One Way! No Way! DOT faces Park Slope Ire
As the first ripple of Ratner's overdevelopment of Central Brooklyn crossed Flatbush into Park Slope, those Ratner backers who have grown to expect getting their way no matter what got a major surprise. Park Slope stood up to the Departmentof Transportation (DOT) and, if the DOT keeps its word (something I am doubtful of) this first of many Ratner ripples to cross Flatbush has been stopped.
The DOT has a plan that is intended to relieve some of the traffic problems that will be created by the Ratner overdevelopment plan. Of course I have heard Ratner supporters even deny that any traffic problem would result, but EVERYONE with any grain of sense realizes that the already horrendous traffic in and around Flatbush will be made considerably worse by Ratner's plan. So the DOT came up with a dubious plan, a mere band aid, designed to alleviate the problem. Narrow 4th Ave, reducing traffic and making it safer to cross the street while turning 6th and 7th Aves. one way to carry more traffic faster. Ignore the fact that 6th Ave. is too narrow and too residential to accommodate much more traffic and the fact that both 6th and 7th Aves. have many schools and churches and speeding up traffic along them will only increase the number of children hit by cars.
The DOT has promised that if Community Board 6 opposes their plan, they will drop it. More than a week ago I was hearing from insiders that there was no way in Hell Community Board 6 was going to go along with the DOT plan, but last night was the official Community Board 6 forum wherein the DOT will present its case and the public will have a chance to have their say. Hundreds of people showed up, almost all solidly opposed to the plan.
I couldn't go...and I am hoping someone who did can report. But at last night's meeting of the Independent Neighborhood Democrats, several people who did go came and reported to us, including David Yassky, Jo Anne Simon and a representative from Eric Adams office.
Joan Millman did not go but she spoke out against the plan. A supposedly off the record comment she made calling the plan "dumb" has already been quoted in the media, and she is happy to stand behind it. In fact she used somewhat stronger language than that when she discussed it at IND.
The reports from those who went were in some ways confusing. In the wave of opposition to this first Ratner ripple to cross Flatbush, it was hard for anyone to get in and be heard. From what I could tell, none of the elected officials I know got in to talk (I could be wrong!) except Eric Adams who managed to sneak in a back way. But apparently there was a tablecloth. Yes...a tablecloth. I have no idea why a tablecloth, but everyone was making reference to this fabled table cloth that all opponents of the plan who couldn't get in were signing. Why a table cloth? Who knows?
Many spoke in favor of the plan for 4th Ave. because it would make 4th Ave. safer and more pleasant. But the plans for 6th and 7th Aves. were SOUNDLY opposed by just about everyone. According to Yassky, the DOT representative was asked whether the 4th Ave. plan could be considered separate from the 6th and 7th plans. Apparently the DOT rep. mumbled something about considering the whole thing as a package. Well, maybe they need to think again!
The DOT rep. was widely reported as seeming angry as he watched his Ratner enablement become much harder. And the Transportation committee of the Community Board voted to oppose the plan, making it even more likely the entire Community Board will oppose it. Which then leads to the question will the DOT keep its word? They have made explicitly clear that they feel they can make a unilateral, arbitrary decision regardless of what the community thinks. This is the way the whole Ratner enabling bunch have been treating the community on the other side of Flatbush for some time now. But will it work as well against Park Slope? Will they even try? And where is our Public Advocate, Betsy "do nothing" Gotbaum?
I predict that the DOT will try to do an end run around the community, perhaps offering some minor compromise without majorly altering the plan. Which would give Park Slope a real taste of how Ratner treats the community. But I could be wrong. Park Slope is wealthy and has a high voter turnout. No one wants to piss off a bunch of defensive, rich voters. But the fact remains that what Ratner has planned on the other side of Flatbush WILL massively affect Park Slope and Park Slope had better pay attention to what is going on across Flatbush. Pay attention to the large number of suspicious fires in areas developers want to declare blighted and take over. Pay attention to the attempts to destroy historical sites, like Underground Railroad stops, in areas developers covet. Consider the inadequate considerations for how to deal with traffic, sewage, increased burden on already thin firehouse coverage, etc. Pay attention, Park Slope, because what happens on the other side of Flatbush DOES affect you and this "dumb" DOT plan is just your first taste of what Ratner and his supporters have been doing to the other side of Flatbush for some time. Be ready for more.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Community | Transportation | Urban Development | Brooklyn
Thanks!
Submitted by mole333 on 16 March 2007 - 4:11pm.
Good summary you link to. Thanks. Since EVERYONE else is discussing it in the context of Atlantic Yards, and it HAS to be discussed in that context, it is astonishing that the DOT is avoiding it. But that is typical when it comes to a project where their main publicity to win over the community left out the arena and some of the buildings and put in a giant park that isn't part of the project. Misleading is the patter with the Ratner plan. Then they wonder why no one trusts them.
I was there too
Submitted by sidnora on 17 March 2007 - 10:58am.
inside the auditorium, and I can corroborate JM's excellent account of the proceedings. I have just a couple of points to add.
Elected officials who spoke were: David Yassky, Bill deBlasio, Eric Adams and Jim Brennan. Community leaders who spoke were the leaders of the Park Slope Civic Council, the Park Slope Chamber of Commerce, and Park Slope Neighbors.
"Speaking with one voice" is an understatement. There was not one person who spoke in any capacity, including elected officials, community leaders, board members and private citizens, who spoke in favor of the proposal. The person who chaired the meeting tried, at the beginning, to give a neutral overview of the proposal, and point out some of its more attractive elements, but I believe he did it mostly because he felt that as chairman he had an obligation to appear impartial, and also because there were people in the audience whose hostility toward the plan threatened to disrupt the meeting almost as soon as it began. The only change this neighborhood supports is turning 8th Avenue and PPW back into two-way streets.
Indeed, the only dissent was against the adopted resolution, because some people (myself included) thought it wasn't strong enough. It includes some language about "working with" the DOT, which I think allows the camel's nose into the tent in a dangerous way. Since the DOT spokesman indicated that there would be no consideration of adopting more acceptable parts of the plan on a piecemeal basis, "working with" can only mean capitulation at some later date. We need to keep a close eye on the DOT; I agree that they will being trying for an end run. Pessimist that I am, I expect that ultimately this plan, or something very much like it, will be adopted with or without the consent of the community. The Yards isn't going away, and where else could they put the traffic?
There was no doubt in the audience that we were all talking about the Yards project, and noone was speaking in support of that, either. I think you've been a bit harsh on us Slopers in terms of our level of opposition to the Yards; if the traffic plan radicalises more neighborhood people, that's fine with me. It may be too little too late, but I've thought for a while that the fix has been in on the Yards from the very start. We may be able to delay the project, and we might be able to achieve tiny mitigations, but I think we're going to have this enormous monster of a development shoved down our throats no matter what; there's just too much moey at stake.
I was there
I was inside the auditorium. Bill de Blasio also spoke out against the plan. A rep for Marty Markowitz made a short statement about how Marty was happy to hear everyones' opinions, but the crowd sort of rolled their eyes and some people asked/yelled why he didn't come himself. And a woman, who I believe said she was a City Council trustee read a statement that got much applause for its opposition to the proposal.
I posted my own account of the meeting:
http://www.takethecityandrun.com/2007/03/16/park-slope-speaks-with-one-voice/