City Council Races (33rd and 39th CDs): Candidates’ Positions on Development and Effective Action They Would Take to Stop Atlantic Yards (Part II)

In Part I of this series we examined the exceptional importance of development issues to the City Council races and the kind of coverage those issues are getting and we reviewed in detail an April 20th forum for candidates running for the 33rd Council District.

On April 23, 2009, only a few days later, candidates for both the 33rd and 39th City Council districts were invited to speak at an evening set up by the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats. We will not review this evening in as great a depth. We hope we have already given you a feel for the issues and how our own reporting might be different from what you are picking up from the local papers. You can, however, provide you with this audio recording of the evening.

CBID Questionnaires and Candidate Stephen Levin

Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats provided a quite valuable resource for looking at the candidates’ positions in that they have questionnaires completed by most the candidates on line. (Available at the main site for endorsees and in the archive for others.) For faster reference and easier access, we are providing the candidates’ answers on development and Atlantic Yards here. In addition, Stephen Levin, a candidate for the 33rd to replace David Yassky did not show up on the 20th or the 23rd and did not return a completed questionnaire form to the CBID: We have obtained from him an answer to the question on the form respecting development and Atlantic Yards which we will set forth below. We are also supplying, from similar CBID questionnaires, the answers to the same questions from the City Councilmen being replaced, David Yassky and Bill de Blasio.

Don’t be surprised by this. There are 15 political candidates in this inventory of positions. Not one of them openly supports Atlantic Yards. They are all opposed to the project to varying degrees. The question then is what should be done to stop a project so universally despised? There is a saying about the weather which do not think should be made adaptable to Atlantic Yards: “Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it.” Heaven forbid that people would similarly say: “All the politicians talk about how bad Atlantic Yards is but nobody takes effective action to stop it.”

Here is another formulation we warn you about: Don’t trust the politician who says that `Atlantic Yards is already dead.’ That only amounts to an excuse to do nothing about it. Right now Atlantic Yards may look as awful as Dracula’s desicated corpse dissolving in the sunlight but it will not be really and truly dead until our politicians step up to the plate and affirmatively kill it. Marisa Lago, the head of the Empire State Development Corporation, has said that her state agency intends to keep pursuing the project no matter that the process of suffering its completion will take decades. And another 30 to 40 or more years that could mean CBID questionnaires that several additional generations of politicians will be filling out on the subject.

CBID Question on Development and Atlantic Yards (plus the Inherent Subquestions Respecting Atlantic Yards

Question B3 on the CBID form reads as follows:

(a) What was your position regarding the Atlantic Yards development project
in 2005? What is it today? Please explain your position and any changes. Do you
view Atlantic yards as an appropriate use of eminent domain? (b) What are some
important development issues facing the residents of your district?

Before starting to read the candidates’ answers we suggest that you put at the back of your mind the following inherent subquestions questions about Atlantic Yards to see whether they are answered when the candidates state their positions:

1. Should all the streets and avenue be closed?

2. Should the site be one developer or multiple sites with multiple developers like Battery Park City or Queens West?

3. Should the site be developed at such extraordinarily high density?

4. Should so much in the way of subsidies be concentrated on this single site rather than being used for multiple sites that are more spread out?

5. Should eminent domain be used to condemn land for the arena?

6. Should eminent domain be used to condemn land for the non-arena land such as the Ward Bakery Building block?

7. Should the developer have been allowed to destroy the historic Ward Bakery Building?

8. Is the strange wrench shape of the project site justifiable in any way? (What about the fact that this strange shape is made so strange because it includes areas of land that were never part of the 40-year old ATURA- The Atlantic Yards Urban Renewal Area?)

9. Was the Emprire State Development Corporation justified in its “blight” findings?

10. Should the developer be getting windfalls by not having to bid for or pay for: a.) the value of the upzonings, and b.) the full value of the 40% of the land (the Vanderbilt Yards) it is acquiring from the MTA?

11. Is taxpayer financing of sports venues justified when the team owner gets all the profit and absolute control over the site?

12. How should the subsidies recaptured from Atlantic Yards be redeployed to other uses, presuming they are recaptured?

Here then are responses of the candidates. As appropriate we have added some commentary.

(OTBKB series “Breakast-of-Candidates” are currently not yet available for candidates for 33rd but we will include links for candidates for the 39th in Part III.)

For the 33rd (David Yassky’s current City Council seat):

1. Isaac Abraham

Was against Atlantic Yards from the very first minute, because of many reasons. Eminent Domain was misused and should not be used by individuals for personal gain.

People have struggled for years in “mom-pop” business so that Ratner could destroy the means of livelihood. I’m still opposed to the project, this is not Russia.

Affordable Housing, better transportation less congestion and better Health and Child care.

2. Ken Baer

a. I have opposed the Atlantic Yards project since I first attended a meeting in March, 2004. Through my leadership, the Sierra Club filed lawsuits with Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn challenging the Environmental Impact Statement and the abuse of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards project,

b. I have worked to prevent the inclusion of high-rise luxury condos within the Brooklyn Bridge Park and support Senator Squadron’s plan to finance and develop the park.

I support the listing of the Gowanus Canal area as a super fund site, and I oppose the rezoning of a 25 block part of the area to mixed use and residential, which would lead to the warehousing and demolition of buildings. This is what has happened along the waterfront in Williamsburg, and it is a travesty that many commercial endeavors went out of business. I will fight against any proposal that might lead to the displacement of businesses, residents, or artists. I favor downzoning along the waterfront in Williamsburg and Greenpoint as well as on 4th Avenue.

I have been outspoken in my support for designating Carroll Gardens as an historic district and have testified and spoken at meetings in opposition to the Toll Bros. project, the height of Oliver House, and in favor of the zoning text amendments for the wide streets that thankfully now limit the height of buildings on the Place streets.

3. Doug Biviano

I support, “Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn,” “Stop Brooklyn House of Detention,” historic districts and preserving the charm of Brooklyn Neighborhoods.

In 2005, I felt Atlantic Yards was too large in scale, would overload the infrastructure and the massive government subsidies/giveaways and use of eminent domain were wrong. Today, I support pressing the reset button on Atlantic Yards and adhering more to what the community wants.

In general, Brooklyn rezoning is out-of-scale and out-of-touch. Care must be taken in DUMBO rezoning underway and Greenpoint rezoning revisited altogether. In my conversations with residents of DUMBO and Greenpoint, and from attending CB2 hearings, it appears that many voices in the community, including DUMBO Neighborhood Association, are simply ignored by the DCP, even voices that are fine with rezoning, just not at the scale adhered to by DCP.

As for the Brooklyn Bridge Park, I support Daniel Squadron’s PIRCs plan to rid the park of private condos and, instead, replace them with a year round YMCA facility. Also, I support less berm and more ball fields. In particular, leaving Pier 5 dedicated to the planned sport fields and adding two new baseball diamonds along Furman replacing just a small portion of the berm. The baseball diamonds would be one little league or softball infield and the other being a full size baseball infield. Our children, schools and adults need this active recreation capacity.

Ultimately, I support more parks, ball fields, and waterfront promenades, especially in Greenpoint, Williamsburg and Boerum Hill. I unequivocally support the Brooklyn Greenway Initiative and building safe capacity for cyclists. Development must be integrated to serve the needs of all of our communities and transportation modes.

4. Ken Diamondstone

I was against the Atlantic Yards development from the beginning. I was the first at the Community Board to report secret meetings, publicly spoke out and was almost removed from the Community Board for opposing the Borough President’s position. I fought back by holding a press conference which embarrassed the BP sufficiently so that he reappointed me immediately.

