Anti-Development Groundswell in S.S. Slope
One of the residents protesting development in the South South Slope sent along a shot of yesterday’s march from 15th Street to Green-Wood Cemetary. No Brooklyn Building Boom Here, Thank You [NY Post] A View to be Killed [Brownstoner]
One of the residents protesting development in the South South Slope sent along a shot of yesterday’s march from 15th Street to Green-Wood Cemetary.
No Brooklyn Building Boom Here, Thank You [NY Post]
A View to be Killed [Brownstoner]
I think you’re the delusional one. More development doesn’t necessarily mean more affordable development.
In response to both posts, I am not sure if you are the person behind the copy paste project that is going on on the blogs, or the one behind the ‘save the south south slope’ campaign? Anyway, like I said before, you are coming across as selfish and delusional.
I am not saying I can afford to buy a home for $500-$700k, as a NYC high school teacher I can afford half that. However, I do know that I have been looking with my wife for over a year now to buy a ‘home’ and due to the lack of space in the New York area there are very few, if any, affordable spaces available. Therefore I encourage new developments; in Williamsburg, Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope these new Condos are in the $500-$700k range, however in Greenwood Heights and the South Slope they are a more affordable $340-$420k, making it possible for ME and my wife to own a home, just like you. YOU, however are not being ‘forced from your home’ and have the OPTION to sell if you feel you want to. No one is being pushed from their rent controled home in the area either! They developers are knocking down derelict buildings and one story commercial spaces. So, do everyone a favor and support the new construction projects that are affording US, the working class, the opportunity to purchase a home.
ARGH, don’t you think it’s a *tad* hypocritical to be calling lostinbrooklyn a “selfish, selfish, selfish asshole” when you, in fact, claim to represent prospective buyers in the price range at which the developer aims to sell? I, for one, can’t afford a condo at such a cost. Nor can I afford to buy, for that matter! I rent, which is a fierce market in itself. Does that give me the right to call you a “selfish, selfish, selfish asshole” for representing YOUR interests in this debate? Hardly.
It troubles me how we weight cetain values while glibly dismissing others in discussions around development, often failing to realize how myopic our own perspective can be. At least lostinbrooklyn is attemtpting to see the bigger picture in this issue: it’s not simply about the view of the city or historical preservation; it’s also about livable, sustainable, diverse communities that accomodate most incomes brackets. It’s not enough to pit “my” interests vs. “yours.”
To one of the organizers of the march, let me blunty respond to your post: You ARROGANT prick! Who the hell do you think you are to decide what happens in ‘your’ neighbourhood. I don’t see any Starbucks popping up, or Duane Reade’s or W Hotel’s! Only a COUPLE of condo buildings! And for you to say that you don’t think a $500-750k condo is a good deal just shows how downright arrogant and selfish you really are! I hope you never have to experience what it is like to look for an home in such a market as exists today… you selfish, selfish, selfish asshole!
The view is also one of new york’s most important historical landmarks. the point at which the statue stands is the highest in Brooklyn and is a celebration of those who fought in the Battle of Long Island, which occured at the same spot. The Battle of Long Island was the largest battle in the Revolutionary War and was the first fought after the Declaration. The Minerva statue commemerates those who died in this battle for American liberty…many of whom were buried where they fell. At least 312 American solidiers were killed on this very spot.
This landmark is one of the very most important landmarks in New York State and should be preserved, not blocked by some crappy 8-story, fedder-sleeve condo that will go right in front of the hill. Atrocious.
Read more about the battle here: http://sonsoftherevolution.org/war_brooklyn.html
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Long_Island
or here: http://darter.ocps.net/classroom/revolution/longisle.htm
Iceberg’s position is the just one in this debate. He is arguing that all forms of physical coercision should be removed from interaction between individuals. If a developer uses his capital to make a homeowner an offer, that homeowner has the ultimate veto power of simply refusing the offer.
I think it is absurd to say that developers are coercive when using their capital, as JC asserts. This sounds like Marxist nonsense.
I only wish that more people in New York would understand the real humanity expressed by iceberg’s words. In such a world, the government would protect us from coercision and not be an agent of coercision used against law-abiding individuals (as it does today).
iceberg: In my dictionary (which is Merriam-Webster’s, BTW), coercion does not simply equal brute force. A more nuanced M-W.com definition of coercing is “to compel to an act or choice.” Manipulation and exploitation (of both the patent and veiled varieties) fall within this purview. Therefore Capital is, par excellence, coercive.
However, seeing as I don’t subscribe to your libertarian and neoliberal notions of “liberty,” “government,” and “growth,” I respectfully agree to disagree with you on this issue.
For me, however, it’s important that we recognize the social, political, and economic complexity of urban redevelopment for all parties involved, and not dismiss outright any one group’s claims simply because we dogmatically deem them “absurd.” In my dictionary, the issue of liberty is moot if there’s no tolerance, appreciation for plurality, or critical thought.
In regards to iceberg’s reference to (and disdain for) the “coercive power of government,” developers use and abuse this as well. Sometimes, people are forced to fight fire with fire. What’s more, developers also have the coercive power of almighty capital to wield, which residents do not. All the more reason to petition the government for help to fight their cause. Moreover, couldn’t we imagine the residents as fighting to assert their “liberty” to a enjoy a unobstructed view of the city? Liberty is a loaded term, and doesn’t amount merely to financial liberty.
Also, “growth” seems to be the given ideal in this debate. Who’s to say that growth is necessarily good/best? What type of “growth”? Who largely benefits from such? Arguably, Capital and the State benefit exponentially more in the than local residents/citizens from “growth” ventures (a thinly veiled term for economic growth, and not necessarily social or political growth).
Just some thoughts–I don’t claim to have the answers.
No space must build higher.
Anyways some people will prefer condos to houses. The new condos will bring more people into the area and will spur growth. Its a win-win for everyone.
Besides, who in their right mind would claim ownership of a ‘view’??