City too poor to build promised Bushwick Inlet Park

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Williamsburg’s largest waterfront park has stalled — perhaps permanently — because the city doesn’t have the cash to buy the land.

City officials dropped a bombshell on community leaders last Thursday, revealing that they had no money and no timetable to buy several private properties off Kent Avenue and N. 11th Street surrounding the 28-acre Bushwick Inlet site.

Infuriated community leaders accused Mayor Bloomberg of revoking the city’s long-standing agreement to build parks at the edge of the East River in exchange for rezoning most of the waterfront for luxury high-rises in 2005.

“The mayor is travelling around the city, trumpeting his proposals for open space, parks and playgrounds as his legacy — and here we have a situation where the city wants to abandon its ironclad commitment that they made with the neighborhood’s residents,” said Assemblyman Joe Lentol (D–Greenpoint).

The delay spoiled a series of promising developments for the waterfront park. The city has already purchased two properties at Bushwick Inlet and has the option to buy a third.

And last month, the city moved closer to acquiring the Bayside Fuel property at Kent between N. 12th and N. 14th streets after more than a decade of legal battles, sources said.

But about two-thirds of Bushwick Inlet Park remains privately owned — and negotiations for one site have stalled abruptly.

Citistorage’s Norm Brodsky hoped to move his N. 10th Street warehouse and sell the site to the city — but city officials told him there was no money to make the purchase.

Now Brodsky’s allies say he’s trapped because the property has been rezoned for parkland and he cannot unload the parcel to a private developer.

“The property is worthless as housing,” said one source close to Brodsky, who was unavailable for comment.

A Bloomberg spokesman said discussions over the purchase of the Citistorage site are ongoing.

“The city’s current budget issues are well known, and, regardless of the economic climate, we will only enter agreements that are fair for taxpayers,” said Andrew Brent, a Bloomberg spokesman.

Residents remain fed up with the site’s delays.

“This is a huge rezoning that’s part of the legacy of this administration and it fails without all the pieces in place,” said Community Board 1 member Ward Dennis. “All along the city is saying, ‘We’re making progress,’ but it sounds like the city doesn’t have a dollar to pay for it.”

Updated 5:25 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

David Brown from LES says:
This news should be a shock to no one. The City, like the State, and the Federal Goverment are essentially broke, and they cannot afford to start new projects. If anyone looked at Bloomberg's budget for the next 10 years for parks, you will see that over 40% is allocated for fiscal year 2012 (Which started this month), and that is basically to finish certain projects like East River Park (Manhattan). As for the expected complaints, guess what? When people fight tooth and nail to prevent properties from being sold, and projects from being started (Such as the land purchases involving Bayside Fuel property, Atlantic Yards, Tuck A Way Storage (Columbia University footprint), and the Willets Point junkyards to name a few), sometimes the day will happen when the project will get cancelled (Like in this case over money). Of course, certain projects are more deserving than others (Cleaning up Willets Point is exhibit A). However, the point is still remains: The economics do not allow this project to be completed, so it does not make sense to start it, until it has a decent chance of completion, and on time, (Unlike East River Park SEVEN years behind schedule). Which is why (For a change), Bloomberg is right to cancel the project.
July 20, 2011, 9:15 am
D from Williamsburg says:
Then they should not have put the $50 million into the McCarren Park pool and used this to acquire the park space. The pool was not something the city was required to do.
July 20, 2011, 9:38 am
John from Dumbo says:
Seems like all the money is being poured into our waterfront park...
July 20, 2011, 9:40 am
Emily from Greenpoint says:
Interesting that you are from the LES, since your neighborhood also frequently gets screwed by the city. Why better in our neighborhood than yours? We should be working together. It's not a case of your park vs. our park, it's a case of FALSE PROMISES. Our neighborhood's resources have been broken by a steep influx of new residents that the luxury high rises brought in by Bloomberg's rezoning. In a neighborhood that was already at-density for transit, infrastructure, and actually already way under-capacity for open space, this is a great example of classic cart before the horse planning. Yeah, developers are cashing in, but both the long-time residents and the new ones are going to become increasingly uncomfortable given the fact that they've been putting more and more people in a neighborhood that can't fit them. Essentially it's like the neighborhood is endlessly gaining weight and is still trying to wear an old pair of jeans from 2000. We're busting at the seams, and it's the City's rezoning effort that caused it.
July 20, 2011, 9:46 am
VoiceOfTruth from Parkless Burg says:
They are dumping hundreds of millions into G-D governors island, a worthless island with no residents, and BBP. Bloomberg hates skinny pants. This is horse——. Impeach Bloomberg.
July 20, 2011, 10:02 am
Greg from Greenpoint says:
Disgraceful. I knew this would happen back in 2005. We did not want giant luxury towers on our waterfront. All we got in return was vague promises that have now been broken.