Regarding Eminent Domain, the Kelo decision requires a public process first – not a prior designation of a developer. Therefore eminent domain usage is totally inappropriate.

Regarding Brooklyn Bridge Park, I support year round recreation for Brooklyn Bridge Park and opposed housing.

I opposed the Dock Street project because it compromises the view of one of Brooklyn’s most treasured icons, the Brooklyn Bridge. I also opposed the tactics used by Two Trees to try to both bribe and threaten the Brooklyn Heights and DUMBO communities. I find it highly offensive that greedy developers get to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us.

I also opposed the Toll Brothers project and the Gowanus rezoning and have worked with members of FROGGS in opposition. I oppose those projects at this time because NYC should temporarily suspend City Planning’s ability to convert M1 – M3 zones into residential or mixed use zones until an independent study of NYC’s long term land use needs for green tech, future high tech and medium tech industry is undertaken.

Explanation on Mr. Levin

The following is a response to the questionnaire’s question which we independently obtained from Stephen Levin who did not attend the public candidate events and who did not fill out the entire CBID questionnaire.

Originally we were not sure we would be getting a response. Mr. Levin is Assemblyman Vito Lopez’s chief of staff. Mr. Lopez is viewed as a behind-the-scenes supporter of Atlantic Yards. There was speculation that Mr. Levin might drop out of the race and one reason that could have been a possibility is that remaining in the race would pose difficulties Mr. Levin’s having to take a postion on Atlantic Yards could create awkwardness to the extent it did not comport with Mr. Lopez’s, or forced Mr. Lopez to define his position further. When were not able to get a prompt response from Mr. Levin about his position we contacted Mr. Lopez’s office for Mr. Lopez’s position on Atlantic Yards since the thinking was that Mr. Levin’s postion could be considered to track that of Mr. Lopez. We have not yet heard back from Mr. Lopez’s office. More about Mr. Lopez’s position following this statement from Mr. Levin’s of his own position.

5. Stephen Levin

In 2005, I was working as a community organizer in Bushwick. Therefore, I was not entirely familiar and did not have an official position on the Atlantic Yards project at that time. Since that time, I have developed a position on the Atlantic Yards project. I have many serious concerns about the Ratner plan as it is currently proposed. I especially have concerns regarding the proposed density of the development and the resulting strain that this density will put on the area's infrastructure, e.g. traffic, public transportation, and public school capacity. In addition, I am against the use of eminent domain unless in the case of overriding public benefit resulting from that use*.

(* We must caution that this is the same kind of formulation used by City Council Speaker Christine Quinn who then consistently finds overriding public benefit to justify every proposed and abusive use of eminent domain that has come before the City Council, including Atlantic Yards, the Columbia University expansion and Willets Point.)

I do, however, support the affordability ratio that has been proposed by Mr. Ratner and supported by a number of affordable housing advocacy groups as a very progressive model for affordable housing in the City of New York. In addition, I applaud Mr. Ratner's commitment to prevailing wages for both the construction trades workers and building service workers in this project.

In response to the second part of your question, I see development as a particularly daunting challenge in the 33rd district. Over the past ten years, we have seen a tremendous amount of overdevelopment throughout the City, as well as in the 33rd district. Frequently, this overdevelopment has not been to the benefit of the surrounding community. All too often, luxury condominiums in Brooklyn have been marketed in Manhattan, while leaving longtime community residents out of the process.

I have been very supportive of recent City Planning initiatives to implement contextual rezonings which limit height and density to the context of the surrounding neighborhoods. In particular, I have supported, and worked on, the recent proposed contextual rezoning of 175 blocks in Williamsburg and Greenpoint. In order to preserve the character of our neighborhoods, we need to have future rezonings that reflect the surrounding neighborhoods.

In addition, I support Good Growth Standards for new development throughout the City, and I am in favor of writing a Good Growth Standard into City law. Larger developments should be required to address the consequences of their projects: the need for affordable housing, environmental and infrastructure impacts of the development, and the need for open space and park space, as well as community facilities. In addition, I am supportive of mandating that all large-scale market-rate development include at least 20% affordable units on site in their projects.

We noted the potential relevancy of Assemblyman Vito Lopez’s position on Atlantic Yards given that Mr. Levin is Assemblyman Lopez’s chief of staff. Since Mr. Lopez’s office has not responded to our request for his current postion on Atlantic Yards we will supply the following instead. In the summer of 2007 Vito Lopez worked behind the scenes to create extra special real estate tax benefits for the Atlantic Yards project. Accordingly, this appeared in the Gotham Gazette:

Vito Lopez gets most of his campaign contributions from developers and, interestingly enough, chiropractors. . . . Now it becomes clear that Lopez has been bought by Bruce Ratner's family.

(See: Vito Lopez: Bought By Bruce Ratner?)

Or see DDDB post with extracts from a Daily News Juan Gonzalez column, some of which we supply below:

Bruce Ratner, developer of the $4 billion Atlantic Yards Nets arena and mega-housing project in Brooklyn, is about to get another special, secret, sweetheart deal from our state politicians.

How special is it?

Over the weekend, Vito Lopez, the powerful Brooklyn Democrat who heads the state Assembly's Housing Committee, quietly inserted wording tailored for the Ratner project into a new state property tax exemption bill.

How sweet is the deal?

It's worth at least $100 million in real estate tax exemptions and possibly as much as $170 million for the market-rate condos Ratner plans to build on the site, one housing expert estimates. It also allows Atlantic Yards to charge hundreds of dollars more in rent per month for "affordable" units than any other other developer of similar housing.

(Atlantic Yards gets a deal so sweet it's sick, 6.22.07.)

See also New York Magazine’s Ratner, Lopez Do Business the Old-Fashioned Way
6/22/07.

It also appears that Lopez is in favor of eminent domain abuse specifically to serve big subsidized developers. (See: Thursday, January 24, 2008, In Williamsburg, Vito Lopez wants "real" affordability.)

So in evaluating Mr. Levin’s position on Atlantic Yards the question is to what extent, underlying his exact words he might “share his boss's pro-AY stance” as expressed by Atlantic Yards Report (Monday, September 08, 2008, City term limits, Atlantic Yards, and the question of David Paterson.)

6. Jo Anne Simon

a) The Atlantic Yards proposal brought together some of the poorest concepts in urban planning with troubling public financing mechanisms. Situated in an area that calls for a sensitive treatment, the proposal relied on outdated urban design, over-taxation of existing infrastructures, would worsen an environmental hot spot, and use public financing and eminent domain for private enrichment. I believe the lack of public involvement, transparency, and accountability has been irresponsible. The public benefits Atlantic Yards claims to offer are almost certain to be illusory, and will undoubtedly be even more challenging to achieve in the current fiscal environment. I believe that the Atlantic Yards situation drives home the need for reform of Public Authorities and the exploration of more equitable ways to create affordable housing.

I support development at the Atlantic Yards site that respects and integrates the surrounding neighborhoods; includes a transportation plan that works, affordable housing that meets the community’s needs and involves the public in a substantially meaningful way. To this end, I have been involved in almost every effort to bring about real change to what is happening there. Among other things, I chaired the Boerum Hill Association’s task forces and was instrumental in the creation of the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, the www.brooklynspeaks.net, the Brooklyn Speaks Governance Proposal, and A11395, a bill to create a governance plan for development at the Vanderbilt Yards.

b) Previous Rezonings and approaches to waterfront issues have not gone far enough to achieve the promises made. This will be further complicated in the future by current fiscal woes. I support progressive, sustainable efforts, such as the Brooklyn Greenway Initiative. I signed the Pledge to Uphold Accountable Development because I believe it is important to achieve living wages, balance, transparency and accountability when it comes to development.

