Brooklyn Politicos Call for Trust to Oversee Atlantic Yards
Governor would exercise majority control
A handful of local politicians this morning crowded onto the steps of City Hall to announce an initiative to foster community involvement in the Atlantic Yards project.
The Atlantic Yards Governance Act, co-sponsored by Assemblymen Hakim Jeffries and James Brennan of Brooklyn, would create a 15-member development trust to balance what they say is a one-sided effort monopolized by developer Forest City Ratner. The trust would, theoretically, have full power to modify the Yards’ development plan. But, at the same time, a majority eight members of the board would still be appointed by the governor.
"Atlantic Yards is a public project built on public land using public money overseen by a public entity for a public purpose," Mr. Jeffries said. "It therefore deserves maximum public participation during the life of this project."
Why now? The Atlantic Yards project has stumbled through three governors and a recent shake-up in the top ranks of the Empire State Development Corporation. “The uncertainty that creates,” Mr. Jeffries said, was cause for concern.
But Mr. Jeffries, who has been known to straddle the fence on the Atlantic Yards project, didn't say whether he was for or against it.
"I think there are several aspects of the project which are promising," he said, "such as the creation of thousands of units of affordable housing. However, there are other aspects of the project which leave a lot to be desired, such as the size and density of the project and the adverse impact that size and density may have on the quality of life in the community."
Meanwhile, City Council members Letitia James and David Yassky of Brooklyn also came out in support of the bill. Mr. Yassky was adamant that not a single public dollar go toward Atlantic Yards until the community has a say and the “original sin” of the project (circumventing the Council) is repented.
Hooray! Although some, like Letitia James, have seen this monstrosity for what it was from the beginning, finally others are starting to wake up. Welcome! Better, hopefully, late than never,
If Yassky is serious about the "original sin" (!) being "repented" he should be pushing for the implementation of another Brennan bill that would require expedited ULURP for this thing NOW.
But hopefully the IRS and Kucinich, and maybe the Supreme Court, will stick a fork in this boondoggle for once and for all. This bill should only be a fall-back position.
Removing ESDC from the Atlantic Yards picture opens up a lot of possibilities but whether changing oversight over Atlantic Yards (development in the Vanderbilt Yards area) from one gubernatorially controlled entity to another gubernatorially entity will improve public input, and more importantly “fundamentally change power dynamics” is going to depend on other underlying essentials which can and need to be addressed in this process. To “fundamentally change power dynamics” ESDC’s ill-conceived notion that Ratner has some sort of theoretical monopoly on development in the area needs to be jettisoned.
ESDC’s spokesman’s statement (AYR post June 17, 2008- http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/another-potential-snag-f...) that ESDC’s goal in lobbying Washington right now is to “maximize the amount of tax-exempt bonds” for Ratner shows how ESDC sets it sites on the wrong goals when it comes to dealing with Ratner, basically supporting disequilibrium where Ratner gets the negotiating power and the benefit. For more on this and ESDC’s cockeyed and unworkable premise that its OK to award Ratner a theoretical monopoly on the development of 22 acres first and“negotiate” subsidy later see the comment at: http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/as-irs-moves-to-close-lo...
Treating Ratner as having a theoretical monopoly on development in the Atlantic Yards area makes it virtually impossible to negotiate with him in more ways than one. It facilitates Ratner’s recent bullying threats to leave the public with a Ratner-created-wasteland unless the public antes up more subsidy in an amounts he has not yet even specified. Further, “fundamental” “power dynamics” are also affected by such a “monopoly” because a monopoly precludes other developers becoming part of the dynamics as an economic constituency with whom the public can ally in moving toward better plans and design.
It is of primary importance that Ratner’s theoretical monopoly on development in the area of Atlantic Yards be roundly disavowed. There is no reason to give the idea any credence or legitimacy. This is not an approved project. Subsidies, financing and a multitude of other arrangements for the Ratner vision of Atlantic Yards have never been approved and the Ratner vision also needs to go back to the PACB before it can ever move forward. The Ratner vision is also already a far different project than the Ratner vision that George Pataki tried to ram through in the final days of his administration. Plus, there are many more changes to come beyond Ms. Brooklyn’s recent conversion to the stack of discarded pizza boxes which Gehry now refers to as “Building 1.”
Ergo- Remove ESDC from the picture and, more important, remove Ratner from the picture as the “monopoly-developer.”
Michael D. D. White
Noticing New York