Last week, after reading the problematic opinion piece “Us Against Ourselves” by Henrik Krogius at the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, I couldn’t just let false statements lie and shot off a reply. I fully expected that Mr. Krogius would not reply publicly or privately, but to my surprise, I’m happy(?) to see that he responded in today’s online edition: Letter to the Editor: Challenges Views On Atlantic Yards.
To recap, the general gist of his “argument” was that Atlantic Yards opponents are fearful of outsiders, and that we cloak our opposition to this development with “a variety of more respectable arguments, including traffic…eminent domain…impact of scale on brownstone neighborhoods…and financing arrangements.” I called him out on two of his statements: “…eminent domain (which affects a small handful of people for a 22-acre project)” and “..impact of scale on brownstone neighborhoods (which in fact don’t abut the site).”
His rebuttal to my points (in italics) is confused and/or evasive:
Editor’s Note:
1) On eminent domain, we’ll see how the Court of Appeals rules.
Yes, we will see. However, he completely ignores my point, which was: if eminent domain were to be exercised for Atlantic Yards, although technically only a relatively small number of people would be directly affected, it would have far-reaching ramifications for all New Yorkers and possibly Americans. Eminent domain used for economic benefit, as well as for the transfer of private property from one private owner to another private owner, reinforces a precedent that I and many believe puts all private property in jeopardy. If the state can be convinced that someone else might make better “use” of your property than you, you better start packing your bags. Your property won’t be yours for long.
2) Yes, there is even a little group of former townhouses on Dean Street indicated for preservation within the Atlantic Yards footprint. However, on the south side of Dean Street, which would not be affected by shadows, there are a firehouse, open yard area and commercial establishments. The point is that the project’s impact on residential areas has been greatly exaggerated, and neighborhoods like Fort Greene, Boerum Hill, Park Slope and Cobble Hill (all of which have raised alarms) are separated from Atlantic Yards by commercial blocks and distance.
I have no idea what he’s talking about, and neither does he. I never made any reference to shadows. ”[T]here is even a little group of former townhouses on Dean Street indicated for preservation within the Atlantic Yards footprint.” What??? Where??? Again, he’s completely WRONG. Maybe his eyesight is failing? Maybe this will help:
NO STRUCTURES WITHIN THE ATLANTIC YARDS FOOTPRINT WOULD BE PRESERVED.
Also, even though there is a firehouse, a playground (open yard area?), and several small business on the south side of Dean Street on the project’s southern border, the rest of this stretch of Dean Street is all low-rise residential.
He continues lying typing while off his meds when he states that “Fort Greene, Boerum Hill, Park Slope and Cobble Hill are separated from Atlantic Yards by commercial blocks and distance.” Has he ever visited the area? Can he read a map? Bad eyesight the culprit, again? Granted, Cobble Hill is some blocks away from the site’s western boundary, but:
FORT GREENE, BOERUM HILL AND PARK SLOPE DIRECTLY ABUT THE ATLANTIC YARDS FOOTPRINT.
Maybe a visual aid would help:
Atlantic Yards photo map
I don’t know why I bother.
[...] Once again, an editor at the Brooklyn Daily Eagle “writes” an editorial about Atlantic Yards, and I just cannot let this drivel go without a response. (Read about their previous “editorial” here.) [...]