We note that CBID has another, earlier questionnaire from Ms. Simon that says essentially the same thing in slightly different words. We asked Ms. Simon about the difference in wording: She said that nothing should be inferred from it; it was just that she didn’t want to repeat herself. (The older form may have been slightly more eloquently worded.)

At the CBID candidates forum on the 23rd we asked Ms. Simon about her identification with the “mend-it-don’t-end-it ” Brooklyn Speaks philosophy of Atlantic Yards. We did so partly because of the Atlantic Yards Report coverage (Thursday, April 23, 2009, Looking at the 33rd district race, AY, and some undercurrents). We followed up with her again at a City Hall press conference (on the 28th) calling for the Dock Street project to be stopped where Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award winning, historian David McCullough spoke. (Other candidates for the 33rd council seat attending that event were: Ken Baer, Ken Diamondstone and Evan Thies.) Ms. Simon said she does not feel that “mend-it-don’t-end-it” is a fair characterization of the Brooklyn Speaks coalition position. We think it is probably pretty good shorthand.

This was our question to Ms. Simon in the forum on the 23rd:

Jo Anne, on Atlantic Yards, you’ve been identified as part of the “mend-it-don’t-end-it” approach. Is that true? And if it is true, why not something stronger like taking the site away from Ratner, dividing it up and proceeding with something like the Pacific Plan or the UNITY plan?

Simon’s response was:

Actually, let me say that is an articulation of my position that isn’t mine. If you may recall, and you may not, but very early on, I was asked to chair the Boreum Hill response to Atlantic Yards and to do so in a way that was consistent with what the board wanted us to look at which was to investigate- (this was in the beginning we didn’t know very much at all really about it- We’d heard a lot of things) We did that. We actually led lots and lots of community forums where we educated the public about being involved and about what they needed to know with regard to traffic and transportation and how to respond to these positions. The Boreum Hill Association took a very strong position a few months later as a result of this investigation, ultimately declaring its very significant concerns with regard to the project and essentially opposing it.

Now, my position is always to work with people. And I know that there are people that I work with on things like Friends of Douglas Green Park (one of the efforts I created) that are signatories of the Community Benefits agreement. I work with people all across the spectrum and I am very respectful of those positions. I was one of those people who really pushed hard to get the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods created because I believed that, in fact, we needed more people at the table than less.

I sent an open letter to everybody involved on both sides of this issue in Brooklyn in early 2004 requesting a process where we could all get together to discuss these issues. There was nobody, actually, who wanted to do that, who wanted to get on board and talk with each other. I then was one of the people who helped create- Because there were a lot of people who were involved with CBN [Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods], or who are still involved with CBN, who created the Brooklyn Speaks effort which was an effort to create space at the table for people to have those conversations. And, indeed those conversations are happening with people across the spectrum, most of whom frankly, do not like this project.

I think there is very little, if anything, which is good about this project and I have been very clear about that. I think that my statement in the questionnaire is very clear. I think that this project suffers from many, many, many fatal flaws. And I don’t know what you mean by “stronger voice” but I have been a very strong voice criticizing this project and, unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, - he had a lot of problems- I spent a good deal of time. Allen can tell you, Fleischman, can tell you, talking to Eliot Spitzer about this and refuting his points one by one with regard to the Atlantic Yards project. So there is nobody that is a more clear voice on Atlantic Yards.

Some observations on the above: While it may be advantageous for politicians to be broadly friendly with a broad spectrum of people, when it comes to being respectful of the positions of those signing the misnamed “Community Benefits Agreement,” we are not. Also, at this point it is senseless to work at dialoging with CBA signatories since the “Community Benefits Agreement” precludes its signers from such dialog, or shifting their positions to act in the best interest of the community. Some of them have no legitimate independently created existence and they are also being secretly funded by the Atlantic Yards developer. (See: Saturday, June 28, 2008, Selling out the Community for Beans (A Giant Wrong) and Thursday, July 24, 2008, Falling Acorn! How Far from the Tree?)

Next, when it comes to Brooklyn Speaks, it is not clear they have gained a place at any table, and if they have, it is not clear how effective their presence is because their “ask” is so much less than it should be. We have written about what their “ask,” at a minimum, should be. They have not incorporated our suggestions. See: Effective Action Needed From Brooklyn Speaks, BHA, etc. Picked up and posted by No Land Grab, March 19, 2008, BrooklynSpeaks.net.

This goes to the heart of the most important question when considering the position of politicians with respect to Atlantic Yards: What effective action will they take to stop it?

At the earlier candidates forum on the 20th, candidate Ken Baer answered the question about what effective action he would take by saying he would go to court. That is not actually a good answer coming from someone running for City Council because the community has already gone to court to fight the project. Further, one does not have to be elected to the City Council to have the tool of going to court in one’s arsenal. The question is what can one do in positions of elected office such as the City Council to effectively stop the project. What can one do that one cannot do as a mere member of the community? Nevertheless, Mr. Baer’s reference to going to court points to a key split in the community: What constitutes effective action to stop the project? Brooklyn Speak’s efforts to gain a seat at the table or the litigation of Develop Develop Don’s Destroy’s coalition of groups with which Mr. Baer was involved?

Clearly, without the litigation, Brooklyn Speaks’ efforts would have been bypassed as a fecklessly disregarded request. On the other hand, the time that has been bought by the litigation has allowed members of the Brooklyn Speaks coalition, particularly the Municipal Art Society, to create forums and opportunities for the public to grow better informed about the horridness of Atlantic Yards. Those forums have also provided an opportunity for the Develop Don’t Destroy groups to reach a wide audience. Without these mainstream forums there is doubt that there would be such unanimity among politicians as to Atlantic Yards being highly objectionable in so many ways. Among the effective things the Municipal Art Society has done in the interregnum created by the litigation is creation of the Atlantic Lots website and public information campaign.
But while the Develop Don’t Destroy coalition and the Municipal Art Society have done much in this time to protest the project and inform the public, the efforts of other members of the Brooklyn Speaks coalition have been relatively lax and far less effective. In this regard, we cannot help noting the opportunity Ms. Simon herself missed to single out Atlantic Yards at the forum on the 20th when asked what was the worst boondoggle project in Brooklyn and what she would do to stop it.

We have spent a lot of time on Ms. Simon’s position but we believe it is important because it points to an critical dividing line in identifying appropriate action and also because Ms. Simon is a frontrunner in the race. The other day when we introduced her as a frontrunner, Ms. Simon admonished us to say “the frontrunner.” Note that at the evening of the 23rd CBID endorsed Ms. Simon.

7. Evan Thies

(a) My personal position has always been to reject the project because of the flawed process that allowed it to move forward with very little government scrutiny, community input, or planning for the adverse impacts it would have on infrastructure, traffic, and the availability of resources. Other development there – that which would be more easily integrated into the surrounding communities – is much more ideal, as the site could be a boon to the local economy and a source of new and much needed investment in affordable housing.

(b) Unfortunately, the current administration has employed a “ready, fire, aim” policy of development, with very little regard or planning for impacts on existing communities and citywide infrastructure. The City has also advanced rezonings that have largely favored luxury development instead of truly affordable development, and only provided housing for low- and middle-income residents when forced to do so. Every neighborhood in the 33rd District could be negatively impacted by such policies in the coming years, and it is especially important that we fight for mandatory and truly affordable housing and a community-based, comprehensive land use process in new rezoning initiatives such as the ones being considered in DUMBO and Boerum Hill. That is why I have advocated for what I call “360 degree planning”—a planning process that would force the City to honestly and totally assess the impact of significant new land use projects. I also support making affordable housing mandatory in projects of a certain size and improving the supervision of developments once they’re improved. To protect communities from bad construction, I have proposed creating “construction hot zones” that would concentrate DOB resources in heavily developing neighborhoods such as those in the 33rd District, and increase fines for bad construction in order to pay for more inspectors on the ground (please see attached memo on DOB reform and 360 degree planning proposals entitled “Evan Thies 2009 Responsible Development Agenda”).

