UPDATE at bottom.
Last year, the central triumvirate trying to funnel taxpayer money into Bruce Ratner's pockets were, of course, Pataki, Bloomberg and, perhaps Lepidus to their Pompeius and Caesar, Markowitz.
Below them were a whole slew of supporters (like Yvette Clarke) and what I considered enablers, people who were helping along the process despite apparant concerns. Hakeem Jeffries and David Yassky were among what I considered the enablers.
Well, it's a year later and things have changed. On Ratner's side, of course, Pataki has faded away, but Vito Lopez, never one to shirk from corruption, has jumped in with such sleazy deals for Ratner that it is starting to drive away others.
David Yassky's concerns, voiced last year yet hollow sounding next to his apparant acceptance of the corrupt deal, have escalated until Yassky has become a major critic of the project.
Hakeem Jeffries had already expressed some doubts once he won the election with union help that probably expected him to blindly support Ratner. But now Jeffries has very eloquently expressed some real opposition to Ratner, apparently finally realizing that the dangled "affordable housing" may be somewhat illusory and came with a very high price tag for taxpayers.
In particular, Jeffries has joined Velmanette Montgomery to oppose Vito Lopez's extra-corrupt bill that, in essence, exempts Ratner from following the law.
From Atlantic Yards Report:
Of course I’m a little bit annoyed. I voted against that particular bill, 9293, the carve-out provision, because I’m of the view, consistent with your question, that enough subsidy has already been given to this developer. There’s absolutely no reason to treat this project any more favorably than any other project that’s being built. So subsequent to voting against this, we [he and State Senator Velmanette Montgomery] sent a letter to the developer, saying ‘you need to comply with the law as it applies to everybody else.
'And anything short of you complying with the law—Bruce Ratner, Forest City Ratner—anything short of you doing that, means to me, that the government should review completely the entire merits of this project.’ Because the project was sold to us in large part as one that would bring needed affordable housing to our community. But you can’t on the one hand sell it to us as a project that’s going to bring affordable housing to the community and on the other hand, at the eleventh hour, negotiate a special provision where you get treated differently than everyone else in the city.
And how is he being treated differently? The most offensive way, to me—to his credit, the developer has agreed, as it relates to the rental units, to do 50% of the rental units affordable. He should be credited with that. What they said to me was, ‘We have this dramatic rental agreement, so that should be enough. We shouldn’t really have to comply with the law as it relates to the luxury condominiums.’
...
And as far as I’m concerned, you can’t have a condominium building going up in the Atlantic Yards project where, if it went up in any other part of the 57th Assembly District, that developer would have to build 20% of those units affordable to people in the community. But because of the Atlantic Yards carve-out, he doesn’t have to do that. And I just think that that’s wrong. And so I’m fightin’ it. The city and Mayor Bloomberg, to his credit—he’s been a big supporter of this project--is working closely with me and has said to the developer, ‘If you don’t comply with the law, we’re holding $100 million of the money that we promised to you back.’
It seems that Ratner and Vito Lopez have overplayed their cards, at least for now. Lopez is currently specializing in trying to slip things in under the radar. He slipped his picked candidate for Brooklyn Surrogate, Shawndya Simpson, almost last minute, slipping her past the normal process. Then he slipped his Ratner Bill through the Assmebly almost without people noticing. But with all of Vito's slipping, he may have slipped up because by now Bloomberg, Jeffries and Yassky are all expressing some outrage at Ratner's hand over fist withdrawal of taxpayer money and his audacity at expecting to be above the law.
Ratner and Bush seem to have a lot in common. Both feel that the law doesn't apply to them. Both feel that government is for the benefit of cronies. And, it seems, both are losing support.
Who knows how this will play out. Ratner still holds many of the cards, dealt so generously to him by Pataki, Bloomberg (as a Republican) and Markowitz. But with Pataki gone, and Bloomberg (as an Independent) wavering, and Markowitz having embarassed himself with public dislpays of hissy fits against Ratner opponants, Ratner can't afford to lose the enablers who allowed the inevitability myth to form around Ratner last year despite their honest concerns.
Now that inevitability myth may be looking less certain. So last years enablers are becoming outright critics this year.
Kudos to those who can recognize that they may have made a mistake. I spent much of last year fighting against both Jeffries and Yassky, yet both are showing more common sense that seemed obvious during their run for office. Keep it up, people! Common sense CAN win out over crony capitalism!
UPDATE: Vito Lopez and Co. have scaled back the sweetheart deal for Ratner without actually changing its nature. The length of time they want to exempt Ratner from obeying the law is reduced from 25 to 15 years. Fundamentally this is not different from the original deal, so I can only assume that Velmanette Montgomery and Hakeem Jeffries will continue to object. Will it be enough to satisfy Bloomberg?
And what does Spitzer think of all this cronyism? Spitzer can be the man to put a little responsibility back into his process.
