Dock St Dumbo Campaigning From Both Sides
May 6th, 2009
The campaigning has picked up by both the developers of the Dock Street Dumbo development and the opposition before the public hearing of the City Council, set for Thursday, May 21, 2009 at 10am at City Hall, Manhattan.
Campaign For:
Last week, Jed Walentas Two Trees sent out mailings to locals that “it’s now or never and we need your help one more time to make the project’s new middle school and affordable housing a reality. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the Dock Street Dumbo plan on Thursday, May 21st, so this is the final opportunity to make your voice heard and to let Councilman Yassky and the entire City Council know you want a new public middle school…you want affordable housing…you want Dock Street approved!” The text of the letter can be seen after the jump.
Campaign Against:
Today, the opposition via a media alert sent this email out:
Myths vs. Facts on Brooklyn Bridge-Threatening Dock Street Development from DNA
“Below is a communication from the Dumbo Neighborhood Association (DNA) to clarify some misinformation being disseminated by the developers of the Dock Street Development, a proposed 18-story development adjacent to a world renowned international landmark, The Brooklyn Bridge. Spokesperson from DNA and its many supporters (listed below) are available to speak to the media. A public hearing before the City Council is set for May 21.”
Campaign Against:
Issue
Myth
Fact
Affordable Housing
Two Trees is generously providing the first affordable housing units in DUMBO.
Two Trees is taking advantage of tax abatements which gives the developer access to subsidized financing and tax reductions in exchange for legally mandated affordable housing units. It’s the law…not generosity.
Middle School
Two Trees is generously offering a 300 middle school for DUMBO children at no cost to the city or taxpayer.
• The proposed middle school would cost taxpayers $43 million yet no cost benefit analysis was conducted on the Dock St. site or any of seven proposed alternate school sites.
• There is no binding obligation for the developer to include a school in the final project.
• The proposed school would be located on top of a federally designated flood zone.
• The proposed school would sit on top of the developer’s 465 car garage.
• The proposed school would sit right belie the Brooklyn Bridge, a known terrorist target.
• The proposed school would be situated next to the most heavily trafficked area in NYC, the Brooklyn Bridge and the BQE.
• The proposed school would be a district wide school, open to all students of the district, not just DUMBO.
• Proposed 300 seats do not meet the education needs of the downtown Brooklyn area.
• Repeated requests for the SCA’s and DOE’s Environmental Impact Study and alternate school site feasibility studies have been ignored.
Design & Context
• Dock St. has been redesigned to incorporate community criticism from the failed 2004 proposal.
• Dock St. is contextual to its surroundings.• The proposed development has been moved a mere 12 feet further from the Bridge than in the failed 2004 proposal.
• The proposed development would stand 2 stories higher than the 2004 proposal.
• All buildings in the surrounding area are 20-80 feet high; Dock St. would be over 200 ft high with mechanicals.
• All of the buildings within a 200 ft. radius of the walkway of the Brooklyn Bridge are below the walkway level.
Support
• Dock St. proposal has received widespread support, including from the local Community Board.
• President of Pratt Institute has thrown his support behind the project.
• The Brooklyn Historical Society supports this development.• At Community Board 2 public hearing those who spoke in opposition to the project outnumbered those in support by more than 2:1
• Most of those who spoke out in favor made clear that their support was based on the school, an aspect of the proposal now revealed to be full of flaws.
• Community Board 2 land-use subcommittee voted against Dock St. and furthermore, by a margin of 10-1, voted to adopt a recommendation that no structure rise above the bridge walkway.
• At Borough President Markowitz’s public hearing, 72 out of 100 speakers spoke in opposition to the project.
• 12,000 individuals have signed a petition against Dock St.
• DUMBO Neighborhood Assoc., Fulton Ferry Landing Assoc., Brooklyn Heights Assoc., Vinegar Hill Assoc., Cobble Hill Assoc., Boerum Hill Assoc., and Ft. Greene Assoc. have stated their opposition to the project.
