July 25, 2006
(Non) Blight in Prospect Heights
We were intrigued by the deconstruction of the word "blight" in today's New York Times. You've heard the story already, no doubt: Last week, a state environmental impact statement called the area proposed for the Atlantic Yards redevelopment project blighted.
There's no legal definiton, writes Nick Confessore, but, like porn, you know it when you see it. Confessore quotes a land-use lawyer who explains that blight equals high crime plus dilapidated buildings, pollution and inadequate land usage.
And yet, along Dean Street this afternoon from Flatbush to Carlton Aves., we didn't find any evidence of crime, dilapidated buildings, excess pollution or inappropriate land use.
What we did see was a two-on-one basketball game, a water fight, one postal worker, two UPS workers, someone sweeping his stoop and at least four trucks delivering glass, some pipes (we think) and sheet rock for a number of construction projects.
In other words, not much blight.
|
yes, i lived there until last year. it's a noisy but safe and well populated block. there's more blight in gowanus. i left when my lease came up because i didn't want to deal with the uncertainty, or live right next to a huge construction site for years and years.
Blight = Political Kickbacks.
Why not show pictures of the actual blight of the train yards and the crap the surrounds it?
This post zeroes in on the tiny percentage of the footprint that looks nice. Why not show the vast remainder, which is typified by railyards, trash, vacant lots, and crumbling buildings?
And speaking about the postal workers:
If you want to know who is most adversely impacted by overdevelopment, ask your local postal worker how the recent influx of residents affects his or her route and how the USPS makes accommodations and route adjustments. Only make sure that you don't hold this person up with your pesky questions, because chances are, they have started working through their lunch hour.
Why would these people care about how much communities could be helped by development? They don't need it - they've never lived lives where they could even understand the concept of blight.
Why do you people protest these issues you have no understanding of, and no real investment in? You DDB people look like a bunch of bored kids going activist to kill all the extra free time you have since you don't really need to work.
Do you realize how ridiculous you're being, and how much you're embarrasing yourselves, by using your spoiled-brat sensibility on the increasingly important issue of NYC metro urban blight?
Even the now-rich natives are being obnoxious. Cities like Paterson, Passaic, Newburgh, etc. would be blessed to have this kind-of development come in. But, you don't even know what those places are, do you?
Wow, what a surprise! Another blog thread turns into a forum for cowardly anonymous pro-Ratner name-callers to attack DDDB and others promoting reasonable development.
What did you people do before there was an internet? Yell at the TV? Beat your dogs? Take your hate and bile and crawl back under your rocks already, would you?
Pro-Ratner? Since when was it wrong to approach serious economic issues on both sides?
Drop the ego and morality you puff yourself up with by joining popular protest causes - peoples' lives are at stake, not just your self-image. Wear a VEGANS RULE t-shirt or whatever you ex-Vassar types happen to like.
Bob - If the project was limited to the rail yards, then that would be appropriate. However, the vastness of it also encompasses the blocks pictured. And these are blocks where people have their homes.
And as we know, throwing people out of their homes when the rent is paid is wrong. Always. Wrong.
Limit the project to the rail yards and the other blighted blocks and there's no problem. But put the guy on that stoop and the kids in the playground on the street? So Ratner can get rich and Gehry can get a hard-on?
Wrong. Always. Wrong.
People got “thrown out” of their homes with checks in their hands.
BIG. FAT. LIFE. ALTERING. CHECKS.
Progress is GOOD. ALWAYS. GOOD.
Bob, I'll say this slowly... no one who takes the money is getting thrown out. People who don't take the money and don't want to leave and who's building is getting knocked down around them are getting thrown out.
Progress... good.
Greed... bad.
Thrown out of home... always wrong.
People who take the money because they've been told they'll be thrown out otherwise, as the project continues to wield the threat of eminent domain...not so good.
How will the people whose "lives are at stake" be helped by this project? Even assuming that someone will be able to pay the not-so-affordable rent, the chances that any one individual will win the affordable housing lottery will be incredibly small. As for jobs, unless one is already employed in one of the Manhattan firms or city/state agencies that will be relocating into the new office space, or unless one wants to take the kind of dishwasher/trash collector type jobs that no Americans even want any more, chances of finding meaningful employment in this project would seem equally slim.
Bob: Educate yourself in the complexities of this project and the actual arguments those who oppose are making before posting again, please. Your rant springs from an overly simplistic view of this particular debate and of progress in general. Progress is neither ALWAYS GOOD nor ALWAYS BAD. Also, most of those fighting this idiocy are putting in time they'd rather put toward other activities, and are not coasting on trust funds. Trust me. And I don't know a Vasserite among them, either. Check your thoughtless assumptions before blathering forth again.