Mr. Thies used to work for Councilman Yassky. There has been speculation as to why Mr. Yassky has not endorsed Mr. Thies, or anyone else yet. (The Brooklyn Paper’s “Politicrasher” pointed out that Mr. Yassky has not endorsed Mr. Thies without pointing out that Mr. Yassky hasn’t endorsed anyone yet.) Thinking has been offered that Assemblyman Lopez, a powerful politician, doesn’t want Yassky to endorse anyone other than Mr. Levin, his chief of staff. People are also wondering whether with the musical chairs resulting from the extension of term limits Mr. Yassky would forego the Comptroller’s race and run again for his old council seat. (Mr. Yassky himself voted for term limits extension, notwithstanding his admission in the chamber at the time of his vote that his constituents were overwhelmingly against it.) As noted, if the term limits extension permits Bloomberg a third term, the opponents of Atlantic Yards, Yassky included, will have a much more strenuous fight on their hands.

We will return in minute to the question of Mr. Thies and possible effective action to stop Atlantic Yards.

Yassky: Current City Councilman

First, here for reference from the same CBID questionnaire is the postion of David Yassky, the current City Councilman for the 33rd. As noted, Mr. Yassky is currently running for the office of Comptroller.

8. David Yassky

I have never supported the Atlantic Yards development as proposed by Forest City Ratner. I have fought to keep the building lower, and urged the City to put in place a traffic mitigation plan. In 2005, I saw the potential for good jobs and economic development but was concerned about the development’s potential effects on our community. I still believe today that there must be a traffic mitigation plan in place, and that the site as currently designed is too large. I believe that the State and City should not invest any further resources into this stalled project and that federal stimulus dollars should absolutely not be used on the project. As City Comptroller, I will make sure to keep a watchful eye on this project as it relates to City funds and contracts.

There is a prevalent sentiment among community activist opponents of Atlantic Yards that early on Yassky did not oppose Atlantic Yards as he should have. That can extend to contradicting Yassky’s statement above that he never supported Atlantic Yards. However, everyone across the entire political spectrum has grown increasingly negative about the Atlantic Yards boondoggle and Yassky has made recent statements to the press that reflect a much stronger opposition to Atlantic Yards than reflected in his questionnaire answer. In a short Brooklyn Review documentary about Atlantic Yards broadcast on BCAT’s Reporter Roundtable Yassky made the following statements (emphasis supplied):

"I don't think the project as put forward by Forest City Ratner and approved by the State is going to be built. There just isn't the funding for it. It doesn't work in this economy. It's really time to go back to basics and say 'what do we want at that site?' Now of course we want housing—we want affordable housing—we don't want it on the giant scale that was proposed but we do want housing, and affordable housing. Let's start with that now."

And:

"If they [Forest City Ratner] come in and say no we're not gonna do or we can't do these [MTA] transit improvements, they should lose every single right they have for that project."

And:

"It's time for the Paterson administration to take charge of this project. It's a state approved project, the state government is calling the shots, they at least have the authority to. It's time for them to really get engaged."

(See: Atlantic Yards on BCAT. Councilman Yassky Makes Some Interesting Comments, 2.23.09. and our own Thursday, March 5, 2009, Missing a Leg To Stand On: ESDC Didn’t Consider Developer Profit, the Main Thing Atlantic Yards is About.)

Yassky also speaks out against the project in the newest (short) Atlantic Yards documentary that debuted yesterday: Brooklyn Boondoggle.

“There is one plain truth here," . . . ."The community has never had its say in this project."

(See: Wednesday, May 06, 2009, "Brooklyn Boondoggle": a short film that packs in protest, ambivalence, and AY episodes circa 2008.)

Going back to February 2008, Yassky produced an op-ed style position article for the Gotham Gazette relevant to his run for comptroller. It came out just in time for the annual and influential Brooklyn Heights Association meeting. It criticized the amount of resources being plowed into Atlantic Yards:

We should also eliminate corporate welfare. . . .

Of course, the single biggest example of corporate welfare is the proposed Atlantic Yards development. The Bloomberg administration has agreed to give the project's developer at least $100 million in direct subsidies, plus another $400 million to $500 million in tax breaks. In the current financial climate, this handout is impossible to justify.

(See: Changing the Way the City Does Business, by David Yassky, 25 Feb 2008.)

Two important things to note: 1.) This Yassky statements from the article above preceded the deep nosedive the city’s Wall Street-based economy took in the second half of 2008, and 2.) We believe that the aggregate figures for the subsidies being channeled to Atlantic Yards, while somewhat debatable are grossly undercalculated in those cited figures: Total subsidies clearly exceed a billion and probably substantially exceed $2 billion, depending on exactly how they are calculated. (For starters see: Your 'Net' Loss, by Rich Calder, April 14, 2008.)

We will conclude this Part II with the following. We noted in Part I that we thought that Evan Thies gave the best response to the question about Brooklyn’s biggest boondoggle and what he would do to stop it when he identified Atlantic Yards “because of the sheer size and cost of the project.” It also includes the arena and he noted he is opposed to the wasteful public financing of sports venues like that and the Mets and Yankee stadiums. He said that we should be getting the money back from projects like that to spend on things we really need like affordable housing. And he said another alternative project should be built at the Atlantic yards site that “creates affordable housing at a reasonable size.” Then, in his concluding remarks, Mr. Thies spoke about how the city wastes funds on projects like Atlantic Yards and how now is the time for leaders to come forward who can be effective in City Council. As we said, we’d like to think that means recapturing those Atlantic Yards moneys as Evan spoke of.

Given the forgoing and Mr. Thies’ experience working for Mr. Yassky which we believe puts resources and valuable contacts at his disposal, we are issuing an invitation to Mr. Thies to present effective steps he proposes to stop Atlantic Yards. (Of course, we don’t mean to dissuade other candidates from offering their suggestions too.)

To assist those formulating their suggestions in this regard, we offer the following as a reference on the mechanics of pulling the plug on the project: Friday, December 26, 2008, A New Year’s Revolution List (Starting 2009 Off Clean: Pull the Plug On Atlantic Yards).

City Council Races (33rd and 39th): Candidates’ Positions on Development and Effective Action They Would Take to Stop Atlantic Yards (Part I)

This will be a three part series.

The candidates for City Council have been showing up in various venues and forums that give us an opportunity to learn about them and their positions. This series is intended to provide a comprehensive resource (including links to other coverage) to learn about and consider the positions of the candidates for the 33rd and 39th Council Districts with respect to development, and particularly the emblematic touchstone of Atlantic Yards.

Inventory of Candidates’ Positions: In Their Own Words

We will provide the candidates’ positions on development and Atlantic Yards in their own words, together with commentary of our own respecting Atlantic Yards. We will also provide, as a comparative reference, the positions of the two current City Council office holders, David Yassky and Bill de Blasio, whom the candidates are seeking to replace.

We expect to supplement what we do here with future pieces similarly covering the positions of candidates running for other City Council seats and also those running for city-wide positions.

In certain cases we have had conversations following up on candidate’s positions where it seemed particularly helpful to provide an overview.

The first part of this series will examine the exceptional importance of development issues to the City Council races and the kind of coverage these issues are getting and which is possible.