• The Municipal Art Society, the Historic Districts Council, the Roebling Chapter – Society of Industrial Archeology, Society for Architecture in NYC, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Renowned author David McCullough and filmmaker Ken Burns are all opposed to Dock St.
• State Senator Daniel Squadron and Congresswoman Nydia Valazquez oppose the Dock St. project.
• The Principal of Two Trees Management sits on the boards of both Pratt and the Brooklyn Historical Society.
• Principals, associates, representatives and employees of Two Trees have spent over $400,000 in two years lobbying city officials to support Dock St.
Campaign For:
IT’S NOW OR NEVER FOR A NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL IN DUMBO AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD’S FIRST EVER AFFORDABLE HOUSING!
Dear Friends and Supporters of Dock Street Dumbo:
The NYC Planning Commission last week overwhelmingly approved Dock Street Dumbo, which means that the project now moves on to the City Council for its final review. Therefore, it’s now or never and we need your help one more time to make the project’s new middle school and affordable housing a reality. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the Dock Street Dumbo plan on Thursday, May 14th, so this is the final opportunity to make your voice heard and to let Councilman Yassky and the entire City Council know you want a new public middle school…you want affordable housing…you want Dock Street approved!
CONTACT COUNCILMAN DAVID YASSKY
Call and email Councilman David Yassky immediately and let him know that you and your neighbors think Dock Street Dumbo is the right project for the neighborhood and that the community can’t afford to lose this opportunity for a new school and affordable housing.
Councilman David Yassky
Tel: 718-875-5200
Email: yassky@council.nyc.ny.us
ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 21
You can also attend the public hearing on Thursday, May 21, 2009 and join other Dock Street supporters in telling the entire City Council that the community wants this project approved.
Public Hearing of the NYC Council Subcommittee on Zoning & Franchises
Thursday, May 21, 2008 10:00 a.m.
City Hall, Manhattan
Thank you for all of your support over the past several months as Dock Street Dumbo has moved through the land use review process and has picked up support from the NYC Planning Commission, Community Board #2, elected officials and residents from throughout the neighborhood. With this one final push, together we can make this project a reality! Should you have any questions or need additional information, please call Nora Mattingly at 718-222-2500 or email her at nmattingly@TwoTrees-Dumbo.com.
Regards,
Jed Walentas
48 Responses to “Dock St Dumbo Campaigning From Both Sides”
Leave a Reply
- Dock Street Windows
- Reminder: City Planning Hearing for Dock Street Today
- DUMBO Neighborhood Foundation Meeting
- Dock St Dumbo Protest Calls for Investigation
- Two Trees Presentation Video for Dock Street Building
- Two Trees Sends Message to Celebrities
- Temporary Two Way Streets
- Notice: Cars Parked on Dock Street
- Dock Street Dumbo Project Moves Forward
- CPC on Dock Street Dumbo: Need More Details for Decision
May 6th, 2009 at 8:17 am
The DUMBO Neighborhood Association’s fact matrix is cogent and a great summary of the issues.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am
If it would cost 43 million just to develop the school at Dock Street, how much would it cost to build at another site ???
This is a *very* basic question essential to evaluating the feasibility of the proposal for which SCA has NO answer… and, even worse, avoided answering in order to facilitate a sweetheart deal with Two Trees.
That sounds illegal to me.
*Maybe someone with legal expertise could elaborate one way or the other…*
May 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
The $43 million is the SCA’s budgeted cost for fit up of the Dock Street shell. A stand alone school could cost double that. The proceeds of a sale-leaseback can cover all the fit-up costs, should the DOE choose to go that route.
By all means – get the school commitment from the developer in writing.
All middle schools in a district are open to children residing in that district. That’s NYC DOE policy. Logic flows that most of the seats occupied at the school will be with children from the surrounding communities.
The 300 seat school, which per the ULURP is 45,742 square feet, fits well with the current enrollment of PS 8′s lower grades. 300 seats is considered a desirable size by education experts and wouldn’t overwhelm the immediate community infrastructure (point being – this is not a 2,000 student mega-school).
Sincerely.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“The $43 million is the SCA’s budgeted cost for fit up of the Dock Street shell. A stand alone school could cost double that.”
Carlo, where are you getting that estimate from (not the SCA) ???
$43 million sounds like a lot of money to me and, in this climate, would BUY a lot space… that’s 143k per seat.
“By all means – get the school commitment from the developer in writing.”
Exactly!! How has this proposal gotten this far without such a commitment? Government is encouraged to embrace public/private deals without the diligence ANY business would apply. As a matter of fact, critics are accused of being NIMBYs when they are the *only* reason why a school has entered the discussion.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
$43 million sounds like a lot to me as well. It’s from the SCA budget. I suspect they have considerable cushion which will fall in line as more specific plans are developed.
As for getting it in writing, I can only encourage those who support the project to urge our electeds to do so. This is a political process and unfortunately, the game needs to be played if we want a middle school for our communities.
Sincerely.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Yes, I know $43 million is from SCA — but the estimate that is would cost double that ($86 million) for a stand-alone school ?
Where is that estimate from? I just find it hard to believe that a 300 seat school would need 86 million to get started.
As for politics, the community will loose ALL leverage if this building is approved as is. The community does not need to “play” any “game”… it needs to hold TT’s feet to the fire and send the building back to the drawing board if necessary.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
if this nimby parade subjects bloomy to its shenanigans at the last stop he may be compelled to give the lot of you a full on bare ass moon.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
BrooklynLove, you would’ve bent over and taken it in YOUR moon in 2004 if it were not for the “nimby parade” that forced W to rethink and reboot.
Nonetheless, we appreciate the interest in OUR charitable school contribution.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Keep showing your intellectual acumen, Brooklyn”Love” with statements like that.
How about doing something useful and meaningful like trying to refute any of the cogent statements on the DNA matrix listed above.
If you can’t do that, my car needs to be washed.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Brooklyn love- can you say anything coherent? You keep blabbing about propaganda yet can’t refute any facts presented to you, you just sit back there and try to entice flame wars, but don’t have a match to light.
At least answer this-
Are you the one plastering those tacky, ugly ‘Brooklyn Love’ Stickers in the shops in DUMBO?
May 7th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Nice work Publawyer. Cha-Ching to the max.
I guess the folks at this Dumbo Blog don’t mind being lead around by the paid lacky of the well heeled opposition to this project.
One of the main reasons I have joined this fight with as much vigor as I could muster is because of the uglyness of the campaign against this project and this developer.
I think the people who from the beginning set themselves against this development for reasons of their own, made the mistake of hiring professionals who have engaged in really dirty tactics rather than simply letting the facts speak for themselves.
Personally I may agree with some of the arguments I’ve heard, but the way the fight is being waged has led me to the conclusion that we were being railroaded into opposition.
This is too important for the city to have the discussion dominated and managed. From the very moment I learned about this it was not to be talked about, and everybody opposes it. That’s what we were told.
Don’t believe everything you hear or read and always think for yourself especially when it’s important. I have the right to disagree and I have the right to look at the issue from different points of view. And I implore folks who have no vested interest in this fight to think as honestly and objectively about the question and decide for yourselves. Let no one take your opinion for granted.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Davoyager, are you being ironic? Last I checked Walentas is a BILLIONAIRE throwing cash at politicians.
The opposition is responsible for bringing community concerns into this project in the first place!
To suggest we are all wealthy residents of 70 Washington (I am not) opposed to public education (I went to public school, did Jed? ) is TT’s strategy.
It is TT’s attacking the *character* of the opposition because they will NOT address the substance of the arguments.
The deal is not good enough, the commitments too flimsy, the research incomplete, the public process not respected, and the building too tall.
No business would rollover without better commitments and, until then, would use all available leverage to get the best deal to meet ALL concerns.
Why should the community rollover? Believe me, TT’s upside is gigantic and they are playing hardball.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Dumbostreets: I don’t think DuhVoyager understands irony.
Have you noticed that Duh and Carlo have completely avoided discussing the fact matrix published above.
That’s because the facts are not on their side. So they resort to doublespeak and unfounded accusations against those who call out their BS.
Everyone can see this and it diminishes their side’s credibility.
Keep it up boyz!
May 7th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Dear Publius,
If you check my above posts, I think it’s fair to conclude that I’m sticking to the facts.
But let’s stick to the matrix and the facts. Under Design and Context, the revised design is 170′ tall. The 2004 height was 178′. So to say the proposed would stand 2 stories higher is misleading at best.
Under the Support section, I think it would be helpful if we all knew who on the DNA Board has a view conflict. [removed personal names...]
Sincerely.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Carlo:
I admire your spin. You’ve been trying very hard over the past months to paint the opposition as 70 Washington residents.
You’ll also notice that the DNA is just one of many neighborhood organizations that oppose Dock st. DUMBO as currently configued. I don’t think that members of the Cobble Hill Assoication, Brooklyn Heights Association, Vinegar Hill Association, Boerum Hill Association, Ft. Greene Association all live in 70 Washington.
Nice try. Care to take on any other facts?
May 7th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Affordable Housing – Two Trees is proposing affordable housing units just like they have constructed at Court and Atlantic. The qualifying individuals who will live in those units are the beneficiaries of this legislation. To criticize the developer for participating in this program is ridiculous.
Think of it this way, Publius. When you complete your form 1040 on April 15th and your accountant tells you to make a check out to the US Treasury for $1,000, do you send in $2,000?
If the DNA is against Affordable Housing – they should say so. Otherwise their fact doesn’t stand to reason.
Can you politely answer whether Ms. Buckholz lives at 70 Washington and is losing her view? Does she have any siblings in the building and will they be losing a view?
Please understand, answering the questions won’t totally negate your arguments. It will, however, help those who are undecided understand from where the arguments are made.
Respectfully.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:24 am
The CONSOLIDATION of sight-lines is a valid issue; because it represents a transfer of wealth to a billionaire from individual homeowners AND the public.
Dock Street is a wall-like structure to designed to create scarcity for RENTAL views which TT will own in perpetuity. Do you think Walentas did this by chance??
Carlo, I am still waiting for you to tell me where you got that $86 million dollar figure.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Carlo:
[removed personal names...]
The same way you should at the very least get Jeb to put his promises for “affordable housing” and a middle school shell in a binding letter of intent. Right now Two Trees verbal promises are just that–verbal and non-binding. Yet your side expects a binding zoning change based on non-binding promises.
And this coming just as Toll Brothers backs off their promises of “affordable housing” when CB5 makes it a condition of their zoning change? CB2 and Councilmember James should be ashamed they didn’t do the same for Dock St. DUMBO. How come you don’t ask Tish James to do your work since she’s such a supporter of the project and is expecting Two Trees to deliver on a non-binding promise?
Do you often negotiate deals at your real estate trust where your opposition gets what they want, but you’re left with nothing binding to get what you want?
Why should you expect your opposition to do your work for you? I know you’re a high up executive at your real estate trust company and probably are used to having other people do your work, but come on now.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
The individual homeowners bought their apartments with a written acknowledgement that their views were not protected. Walentas knew what he was doing. He’s a smart businessman. Buyers beware.
An SCA document per the Dock Street FOIL process disclosed that the SCA estimated the cost to make PS 8 a K-8 would run $80 million. The letter was addressed to Councilman Yassky as a response to the BHA’s feasibility study. Seems incredibly high to me, as does $43 million for the fit up of the Dock Street middle school. As taxpayers, we need to hold the SCA in line.
