Chris Owens Reiterates his Atlantic Yards Stand
I just posted a memo from Letitia James and Velmanette Montgomery on Ratner's Atlantic Yards project. Coincidentally, Chris Owens has just issued a statement reiterating his stand on Atlantic Yards...a stand that has been consistent from the beginning.
Text of Chris Owens' statement on Ratner's Atlantic Yards project:
Due to Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, we find ourselves at a crucial moment in which Brooklyn is poised to become a mirror image of a densely populated, tense and congested slice of mid-town Manhattan.
The recent release of the Environmental Impact Statement confirmed all of our fears of just how negatively the project will impact our transportation, air quality and the quality of our lives.
I am the only candidate in Brooklyn's upcoming Eleventh District Congressional primary who stands firmly against the Atlantic Yards project.
All my opponents -- all of them -- support the project.
Yvette Clark and Carl Andrews are on-the-record supporters of the project. David Yassky, who has been a supporter of the Atlantic Yards, recently flipped-flopped and changed his position to a politician who has "some concerns" about the project.
From the beginning, the Yassky campaign has been notorious for the huge amount of developer funding it relies on, including people involved in questionable land deals. This week, Yassky was caught concealing questionable funding sources:
Meanwhile, City Councilman David Yassky (D-Brooklyn Heights) came under fire for nearly allowing controversial Brooklyn architect Robert Scarano to host a fund-raiser for that was slated for last night. The event, to be held at Scarano's DUMBO offices, was abruptly cancelled yesterday following calls from the Daily News. (Daily News, August 30, 2006)
The bottom line: you cannot trust David Yassky on development.
I am the only candidate who has an openly stated and detailed position opposing Ratner's plans...
For those who are unfamiliar with me, I've lived in Brooklyn continuously since I graduated Harvard 25 years ago. I was raised here and attended schools here - including P.S. 9 and Brooklyn Tech. Today, I live in Prospect Heights with my wife, Sandra, and my two sons, Elijah and Sampson, who attend public schools. My personal life and my professional career have each been molded by this borough.
My stances on the important issues of our day have led the nation's foremost organizations like the Sierra Club, Brooklyn-Queens NOW, ImpeachPAC, and Lambda Independent Democrats to give me their strongest endorsement.
Not only these key progressive organizations, but national leaders such as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, John R. Lewis, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, and Lynn Woolsey have all endorsed my campaign. Locally, Norman Siegel, Ruth Messinger, Jim Brennan and Deborah Glick are all spreading the word that we must elect Chris Owens.
Joy and I found that opposition to Atlantic Yards has convinced a couple of our neighbors in the North Slope to go for Chris over Yassky. It may be that Yassky has figured out that this is his Achilles' heel in North Slope, leading to his flip-flop on Atlantic Yards. But people have to take Yassky's recent comments in the context of his recent endorsement by BUILD, a Ratner front group, followed by Yassky's proposal to give BUILD $3 million in city money.
Some have told me that Atlantic Yards should not be discussed in the context of a Congressional race because it is a local issue. I would agree if it was the ONLY issue that differentiates the candidates. But it isn't. Chris has taken many stands on many issues and should be judged on those as well. However, a candidate's reaction to Atlantic Yards is a good measure of his or her general attitude towards government. To me, politicians who support Ratner and BUILD are showing a willingness to support cronyism and corruption. Cronyism and corruption are two of my biggest criticisms of today's Republican party and I think it was cronyism and corruption that was behind the failures in New Orleans after Katrina and behind the no-bid contracts for Halliburton. To me a politician who supports Atlantic Yards don't get the need to end cronyism and corruption at all levels of government.
My wife takes it even further. She feels that Atlantic Yards is a defining issue in terms of judging a candidate's attitude regarding the role of government. Yvette Clarke, Carl Andrews and David Yassky have consistently reacted in a way that shows they feel government's role is to serve big money interests and Yassky has even stated that the best government can do is get as many concessions from big developers and big business as they can, but that big developers and big business are basically in control. Chris Owens has made clear that his view is that government serves the people, the voters, which means it at times has to stand up and say "no" to big money. To my wife the vision Chris has of the role of government as serving the people is her number one reason to support him.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
2006 Elections | Community | Community Based Development | Economics | Housing | Politics | Urban Development | Brooklyn | CD-11 | Chris Owens | Democratic Party
Ahem...
Submitted by mole333 on 2 September 2006 - 2:42pm.
I address this at the end of the article. Of course it is a local issue. But as I say in the diary it is an excellent test case of how a politician responds to corruption in government and, as my wife points out, it is an indication of a politician's attitude towards the role of government as serving special interests vs. serving the people. Since all four candidates are taking a stand on it, we certainly can judge each candidate's views of government and corruption in government using this as a measure.