Our community leaders should never have agreed to the rezoning without all of the promised benefits in writing, with a clear timetable and dedicated funding.

I hope it is clear to everyone now why the Domino developer refused to make a written commitment to 30% affordable, and the city let them get off with an informal verbal promise. Let's see how that goes.
July 20, 2011, 10:32 am
jerry from brighton beach says:
I know where to find over $ 64 million for this beautiful project.
Have BP Marty Markowitz ( he's so concerned about Brooklyn neighborhoods) re-allocate his $ 64 million for his Boondoggle of an Amphitheater in Asser Levy Park & put it into a Park that really needs the money now !

July 20, 2011, 11:23 am
David Brown from LES says:
There is no way you are going to see affordable housing at the Domino complex (A major eyesore, I see everyday walking the dog). Remember Atlantic Yards? As far as written promises to Community Board #1 are concerned, it was not going to happen, because it is contractually illegal, because the city did not own all of the properties in the park's footprint.
July 20, 2011, 11:30 am
ParksNotPoors from 11211 says:
This has nothing to do with affordable housing. F affordable housing. Affordable housing isn't building a park. There is plenty of affordable housing already. It is a cost to the city, we need park space. Also, stop letting your terrible teenagers commit hate crimes against teh gheys and then running back to hide in your affordable housing, stop reving your engines all night and stop playing loud car stereos until 4 am.
July 20, 2011, 12:04 pm
HarryParatestes from 11211 says:
Greg - NSP and The Edge did build affordable housing. The developers also built an esplanade that has been popular iwth the community. This is a failure on the part of the city, not the developers. The city promised to build a park and didn't.
July 20, 2011, 12:14 pm
rlj from C Heights says:
Anyone else remember when Transgas wanted to build an underground power plant that also included tons of green park space up top?

Check the links to the right of this article. Rock on, environmentalists!! By stopping an "evil" company from using their private money to develop the area, you leave the park to the bankrupt city and stall the project. I predict at least another decade of that area being undeveloped.

