The first two installments of the public hearings on Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project were less than hugely informative—the first, on August 23, quickly deteriorated into a yellfest, while the second, on primary night, was mostly attended by people disguised as empty seats. So yesterday’s rubber match promised to be an opportunity to finally weigh reasoned arguments for and against the 8.7-million-square-foot megaproject.
Yeah, right. While reason wasn’t entirely absent—except maybe from the
carpenter’s union honcho who gave Bruce Ratner credit for Smith Street’s
restaurant row—the arguments were almost entirely of the apples vs.
oranges variety. You could peg which side speakers were on by which
buzzwords appeared in their first sentence: If they mentioned “jobs” or
“affordable housing” they were pro, “traffic” or “scale” and they were
As the day dragged on into evening, this made for a singularly dreary discourse, even if the overt booing was somewhat tempered from the
August hearing. This is a battle, it’s increasingly clear, where the two
public sides are incapable of hearing each other.
When Patti Hagan, the Prospect Heights community activist who was one of the first to ring alarm
bells about the Ratner project, paraded around the room waving blowup
renderings of skyscrapers blotting out the sun, proponents saw union jobs
erecting all that steel; when Ratner backers in SEIU t-shirts waved “JOBS,
HOOPS AND HOUSING” placards, opponents insisted that they were all for
affordable housing—but they weren’t willing to trade off sunshine and a
working sewage system to get it.
That, ultimately, is the crux of the neighbor-vs.-neighbor battles over
Atlantic Yards: What’s it worth for a community to give up in exchange for
the goodies being dangled by a big developer? Debating that calculus,
though, was beyond the scope of a series of 180-second speeches—as was
the corollary question, are we really stuck relying on big developers of
the world to be the straw that stirs the city’s economic drink?
Which is probably just as well, as even if Jane Jacobs herself had
descended from the heavens to declare one side her true
mantle-bearer, there wouldn’t have been much of an audience. The moderator
appointed by the Empire State Development Corporation stressed at the start of the proceedings though this meeting had been
called to accommodate those who’d been unable to get a turn at the podium
at the August hearing, it was not an official “public hearing,” but rather
an unofficial “community forum.” The elected officials who’d jammed the
August meeting steered clear; the only sign of officialdom present was
city Economic Development Corporation VP Hardy Adasko, swigging bottled
water in the front row amidst a coterie of ESDC functionaries.
The next throwdown that means something, then, could come when the Council
of Brooklyn Neighborhoods—a coalition of neighborhood groups that while
officially agnostic on the Ratner plan has raised a series of questions
about how well it has been thought out—issues its response to the city’s Draft
Environmental Impact Statement at the end of the month. Funded by $230,000
in grants from the city council and state assembly, the CBN project has
assigned experts in various fields to collect feedback to the plan at a
series of community meeting, and use this to come up with its own 300-page
critique of the DEIS.
peek at the preliminary findings, published on the CBN website earlier
this month, points to some gaping holes in the state’s documents, including
failure to properly analyze the relative impact of alternative plans,
failure to report socioeconomic costs as well as benefits of the project,
and the absence of any sections on environmental justice, mental health,
and security and terrorism—this last of no small concern given that
Ratner’s plan calls for Brooklyn’s largest skyscraper to be plunked down
atop a subway hub that someone already
plotted to blow up once. Now that sounds like the kind of public
debate we can really sink our teeth into. We’re ready for our closeup, Mr.