The second part of the series will inventory the positions of the candidates for the 33rd City Council District, while the third part will inventory the position of the candidates for the 39th. Overall, we will keep returning to the question of what we should be looking for from political office-holders in terms of effective action to stop Atlantic Yards. This series reviews the positions of fifteen candidates in the current political race. They unanimously oppose Atlantic Yards. It seems as if the only remaining question is how they will be effective in stopping the project.

We proceed-

Part I

Background: Development & Politics

What we care about here at Noticing New York, what we focus on, is the city-shaping development that is going on in New York. We therefore find ourselves writing an extraordinary amount about politics. Often when you look at a project, especially some of the megaprojects currently fashionable under the Bloomberg administration, Atlantic Yards being the perfect example, they look less like true development projects than like what they actually are: The result of the abuse of politics to package and deliver benefit at taxpayer and community expense to a connected crony. In the case of Atlantic Yards, that crony is wealthy, subsidy-collector and sports team owner Bruce Ratner of Forest City Ratner.

The question then is: When you see this kind of abuse, what do you do about it? We’ll come back to that. It’s an important part of our theme.

As we noted in or introduction, none of the candidates (or those whom they will succeed) purport to like Atlantic Yards.

How Exciting the Possibilities of Politics “Reportedly” Are

Before anything else, we should take note of the coverage of the candidates’ thinking that has already occurred.

April 20, 2009 Candidates Forum (33rd District)

We consider politics relating to development inherently exciting when those politics breathe with possibility of change, reform and community spirit. And the possibilities for change are always very much at the forefront in the election process. We believe that unless the public maintains the excitement for the potential of change that is in the political air. We therefore found ourselves confounded when the Brooklyn Paper promoted the impression that an April 20, 2009 city council candidates forum was a “yawn.” We found it quite the opposite, especially because the subject of development was so prominent throughout the evening. At the paper’s website, we commented as follows:

While the candidates running to replace City Councilman David Yassky (33rd District) may not differ as much on substance as they conceivably might, the candidate forum evening could hardly be considered a “yawn” given the candidates’ pretty much universal objections to the current administration’s development policies and big project initiatives. Isn’t Bloomberg’s ability to create such unity a fascination in itself?

The candidates were nearly unanimous in opposing; Atlantic Yards as the worst, most destructive project in Brooklyn, opposing housing in Brooklyn Bridge Park, opposing the Walentas Dock Street project near the Brooklyn Bridge, wanting a federal superfund clean-up of the Gowanus Canal and in calling for stronger community boards and a stronger City Council. How can such clearly marshaled opposition to the status quo be boring? Or is the Brooklyn Paper’s message simply this: Strong opposition realistically means nothing because: 1.) the office of the mayor is supreme over the City Council, and 2.) Bloomberg’s claim to the mayoralty is not subject to practical political challenge?

(See: Candidates to succeed Yassky yawn it out in Brooklyn Heights, by The Politicrasher, April 21, 2009.)

The night of the forum was a rainy one. It would be a pity if those who did not make it to the St. Francis auditorium the night of the hearing gleaned an impression from the Brooklyn Paper that it was worthless.

April 25, 2009 “Dazzle Me” Candidates Forum (39rd District)

We think the fictionalized “Politicrasher” who wrote about the night at St. Francis (a self-described “grizzled old newshound”) is actually the paper’s editor, Gersh Kuntzman, since 1.) he was there covering the event for the paper, 2.) it seems to be his style, and 3.) the byline cartoon even looks a little like Gersh.

The “Politicrasher” wrote another similarly boredom-themed story covering an April 25, 2009 “Dazzle Me” forum of candidates for the 39th Council District election to replace City Councilman Bill de Blasio. (See: Dazzle me? How about underwhelm me? By The Politicrasher, April 29, 2009.) Among other things that report started out by reiterating its verdict of disinterest in the earlier forum to set low expectation for this new one: “The Politicrasher had low expectations . . . And last week’s non-“dazzle me” forum for candidates hoping to succeed David Yassky in the neighboring district was pretty banal.”

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/17/32_17_politicrasher.html

We weren’t there on April 25th to be able to give our own view but we suggest that you contrast the Brooklyn Paper’s listless disenchantment with the way Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn’s begins its coverage of the same forum: “Who knew politics could be such fun?” (See: Monday, April 27, 2009, City Council Candidates Try to Dazzle in the 39th District.) For other coverage from someone who found themselves more engaged (with some nice photos of the candidates) see Pardon Me For Asking’s: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 39th Council District Candidates Submit To Tough Questioning At 'Dazzle Me' Forum.

As OTBKB reported (and the Brooklyn Paper echoed): “Probably the most discussed issue was Superfund designation for the Gowanus, a subject near and dear to the Carroll Gardens neighborhood.” Both reports make clear that, as with the first forum on the 20th, issues concerning development predominated in the discussion. According to the BP:

“The vast majority of queries were about land-use issues, especially about the clean-up and development of the Gowanus Canal, a hot-button issue tearing apart the neighborhood and dividing the candidates.”

The BP follows this immediately with the paragraph:

“No wonder no one ‘dazzled,” griped one participant. “It was three hours of land-use questions. This wasn’t a forum. This was a requirement that the candidates supplicate themselves to the altar of anti-development!”

While this centrally featured paragraph takes its words out of the mouth of an unnamed participant, it feels like the BP’s point of view in the story. But opposition to the current style of development being promoted Bloomberg and company should not be conflated with opposition to development in general. (Noticing New York views itself as pro-development, although this may not be easy to discern when there is so much bad development we react to these days.)

Spicier Development Coverage

We note that the Brooklyn Paper historically has defined itself by imbibing much of its energy from coverage of local development. Historically, its reporting reflected a healthy skepticism of big development and a corresponding sensitivity to community concerns. Given a history of what was once the Brooklyn Paper’s vigorous opposition to Atlantic Yards (Wednesday, February 11, 2009, A Brooklyn Paper Editorial & Atlantic Yards: With Nothing Else Good To Say, We Are Stimulated To Say. . .) would it not be natural to expect that the Brooklyn Paper would seek to be alert, as we try to be, to the “anti-development” fertile ground whence will come defeats of the Bloombergian development tide with the demise of Atlantic Yards, et al.

And from a development standpoint aren’t City Council races important to watch given the notorious amount of developer campaign contributions that go into them?

Channeling the Brooklyn Paper on Development and the Gowanus

We are, however, not sure what to expect of the Brooklyn Paper these days and are wondering if, with their recent change in ownership, we detect a pro-Bloombergian development bias creeping in. (See: Saturday, March 21, 2009, Tales of Two Landlords Bridged by an Iconographic Clash.)

Whether the Gowanus Canal should be cleaned by being designated as a federal Superfund site is a hot topic and hard to avoid in what we are talking about. Now is probably an excellent time to get into it. Because is a major current topic it allows us to reflect a bit more about what Brooklyn Paper is currently doing.

We have noticed that most of the public is quickly embracing the idea of a Superfund clean-up of the Gowanus because that would likely result in the most thorough clean-up of the Gowanus but the Brooklyn Paper had been quick into the breach with what looks like support for those who would like to eventually fall in line behind Bloomberg. It is clear that the city’s plan, which does not involve a full, deep dredging of the contaminated sediment out of the Gowanus, would not clean up the Gowanus to the fullest possible extent. We doubt that a shallow dredging of the Gowanus, followed by the overlay of a clean sand cap on the contaminated muck, is a desirable strategy for a storm surge area. We are definitely inclined to favor a more thorough approach to clean-up and therefore probably the Superfund designation.

