of hindsight, unwise or unfounded assessments by either commenters or the Empire State Development Corporation (now called Empire State Development), the state authority overseeing and shepherding the project. These comments are from the first round of project approvals, in the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement, bottom. Emphases are added. An "organic" development process? If the land were developed in a more organic way, meaning individual developers bid on parcels and build when the market supports it, it would happen in a more natural and tolerable way. Through public subsidies and single source development, an artificial economic environment is being created, which contradicts reason and economic sense. (119, Society For Clinton Hill) MTA should platform over the rail yard, subdivide it into...