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

Is that better, BL?

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!

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/nyregion/thecity/08disa.html?_r=2&scp=4&sq=dumbo&st=cse

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?

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

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.

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.

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