My impression is that Jeffries' position is not very hard to pin down at all, and I think he has been fairly consistent with his message, albeit selectivly emphasising different parts of it depending on who he is talking to.

1. He is in favor of the project. What this means,and there is some confusion on this, is that he is not in favor of kicking Ratner out and starting over with a new developer and whole new plans.

2. He feels that way mainly because he wants to move forward with a project that will, at least supposedly, add many units of affordable housing to the neighborhood, and make use of a large gaping hole in the ground.

3. He is against the use of eminent domain to build the arena. I have never heard him say anything besides this. Let me know if you have heard something different.

4. He thinks the scale of the project should be reduced, but not to the point of merely building townhouses on top of the railyards. That is impractical for several reasons.

What I would like to hear from Batson, which I haven't, is what exactly being against the project means to him. In his Link statement to ESDC he talks about legally binding Ratner to his promises. Does this mean that there is a he could see a role for Ratner to be involved in this project in the future, or does he think he should be scrapped and that new a developer should take over?

If he has made a statment to this effect, which I admit is very possible, I missed it, so please inform me.

Ok, you seem to understand the Jeffries positionin a way most don't. so let me ask you.

You say:
3. He is against the use of eminent domain to build the arena. I have never heard him say anything besides this. Let me know if you have heard something different.

Okay. so lets get this out in the open. The arena cannot be built without eminent domain. So is Jeffries for or against the project.
Additionally eminent domain is not just required for the arena but for the other predominately luxury housing parts of the project.
Is Jeffries saying that use of eminent domain is acceptable to him.

see this is why Hakeem is not to be trusted. his positions make no sense.

i don't think Batson really cares WHO the developer is. he cares what is developed and the process by which se get here.
the only way to legally bind Ratner or any developer to their promises is through clawbacks and other penalties through government involvment with the agreements. in the case of Ratner and AYards, there is no such thing.

...that's his name. Not "Jefferies".

My understanding is that the Arena could not be built in it's current location without the use of eminent domain. That does not preclude moving it to another location on the site where eminent domain does not need to be used.

I am not sure this is possible, and it would obviously require a considerable readjustment of the project. Also, Jeffries has not said anything about this to me or anyone else I know. However, he has seemed quite interested in the possibility of either scrapping the arena altogether, or moving it to a much different location.

As far as eminent domain for housing, I think he has much less of a problem with this than he does for the arena. Some upscale housing is not a bad thing if it allows for low income housing. It is good to have economic diversity in the neighborhood.

I should tell you that I am not affiliated with the campaign, and I definitely don't speak for Jeffries; these are just my impressions from speaking with him on a couple of occasions, and seeing him speak at Community Board 2.

I also feel that Jeffries cares about what get develops and how it is developed. At least I know, more or less, what he wants to be built. I can't say the same about Batson. Simply shouting "I'm against Atlantic Yards" doesn't mean anything, it only serves to fire up a political base, and suppress actual discussion. In my opinion that is no more honerable than trying to have a realistic and workable vision for how to move forward.

Let's set the record straight: Hakeem Jeffries absolutely did not go up and down the line shaking hands with people before the DEIS hearing on August 23. I know this because, first and foresmost, I was there and he was in my eyesight the whole time he was outside, and secondly, it's just not his style.

What's So seems to understand Hakeem's position better than those of you who have been trying to thwart his message for months. The opposition has the mentality that a person is, "either with us or against us." There is no compromise and that's just not healthy.

For me, it makes sense to have a legislator in Albany (or any other political seat for that matter) who is willing to sit down and reasonably negotiate; to take the good parts of a plan, keep them (like the affordable housing) and work on revamping the bad parts (eminent domain, traffic, etc.). Then, come to a compromise that benefits the community.

That's why both Batson's and Hamilton's positions are weak...they are already starting at a negative with no collateral in their pockets. One candidate (Batson) is negotiating from a confrontational position with the developer; Hamilton's confrontation is with the brownstone belt.

In the end, I want what's best for my community and while I am generally favorable to the AY project - mostly because of the affordable housing component and how it may help stymie the gentrification of central Brooklyn that, according to the last census, has been going on for over 10 years - I also have concerns about the traffic, bridge congestion and density that this project will bring.

That is how the majority of the community feels (read: Crain's Business poll). Development is good, traffic is bad and we need a legislator in Albany who will help us negotiate the best deal possible for our community. That legislator ought to be the most qualified and that is Hakeem Jeffries.

