Sunday, March 18, 2007

Amanda Burden Trips Over Herself

One of the more amusing aspects of Atlantic Yards supporters are the mental gymnastics they have to do to keep from contradicting themselves or 'slipping up' and revealing the truth behind 'the big lie' from a crain's article:
Q: Were you surprised by the extent and vociferous nature of the opposition to the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn?

A: As I recall, the Atlantic Yards had deep and wide support throughout the community. [you recall wrong - or is that just a way of lying. There is no support in the community except for 'democracy for hire. A bold faced lie right out of the Forest City playbook...it either shows that Burden is remarkably uniformed about Atlantic Yards or she's employing the old maxim if you're going to lie, lie big.] There was vociferous opposition, as there always is with big projects. But we're a big city, and we need big projects.[is there any logic to this statement? - Not really -it's one of those things that sound's sensible, but really isn't. Why does a big city 'need' big projects? And why does the city have to pay for them? What 'big cities' really need is substantial investment in infrastructure which the mayor refuses to do...what he city really needs is more public park and greenspace, which the mayor refuses to do. ] Atlantic Yards was a gaping hole in the heart of Brooklyn. Now it will provide a fantastic venue for a sports facility, retail and entertainment, and it is on top of a transit hub, which fits our strategy of sustainable growth.[it will also fit al-queda's strategy for the world's biggest hand grenade. - oh and Mrs Burden, Its Vanderbilt Yards, and its not gaping hole but a working rail yard. You forgot to add it will decrease diversity of property ownership - forcibly take people's homes and make this part of brooklyn the densest population tract in the country. That's 'sustainable' growth? I shutter to imagine what you think unsustainable growth constitutes.. ]

Q: Four years ago, the city announced plans to revitalize Coney Island, but little has happened since. What is the status of the plan to rezone the area, and do you favor including residential use in the entertainment zone, as the landlord who owns most the property wants?

A: Our rezoning plans for Coney Island will provide substantial opportunities for residential development, let me reassure you of that.

I don't know if you know that Coney Island used to be the No. 1 tourist destination in the entire world — and the amusements are part of its iconic character, its magic, its worldwide renown and its brand name. Amusements are incompatible with immediately adjacent residential use, so we do not think residential use immediately adjacent to the amusements is appropriate.

But a sports arena is? Oh let me answer that for you it isn't, according to the city's own zoning laws (which say that arenas cannot be within 200 feet of residential areas) - wait - I thought Atlantic Yards was great, how could something so great be inappropriate?

From the DDDB link above:
"
But its not just DDDB and the community that feels this way.The New York City Department of City Planning (NYCDCP) agrees and created a zoning law that...

"prohibits arenas within 200 feet of residential districts as some of the opperations could be incopmpatible with districts limited primarily to residential use.""

5 comments:

bluet said...

good sunday knicker:
I have a question and I am sorry if I sound ignorant or something but...if there is a law in New York that arenas can't be built so close to residencial areas, how is it that this man is able to build A.Yards?
Is this law one of the elements that Mr.Goldberg (sorry if I am spelling wrongly his name) and the other plaintiff are using in the lawsuit against Ratner?

KnickerBlogger said...

Good Afternoon:
It's Goldstien - anyway, the ESDC - Empire State Development Corporation, can override city and local zoning and use eminent domain - the whole purpose of that organization is to bull doze through local zoning laws and community boards.

But the point is she's saying one thing about coney island -which was purpose built for entertainment and quite another about sticking an arena in low rise historic neiborhooods.

bluet said...

oh Goldstein! I see .
I understood what she was saying,my point was asking about A.Y and how that law could affect it and if the plantiff are or can use that law and other laws to deffend their point or if the use of eminent domain has a stronger weight in this case.

KnickerBlogger said...

well i am not a lawyer - but it wouldn't help the eminent domain case, to my knowledge - but it could probably have some impact on a suit against the ESDC - there's a bunch of i different lawsuits going on around this project, some tenants, some property owners...if for example and environmental group sued they would do it on the grounds the ESDC isn't really dealing with the environmental hazards this project will create.

bluet said...

I see.
thanks :)