Dumbo NYC

This guy like totally trashed my idea of the Roebling school for the environment. I know that makes most of you very happy. Now if a school is built it'll be the Guliani school for National Security, don't make any phone calls from that building, or the Bloomberg School of Government & Business, hold on to your hats cause of sudden rules changes.
My second choice was some kind of space/astronomy theme but I don't think that one will fly either.
Probably wind up a charter school: School of Prosperity and Wisdom or some such thing.

I am sure W (and Bloomberg for that matter) think this is all noble entertainment, but they would NEVER send their own kids (to any public school).

More convincing than parading around prospective students would be a commitment from the developer and his ilk to demonstrate a true investment by sending their own kids to public school.

If that happened we wouldn't need philanthropic initiatives and bake sales to pay for classrooms.

DaV,

It will be called the Leticia James NYMBY Charter School, to be housed in an out of context structure in a historic district, but conveniently not in her neighborhood.

"the pro-development group tried to disrupt the protest"

And aren't they the ones who call for civilized discourse?

Although I am a member of the opposition to Dock Street, I have to object to the characterization of the proponents as trying to disrupt the protest, but being overwhelmed by the numbers in opposition. First of all, this was a press conference, not a protest. Secondly, there was no attempt at disruption. A group of around 10 youngsters and a representative from the Ingersoll Houses arrived at the location, held signs, gave interviews to the press, and then moved alongside the opposition when the cameras started rolling in order to be in the photo-op (see the green and pink signs above). There is no need to distort the facts and try to make this into something it wasn't.

Several residents from Fulton Ferry walked over and engaged the Ingersoll rep in conversation before and after the press conference, in order to better understand their position and exchange information regarding the project. This conversation will continue via email.

There was no vocal disruption, but they jockeyed with opposition members for positions in front of the cameras. They were clearly there to capitalize on and hijack the publicity organized by the opposition.

This seems to me to be an underhanded approach to getting their message out.

Let them hold their own press conference and generate their own publicity in support of building an 18-story building beside the Brooklyn Bridge. Perhaps that's not such a popular position, thus they are reduced to this.

We already have a school..
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/nyregion/thec...

"Two Trees contends that the middle school is necessary to serve the recent influx of young families to the neighborhood. If that is so, opponents say, why push out another school — albeit a much more specialized one — not far away? In response, the developer contends the League Center school is “totally unrelated” to the need for a local middle school."

What Jed is trying to say here, is that his 'need', or use, for a local middle school is to force the residents of the area to agree to a hideous building extremely close to the Brooklyn Bridge. These poor kids who need the space in the other location don't matter to him in his shell game.

he wants to put a school there and you want to stop it. are you providing an alternative space for these poor kids?

Aside from our 4 or 5 and sometimes 6 constant friends and their "sock puppets" in the opposition there is no one else here.
I hear your pin dropping BL

Hey this is fun. Any of you guys in the above captioned photo?

BrooklynTroll, prove he wants to put a school. All we have is his 'word' which means nothing. He has signed no commitment.

So what willl your response be?

"You don't get it"

"You don't understand"

"Your mother is"

Which oh which will it be? I don't expect anything of value.

yeah it must all be a big lie.

so if he signed a piece of paper would you walk away?

BL, we need not mention that the developer has not put anything in writing, and if he did, at least the school argument would have teeth.

So again thank you for the anti-response, Brooklyn Troll.

i realize that you're trying to save face but the constant insult in every response is a bit much. you should take solace that i'm crying at my keyboard right now.

you asked me to prove that walentas wants a school. who cares if he wants one? the relevant question is whether he will build it. and he has put it in writing - multiple times.

explain why you think he would renege on building the school. don't spew your normal rhetoric. let's have some coherent salient reasons.

i can think of many reasons why he will fulfill the promise. the first being that if the project goes forward and he reneges, he'll never get another building permit in this city, and the city will make his life going forward as a property owner, landlord and developer an absolute nightmare.

how about answering the question i asked - so if he signed a piece of paper would you walk away?

i'll make it straightforward for you: full 17 story building with school and affordable component exactly as being pitched now. would you still protest this?

"i realize that you’re trying to save face but the constant insult in every response is a bit much. you should take solace that i’m crying at my keyboard right now."

My apologies for making you cry, you shouldn't cry at words on a computer screen, they don't have control over you.

"you asked me to prove that walentas wants a school. who cares if he wants one? the relevant question is whether he will build it. and he has put it in writing - multiple times."

Really? Where and when has he done so?

"explain why you think he would renege on building the school. don’t spew your normal rhetoric. let’s have some coherent salient reasons."

His track record has shown otherwise,

http://dumbonyc.com/2009/04/28/dock-street-dumb...

I refer to Harry and Daddy Mac's post about W history in going through what he promised.

"i can think of many reasons why he will fulfill the promise. the first being that if the project goes forward and he reneges, he’ll never get another building permit in this city, and the city will make his life going forward as a property owner, landlord and developer an absolute nightmare."

Perhaps, however, the pro-development attitude currently suggests otherwise. Money can go far in changing minds.

"how about answering the question i asked - so if he signed a piece of paper would you walk away?"

No, I would not. However, I do debate the actions of the people involved. Walentas just makes it easy. His lack of commitment just adds ammunition.

I would agree a school is necessary, but for the developer to essentially blackmail the neighborhood into agreeing as long as he gets what he wants is dishonest. The primary reason for a school is just so that he can build a eyesore. I will say, my opposition is the building, not the school. If he did a compromise and built a school in a smaller building, yes, I would walk away. A building this large would, in the long term, be a blight against the bridge. The bridge itself is a source of pride and revenue for the area. People come to see the bridge, and now they will have to contend with a ugly building next to it. This, takes away from the area. This is the issue.

"i’ll make it straightforward for you: full 17 story building with school and affordable component exactly as being pitched now. would you still protest this?"

17 stories is too tall. Have you walked on the walkway? I suggest you do. The site is barely noticeable as it is. It is too close for this size of structure. It would be like placing a wall next to the bridge. How close won't be noticed until the thing is built.

It's a building. And if it gets built it blocks the views of other buildings. A grand vista of buildings. We must save the buildings by not building any more buildings!
Don't make no sense.
The Bridge is undamaged. All public views of the Bridge are unchanged. Views from the Bridge change because there is gonna be another building blocking the view of and from buildings. Sounds like the crime of the century to me.

**Internal Memo From Super Lobbyist to Multi Six Figure Client and Handful of Lickspittles**

Stay on Message, Boys, Stay on Message! Keep repeating, the tens of thousands of people who oppose Dock St Dumbo are all 70 Washington residents. Keep repeating! A few distrated or “malleable” City Councilpeople will fall for it!

Let’s ignore this possible criminal investigation for now. No way I can go to jail, I’m too pretty and wouldn’t last.

Stay on message, boys, stay on message. 70 Washington residents are behind the entire opposition.

(note to self: make sure Two Trees’ final check clears)

“you asked me to prove that walentas wants a school. who cares if he wants one? the relevant question is whether he will build it. and he has put it in writing - multiple times.”
Really? Where and when has he done so?

For starters, the 2 trees letter posted on this website a few days ago, the dockstreet website, the numerous written communications between 2trees and city agencies ...

“explain why you think he would renege on building the school. don’t spew your normal rhetoric. let’s have some coherent salient reasons.”
His track record has shown otherwise,
http://dumbonyc.com/2009/04/28/dock-street-dumb...
I refer to Harry and Daddy Mac’s post about W history in going through what he promised.

apples and oranges. nowhere in those accounts has walentas explicitly and publicly bartered promises to city agencies in return for development rights.

“i’ll make it straightforward for you: full 17 story building with school and affordable component exactly as being pitched now. would you still protest this?”
17 stories is too tall. Have you walked on the walkway? I suggest you do. The site is barely noticeable as it is. It is too close for this size of structure. It would be like placing a wall next to the bridge. How close won’t be noticed until the thing is built.

then many of your posts here are disingenuous. this is not to you about a school or affordable housing, this about keeping pretty views. real estate development is not philanthropy. in order to justify the allocation of capital to this project while including a school and affordable housing, 2 trees needs the size. otherwise the economics likely justify continuing to sit on the land or building smaller without a school and affordable housing. so maybe you get your way and keep your view of the pretty bridge but that would be without a school or affordable housing. or maybe no building at all which means the same thing. alternative sites for a school is not an adequate reponse b/c it is purely theoretical - there are no plans on the table with capital behind them.

like i said before, my issue is not with the project - i am neutral on the subject. my issue is with the opposition - and this is a perfect example of why. don't push unfounded accusations that walentas would renege on his promises to include a school and affordable housing when all you really care about is views of the bridge.

"For starters, the 2 trees letter posted on this website a few days ago, the dockstreet website, the numerous written communications between 2trees and city agencies …"

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Not one of these examples you give even hints at being legally binding, which I think is what N2W2T is looking for.

In which case, I have to agree, if TT is so hell-bent on a school, then they should have their lawyer draft something that says, "In exchange for zoning variance, we covenant to build a school."

dock street will be a great addition to the neighborhood. can't wait till they break ground!

what are all of you "opposition" people going to do when you lose?

Walking down Front St and York Sts as I often do, or walking down Old Fulton Street. Or, walking down Columbia Heights... Or driving across the BQE.. Or the Brooklyn Bridge. I imagine this proposed Dock St eyesore. The views from every single street in the neighborhood and the vacinity are already bitter sweet due to the prospect of this invasive structure being in our brains.

Three cheers for the strong opposition. I commend your tenacity and the represention of thousands who do not live at 70 Washington and who indeed respect the beauty and history of the Brooklyn Bridge. Keep up the good work so that we may all avoid a structure that would forever be an embarrassment to Brooklyn.

In 2008, Two Trees paid $76000 to lobbying firm Cozen O’Connor, lobbyist officer was Ken Fisher. Target was School Construction Authority, Office of the Mayor of New York - Maria Torres, Department of City Planning, Office of the Brooklyn Borough President, Brooklyn Community Board No. 2, New York City Council. There is an additional $29000 on record for 2009, and $72000 for 2007.

They also paid $96000 to lobbyist Yoswein New York Inc. Target was New York City Council, Office of the Brooklyn Borough President, Community Board 2. Incidentally, Joni Yoswein was the author of one of the damaging emails released in the SCA FOIL documents. There is an additional $60000 on record for 2009.

This info is available at http://www.nyc.gov/lobbyistsearch/

Not one of these examples you give even hints at being legally binding, which I think is what N2W2T is looking for.

In which case, I have to agree, if TT is so hell-bent on a school, then they should have their lawyer draft something that says, “In exchange for zoning variance, we covenant to build a school.”

right, then present 2 trees with a binding agreement that works both ways - they're bound to the school and affordable housing, and in exchange they get to build as planned - no ifs ands or buts. put that to fisher and see what happens. no one has asked them to sign such an agreement b/c this is not about the school or affordable housing, this is about protecting views of the bridge.

This is about GREED.

BL,

This is from Marty Markowitz's recommendation letter:

(he has) concerns with the proposed building in regards to: how it impacts the views from and to the iconic Brooklyn Bridge; its affect on the transition between Fulton Ferry Landing and DUMBO; and, the context of Front Street. Furthermore, the affordable housing is not sufficiently guaranteed;....Finally, the issue concerning the creation of a school deserves further analysis regarding the appropriateness of the site and student utilization.

The Brooklyn Bridge is represented by more than just the towers, anchorages and spans between them.
Views of the span, representing the whole bridge, must be protected as well. Of equal concern are the incredible views from the bridge’s pedestrian walkway of the East River and the Brooklyn and Manhattan skylines. The borough president believes
that these views should not be obscured. The project, as proposed, though much improved from the proposal in 2004, would impede these views. The borough president agrees with the concern of many residents that as proposed, the building does not adequately address the following: its proximity to the “iconic” Brooklyn Bridge; respecting the “bowl”; the contextual transition between Fulton Ferry Landing and DUMBO neighborhoods; and an appropriate street wall setback height. In addition he has other concerns regarding the commitment to provide affordable housing, egress from the public parking garage and the proposed school.

,,,(there is no) guarantee that affordable housing would result if the requested rezoning were to be granted for this site. The developer would be free to pursue all the units as market rate if the perceived value of such a development was thought to be more lucrative than the financing benefits through the bonds and the reduced real estate tax payments.
The borough president’s policy is that all new residential developments subject to ULURP provide a minimum of 20 percent affordable units for area residents. The borough president believes that a restrictive covenant that runs with the land is the best way to ensure that affordable housing is ultimately constructed. The applicant should file such documents prior to any final consideration by the City Council.

BL -- no such document has been filed. And you say that nobody asked them to sign an agreement? Marty did -- 3 months ago!!!!

Hey BL,
When you were a kid, did Daddy bounce you on his knee and say "Jed, one day you too can become a short greedy vulgarian. And one day all of this will be yours"?

ff - i think that we both can agree that no interested parties are taking marty seriously in this process. i encourage you to get a proposed binding agreement to yasky and gioia if the school and affordable housing are truly your focus.

hey z. when you were a kid, did daddy bounce you on his knee and say "one day you too can be a negative drain on growth. and one day all of this will be yours to free ride upon"?

Destructive growth is not progress.

This growth is malignant.

A school and affordable housing is destructive or malignant?

or maybe they're just irrelevant when you're really only concerned with preserving pretty views.

I wrote this yesterday but it seems even more true today.
Comment from davoyager
Time: June 2, 2009, 12:16 am

Personally I think the DNA acts more like RNA, a Rotten Neighborhood Association.
How many of the people behind press release after press release have a direct financial stake in if this building gets built.
These people claim to speak for the best interest of the community and yet have real money at stake.
Investigate “Possible Criminal Activity” by the so called DNA and their ties to the multimillion dollar buildings with views they stand to lose; investigate the political activity and contributions to local politicians who are notorious opponents of this project and who are now seeking city wide office; and investigate their efforts to mislead the public and win at any cost. Perhaps under the Rico Act.

DuhVoyager:

You and your micro-movement are starting to sweat at bit over the SCA/Two Trees scandal. I know you guys were hoping to have the final Council ULURP vote before the delayed FOIL request got out.

So here's a little song that might help you through open government and legitimate public scrutiny:

So let the sun shine in
face it with a grin.
Smilers never lose
and frowners never win.
So ley the sun shine in
face it with a grin
Open up your heart and let the sun shine in.

the concept is simple and not dependent on whether someone has an apartment with a view that may be blocked. this group screams about corruption in the review process and uncertain promises of a school and affordable housing yet all 3 items are not the group's concern. their concern is that pretty views of the bridge will be altered - from any vantage point.

if your real concern is overwhelmingly not compelling to decision makers, maybe there's something to be learned from that.

Has everyone read this article? This is how much TT loves the concept of education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/nyregion/thec...

Preserving the integrity of the BB is reduced to a pretty view.

Affodable housing? I'll believe it when I see it. What is considered affordable anyway? And to whom?

BL, "Preserving pretty views" is what created the Landmark commission in the first place.

You attack the opposition by saying that this is what they want...so what? Big deal? The proponents push the school idea, so you are suggesting that the opposition has no right to challenge this? The proponents come with "the view will be fine" So it is only fitting that the opposition attack their point.

You keep claiming you are neutral, but that is being dishonest as you attack the opposition at every chance, without considering their point.

A school can be built anywhere, this is the oppositions point. Walentas has chosen to use the need for a school as his primary reason to get the building through.

You have also suggested that internet posts and letters are enough, but guess what, that have no legal backing.

i don't know why you're struggling with this concept - i don't care about the building, i care about the opposition. walentas's tactics and representations and what the proponents say are irrelevant as to the opposition's actions.

you want to keep a pretty view - so just come out and say it instead of hiding behind peripheral concerns, and deflecting attention elsewhere. all else be damned - don't change the view!

Yes, don't change the view, and in that aspect, all other points are meaningless and without merit. Want a school, get a real study and real alternatives, not back room deals. It is a shame that Walentas has hijacked support so that he can fill his piggy bank.

Is that better, BL?

yeppers. good luck to you.

The New York Observer is reporting that the fix is in for the City Council vote on Dock Street.

The article says that the bought and paid for Speaker Quinn, recipient of tens of thousands of Jeb & Co's bundled largess is (suprise, suprise) voting to approve Two Tree's zoning change, which, the article claims, will make it difficult for opponents in the Council to defeat it:

http://tinyurl.com/ounzol

Did Quinn take the payola before or after she voted to expand her own term limit?

Lesson to everyone. 'Democracy' is dead. Voting is for suckers.