It's time for our community to move forward, shake this victim-focused mentality when it comes to change and build a better Brooklyn for all of our residents.

What's so, thanks for the comment if Hakeem happens to win, you can bet there will be many holding him to his now stated postion (which honestly i do not trust)

ad for him having no problem with eminent domain for housing, luxury or otherwise, that won't fly. if policity is to demolish homes ot build more homes than we should be leveling much more of the city throuhg eminent domain.

if its an abuse its an abuxe. and the abuse here is that Bruce asked George to take properties specifically for Bruce. thats a no no.

Just to be clear...again, I'm not part of the campaign, these are my impressions. Call the campaign office if you want the official version.

If you check what I wrote, I didn't say Jeffries had "no problem" with eminent domain for housing. I said "I think he has much less of a problem with this than he does for the arena." I think most of us would agree that building homes is a more honerable use of the power of eminent domain than building an arena.

Again, I ask, does anyone have more information on what, if anything, Batson thinks should be built at the Atlantic Yards site? Does he think Ratner should be kicked off the project?

Just so you know, I am in favor of a radical overhall of the current project, so in that sense, I am inclined to support Batson's position "against" the project. I am also thoroughly disgusted by the project's process of approval, and the way it has devided the community. I wish Jeffries would come out stronger and clearer as well, but I don't think his position has been as muddied or flip-floppy as Batson's die-hards are trying to make it seem.

Overall, I think Jeffries will make a better assemblyman than Batson. He's smarter, more likeable, and has a better grasp of policy and law.

I just haven't heard anything out of Batson besides "I'm against Atlantic Yards." I'm quite familiar with the fact that there are alternate plans on the DDDB website. Has Batson endorsed any of these? I just want a message from him on how to move forward.

Batson is quite bright, as far as I can tell, and that has certainly come out as his campaign has matured. They seem to be doing a great job with relativly little money. I also don't doubt that he knows the community quite well. Unfortunately for him though, I do think that Jeffries will make a better assemblyman.

That being said, I think we are fortunate to have two great candidates running for this office, and I, for one, won't be disapointed either way.

You don't need to be "with or against us" but you need to be willing to FIGHT if elected to back up the claim on his own literature that says he will FIGHT TO PROTECT PEOPLE AGAINST THE ABUSE OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE."

HOWEVER, when asked WHAT he will DO, if elected and the abuse of Emininet Domain takes place, he does not and will not answer that question.... It is all good and fine when these lame, pussy footing politicians want to be "diplomatic" but you can't say you oppose something in its present form and yet do NOTHING to try to change the present form. You can be diplomatic, say you think there are some good aspects of the project ( if you can find them) but to take no stand on how you intend to hold the developer to his promises, or how you will inforce your beliefs that some of the project is bad...that is as good as taking a side "for," the project. So, while agree with the statement that it is not just about taking sides...it is about taking a stand and having a back bone....Jeffries, Yassky and all these "fence" people leave me with NO FAITH that if the project goes through that they might do ANYTHING to fight for changing the things they pretended to be concerned about.

Jeffries is running to protect and represent a neighborhood that won't even exist if this project goes through. If it goes through there will be no low income community, small time home grown people to represent. Thus making his campaign a bit of an imaginary scenario.

You don't need to be "with or against us" but you need to be willing to FIGHT if elected to back up the claim on his own literature that says he will FIGHT TO PROTECT PEOPLE AGAINST THE ABUSE OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE."

HOWEVER, when asked WHAT he will DO, if elected and the abuse of Emininet Domain takes place, he does not and will not answer that question.... It is all good and fine when these lame, pussy footing politicians want to be "diplomatic" but you can't say you oppose something in its present form and yet do NOTHING to try to change the present form. You can be diplomatic, say you think there are some good aspects of the project ( if you can find them) but to take no stand on how you intend to hold the developer to his promises, or how you will inforce your beliefs that some of the project is bad...that is as good as taking a side "for," the project. So, while agree with the statement that it is not just about taking sides...it is about taking a stand and having a back bone....Jeffries, Yassky and all these "fence" people leave me with NO FAITH that if the project goes through that they might do ANYTHING to fight for changing the things they pretended to be concerned about.

Jeffries is running to protect and represent a neighborhood that won't even exist if this project goes through. If it goes through there will be no low income community, small time home grown people to represent. Thus making his campaign a bit of an imaginary scenario.