This isn't about "broken promises" by the city. It's about the moronic anti-development liberal lawyers and city residents who don't understand the first thing about economics or city development!!
July 20, 2011, 12:20 pm
E from Williamsburg says:
Let's not let the owner of CitiStorage off the hook here either. None of us know how much $$ he was asking from the City year after year. Many developers have gotten rich off the rezoning and I'm sure Mr. Brodsky wanted in on the fun. Sometimes these landowners are greedy and try to extort more from the City instead of taking a fair amount of pay and feeling great about the good that the open space will do for the community. Capitalism at its worst! Emily I like your analogy about the weight gain (additional residents) and trying to fit into old jeans. As far as affordable housing, that's also been a very DULL spot on the rezoning because we've seen some units built (Edge/NSP) but the City is FAR BEHIND their commitment stated in the points of agreement.
July 20, 2011, 3:55 pm
David Brown from LES says:
There is no doubt it is PRIMARILY the liberal lawyers, and "Community Activists" who understand ZERO about economics who are at fault. But developers and city officials who make promises they know they can't keep are also to blame.
July 20, 2011, 4:15 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
@ David Brown: There's an asteroid a billion light years into outer space on a collision course towards Earth promising cataclysm--it's the liberals' fault. What nonsense you write. The economics that are crashing down on us right now that are making it impossible for the City to keep its promises are a confluence of international, national and city economics that are driven largely by CONSERVATIVE forces. It's preposterous to suggest that "community activists" who endured and sacrificed time and psychology in dealing with entities whose sole driving motivation is the "bottom line" [not a liberal conclusion, though maybe by "lawyers"] and in the end had to rely on "word" from selfsame entities whose integrity comes one day and leaves the same night, that somehow "they are to blame." You can't stick "liberal" with words like "economics" and "lawyers" and pretend to have some kind of actual knowledge of the forces at play here. Try, instead, actually identifying the forces involved: Bloomberg, developers, municipal agencies and, if we were to get personal as possible, Brodsky. It's a flight of drugged out fantasy to identify any of these forces as "liberal." Why don't you keep walking your dog on your side of the East River and let the intellectual heavy lifting for the people on this side, who know all too well who exactly is involved.
pazum tremendum
July 21, 2011, 3:45 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Contrary to your arrogant declarations, there is INDEED DOUBT it is "primarily" liberal lawyers and "community activists" who are at fault. You can't even identify the forces and/or entities involved, and there you go, shooting from the backside, about "liberals." This isn't an Elf Forest over here--this is Brooklyn, baby.
July 21, 2011, 3:48 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Maybe it is high time that we say what was true all along, that whether the economy is "good" or "bad," the 2005-rezoning was a terrible idea. I'm so happy and appreciative I live in a world where there is at least a minute fraction of "liberal" that possibly gives pause to Mammon-loving entities, whose credo has been "don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness." If those "liberal obstructionists" didn't exist, we'd be in a Williamsburg where landlords, historically the most lawless entities in the area [I give you one word: "Scarano"], would run roughshod over the entire landscape, where there would be ZERO parks space, ZERO cultural institutions, ZERO medical service facilities, ZERO municipal service areas, and ZERO schools, where development would run non-stop at ZERO consideration towards the environment and towards quality-of-life. The entire area would be an unending mass of ugly and imaginative Lego blocks where the sky would be crowded out and the only ground available would be to allow automobiles and pedestrians to shuttle from condominiums to bars and back and the only sounds possible would be jackhammers throughout the day and bad hipsterism at night, where the only smells would be the ground torn open to pour in cement. Oh wait, WE'RE ALREADY ALMOST THERE. You can walk anywhere in Williamsburg right now and get a taste for the overwhelming failure not just of utility and even, gasp, economics, but failure, overwhelmingly, of the imagination. So much for laissez-faire. Let me tell you something, David Browns of the world, and consider Greenspan's astonishing admission that laissez-faire is untenable--as current socio-political conditions evidence, BE THANKFUL THERE ARE LIBERALS WHO EXPOSE GOVERNMENT AND DEVELOPERS IN BED. At least they give us the opportunity to refuse being cuckolded.
July 21, 2011, 5:08 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Mayor Bloomberg is telling Williamsburg/Greenpoint has no money to work Bushwick Inlet Park. Tell him to use the 100 million he is offering to build a Tech University anywhere in the City to build it right on Bushwick Inlet Park:

Make it underground if you must, with a park on top. But a University, more than anything that is currently being built in Williamsburg, especially a University of civic engineering and environmental science, is just the right cultural institution and economic incubator that the neighborhood needs, to balance the delusional blockheaded laissez-faire that led up to the 2005-rezoning and to the conditions we currently face.
July 21, 2011, 5:18 pm
MikeFromQueens from Long Island City says:
Anyone who believed in 2005 that the city was to rezone the area basically in exchange to put up a park needs their head examined. Bloomberg and the developers got what they wanted while the neighborhood got more crowded. The city claims it's broke and can't buy the land. If there is money for a University and bike lanes no one wants, why is there no money for this park?
July 21, 2011, 7:05 pm
MikeFromQueens from Long Island City says:
Why did anyone believe the city would keep it's promise in 2005? Bloomberg & his developer buddies got their condo towers and the people got shafted and now more crowded than before. Another broken promise from King Bloomberg.
July 21, 2011, 7:07 pm
MikeFromQueens from Long Island City says:
Why did anyone believe the city would keep it's promise in 2005? Bloomberg & his developer buddies got their condo towers and the people got shafted and now more crowded than before. Another broken promise from King Bloomberg.
July 21, 2011, 7:07 pm
David Brown from LES says:
I was reading Dennis's comments, and he sounded like Mr. Spock or someone from outer space (He has no sense of reality). But for the rest of us, it is becoming apparent that major programs cannot be funded and completed anymore (See the 2nd Ave Subway as just one example, because the MTA is $9b in debt). Which is why NOT starting and making sure that those underway are finished, is a much better approach.
July 22, 2011, 11:08 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Of course I sound like I'm from outer space--I'm using logic, direct examination, reason. All of these are alien to someone who scapegoats, using imaginary characters and agents, pretending to know about economics while just engaging in cheap slander. You throw up this bromide, "Which is why NOT starting and making sure that those underway are finished, is a much better approach." as though I am not calling out your ludicrous fantasy that "community activists" are primarily to blame now in the face of rampant over-development that is underpinned by city, state, federal and international currency in treacherous waters right now. You and other commentors are pretending that, given sufficient deregulation, developers can be counted on to do all these things that "activists" so want but inadvertently fight against. If the environment is blasted to hell, and we ever-reach , the fault would be "community activists" for somehow reminding reptilian entities they can indeed be human.