We are not sure why the mayor’s office is not proposing a more extensive clean-up that includes a deep dredging. We also discount the idea, promoted by the Toll Brothers developers and the Bloomberg administration, that the reason not to designate the Gowanus as a Superfund site is that the “naming” of it as a Superfund will somehow hurt the brand when they market the real estate. To borrow back terminology from the Wall Street financial crisis, everyone knows that the Gowanus is a “toxic asset” and rebranding it as “legacy asset” won’t change anything.

The strategy of those keeping open their Gowanus options for an ultimate shift to back Bloomberg seems reminiscent of the oil companies’ fight to stave off environmentalists and science community Cassandras on the subject of global warming: Rather than start by zeroing on the basics of what is likely needed, they first sell the idea of uncertainty and then promote inertia by directing people’s focus to their short-term comfort. If the city can, by similar means, fend off a superfunding of the site and if it thereafter becomes safe for a certain set of politicians to fall in line behind Bloomberg, the city can thereupon figure out how much less of clean-up of the site it can get away with. This analysis does not amount to our actual endorsement of superfunding the Gowanus. That is something about which we are still doing more research, but it comes close to such a recommendation on our part.

The Brooklyn Paper had an April 30, 2009 editorial the main import of which is to emphasize what is not known about superfunding while minimizing what is known. (The editorial came quickly on the heels of a April 16, 2009 editorial, making similar points: Superfund hype.) The paper’s approach in its last editorial results is some pretty tricky wording that sometimes just doesn’t seem to work:

How dangerous is the canal? We know we wouldn’t want to go swimming in it, thanks to those noxious chemicals in the sediment, but is the canal unsafe to be around? . . . cancer or illness . . In short, does the Gowanus Canal represent an actual health threat beyond its stinkiness after heavy rains?

(See: April 30, 2009, Superfund answers are lacking.)

The editorial’s last point about what is “unknown” is the most direct appeal to the public’s short-term interest:

And finally, who will pick up the tab? Last week, we learned that municipalities are often holding the bag — which would put city taxpayers right where we started.

(Another thing that confuses us about the city’s position on the Gowanus clean-up is this: We find an inexplicable inconsistency in the city opposing the Gowanus clean-up by saying that it will a.) prevent the city from spending city funds for the clean-up they planned to, and , b.) require more city expenditures for the clean-up. This seems altogether too ambidextrous on the city’s part.)

We are impressed with the rate at which the Brooklyn Paper is producing articles on the subject of superfunding the Gowanus such as:

City could be holding bag for feds’ Gowanus clean-up, By Mike McLaughlin, April 23, 2009

Gowanus divided: Is the Superfund supergood or superbad?, By Mike McLaughlin, April 13, 2009

Superfund or Superbad? Let the Explainer explain it all to you, April 16, 2009

We are not only impressed by the rate at which these articles are coming out, we are also impressed by how much more informed they purport themselves to be than we think we are. (In our former government career life we worked with toxic site problems, including the rehabitation of Love Canal.)

Better Reporting on April 20, 2009 Candidates Forum (33rd District)

For a better report on the April 20, 2009 city council candidates forum for the 33rd district (Yassky’s current seat) focusing on things particularly with respect to Atlantic Yards, see Atlantic Yards Report: Thursday, April 23, 2009, Looking at the 33rd district race, AY, and some undercurrents.

Here also is an audio recording of the evening posted by NNY.

Predomination of Development Issues

We ourselves thought that the main story of the April 20th forum was how development issues predominated during the evening. Not only did development issues, including Atlantic Yards, come up importantly in the candidates’ self introductions and their summing up at evening’s end, but the audience questions predominantly focused on development issues, evoking a remarkable degree of consensus on how city development policies have gone astray.

During the evening the candidates responded to 11 audience questions and only two of those questions, one on gay marriage and one on mayoral control of public schools, did not involve development issues in a significant way. (Development aside, the mayor also does not seem to be winning points on his handling of the schools.) There was one question very important to issues of how future development proceeds in the city that was not directly about development: All the candidates agreed that Bloomberg’s extension of term limits to procure himself a third term was wrong.

Power Balance: Mayor and Community Boards

If Bloomberg receives a third term it could be critical to projects like Atlantic Yards which depend significantly on the mayor’s stubborn determination to override the community and what makes sense to other politicians. This aligns with a related theme of the evening: that there should be greater power outside the mayor’s office. The candidates all felt that community boards should be more empowered than they currently are, including receiving more technical assistance and resources to be involved in planning. In this regard, Ken Baer mentioned the purge of Community board 6 by Borough President Marty Markowitz after its board members voted their consciences to oppose Atlantic Yards. Issac Abraham similarly noted that the appointment of community board members by elected officials was a problem.

Power Balance: Mayor and City Council

The candidates also favored a stronger City Council that would adhere to principles and conscience and respect the will of the community by taking on the people in power. For Jo Anne Simon this meant the council working together, not with developers. This came up in the context of a question that asked whether the candidate, if elected, would follow a tradition that City Council members usually vote on local land use issues following the lead of the council members from the local community involved. It may be counterintuitive to understand, but that can lead to many situations where council members vote against their principles, against their conscience, and, ironically, against the community. The example given in the question being responded to was the controversial 125th Street rezoning and Columbia’s expansion into West Harlem (abusing eminent domain for real estate profit). Isaac Abraham pointed out that part of the problem is that the mayor has too much control over individual local city members. (This means the mayor can exert controls over development votes by pressuring individual City Council members to vote against their constituencies. Abraham mentioned as an example that the mayor’s taking away parking privileges when city council members don’t vote his way.

This question eliciting the candidates’ opinions that the City Council needs to be strengthened was therefore a very sophisticated and nuanced one that presupposes a lot more knowledge about the council than many New Yorkers probably have. It was also a long question but is worth setting forth at length. See below:

This is about the culture of the New York City Council. The mayor and the speaker have a tight grip on the city council members. We saw that in the term limit extension vote. We know that the speaker does not allow bills on the floor that she does not approve of. But not only that, there is an expectation that the council will follow the lead of the local council person on development and other issues in the neighborhood that pertain to the council member’s district. For example, when Robert Jackson and Inez Dickens supported the rezoning of 125th Street or the expansion of Columbia University into Harlem, then almost every other council member votes the way Jackson and Dickens had led, even as some of those council members state they vehemently oppose the planned use of eminent domain for private gain. The question here is how do you see yourself acting differently as a new council member. Should you be able to challenge the climate of going along to get along that exists right now in the council? Would you fear retaliation if an issue came up in your district if you oppose the local council member?

Regarding the “tight grip” of the City Council Speaker Christine Quinn referred to in the question, Ken Diamondstone suggested that electing the proper speaker (presumably not Ms. Quinn) was key.

Antagonism to Bloombergian Development

Not surprisingly then, throughout the evening the theme was the candidates’ antagonism, on behalf of the community, to the projects that are being handed down by the Bloomberg administration. To wit:

1. Opposition to Housing in Brooklyn Bridge Park. The candidates unanimously opposed Bloomberg’s (investment banker style) idea of putting private housing in Brooklyn Bridge designed (in a cumbersome interrelated fashion) to pay the cost of maintaining the park. In this regard, they all seemed comfortable following the lead of State Senator Daniel Squadron, whom several of them mentioned, who defeated former Senator Martin Connor by distinguishing himself with his position on this matter and also Atlantic Yards. (Squadron supports a moratorium on State aide for Atlantic Yards.- See: Saturday, September 6, 2008, This Just In- Gyllenhaal Jilted? Squadron Pulls Ahead?)

2. Opposition to Dock Street Tower Proposed to Obstruct the Brooklyn Bridge. The candidates unanimously opposed the Bloomberg administration’s Dock Street project which will soon be up for a City Council vote. (It has already gone through City Planning.- See: Sunday, April 26, 2009, Markowitz, McCullough, Me and Other Merry Minions of the Blogosphere.) Ken Diamondstone made the essential point that we made about the city administration’s abuse of process by “bundling” the project together with the community’s ability to get a school. This means the community will get a project that it doesn’t want together with a school in the wrong place and whose design won’t work well into the bargain. (See: Saturday, March 14, 2009, At the City Planning Commission Hearings on Proposed Dock Street Project: A Reprise.) If you were a reader of the Brooklyn Paper’s story covering the evening’s forum you would find that Mr. Diamondstone was mocked for his position. The “Politicrasher”managed to do this by misquoting Mr. Diamondstone. Although what Mr. Diamondstone said at that moment was not phrased with particular eloquence, we do not think the paper’s “quote” was a fair representation of what he said. We went back and listened to the recording. The Brooklyn Paper is in an odd position on Dock Street: They editorially support the project (its developer was their landlord when they took that position) but they are reporting on the investigation of the scandal involving administrative arrangements whereby the School Construction Authority colluded with the developer to bundle the project with the school.

3. Support for Federal Superfunding of the Gowanus Canal. The candidates were nearly unanimous in supporting superfunding of the Gowanus Canal, putting themselves once again in opposition to the Bloomberg administration’s ideas on development. While no candidate opposed the superfunding, Jo Anne Simon took no position on it, saying that she did not have enough information to make a decision, while not sharing the preliminary ideas factoring into her thinking. As we noted earlier, the Brooklyn Paper is editorially promoting the uncertainty about the desirability of superfunding and we have identified this as what we think is the strategic position of politicians preserving the option to fall in line behind Bloomberg once they don’t believe they will be paying too high a price with the community. That gives Bloomberg time for more PR for a more minimal clean-up under city auspices. Readers of the Brooklyn Paper coverage found the “Politicrasher” praising Ms. Simon’s position for its sobriety “calm, intelligent professionalism.” We found ourselves agreeing with several other observers of the evening that it seemed one more instance during the evening of a noncommital wishy-washyness on Ms. Simon’s part. We will speak of that more as we get into the subject of Atlantic Yards. (Note: It was talking with candidate Biviano, an environmental engineer- who also worked on Love Canal- that we started discussing the issues of storm surge in the Gowanus.)

4. Willingness to Fight for the Community Against Developer-driven Projects Using Eminent Domain (Generically Put, but Sounds like Atlantic Yards). It was actually the second audience question of the evening (after gay marriage) that raised the specter of Atlantic Yards, putting forth the question generically in terms of fighting for the community against developer-driven eminent domain abusing projects. The question specifically was:

On the topic of development. Under Mayor Bloomberg we have seen many developer-driven projects in New York City. Many of those projects include the threat or use of eminent domain. The question is: How do you envision the community role in development? Are you willing to fight for the communities against the developers? What tools would you use to fight for the community?

Mr. Baer talked about fighting vigorously against Atlantic Yards and getting the Sierra Club to join the opposition’s law suit. Doug Biviano talked about the evil of eminent domain used for the wrong purposes and Atlantic Yards in particular. He talked about taking the initiative by getting out in front with the press. Ken Diamondstone similarly talked about exposing wrongs and the collusion with respect to Atlantic Yards, and ensuring community involvement. Evan Thies talked about the problems with the (careless?) “ready-aim-fire” style of Bloomberg’s development approach, and spoke of 360 degree community development planning and using skills he had developed to stop a project in Red Hook. Isaac Abraham did not mention Atlantic Yards.

Interestingly Jo Anne Simon also did not mention Atlantic Yards by name. In fact, rather than speak in term of fighting against projects being thrust upon the community by the Bloomberg administration, Ms. Simon spoke in positive terms of fighting for the origination of future projects through community planning. Without mentioning Atlantic Yards directly; however Ms. Simon did speak of how we have given too much authority to public authorities which desperately need to be reformed and desperately need transparency. Though she did not thereby mention Atlantic Yards directly, for those familiar, her words evoked the Brooklyn Speaks coalition’s approach to Atlantic Yards which has focused on reforms to curb the misbehavior of the Empire State Development Corporation which, it is supposed, would indirectly improve the project. The “mend-it-don’t-end-it” shorthand has been used to describe Brooklyn Speaks. Ms. Simon objects to that shorthand.

5. Taking Effective Action Against Brooklyn’s Biggest Boondoggle Project. While it may have seemed a fluke that Ms. Simon did not take the opportunity of the previous question to do some effective railing against the Atlantic Yards project, it seemed more likely a deliberate strategy when later Ms. Simon did not mention Atlantic Yards in response to question number nine asked about halfway through the evening. The question was:

What Brooklyn project is the biggest boondoggle and the most destructive to the city and borough and what would you do to take effective action to stop that project?

One would think that the first part of that question would be a softball. Of course, having answered it, the second part of the question respecting “effective action” is the more difficult. Because it is the difficult part of the question, it is the more important and the most likely to distinguish the candidates. We will give it the most ink before we conclude. A matter of disclosure: The card with the above question on it was submitted by us.

To our surprise, Ms. Simon said she could not identify the biggest boondoggle project in the borough. She did say that it was hard to know which project was because “we don’t have good numbers, Atlantic Yards being an example.” She spoke about how “a lot of this has been speculative assumptions.” She also mentioned that “single site control is an issue respecting a lot of these projects.” If she is speaking of Atlantic Yards in this regard (and she should be), she would be a step ahead of Brooklyn Speaks. Brooklyn Speaks should be (but is not yet) calling for breaking up the Atlantic Yards site and the use of multiple developers to develop a reconstituted, redesigned project. But if the effective action she is thinking of is reform of ULURP as Ms. Simon mentioned that is a rather late after-the-fact proposal which would not stop Atlantic Yards or any project so similarly far along that it needs to be stopped.

While Ms. Simon mentioned Atlantic Yards in discussing possible candidates for the worst boondoggle, candidates Ken Baer, Ken Diamondstone and Evan Thies firmly identified Atlantic Yards as the worst. While Mr. Biviano did not (he talked about the school system), he can perhaps be forgiven in light of his vigorous criticism of Atlantic Yards in response to the previously set forth question. Isaac Abraham criticized the New York City Housing Authority. Given how underfunded NYCHA is for the big job they do, we are not inclined to share such criticism. Probably the best answer to this question was from Evan Theis, as follows:

I would have to say Atlantic Yards as well just because of the sheer size and cost of the project. I know it was a Brooklyn question, but the baseball stadiums are just an incredible waste of taxpayer money. I love baseball. I love it. I love going to watch the Yankees and the Mets but we could close the budget deficit with the amount of money we spent on those things. (But I am sure the $20 sushi is great.) On Atlantic Yards, it’s an example of everything that the city and state do wrong with development: There’s no real community process; they didn’t really do any real evaluation of infrastructure, as Ken said, and we spend millions and millions of dollars and get absolutely nothing for it. It is a gaping monument to how bad the city and state have gotten at these developments and how nearsighted they are. We should get that money back, by the way, along with the money we gave to the Yankees and the Mets, and spend it on something we need such as real affordable housing. I hope that eventually we will develop something on that site that does create the jobs that they promised but also creates affordable housing at a reasonable size.