Furthermore, Eminent Domain abuse has indeed been a national issue in Federal courts.
Finally, each and every candidate has extensive discussion of their stands on national issues on their websites.
Chris could work simply
Submitted by planetb (not verified) on 2 September 2006 - 3:00pm.
Chris could work simply bring the issue much needed additional NATIONAL attention.
unfortunately the House has passed an eminent domain bill that would very well prohibit the use of eminent domain for atlantic yards. but it is stalled (and wil probably die) in Arlen Specter's Judiciary committee.
sometimes, as Mole333 writes, its a candidate's postion and actions (even if he can't affect a direct change with that position) that tell you what a candidate is made of and where they are coming from. this is one of those times.
Mr. David Yassky, Yassky Yassky
Submitted by ayvote (not verified) on 2 September 2006 - 3:03pm.
Yassky has been flippity floppity always on Atlantic Yards. Can't trust him.
Cronyism and corruption
Submitted by rwallnerny on 2 September 2006 - 3:13pm.
You mention eliminating "cronyism and corruption" But that is not possible. Politics by its definition has cronyism and corruption. You can no more have politics without cronyism than you could have air without oxygen. It is purely human nature. Cronyism is defined as "partiality to longtime friends", and politics is and has always been an insider's game. I'm sure that most of us in the progressive movement in fact hope that if Chris is elected, that he will show cronyism-- partiality based on our knowing him-- to us, and to our issues. I think Chris's dad and other leaders exhibited cronyism in a negative sense when they had those Stop Yassky meetings, trying to a find a way to get him or one of the other candidates out of the race without letting it be the people's decisions.
I just think you have to expect a certain amount of cronyism and corruption in politics, it goes with the game. Politics is not and never will be a clean game. Politicians are human beings and we can't expect them to live in a bubble and not be influenced by anyone. Also big money will always have a role to play because voters won't vote to raise taxes, and the money to pay for anything has to come from somewhere. Atlantic Yards is the wrong project at the wrong place at the wrong time, but I know too many good liberals who are for it-- like Marty Markowitz-- to be able to agree that someone being for it is, in and of itself, an indication of a bent towards corruption and cronyism.
My concern is whether Chris, by using Atlantic Yards as a focus of his phone banking to raise money, is inadvertently implying to voters that he can do more about this issue in congress than he actually can?
Ummmm...no
Submitted by mole333 on 2 September 2006 - 4:09pm.
Whether or not there is an inherant level of cronyism and corruption in any government system in NO WAY means one must accept it. If what you say is right then we should all just throw up our hands and let Bush establish his imperial plutocracy and we can all just sit quietly at home watching TV.
I don't but that. And I hope neither do you.
Atlantic Yards is defined by
Submitted by Anonymous Coward (not verified) on 2 September 2006 - 3:28pm.
Atlantic Yards is defined by cronyism, corruption and subverting democracy. Its City for Sale write super large.
anyone who supports the project provides tacit support for the above. which is their right to do, but hat is what they are doing.
and i think you are confusing cronyism with responding to a constituency.
a constituency of one, be it one individual or 1 corporation, is cronyims. and it is not inherent to politics.
sorry for all those typos.
Submitted by Anonymous Coward (not verified) on 2 September 2006 - 3:40pm.
sorry for all those typos.
All I'm saying
Submitted by rwallnerny on 3 September 2006 - 1:13pm.
Of course I think we should oppose cronyism and corruption in government, I just think that any idea that we can "eliminate" it is unrealistic and that sometimes getting things done requires working with it, as distasteful as that may be. Whoever gets elected to that seat in congress is going to have people he/she knows better than other people, and is going to be susceptible to lobbyists representing big money interests. It cannot be avoided. I didn't like the fact that a good liberal like marty markowitz supported this project, but evidently he decided that what he felt was the potential good of the project outweighed the cronyism involved in the process. Marty's a good guy, he is neither corrupt so far as I can tell nor a crony. He simply accepted the good with the bad, which like it or not, is what politicians who have been at the game long enough learn to do. Look at Major Owens, he started out idealistic and opposing the machine, but in later years he did what he had to do to stay in washington and get done what he was trying to get done. Everyone in politics starts out idealistic, the problem is damn few stay that way.
Its a local issue
Chris is dead on about Atlantic Yards, but what could he do about it in Congress? That project is a local and state issue. I understand that its a hot button issue and that it makes good sense to push it in the campaign because Chris's views stand out. Is electing the most anti-ratner candidate just sending a statement though? I want to hear what the candidates would propose to do IN CONGRESS about Atlantic Yards if they are campaigning based on their views on the issue.