You should also try being human. No one will get in your way.
July 22, 2011, 11:49 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Those projects you mention so cavalierly are not "stalled" by "community activism." The actual blockage that community activism genuinely represents is ephemeral at worst, through the courts, who have long turned away from being the last ventilation and remedy left to the Public. The REAL BLOCKAGE facing all these projects is "the economy," that is run primarily by multi-jurisdictional forces in Wall Street, Washington and the various markets. You keep mentioning projects as though the economics that have stalled all those developments were through the investment portfolios of the respective community activists--and for that, you need serious medicine. I would say psychological, but zoological sounds more appropriate.
July 22, 2011, 11:53 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
And furthermore, beyond your "community activists are stalling projects" nonsense, your other argument, that the city "is broke" and should "NOT start [projects] and make sure that those underway are finished" [your words], whereas you really mean "parks" and other projects that would tickle your misanthropy, you are contradicted by Bloomberg offering $100 million and substantial free real estate to any international body that wishes to build a tech university in NYC, along with all the vampiric public subsidies and tax abatements that no one calls "welfare". Here, check out what is in outer space, where human beings read:
July 22, 2011, 11:58 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
You and your peers herein talk about "community activists" and "liberal lawyers" NOT KNOWING, and you fault them for it, but an argument that actually involves "knowing" you think is "outer space." You're a tricky figure, you know. Double-standardizing. Dishonest. I wonder if you have any genuine knowledge or if you're some bot hired by New York developers to clog comments section with absurdities about fantastic winged "liberals."
July 22, 2011, 12:01 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Here, before you weave another thread in that fantastic conspiracy yarn where community activists somehow got cabals going that are shutting down projects city-wide, why don't you actually inform yourself of the parties involved, who witnessed, and what was disposed:
July 22, 2011, 12:08 pm
David Brown from LES says:
Let me give you a classic example of trying to build without having the money needed. In 1967, projects were torn down on Delancy Street, for more housing, but they did not have the $$$$$$$. Today, those sites are nothing more than free parking lots. You hear constant chatter about what is going to be done with the lots, by various Community Boards, and interest groups, and they hope five years from now, to start something. There is little doubt in the real world that a shopping center or condos would be much better than parking lots and promises (At least they generate tax revenue). Simply Put: They never should have torn down the housing in the first place, unless they had the resources needed, to build housing. In this case, there were no winners (Tenants, investors, City, you name it). This is liberalism at its worst.
July 23, 2011, 6:28 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
I'm going to say it again: You make several points, then jump between them as your ridiculous fantasy that "liberals" and "community activists" are stalling development projects is exposed. Here, you attempt some ham-handed summary of a 1967 project with ZERO ACTUAL analysis of the ACTUAL circumstances involved. You basically make a look-feel rush to judgment: "look, an empty lot, hence, egad, liberals! Everyone, run!"

Preposterous. You claim that "liberals" don't know economics, but you're not using any kind of economic analysis herein. You're the one who doesn't know economics here, and it is typical of conservatives to project onto liberals their own failures. You don't even know the difference between "liberal" and "conservative." Take a look at what commentor ParksNotPoor wrote RIGHT ON THIS THREAD, THAT YOU'VE CONVENIENTLY IGNORED: "This has nothing to do with affordable housing. F affordable housing. Affordable housing isn't building a park. There is plenty of affordable housing already. It is a cost to the city, we need park space. Also, stop letting your terrible teenagers commit hate crimes against teh gheys and then running back to hide in your affordable housing, stop reving your engines all night and stop playing loud car stereos until 4 am." An excellent example of how because someone wants a park, or may even be a community activist, does not make them into a "liberal." Which is precisely why I suspect you're not a genuine commentor at all, but likely a bot with an agenda.

Just because you state a year, and an address, and end it with "now there's an empty lot there," without any kind of data or summary of the events as they transpired does not translate into a meaningful and effective economic analysis, nor does it prove or connect "liberals" to what actually transpired.