Hopes that answers your question.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Whether or not 70 Washington residents signed on the dotted line is not my point. Supporters have no moral high ground regarding private ownership of sight lines. Walentas is intent to block as many views as he can to create scarcity. To suggest this building is somehow respectful to the community is just not true. It is monopolistic by design. It is not just a private matter either. I walk over the bridge often and to claim that this would not negatively impact walkway view is simply not true.
“As taxpayers, we need to hold the SCA in line.”
Exactly. If the SCA is prepared to cough up $43 million to outfit a leased space, it seems to me that owning a NEW site would be feasible under better planning. We need to push them to truly explore alternatives before pulling the trigger on this deal. No business would do otherwise. It seems reasonable that before throwing around that kind of money a little planning is in order.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
the so called fact matrix is largely a thin tissue of lies and misrepresentation of facts prepared by the attorney who masquerades as a member of the community to confuse and undermine an honest discussion of this issue.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Yes, and we all know Two Trees makes no use of attorneys.
May 7th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
ROTFLMAO, Duh, you’re funnier than Bill Maher, though not intentionally.
Of course Two Trees’ army of lawyers and lobbyists and pay to play politicians don’t count, right?
True Rovian tactics. Try to paint the other side with your own brush then point a finger.
No one’s buying your spin attempts.
May 7th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Carlo Trigiani’s fancy talk and references raises suspicion so I now oppose Dock St (and more so every time he posts). This smarty must be bottom of barrel assigned to seed postings on a blog. Gotta start somewhere. One day, you’ll control the cash you donate to supporters, keep it up.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
no2. clear language doesn’t make illogic and less illogical. you are nuts.
bare ass from bloomy!!!!!!!!!
May 7th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Of course TT has lawyers as I’ve said before but they don’t pretend to be anything other than what they are. While you phony baloney pretend to be a member of the community just like the other phony aspects of your campaign like the phony pictures you use to get the phony petition signed by unsuspecting passers by.
Anyway glad to keep you talking Publier, Cha-ching! Keeps draining the wallets of your clients. They and their money at least are real.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
DuhVoyager, save it for your therapist. Or your anger management class.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Comon, one line? Can’t bill much for just 1 line.
Give us some more of your patented over the top vitriol Publawyer. I’m on a mission to impoverish your clients.
I really enjoyed the non-denial denial. Most entertaining.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
You’re on a mission to make an A$$ out of yourself. And you’ve succeeded. The only thing at which you’ve succeeded.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
and you have succeeded at …
[cue pin dropping]
May 7th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Ah, Brooklyn”Love”. Thanks for crawling out from behind your cable modem for a comment.
There’s space limitations in this textbox to list all my life accomplishments (so far).
But your shared status with Stool as dumbonyc blog co-troll is an accomplishment I can never hope to achieve. Somehow I’ll have to accept that.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Cha-Ching! We’re keeping Publoser up late.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Please. List your accomplishments.
May 8th, 2009 at 6:34 am
pubiclicious – how insecure are you? pathetic that you actually felt the need to respond.
i don’t dispute that you’re impressed with your “accomplishments.”
May 8th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Yes, Mr. Davoyager, TT’s is always exactly as they appear and that’s why it is OK for them to have lawyers. Brilliant.
I think we should change the constitution so we only allow transparently greedy billionaires out to thwart public process lawyers.
Sounds like a great idea.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Duh:
My most recent accomplishment has been to sacrifice my time as your and Carlo’s lightning rod to show the community both of your true colors. Mission Accomplished!
I see your true colors
shining through
I see your true colors
and that’s why I love you
so don’t be afraid to let them show
your true colors
true colors are beautiful
like a rainbow
May 8th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
BrooklynRove
“no2. clear language doesn’t make illogic and less illogical.”
Great! More incoherent babbling from BrooklynRove! Nice!
“you are nuts.”
Coming from you, that’s a compliment, thank you.
“bare ass from bloomy!!!!!!!!!”
Hmmm, strange….is this somehow a reference to the Mayor?
