David Yassky Presses School Authorities on Dock St School Alternatives (w/ FOIL Docs)
March 19th, 2009
[UPDATE: Brooklyn Heights Blog has the full FOIL documents and The Brooklyn Paper writes about it.]
After yesterday’s School Construction Authority’s budget hearing, in which Council Member David Yassky questioned SCA officials, his office released a statement (below) with FOIL documents that explain his pressure on the SCA’s planning with regards to the Dock Street Dumbo development. At the hearing, he pressed SCA on the issue of alternative sites for the construction of a school in the Dumbo area.
In a June 7, 2008 Brooklyn Paper article, City: We don’t need a middle school in DUMBO — now, the SCA told PS8 parents that “Right now, in this district, we do not identify a need” for a middle school. However, documents obtained by Yassky’s office as part of the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), contradict SCA’s public statement on a few issues. While SCA claim that a public middle school is not needed, a document dating a few weeks earlier (PDF) shows that SCA coordinated with Two Trees to propose a middle school in the controversial development on Dock Street in Dumbo. This document includes a draft term sheet between SCA and Two Trees, but it is unknown how long the negotiations have been taking place.
Mr. Yassky also pressed SCA on researching alternate sites for a middle school in the Dumbo area. During the Borough President Hearing on Dock Street in January, the owner of 205 Water Street expressed interest in working with the SCA to look at the lot as a potential site. (Ref Dock Street foes, supporters clash at hearing, Brooklyn Paper). However, Yassky’s office notes that there are FOIL documents that show that other sites are not being seriously being considered. (PDF) According to Yassky’s office, the developer of One Brooklyn Bridge Park (at 360 Furman Street) also indicated that they have approx 45,000 square feet to dedicate to a new public middle school in an existing building, but the development does not generate revenue for BBP.
The FOIL also indicates that the there may be disagreement internally at SCA as to what $43 million in their capital budget represents. In one place, they indicate it is a stand alone building (PDF), in another they say that is the cost of the buildout from a shell (PDF). That figure stands in contrast to a proposed new public school in Queens that would serve 1,100 students at a cost of $70 million to retrofit, which is different than delivering a shell to specifications. In the Queens school build, the city has agreed to give preference in admissions to students living in three of the seven Queens districts. SCA has not said whether the Dock Street school will serve specific districts.
Statement released by Danny Kanner, Council Member Yassky’s Press Secretary:
“David has fought for years for a middle school for our community, and still believes that our children would be best served by a top-flight school in Downtown Brooklyn. However, the documents disclosed in this FOIL request and SCA’s testimony yesterday clearly indicate that they are doing one thing in private, and saying another in public. While they were publicly sticking by the position that Downtown Brooklyn does not need a middle school as of June of last year, these documents prove that they had already been in negotiations with Two Trees on final terms of agreement. They also continue to insist to this day that they are doing their due diligence by carefully reviewing alternate sites, yet their private correspondence clearly indicates otherwise.
“Brooklyn and all New York City taxpayers deserve a process by which the School Construction Authority gives careful consideration to the cost-effectiveness of a variety of sites, not one by which they allocate over $40 million for a project that has not been determined to be the most fiscally responsible. However, the Authority seems intent on pursuing the Dock Street project without doing their homework. Simply put, they are acting in bad faith, should be forced to answer for their contradictions, and begin an authentic process that carefully reviews the numerous sites our office has provided them with.”
31 Responses to “David Yassky Presses School Authorities on Dock St School Alternatives (w/ FOIL Docs)”
Leave a Reply
- Dock St Dumbo Protest Calls for Investigation
- New FOIL Docs from SCA Reveal its Own Architect Didn’t Give Dock St. School a Passing Grade in 2007
- Author McCullough Speaks Out Against Inappropriate Development
- Crowd Shows Up at Dock St Hearing at Borough Hall
- Media Reports on City Council Hearing on Dock St Dumbo
- Dock Street Dumbo Building Opposed by Yassky
- Two Trees Presentation Video for Dock Street Building
- Dock Street Dumbo Hearing
- Dock St Dumbo Campaigning From Both Sides
- City Council to Vote on Dock Street Dumbo Today (UPDATE: Approved)
March 19th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Next we’ll find out that SCA gave management themselves bonuses for all their hard work chumming with Two Trees.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
The SCA also has apparently not done its due diligence regarding the safety of a middle school at the Dock Street site. I have twice written top officials at the DOE & SCA asking if they did their own independent assessment or did they simply rely on the EAS submitted by Two Trees. I also told them of the serious pedestrian safety and air polution issues at that site, all of which have been verified by professionals. Their failure to reply in so far 1.5 months is alarming.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I love the next to last line of Jed’s 5/20/08 letter to SCA (in the 1st PDF): “Please treat this letter as confidential business trade secrets for purposes of FOIL.” Hysterical, since the letter is now released as part of the Freedom of Information Law! This letter was one week prior to the second Two Trees presentation to PS8 parents at Plymouth Church, and also includes this pearl from Jed: “We need you to make a strong and public commitment to the project and make it clear to the community that there are no other sites under consideration for a new public middle school in District 13.” Can you say ‘Smoking Gun’? By August, Greenberger and the SCA complied with Jed’s request, contradicting their earlier stance, as stated in the post above.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I call for State Attorney General Cuomo to open an investigation into the dealings between Jed Walentas/Two Trees Management and the corrupt School Construction Authority. Bloomie can’t be trusted to investigate a city developer.
