Why Is Spitzer's "New" ESDC Allowing an Old Boondoggle?

Elliot Spitzer ran on reform. He promised change. To that end, he appointed a new ESDC chairman and promised that the ESDC would not become a tool for political patronage as it so obviously was under the charming (if you find sleeze charming) but corrupt "Charles" Gargano.

So why is the "new" ESDC supporting biggest boondoggle from the Pataki era - Ratner's Atlantic Yards? Foye and Spitzer have had numerous opportunities to put the breaks on step back and review this project (instead they have chosen to spend ESDC resources to DEFEND Ratner's project in court). Neither have indicated any interest in doing so. Why?

Do they believe this project is all above board? If so then they are far more incompetent than I had imagined. Unless they have been utterly lied to by Ratner's people (a likely prospect) they have to know about the issues of size, density and the enormous public outlays with no public benefit.

That leads us to speculation #2 - they know its a boondoggle but support it anyway for yet unknown reasons...if that's the case than we know Spizter's 'reform' speech was empty rhetoric and the "new" ESDC is business as usual for corporate welfare queens like Bruce Ratner.

Who's Watching the Watchers?

We've already seen the results of the ESDC and Forest City hiring 'experts' to analyze environmental impact or assess historical significance of buildings. In what can only be described as a remarkable coincidence, they have a near 100% track record of coming to conclusions favorable for the Developer. Now the ESDC and Forest City are hiring monitors to oversee compliance of the project: From Atlantic Yards Report:

"In-house discretion
Unmentioned in the press release is that FCR would fund the ICM, according to the CBA, with "an annual payment of up to $100,000 to be paid by the Project Developer"

So the sham continues. Forest City has a track record of tying their 'contributions' to charities into specific actions by those charities (which means they aren't contributions at all but bribes). If Forest City & Ratner corrupt the virtue of charity, can we seriously imagine that someone collecting a check from Forest City for actual work to objectively oversee this project? Or will it become a physical manifestation of the FEIS - within the letter of the law(barely), but mocking and insulting the spirit of the law.

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.""