Rent Regulation and Vacancy Decontrol: Significant Development Implications

There was one question respecting real estate in the city that has significant development implications and where we found ourselves disagreeing with the candidates and wish they had not been unanimous. The candidates were asked what measures would they would take to protect the rent-stabilized housing stock and what was their position in on vacancy decontrol of those units. They were all against vacancy decontrol and in favor of preserving the rent-stabilized housing stock. Vacancy decontrol has it problems. It creates an enormous incentive for landlords to harass particular tenants to get them out of their apartments and that needs to be protected against. Still, reflexive perpetuation of rent regulated units stymies the kind of natural development forces that should be producing new units in the city. Producing units by harnessing natural economic forces would be far healthier than being embroiled in the cronyism of Atlantic Yards. Further, rent-regulated units occupied by the wealthy should not be viewed as a form of `affordable housing program.’ (BTW: This question, like the question of gay marriage, will ultimately be decided in the state legislature, not the City Council.)

Evan Thies had the most knowledgeable and detailed answer on the subject of regulated units, getting into a discussion of the affordable units created by inclusionary zoning programs. This is not to say we agree with his conclusions but they would provide the basis for a good discussion. This seems to have contributed to the Brooklyn Paper saying he “came off as the wonkiest of the bunch.” If so, we consider wonky a good thing and we would probably also give credit to lawyer Jo Anne Simon’s capability for a fair amount of wonkiness even though the paper did not give her stars in this regard.

Summing Up: Community vs Power

Almost all the summing up for the evening emphasized standing up for the community against the powers that be. Ms. Simon said that she was the one to vote for “if you believe that community voices need to be heard.” Ken Diamondstone spoke about the problems with the power structure of the Democratic party, saying that support for reform and for Assemblyman Vito Lopez didn’t go together and that community had to be put first. Doug Biviano called for protecting communities and courageous leadership at the local level. Ken Baer spoke of the need for transparency and standing up to power and objecting to things like the mayor’s term limits extension. Isaac Abraham complained about the misdirection of public funds. Evan Thies spoke about how the city wastes funds on projects like Atlantic Yards and how now is the time for leaders to come forward who can be effective in City Council. We’d like to think that means recapturing those Atlantic Yards moneys as Evan spoke of. More on this later.

Zipping Up Part I

That then is our report of the St. Francis evening. It is less quippy and zippy than the Brooklyn Paper’s account. In fact, it probably sounds like an entirely different evening. We hope it gives you a better feel for the issues being discussed.

In Parts II and III we will look more at the candidates’ positions on development and Atlantic Yards.

Worth Memorializing: A Passing Comment on Yankee Stadium

Here is a passing comment worth memorializing that probably won’t get picked up by anyone else, so we will do it here. Today, Jonathan Schwartz - The Saturday Show on WNYC FM (and XM radio?) at about 2:55 PM:

To me, the new Yankee Stadium looks like a clean prison camp: From the outside and inside. `All right, gentlemen, step right in!'

No, we don’t attribute this to the fact that Jonathan is supposed to be a “diehard Red Sox fan.”

Watch It Bud . . How “Bloomie” Are Things After Bloomie’s Falls? (Revisited- #2)

This is our second post in a series where we are watching the Honey Locust trees on the Brooklyn Heights Promenade this spring to see how well they might recover from the Waterfalls project that was self-congratulatorily masterminded by Mayor Bloomberg last year. Our first post, earlier this week was Watch It Bud . . How “Bloomie” Are Things After Bloomie’s Falls? (Monday, April 27, 2009).

Today we have more bad news. (See photo above, click to enlarge.) While we think we correctly noted that the trees affected will need to struggle back from the salt-induced dieback we described in our last post, it appears that some of the trees affected are in far worse shape than we previously noted, with limbs that are hardly leafing out at all.

Here are pictures showing the status of the “bud watch” today.

A Control Group: Healthy Honey Locust Trees That Were Far from the Waterfalls

Here are photos (click to enlarge) of healthy Honey Locust trees budding. (As we previously noted, you have to walk far to get a good control group because the salt spay from the falls affected trees on the Promenade to some extent as far away as Clark Street.) On the healthy trees the buds are opening robustly all along the branches right out to the tips.

Most Damaged Honey Locust Trees

Here are photos (click to enlarge) of Honey Locust tree buds on trees that were near the Waterfalls and are struggling to come back. (See also the opening photo.) On some the budding is not as robust and there is no budding at the branch tips indicating that there may be a fair amount of dieback from which the tree will need to recover. On others large limbs are showing little sign of life. If anything, these trees ought to be further along at this point since they are located where they get more sun.

(For another story to keep you au courant on Brooklyn Heights Promenade matters, see this report on Brooklyn Bridge Park progress: Park Progress: Pier 1 and More! (Ninth Report).- We met fellow blogger Claude Scales out working on his story when we were photographing the trees.- The Bloombergian angle on the progress with the park? We have offered our analysis that it is another example of a situation where false equations introduced by a Bloomberg idea for “public private” partnership have resulted in interminable and unnecessary delays. See # 4 in our: Un-funny Valentines Arriving Late: Your Community Interests at Heart, Monday, February 23, 2009.)

Times Editorial On “The Ever-Deepening Pension Mess”: You Heard It Here First

We commend to your attention today’s New York Times editorial: The Ever-Deepening Pension Mess.

Here is an extract (emphasis supplied):

So far, the growing scandal has not brought about any serious calls for reform in New York. The state comptroller, Thomas DiNapoli, and the New York City comptroller, William Thompson Jr., have proposed banning pension fund investments that involve placement agents. That is only a start. The state also needs an independent board to help the comptroller oversee investments. Right now, Mr. DiNapoli is the sole trustee of $122 billion. That is far too much power in the hands of one person. Mr. DiNapoli argues that boards, too, are vulnerable to corruption, but they are not nearly so exposed as one lone politician.

The editorial suggests additional proposed reforms, but doesn’t the above sound rather like what we said on Monday? To wit (emphasis supplied):

The temptation in the comptrollers’s scandal is that the structures allowed one man to control too much money and there was a lack of transparency to boot. It was just too easy to skim. That’s why reforms called for in the wake of the Hevesi scandal envision a board at the state level rather than having single individuals be responsible for investments. (By the way, we note that this important reform was not amongst the reforms proposed by the State Comptroller, the Governor and the State Superintendent of Insurance, in December 2007 per state press release proclaiming that the pension fund had been brought “up to modern standards”: GOVERNOR AND COMPTROLLER PROPOSE PENSION FUND REFORMS- Changes Will Create New Ethics Standards and Increase Transparency.) We suggest that as an indicator of earnestness, people watch to see which reformers call for pension investment decisions to be reposed in a newly formulated board and which reformers call for less than that.

(See: Monday, April 27, 2009, Links to Avoid: Unnecessary Temptation, Unnecessary Subsidies.)

We appreciate the echo in pursuit of a good cause. Of course, establishment of a board is not a panacea. For instance, the City Comptroller’s Office does have boards in place. The protections of boards can be eviscerated* by structures where too much control is delegated allowing, all over again, too much power to be concentrated in individuals further down the line.

(* For the sake of using this as another opportunity to take a pot shot at the project we think is above all others most deserving of criticism, consider for example the abdication of responsibility by the Empire State Development Corporation’s board for the Atlantic Yards project. Not only was the board’s initial approval quick and cursory for an extraordinarily monumental set of propositions, but the project has since been allowed to migrate substantially from what was originally touted. That migration has been entirely the responsibility merely of staff. We would not therefore deem Atlantic Yards an “approved” project. That lack of valid approval for what is currently proposed raises issues akin to the need for the altered Atlantic Yards project to go back to the Public Authorities Board before legally valid financing can ever proceed.)

We welcome having the Times editorial page align with us on the question of pension investment reform. Those acquainted with Noticing New York know that we are often demanding better conduct from New York politicians and, in that regard, we are often nudging the Times editorial page to similarly (and effectively) demand higher standards of conduct. (See: Saturday, November 15, 2008, The Mayor, The Times’ Timing, and a Proper Ordering.)