Jed’s clear desire to keep secret his Gentlemen’s Agreement with the SCA cronies is a major smoking gun.
Keep the cigarette boat well fueled Jed, you might need to make a quick getaway. I hear Bernie M. needs a roommate at 10 South.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
My favorite smoking gun is the email between SCA officials Lorraine Grillo (BoE Chief of Staff/Executive Director), and Kendrick Ou, (Director, Real Estate Services at NYC School Construction Authority), and I quote from the above linked FOIL PDF:
“Now I know that if we don’t do the Walentas project that we don’t really want to do anything else over there but I think we have to follow up on this just so we can say that the Walentas project is such a good deal.” Signed–Lorraine
OH SNAP!
Memo to Lorraine: If you’re going to perpetrate unethical and potentially criminal “done deals” while the SCA is simultaneously lying to the public that there’s no need for a school and not doing any real due diligence on competing sites, don’t put it in emails, ok?
This gets me thinking about what’s motivating these officials to secretly deal with Jed, while simultaneously denying the need for a school in the district and not properly conducting competing due diligence. What possible consideration went on between these parties that could explain these actions?
Thank heaven for the Freedom of Information Act (despite the anti-FOIA caveats that Jed puts in his term sheets).
March 20th, 2009 at 8:10 am
The Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) is a wonderful tool. I encourage the readers of DumboNYC to go to the NYS Committee on Open Government website to learn more: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/freedomfaq.htm.
And, for the record, there are excpetions to FOIL, but one cannot self-proclaim it and expect that it will stick.
And, all of this comes during National Sunshine Week: http://www.sunshineweek.org.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Aside from this being in bad faith, is it criminal?
March 20th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
[...] 18-story Walentas residential tower. UPDATE: We now have the full FOIL documents for you (pdf), and DumboNYC has it all rehashed: In a June 7, 2008 Brooklyn Paper article, “City: We don’t need a middle school in DUMBO” — [...]
March 20th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
BkylnB – Cuomo is busy dealing with actual problems.
I love how this political tool yassky proclaims himself the speaker for the taxpayer when he’s done nothing to meaningfully guage how the majority of taxpayers feel about this project.
the people fighting this development have spent any traction they ever had by coming out of the box with slander and propaganda. now you’re just annoying and intrusive. don’t delude yourself by giving eachother handjobs on this chatboard. you are toast.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
BrooklynLove:
Perhaps you were not at the Borough Hall hearing a few weeks back when over 2/3 of the speakers were against the project and a petition of over 8,000 signatures against the project as currently designed was presented to the Beep. Yes, over 8,000. Now does that help you properly gague how the majority of taxpayers feel?
Perhaps if you knew what you were talking about, people would bother to listen to your ejaculations on this board.
PS: Loose stool always bests you, buddy.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Yo Brooklyns, both of you: It’s spelled GAUGE.
March 20th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Thanks for the blog spell check. Now can you come over and wash my car?
March 21st, 2009 at 8:16 am
BB – if there was an analogous group of people promoting the project and shoving a petition in support in people’s face every weekend, the 8000 number might mean something. as for the hearing – these are venues for objectors, not supporters, so any sample set of people there is useless.
FFR – you understood me right? so what’s your point? you need to turn your cornball check on.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:06 am
The “promised school” was sitting on a five level car garage under the Bridge. Is that a reasonable offer given pollution, highways above and below and other potential concerns associated with the area?
Now let’s find out about the “promised affordable” housing.
And let’s find out about the “promised union jobs”
What is promised???? Not to renew the lease of the League School” who serves the most fragile and needy children of this city so that more condos can be built…
“Out of scale rents” to a neighborhood that is already struggling in this economy.
“Out of scale buildings” to take away light, air, and open spaces and to be able to view the spans of Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges from the streets. The ability to cross Front, Water and other streets thru the neighborhood with a 500 car garage located at the enterence to the historic district neighborhood.
The impact of the proposal is out of scale to DUMBO residents and visitors and the needs of the community. The long term effects of this project will be devestating for generations to come.