Today it's 100 degrees. Hence, it's the liberals' fault.
Yesterday, Oslo was bombed. Hence, it's the liberal's fault.
I got gum on my shoe. Hence, it's the liberal fault.
There are clouds in the sky. Hence, them damn liberals.
2 2=4. Liberalism at its worst.
July 23, 2011, 7:28 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
The truth of the matter is that "generating tax revenue" is another bromide typically asserted by "conservatives," but a REAL economic analysis, an analysis by someone who genuinely knows economics and is not simply wasting time and playing the fool stating that OTHERS DON'T KNOW economics, would measure actual "tax revenue generated" against public subsidies and tax abatements given to developers. For example, the developers of the Edge, adjacent to the Bushwick Inlet Park, are beneficiaries of several costly subsidies that actually subtract from and reduce overall city, state and federal tax revenue, and are also recipients of a 25-year tax abatement. The developer CPCR, wanting to develop the massive "New Domino" development a few blocks south, will also be a recipient of similar benefits. So your bromide of "at least generating tax revenue" is FALSE, which goes a long way against your supposed "knowledge of economics" and even longer against your supposed slander of "community activists" and "liberals" who "don't know economics."

Son, for Real, go actually study some economics before you make any claims to knowledge, and I noticed that instead of availing yourself, as a person truly knowledgeable of economics, of the information provided in that NYC GOV link on the 2005-rezoning, you ignored it and went for that ridiculous nostalgic "I remember a lot back in 1967 on Delancey" as though your kind of anecdote has any credibility whatsoever, now that you've been exposed not just as a liar, but just plain dumb.
July 23, 2011, 7:36 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
And furthermore, no attack on liberalism would make sense when it purports that a project "at least generates tax revenue." Generating tax revenue is in fact liberal, so when you say "put this project here instead of a park because it will generate tax revenue" you are attacking liberals while asserting a liberal position. So please, please, learn the difference between "liberal" and "conservative." It will help you with your hate, which possesses you to jump onto any scenario, like this one, salivating at the scapegoat.
July 23, 2011, 7:51 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
More and more, I see it makes less sense to distinguish between "conservatives" and "liberals" than to distinguish between misanthropists and humanists.
July 23, 2011, 9 am
Fish from In the Newtown Creek says:
Court rules Dennis WINS! , David K.O.!.

urrr...does anybody likes Pirates?...workshop on World Economic History 101- 7/30 at that Erie Basin Park.

Won't go though, self quarantined at the Newtown Creek. Too much dioxins in me tissue.

A Pirate's life me for ay!
July 23, 2011, 12:46 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
I want to add that the Edge is not actually adjacent to Bushwick Inlet Park. It is in fact so with East River State Park, but if i recall correctly, once the City keeps its promise regarding Bushwick Inlet Park, then East River State Park will be handed over to the City's jurisdiction and the parks will be combined into one park. Then, "officially," the Edge will be adjacent to Bushwick Inlet Park. Want to make sure, that unlike David Brown and "rj from Crown Heights," and other adherents to buffoonomics, I don't misrepresent the facts.
July 24, 2011, 8:55 am
David Brown from LES says:
Generating tax revenue is actually NOT an exclusively liberal concept. The goal is to broaden the tax base (ie: You would rather have an asset or person making a contribution than doing nothing and being a liability to the rest of us). In the case of a shopping center vs a parking lot, it is obvious: You would rather see people spending $$$$ and generating sales tax revenue (Not to mention people working and paying taxes instead of unemployment/welfare).
In the case of the park, when you decide to build a park (In particular a major park) it is not just building the park, it is about satisfying the demands of politicians, Community Boards, activists of various stripes, judges (See the LAWSUIT involved with the Tobacco building and St Ann's in Brooklyn Bridge Park for example), it is also securing various private land holdings (In some cases it takes decades to do so (See Willets Point)), quite often there is an environmental cleanup involved (Ex: Harris Park in The Bronx required a $5m unexpected environmental cleanup), and last but certainly not least, you need people to man the park (In particular as it relates to keeping it clean and secure (No one wants rats and criminals running loose)).
Finally our so-called "leaders" are waking up to economic reality: Gov. Cuomo who said NO to borrowing money for school construction, Gov. Scott of Florida who said NO to Federal money for high-speed trains,and finally Mayor Bloomberg who said NO to this park, are realizing that the costs (Such as increasing debts on the taxpayers of tomorrow) involved with these types of projects do not justify the expense.