May 9th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Two wrongs don’t make a right. If any of TT’s lawyers have done anything illegal or unethical than they should be brought to task about it. And if this operative had simply said that he was being paid by the opposition and these are his views, I would have been fine with that. But you weren’t the target of his name calling and lies and insults for months until I had had quite enough. Why didn’t he just talk about the issues the way I was. Instead he made this personal and sneered at my appearance from the shadows. Smelled like lawyer. It’s like the Turing test for Artificial intelligence: you recognize it when you see it (now the old Pub would have jumped on that and called me artificial intelligence, let’s see what the newly chastened Pub does), normal people actually listen to what you say and acknowledge points made. this fellow employed a win at all cost, reason be damned approach clearly indicating a non-human power source, that is to say, Money. I thought everybody should know.
I see your true colors
shining through
I see your true colors
and that’s why I love you
so don’t be afraid to let them show
your true colors
true colors are beautiful
like a rainbow
I like that
May 9th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Duh, you’re beyond laughable. No one who’s followed this debate for the many past months and who has read your posts can possibly be pursuaded by your doublespeak and lies.
Do you have a shred of evidence that I’m a lawyer? That I’m paid anything?
Of course you don’t because it’s as legitimate as the last eight years of G.W. Bush. Did you just read the galley’s for Rove’s new tomb and take a leaf out of his book? Though you’re a poor protoge.
Because I’m self employed, any time I spend putting the truth out about the Two Trees scheme to provide us with non-binding promises while the community provides them with their zoning change, has likely lessened my income, since I’m spending less time working with my customers and expanding my business.
However, as a 4th generation Brooklynite, I’ll sacrifice much more time to ensure that people like you and Carlo don’t spew your spin with impunity. I’ll be be calling our your hallucinations and delusions every step of this process.
And even if Two Trees sucessfully completes the ULURP process, the odds that you’ll get your inadequate 9 room middle school are slim. That’s why it’s not in writing. But you’re way too thick to believe it. Likely you’re still waiting for the Easter Bunny in May.
Unfortunatly your naiviety may result in the diminishment of our borough’s icon, our city’s symbol and our National Monument.
At the end of this process, you’ll be sitting in a corner slack jawed, while the rest of us all lose due to your foolishness.
But the fat lady hasn’t yet sung. There’s hope.
Folks, if you haven’t already, take a moment while you’re in front of the screen to write the politicians I listed above that you oppose Dock St DUMBO’s due to all of the cogent arguments presented on the fact matrix.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:07 am
A strange non-denial denial. Are you saying you are not currently on the payroll. But can you tell us you have never been paid to advocate for this issue? Did you testify at any of the hearings? Gee wiz dude you say you have run local businesses, you are active in local charities and so forth. So how come no one knows who you are when most of us know who we all are on both sides of the debate.
Clearly you have something to hide. Hey, I don’t know what your story is. I’m asking you to tell the truth for a change.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Da-
Let’s suppose, for arguments sake, you are right, how does that somehow invalidate the opposition’s position? You seem to be stuck on this, and honestly I don’t see how it would make a difference anyway. It just doesn’t seem to be good for your side to harp on this.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:51 am
A human. I agree with you and I hate this but he made it personal so this is not for the cause. This is because I’m pissed.
This project will happen or not happen and it don’t matter what we say. I just want to talk about how to give our kids an extraordinary middle school experience, and other people should express their opinions pro and con but there is no need for dirty fighting. We are mostly neighbors. That’s my opinion.
I mean there’s room for sniping, I think you and BL are real cute and I love both of you.
When I apply the Turing test you both pass.
I’ll go back to being my usual wacky character who dreams too much and we will see how your boy behaves.
May 9th, 2009 at 6:30 am
On another note, I have misgivings about the very notion of a public / private “solution” of this nature. Sure, it seems great that a billionaire swoops in and “solves” a public infrastructure problem. There is, however, a much bigger discussion to have…
The classic illustration is that of the peasants who do not challenge the aristocrats playing polo in the melon field. Sure, the aristocrats destroy a percentage of the crop, which means part of the larger population does not get their melons — but the aristocrats ALSO purchase the largest number of melons during the summer! Better let them have their way so not to disrupt their patronage even if that means a supply shortfall.
It is a similar calculus that is applied to our infrastructure in this country; where our public schools are crappy and the bridges fall down. We return gigantic sums to people like Walentas in the form of tax breaks (more than just about every other industrialized country) instead of putting resources into our children in the first place.
The Dock Street school, this “charitable” donation to the community, is a fraction of what the community has “given” Walentas over the past 8 years, for example… This thinking leads to evaluating any public need insofar as it can be leveraged for private gain.
Look, I understand the need to be practical and that even with proper funds the city does not always spend the money well, etc. My point here is that Dock Street, although it may seem like a silver bullet may also be, ultimately, the wrong direction to go in resolving our middle school (and public education) challenges.
Just something to consider…
May 9th, 2009 at 8:14 am
The insescent conspiracy theories and unreasonable and unrealistic my way or the highway approach was dead on arrival and now it’s borderline commical (borderline b/c of the painful annoyance factor).
Note to the bubble world nimbys – Walentas owes you nothing and you owe him nothing. Crying to each other and screaming at the people who are empowered to help you will continue to get you nowhere. Walentas learned from 2004 and apparently you have not.
May 9th, 2009 at 8:22 am
I really don’t know what to do. I met a boy yesterday May 7th at Superfine in D.U.M.B.O. I was bar tending and we exchanged eyes. Back and forth, the way you look at someone when you know you are more then interested in just looking at each other. I was uncertain at first because when you are a gay man with no feminine mannerisms, and the guy you are starring at is as equally as rugged as me it’s hard to figure out. His constant gazing at me gave me my answer though. Him and his friends walked over to the lounge area away from me, but I saw him still looking back towards me, and I couldn’t think of anything else but him. Nonchalantly I made my way passed him and the big crowd he was with. He initiated conversation with me right away. Like the shy guy I am, I immediately went blank and into a mode where I felt I was auditioning to win him over. Cause I fear he would be a straight man. But just as shy, he asked about me, was basically taking me by the hand, more engaging. I actually was able to think to ask him what brings him to dumbo, he said that he was doing a photo shoot. I made an attempt to be smooth and reply ” Were you the model”. Man I couldn’t even look him in the eyes. And when he answered yes, all I could think of was how to get out of there quick before I ruined my chances. Even though the chance was right in front of me.
I didn’t get this boys name or really any information. All i know is he was doing a photo shoot in D.U.M.B.O, he was the model and lives in Roosevelt. He looked like a prince. I know it’s a long stretch, but If anyone knows anyone who was associated with a photo shoot in dumbo on May 9th please contact me. If i can get through to him through one person I will be forever grateful. I’m not desperate, it’s just this guys eyes told me to come in, and i rejected them by showing no interest at all, and deeply regret it. I’m 24 new york boy who just wants a second chance to find a guy I think I could love. I need your help. Please help me find him
Thanks
A lost love in dumbo
May 9th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Dear A DUMBO LOVE, you remind me what is truly important in Life.
Enough of you people smelling your own farts!
Have you tried looking at Craigslist? Have you scoured the neighborhood for dated reserved parking signs? If I see one as I roll around the hood I will gladly forward the info. Good Luck.
May 9th, 2009 at 9:40 am
If the shoot was registered with the city, these people would be able to at least help you with who was in the neighborhood. At leaset the production company. Sounds like a quest.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/office/office_home.shtml
May 18th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I’ve updated the Google Earth model of the Dock Street DUMBO project, the updated model can be downloaded from http://epcostello.net/library/dockstreet/
The updates reflect the most recent dimensions of the project. In no way is my model anything other than a very rough outline of what the building will look like. If proponents of the project believe the model misrepresents the project create their own model(s), I’ll link to it from my site.