March 21st, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Do you pro- Dock St, pro- Walentas people have any idea who you are dealing with? You’ve got to be out of your minds to believe anything that comes out of Walentas’ mouth:
An example: cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/73/150/556943
March 21st, 2009 at 9:01 pm
The place could be 100% market rate and without a school and it still would make more sense then you irrational nimbys do.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 am
[...] Street School While Telling Public None Was Needed Jump to Comments As reported initially at DUMBO NYC, and then picked up by Brooklyn Heights Blog a FOIL inquiry has revealed that in May 2008, around [...]
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Once again, does anyone know if this constitute a crime?
The language of the documents is very self-implicating… like they are inferring as much themselves…
March 27th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Brooklyn Love (aka????) admits the Dock Street project will not include a school. Hey Brooklyn Love..Admit whose son you are/////
April 1st, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Brooklynlove….what an ironic name since you seem to hate your fellow brooklynites and the symbol of brooklyn, the bridge.
So, how much does 2trees pay you to attack the real residents of the area?
Do you even understand what makes the area nice?
Do you even have a clue about anything?
Are you really a Walentes family member, or perhaps a Walentes groupie?
You attack the politicians that aren’t paid off, do you have any faith in the system, or do you think buying politicians shouldn’tbe voted for, but bought?
How much was your bonus this year?
You really have exposed yourself as a fraud on this board. Give up the alias and tell us who you really are.
April 1st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I, hereby pledge, that if this proposal goes forward, I will chain myself to the the equipment. I will lie down in front of the trucks. THEY WILL HAVE TO RUN ME OVER TO BUILD THIS. NO NO NO!
DON’T TREAD ON ME!
VIVA LA REVELUCION!
The paving of the cobblestones were prevented by similar measures 20 years ago! Who’s with me? NO NO NO
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
[...] the proposed school in the Dock Street Dumbo development took on more negative publicity when FOIL documents support the claim by Council Member David Yassky that the School Construction Authority has not put [...]
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
For those who care:
To file a complaint against the SCA:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/resource_center/complaints/pdfs/piu001_complaint_form.pdf
This is from the State Attorney General’s office.
Never underestimate what you can do to stop this. Spread the world. Get all the opponents of TwoTrees to file a complaint with the State Attorney General. Demand an investigation in this obvious miscarriage of the democratic process.
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/
April 10th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I don’t know if this was posted already but its stated well and very simply: http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/04/10/opinion/1194747017437/paving-over-history.html
April 11th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Yassky has failed this community.
The article states: “David has fought for years for a middle school for our community”
What we have to show for his years in office is no school except for the one for free that he opposes.
Good job Dave.
And now he wants to run for city comptroller no less.
April 11th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Hey duh,
Yassky will be getting my vote. Not only that, it is time to hold politicians accountable. Mr. Marty ‘Mr. Brooklyn’ Marcowitz is the one who has failed the community, not only in this project, but with the Atlantic Yards and the sham that is going on in Coney Island. Well, Mr. Brooklyn, who more and more is Mr. “corporate spokesman’ will have to answer to his real bosses, that is the residents of Brooklyn come election day.
You can play your little game all you want. Using big words like ‘confabulation’ and wrongly associating the opposition as being in line with the pro business Limbaugh may make you feel like you are smart, but the shallowness of your argument shines brighter than the sun.
This issue is bigger than a school, which, you don’t seem to understand is not a done deal. This issue is about our laws and who is subject to them.
BUYER BEWARE! This is a common sense statement. People should be aware of what they are getting into. Two Trees is well aware of what the zoning laws are- they just don’t care. They feel, as many of the developers and investors feel, the laws don’t apply to them. They don’t care about the process as they feel that cash is their tool of change.
If the laws do not apply to everyone, then the laws apply to no one, and we begin the slippery slope to chaos.
This project should be rejected on principle. Principle of a free society governed by laws.
April 11th, 2009 at 7:36 am
And for those who want a school, you should be petitioning the government to seize the land via the State’s eminent domain laws.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Thanks Anon.
That NYTimes video is excellent and to the point; I can’t see how it could be argued with. Given the sites history it should be made into a park.
April 11th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
First we let the Corrupt CEO’s steal the American Dream.
Now they are stealing our National Treasures.
What’s next?
May 31st, 2009 at 1:33 am
[...] Eric Gioia (photo: center, wearing ties) spoke out for an investigation into the activities of the School Construction Authority’s alleged corruption attached to the project. Kristian Roebling (speaking in the photo) the great-great-grandson of [...]
September 28th, 2009 at 10:03 am
[...] Member David Yassky revealed in FOIL documents back in March 2009 that the School Construction Authority (SCA) may have said one thing about building a middle school [...]