July 24, 2011, 9:58 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
You do understand that when a park is built that the grass does not materialize through a vacuum, correct? You do understand that the multitude of entities involved also means that there is tax revenue generated just from the occupation of those entities as the park is built, correct? And you also know that when "you man the park" [your words], you are supplying jobs, which is a plus, and those persons occupying those jobs likewise generate tax revenue, correct? Now, as I earlier stated, you again ignore examining the specifics of the issue at hand, and I find it most interesting that you pretend knowledge on Bushwick Inlet Park which is party to the 2005-rezoning of a particular parcel of the Williamsburg waterfront, but you instead use a bunch of tricks from a Fox News playbook, call upon all types of scenarios that require extensive examination into the dissimilarities of their conception, construction and history while pretending they are all really the same thing, rather than looking at the specifics of the 2005-rezoning. At the very least, you have finally graduated from the kindergarten of "community activist"="liberal" and "liberal"=stalled development projects. But all these multiple scenarios are meant to obfuscate, and the best way to obfuscate is to claim the other side is doing exactly what you are doing. You are pretending at fiscal responsibility but you have no answer to the fact that the supposed "expanded tax base" will likely not ever compensate "the increasing debts on the taxpayers of tomorrow" when the City, State and Federal levels of American government extend multiple-decade tax abatements and costly public subsidies to developers who are not even from the area. [For example, Northside Piers, right next to the Edge, right next to Bushwick Inlet Park, were made by Toll Brothers of infamy; Toll Brothers are not even from New York City--but you see, when I talk about Bushwick Inlet Park, I mean Bushwick Inlet Park, I don't mean NASA, or the USSR, or Antartica, or any remote entity or agency or event out of my pocket, like the way you explain "economics"]. You see, that's the thing about a 25-year tax abatement--there is no "tax base broadened" in the existence of a tax abatement. But you're so caught up in playing sloganeer for conservative buffoonomics that you can't even make that connection!
July 24, 2011, 1:09 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
And as to the idea that "generating tax revenue" is not exclusively "liberal," I would say that your Republican and Tea Party compatriots may have something else entirely to say about that. You see, this is why I wonder if you're a bot hired by developers to scour the media organs of the areas sought by developers, to defend and promote their agenda. Your arguments make zero sense, and you jump back and forth between scenarios that require distraction from the information at hand and the scenario right in front of us, making any type of arbitrary argument to justify development--irrespective even if those arguments lack ethics. And, without any examination as to the facts surrounding Bushwick Inlet Park, or the 2005-rezoning, you're quick to attribute the problems to "liberals" without even knowing if the community activists who secured these promises are indeed actually "liberal." What an interesting person you are, that you encourage dishonesty and broken promises, seemingly for a better society. And whereas I am guessing you're not the type of person who wants to see his taxes, or anyone's taxes raised, here you are making a "pro-tax" argument since it seems to fit a defense of development by developers and government who don't feel the need to honor their contractual obligations. What kind of businessman are you? Are you the type of businessman who believes agreements are made for the paper they are printed on, or are you a businessman who believes, indeed, that when one makes an obligation they should be held to it? Let me know, so I can warn other persons to avoid doing business with you, as you are clearly someone who is not only dishonest, but promotes dishonesty in others.
July 24, 2011, 1:18 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
And since you like to quote or refer to mutliple scenarios happening under different historical circumstances in time and space to justify your myopia, consider General Motors' eminent domain application in Poletown, Michigan. The manufacturer's action therein accord with your demonic spirit of benefitting the supposed "tax revenue generator as long as it's hateful and not a park or something else pleasing to humanity". That is, General Motors made many promises to ALL OF MICHIGAN, not just Poletown, similar to your arguments: namely, that as a profiteer in the private sector, oooh la la laissez-faire, General Motors was more deserving of the land than the 1000 homes and 600 small businesses razed in its favor in 1981. And to add to the vileness, the eminent domain application caused the effective abandonment of a Jewish cemetery there, walled off from the world since GM "was broadening the tax base." And there were a thousand thousand David Browns who were pretending to be more awake than most, awake like all those politicians who reject public works [because that's what "awake" people do, reject humanity]. But by 2004, it was clear that NONE of the David Brown projections materialized, and the matter had to be returned to the courts because GM no longer felt obliged to the area it destroyed and threatened to leave unless millions upon millions of further public subsidies were used to improve the very land that GM had seized! And you know who was at fault? "Liberalism at its worst"--not!

How's that for being awake?
July 24, 2011, 1:37 pm
Ruth James says:
Is our city really too poor to build this park? My kids were so excited. It's really too bad that we can't get it.
Ruth James |
Jan. 23, 2014, 1:44 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: