Two Trees Sends Message to Celebrities
May 21st, 2009
Yesterday’s post about Dock Street Dumbo was slanted towards the opposition, as it was based on press releases from the Dumbo Neighborhood Alliance. In our attempt at balance here’s Jed Walentas’ open letter to the celebrities opposing the Dock Street Dumbo development (dated May 19, 2009). Curbed posted this Two Trees’ letter yesterday. Below is the full letter. The public hearing takes place today (Thursday) at 10 am in the City Council Chamber at 260 Broadway in Manhattan.
76 Responses to “Two Trees Sends Message to Celebrities”
Leave a Reply
- 45 Main St Building Closed Today Due to Fire (Reopened)
- Christmas trees for sale in Dumbo
- Not Quite a Million Trees in Dumbo
- New Two Trees Management Office to Open on Washington Street
- 100 Jay Street, #28H on the Market for $1.799MM
- Event: Two Trees Holiday Party 2006
- Ad: A Message From NY Casa Group
- Wafels & Dinges in Dumbo
- Markowitz In Support of Dock St Dumbo Project
- Photos: Burger Bash in Dumbo
May 21st, 2009 at 7:21 am
More Walentas PR firm garbage….
May 21st, 2009 at 8:30 am
Jeb would have made a mediocre Minister of Propaganda in the old Soviet Union, telling the plebs there’s another record harvest while half the population is starving. Jeb really needs to hire better PR. Maybe Jeb’s a bit tight after all the lobby and “political contribution” money he’s been spreading a round.
Jeb should consult more with the less than handful of lickspittles who do his bidding on this and other boards. We now see where they get their marching orders. Everyone seems to be “on message”. Or does the tail wag the dog?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:11 am
It is insulting to suggest that famous historians like McCollough or Burns, WHO CONDUCT RESEARCH FOR A LIVING, could be fooled by tricky neighborhood associations playing fast and loose with the “facts.”
It’s so absurd it made me laugh.
This letter is super-cynical or super-stupid… or both.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:15 am
laughable
May 21st, 2009 at 10:14 am
An “independent investigation by the Brooklyn Paper”? HAHAHAHAHA! What a load of BS!
May 21st, 2009 at 11:14 am
As always the cynical opposition to this modest project is conducting themselves with dignity and decorum…NOT
Bravo Mr. Walentas for standing up to the bullies. Let’s hope the decision makers can see thru the smoke screen of misinformation coughed up by the self serving opposition and decide to vote in favor of the PUBLIC good.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:45 am
Put down the glass pipe, DuhVoyager.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am
DA- I love how you portray Jed as someone being bullied when his track record demonstrates otherwise. Have you personally met the man? Perhaps you should ask those who have.
This letter is replete with inaccuracies. But why not? The celebrities listed have money so they can’t easily be swayed.
Also, ‘Public good’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘Good for the Public’. The list of disasters built in the name of the ‘Public Good’ is long….Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Love Canal to name a few. The design is so horribly ugly and out of contrast with the surrounding that it will easily make James Howard Kunstler’s “Eye sore of the Month” list if it does get built.
But the tide is turning as Jed appears desperate, who says the city will fund anything at this point. Ratner has just been given a big NO by the mayor for more money. The city is broke. When it is time to balance the books, the school won’t get any funding.
Let’s just hope the decision makers see through this obvious piece of propaganda. Also, the Brooklyn Pravda (paper) is not independent in the least.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
In these hard financial times, is there even a demand for more luxury condos in dumbo?
May 21st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Still up to your old tricks Publawyer from Scarsdale? Too bad you can’t resist the impulse to sink into the gutter instead of dealing honestly with the issues.
May 21st, 2009 at 1:46 pm
His letter does nothing but expose himself as a weak little man. Just like how he threatens that he could build an even taller hotel on the spot if he doesn’t get his way.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Anyone go to the hearing?
May 21st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
i wasn’t there but can tell you what happened. there was a bunch of people who cannot communicate or persuade effectively bitching, moaning and accusing while convincing no one of anything.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:08 pm
BrooklynRove come charging in with nothing, yet again!
http://brooklynheightsblog.com/archives/9802
May 21st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
no2 – everything you’ve ever said on this topic has lead to nothing. same goes for the others. the only person who has made anything happen is walentas. truth hurts – eh.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:13 pm
BrooklynRove-
all you have ever demonstrated on this topic is that you know how to use a keyboard. At least DA has a real concern he is fighting for. You do need to see beyond the tin foil hat you wear….truth hurts- eh? ;)
May 21st, 2009 at 10:24 pm
no2 – someday you’ll understand my message. until then you’ll continue accomplishing nothing and praising the same.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:39 am
BrooklynLove:
While Walentas DOES deserve credit for developing the area… your suggestion Walentas being the only one that “does anything” is absurd.
Residents have invested in Brooklyn with pieces of their life (no weekend excursions for polo either) and have maintained good faith concerning its potential — which translates into VALUE for developers to capture.
Once again, the ONLY reason why Dock Street proposal has a school in it to begin with is because the community stood up to Walentas the first time!
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:39 am
BrooklynLove:
While Walentas DOES deserve credit for developing the area… your suggestion Walentas being the only one that “does anything” is absurd.
Residents have invested in Brooklyn with pieces of their life (no weekend excursions for polo either) and have maintained good faith concerning its potential — which translates into VALUE for developers to capture.
Once again, the ONLY reason why Dock Street proposal has a school in it to begin with is because the community stood up to Walentas the first time!
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:37 am
not my point. walentas understands the system and knows that in order to cause affect one must play by the “rules” regardless of their merit. this whole dock street opposition has been a text book demonstration of missteps. frankly i’m neutral on this project but i’m certainly anti-antidock at this point. this s**tshow is embarassing to brooklyn and dumbo, and puts any future similar efforts at a disadvantage.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:05 am
BrooklynLove…
OK, you praise Walentas for being effective independent of merit?
Call me old fashioned, but I’ll go with merit any day.
… and missteps?
The opposition produced a NYTimes video op-ed by a Pulitzer prize-winning historian… The opposition used FOIL and caught SCA and TT’s potentially breaking the law with some kind of sweetheart deal. These are valid, credible, and important contributions to the discussion.
Frankly, I don’t know what you are referring to and I suspect you don’t either.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
you don’t get it, which is not surprising. that’s why this whole s**tshow has accomplished nothing, zero, nada.
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:33 pm
BrooklynRove,
Can you please clarify this statement:
“frankly i’m neutral on this project but i’m certainly anti-antidock at this point. this s**tshow is embarassing to brooklyn and dumbo, and puts any future similar efforts at a disadvantage.”
You are neutral, but pro-dock at the same time?
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
no2sense – where did i say i’m pro-dock? i’m anti-antidock. i could care less whether the building gets built or not, but i can’t wait for you shmugols to go away.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
It’s called mathematics BrooklynRove, it seems you never went to grade school. A negative negative is a positive. So in your statement that you are anti-anti-dock street it would imply you are pro-dock street. So I just need clarification. If you claim you are neutral, then you can’t be anti anything, weather it is anti-dock or pro-dock. For example, those who are anti-pro dock take a view which is against the pro dock people. If you say you are anti-anti-dock, then you are taking a view that you are against the opponents. Some clarification is necessary so you don’t appear to be the baboon you make your self to be.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
for the love of god, are you reading anything that i write? i am anti the opposition b/c of the way it has been conducted. they could be protesting curb painting for all i care. this whole dialogue with you is a perfect exhibit of why you’re getting nothing done. inability to listen, inability to understand.
you’re so busy with your govt conspiracies and trashing walentas meanwhile he’s winning the game and you’re on the sidelines looking like a mascot. figure it out.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
ok, BL, what is the right tactic?
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Dumbostreets, I don’t know if BL can answer that. He exhibits typical Internet Troll behavior, although it is kind of fun to humor him. He has yet to make a coherent post. He keeps yapping about conspiracy this and nazi that. But the fact that there are questions about the shenanigans of the SCA with Walentes just proves his ‘theory’ aspect wrong.
He never did answer my inquiry if he is the one vandalising the DUMBO stores like Bridge Fresh Market with those hideous, uncreative ‘BrooklynLove’ stickers.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
no2 – you are a useless fool – that’s why i don’t answer you.
DS – there are several approaches but the best one here would have been to hire a professional urban planner who knows the nyc approval process and has connections to help you develop several alternative site plans along with full blown feasibility studies, which could have been pushed to the proper city planning channels long before this approval process picked up any steam. you need to beat walentas at his own game.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
BrooklynRove, and yet you still answer me. I WIN.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Yeah or cough up $43 million to match the value of this gift or bribe depending on how you look at it.
Don’t lie to people and produce false renderings and be honest about who you are and why you are putting so much time, energy and money into this.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
DaVoyager, you know out of all the proponents on the various boards, I actually like your stance. I do believe you are genuine in wanting a school. I do wish that you finally get your school. Having said that, do you truly believe that putting your bet on Walentes’ hand will deliver that result? It seems that the school aspect is fraught with questions which may cause the council to reject the proposal. Do you truly believe that a school would be worth it considering the suspicion of illegal activity by the SCA?
Walentas has yet to put it in writing, and his history with schools in the area are shaky at best.
I hope you finally get your school, and it is something to be proud of. I just wish the SCA seriously looked at other locations before rubber stamping the Two Trees proposal.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
you’ll get another chance at this when the jehovahs sell their lot next to 70 wash.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Thank you for your reasonable words.
It is my sincere hope that Yassky will secure an Iron clad agreement with TT in return for relaxing his opposition. It’s the last piece of the puzzle.
I put my faith in this mayor who has seen many schools built around the city using this same public/private partnership and I’m sure there is a standard mechanism to insure the public gets it’s due.
As for the mudslinging at the SCA I have addressed that elsewhere. I think it is sad that these hard working professionals are being vilified for trying to secure a $43 million boon for the children of the 33rd district in accordance with the mayor’s wishes.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
no way walentas bails on the school. he’d never ever get anything built again in this city. it would be professional suicide for him.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Well, I wouldn’t put faith in the Mayor, he is thinking about cutting the budget. He gave Ratner a no when he asked for more funding. Let’s face reality, the city is in crisis. This proposal could very well be approved and the school rejected due to the economic crisis. Don’t you agree that your position would be compromised in that instance? If the proposal goes forward and the school rejected, would you be willing to support the court challenges that will surely follow?
Look at councilwoman James, she is a typical NIMBY councilperson. Granted Councilman Yassky should have hammered out a compromise with Walentas, however, don’t you think there are others, for example Marty Markowitcz, who where in the position, agreed to the rezoning, but stayed silent on the school proposal? I fear that someone like yourself, while supporting a school will be left in the sidelines.
Walentas has a bad track record with schools.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/nyregion/thecity/08disa.html
Can you truly trust the man to deliver?
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
BL, developing an alternative public school proposal (because it is public) requires the participation of city agencies, like SCA. Yassky attempted to kickstart exactly what you suggest but was blown off by the SCA.
May 23rd, 2009 at 6:49 am
which is why i suggested involving someone with the right relationships. yassky puts on a nice show but is ineffective.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
ummm… do you actually have someone else in mind that has been hiding all this time???
BL, my sense is what you are suggesting assumes the opposition has the same kind of resources as Walentas to develop a viable alternate urban plan WITHOUT the support of the city and or relying on elected representatives. When you are a grassroots movement you work with what you can get… and Ken Burns is pretty good.
It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and complain about how the opposition is not doing a good job; but they have attracted very high profile support and with the potential of making this into a national issue. If that happens, there will be more options and resources for actionable alternative plans.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
i’m sitting on the sidelines b/c as i said already i’m neutral on the subject. i wouldn’t care at all about this subject if it wasn’t for the bad image this opposition has created for dumbo residents – constant smear, invasive lobbying, deceptive propaganda, etc.
you are attracting attention for all the wrong reasons and accomplishing none of your objectives. lack of resources is not an excuse for poor strategy. there are effective respected grassroots movements and there are ineffective tolerated grassfroots movements. this is looking more like the later.
May 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
BL….you really can’t claim what is effective or not until the game is over.
May 23rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
you never were in the game – that’s the problem.
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 pm
The NY Times yet again publishes a fair article about the Dock St/DUMBO story: http://tinyurl.com/pora3b
May 24th, 2009 at 7:24 am
article does a nice job of portraying how F’d up the whole system is.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:13 am
BL, yet again you prove you have no idea what you’re talking about. You are jumping to conclusions about what is effective or not and yet the process still hasn’t finished. Honestly I don’t know why I even bother with a troll like yourself. Answering your posts is like answering a drunk ranting on the corner of the street. I am done with you and won’t feed into your madness anymore.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
seriously – i’m a troll b/c i won’t let you spread idiocy in peace? am i troll in this post for pointing out to you that you’re too clueless to realize that the merits of the dock street development were completely marginalized at the recent city council session by politicians focused on blasting the system in order to further their own aspirations? the whole focus of your effort was merely a side show on thursday – kind of like your input here – and you’re too boneheaded to even realize it.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:30 am
BL, I don’t know if you’re a troll; but in my opinion it is a kind of lame line you are touting. As a “neutral” party you can complain about others being ineffective while you do (or support) nothing.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
i’ve said it several times at this point so i’m puzzled as to why the concept is so hard to grasp. i don’t care about the project or whether it is approved or not, and by extension, i don’t care whether the opposition is effective. the only reason i give a crap about any of this is the unfortunate image this whole save the bridge campaign has created for those who live in the area. i’ll put it another way for you – if you do succeed in stopping the project it won’t reverse the damage that has been done. and if you don’t succeed it won’t either.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
If you addressed specifically how Ken Burns, David McCullough, and Kristian Roebling have damaged DUMBO’s image… or could point to anything as evidence of this damage that wasn’t entirely subjective rather than setting yourself up as a *tactical* critic by way of “image” (whatever that means) you might have some kind of point.
The irony is that you say the opposition is whiny and “does nothing”… but given that your position is completely vague and aligned with or supported by nothing, I’d say that’s exactly what you are.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
and all you see and hear is what you want to see and hear.
for many months your soldiers were stopping tourists and others on a regular basis to shove distorted propaganda in their faces and smear walentas. all this while many of your crowd cried aloud about how walentas screwed them by selling them an apartment and then would build in front of it, and didn’t even try to pretend this was about anything more than a fight for their view. recruiting some shrivled bag to wax eloquent about the brooklyn bridge doesn’t make that go away.
is that specific enough for you?
May 27th, 2009 at 8:50 am
No…
BL, look you may not like petitions or McCullough (or Burns for that matter) but this is not evidence of “damage” to DUMBO’s image. It is easier to demonstrate the opposite by their support. (These people do not have views at stake and the platforms extended to them, like the NYT, indicate respect for their positions, hence the opposition.)
You complain about people maligning Walentas while you call McCullough names. It seems that not only are you a whiner complaining about whining, but a smearer complaining about smearing.
May 27th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Yes, the “poor developer is being harassed by the rich condo community activists who all fit into two buildings” argument, YET AGAIN.
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” – Joseph Goebbels
May 27th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
DS – your response is indicative of the problem. all you want to do is point the finger back and explain away. the result is that you are completely clueless of the silent majority that wants all of you to just go away. mercifully we’re almost there.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Trolling trolling trolling keep on trolling with your imaginary ‘silent’ majority.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
your mother is a troll.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Poor little troll is getting upset. Did mommy forget to give you milk and cookies last night?
Dude, you behave like a troll on this board.
Every one of your posts is a lesson in futility. People repeatedly ask you to back your claims and you never do. DS and others make valid arguments, and you respond with “You don’t get it”, or ” If people did it another way” and so forth. Well here is a lesson for you my little troll, both Women’s suffrage and Civil Rights did not come from people hiring consultants for lobby, it came from people yelling, screaming and demonstrating. You propose losing strategies, because, and you can play ‘neutral’ all you want, you have already chosen a side, it is very clear. You make your statements just to get others riled up. This is what an internet troll does. Just be happy with who you are.
You make the claim that the area is ‘damaged’ by the opposition, if so, will you be moving out? Of course not, you just say it to troll for responses.
Your ‘silent’ majority does not exist beyond your close friends and you know that. The neighborhood associations in the area are more representative of the people here than CB2, and they all oppose this project. So in closing, just to remind you, my little troll, you have no clue about anything. It is fun to engage you, it is like watching a little dog chasing their tail.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:42 am
N2W2T:
I agree with everything you wrote; however, there indeed is a “silent” majority of many thousands who support Dock Street Dumbo.
Each one of the “silent” majority is named Ben Franklin and formerly resided in Jeb’s bank account, but they’ve recently moved.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:43 am
BL,
You *could* say Gossip Girl’s reference to the “dregs of DUMBO” is an indication of damage to DUMBO’s “image.” This is because Gossip Girl represents DUMBO… which means it creates a popular “image.”
However, you would then need to connect this statement to the opposition to prove your claim… and maybe you would still look silly…
; )
I have pointed to things outside the image in my head (aka my IMAGination) to make the opposite point: that the opposition has raised DUMBO’s profile.
I am asking for ONE bit of evidence outside your imagination.
Also, as an aside… Jerry Falwell’s “silent majority” is an astute comparison you’ve drawn. Like you, they were neither “silent” nor a “majority.” …if you want to make a claim, like being a “majority,” show me the numbers. I think this is ALSO your imagination.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I do believe that was the Moral Majority, which was neither.
May 29th, 2009 at 8:18 am
I find it galling how utterly personal and nasty the minions who have been recruited to respond for the Walantas family have been by listing people’s names, apt’s., etc. (see references above) Enough of the distortive propaganda about this project, its objectives and those citizens who are not accepting this and demanding transparency in this entire transaction.
I applaud and deeply appreciate Mr. Stengel’s letter and efforts on behalf of the New York residents who are not BILLIONAIRES able to buy votes, sway and influence. Sadly, this project represents corrupting the Democratic process by greasing palms and buying support, and now the Dock Street cronies are desperately smearing, attacking and lying about the regular folks who are responding; Yet, nobody has come forward to release all the challenged information on donations or the FOILED information. Isn’t this silence on these critical questions about good governance and decision making speaking volumes? Press on, Mr. Stengel for all of us- the citizens of Brighton, Park Slope, Sheepshead Bay, East New York, Marine Park, Kings Highway, Bed-Stuy, Canarsie and everywhere else in this Borough and City who are sick and tired of efforts to Pay for Decision-making by quietly slipping around MEGA Bucks . ENOUGH!
May 30th, 2009 at 7:45 am
dude you’re friggin hilarious. the only people who give a crap about this is your group. people are too busy trying to pay their bills right now. fight the good fight!
May 30th, 2009 at 8:03 am
The troll returns unaware of how large our group actually is. Welcome back!
So what will the response be?
Will it be?
“You don’t get it”
or how about
“You people just don’t understand”
Or the cleaver
“I’m neutral but am anti-anti-dock st”
or perhaps
“why don’t you people hire a paid consultant, change never comes through protest”
or the all time favorite
“I’m rubber you’re glue, whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you”
Or perhaps something new like “You’re a disgrace”
I wonder what shall it be?
May 30th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
you are obsessed with me.
your mother is a troll.
May 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
LOL…
dude, if you want to start playing “Your mother is” games, believe me, I will destroy you, lol
But you are doing EXACTLY what an internet troll does, it is funny. I can easily predict your actions. You will probably come at me with more personal attacks, ignore me, attack the opposition; because you have no clue about engaging and defending your point, just poor attempts and ruffling a few feathers and raising some eyebrows. The problem is you have no points. Nothing, Nada, zip, zero, zilch. That is your defense, it is empty. People have asked you to back up your views, and you can’t, wanna know why? Because there is nothing there. People see easily through your deception and your response is they ‘don’t get it’, well, I am sorry, but they get it easily. Your trolling abilities are rather amateurish, like those hideous Brooklyn Love stickers. You are so thin and shallow that you make posts just to prove to yourself that you even exist in this reality, and even then, you aren’t too sure. But just embrace who you are and perhaps your life will be happier, and leave politics to the adults.
As for mothers, Perhaps T can set you straight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_rBidCkJxo
May 30th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
the less i say, the more you say. you are obsessed. piddle off now to the bridge and defend our national security.
May 30th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
N2W2T:
Thanks for your detailed call out of BrooklynTroll.
Of course he’ll keep Trolling sitting in his grandmother’s basement, but you’ve set the record on this L.
May 30th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Why should I BL? With you collecting a toll, like a troll, you are probably ugly enough to scare any would be terrorist off.
So, go on, chase your tail again and give us one of your classic non responsive response. Or, in your terms an anti-response, gotta stay neutral, ya know!
May 30th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
c’mon, even when you try to be slick you sound like a doofus. you are my personal troll. now go get your gag.
May 31st, 2009 at 9:18 am
Yet another troll tactic, to reverse the criticism back on the critic.
Statement: “You’re a troll”,
Response:”No, you’re a troll”
Think of something original, I know, how about trying to defend your defenseless point? Oh you won’t do that.
Brooklyn Love, you cannot win against me, just go into your little corner and pout, perhaps if you pout loud enough, mommy will come down and give you some milk and cookies to help you against those mean internet posters.
May 31st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
i cannot win, you are the master. see you in the 3D world oh master.
May 31st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
LOL…yet another pitiful attempt. Try to twist my words, again a Trolling tactic. I suggested you cannot win against me in debate, I never suggested I am a master of some kind. Come at me with something significant. Perhaps you should ask your true master, the rich white land owner for instructions.
Yet you keep trying, nice to play the ‘little engine that couldn’t', eh?
May 31st, 2009 at 10:46 pm
are you mildly retarded?
June 1st, 2009 at 6:31 am
No, but your answers so far indicate that you may be….oh I take it back, comparing you with retarded people is an insult to those who are mentally challenged.
Keep putting your foot in your mouth BL, that’s all you can do.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:46 am
thank you for confirming.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:50 am
Thank you for the anti-response, Brooklyn Troll.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:03 am
laughable