The Fight for the Future of Coney Island
If you’ve been having a hard time keeping up with all the competing visions and infighting surrounding the future of Coney Island, The Times has a good overview of where things stand today. There are basically four visions: 1) Thor Equities: Developer Joe Sitt (the same one who wants to build an ugly mall on…
If you’ve been having a hard time keeping up with all the competing visions and infighting surrounding the future of Coney Island, The Times has a good overview of where things stand today. There are basically four visions:
1) Thor Equities: Developer Joe Sitt (the same one who wants to build an ugly mall on the site of the former Revere Sugar Refinery in Red Hook) has spent $100 million buying up property on and around the Coney Island boardwalk (and, more recently, shuttering decades-old businesses) in an attempt to create a Disney-like destination full of condos and time shares. The only problem for him: Current zoning doesn’t permit these uses.
2) The City: Bloomberg et al want to create an L-shaped 9.4-acre, year-round entertainment destination (above) stretching along the boardwalk south of Surf Avenue; it would also create new zoning to allow a wide range of storefront entertainment (arcades, bowling alleys, breweries) to the north of Surf Avenue.
3) The Municipal Art Society: The influential non-profit argues that the City’s plan is not ambitious enough. MAS is pushing for an amusement district three times as large as the City has called for with more iconic rides and attractions; it thinks hotels and housing should be a part of the plan but restricted to an area to the north of Surf Avenue.
4) Old schoolers and locals: Other stake holders include old-time business owners and preservationists who don’t want to lose what was special about Coney Island and local residents who are concerned about issues like affordable housing and the short-term decimation of the local economy while everyone fights about what to do. We might be looking at vacant lots for a long time to come, said Charles Denson, executive director of the Coney Island History Project. Everybody’s broke. These massive plans, these visions, don’t usually work. But I hope for the best.
City and Developer Spar Over Coney Island Visions [NY Times]
“Um, that is what we call voluntary acts of capitalism between consenting individuals. Does this bother you somehow?”
Maybe you call it voluntary acts of capitalism, I tend to call it “I’m entitled to do what I want because I have money,” approach. Personally I don’t see how that has done much except to get us to a very bad place. Reality is that developers impacts everyone and with that in mind, yes I do have some problems with your concept. If your neighbor had a bad leak from his indoor water fountain that flooded your basement you would be the first one to tell him he has to fix it. And be the first one really pissed if he blew you off. However, I see you covered all your bases- political capitalism, fascism, socialism- my guess is that you really don’t know what to call it because it is much more complex than you want to admit.
And of course, Vonnegut has it backwards insofar as who is handicapped in this society. It was a brilliant conceit on his part but as we do know, models can make outrageous amounts of money for simply being beautiful while artists and craftsmen and teachers for the most can barely make it. Not that any of it bears much relationship to your argument.
bxgrl,
>>And what is it when developer takes an area and drastically impacts it, and then has a greater impact on the immediate surrounding area? Public land actually.
Um, that is what we call voluntary acts of capitalism between consenting individuals. Does this bother you somehow?
>>And let’s not also forget that developers like Thor (and Ratner) depend on public subsidies, tax abatements and special privileges from the city and state (and sometimes federal) governments which sticks it squarely in the realm of “socialism.”
Yes, you are entirely correct on that point. I decry such acts as either “political capitalism”, fascism, or socialism. I disagree with your approach though. I feel that the focus should be to remove all subsidies, tax abatements, etc that give certain politically-connected individuals uneven economic power to do as they please. To speak metaphorically, I wish to absolve the political crutches that promote unhealthy development, rather than to go about breaking legs in the hopes of evening things out ala Harrison Bergeron.
And what is it when developer takes an area and drastically impacts it, and then has a greater impact on the immediate surrounding area? Public land actually. And let’s not also forget that developers like Thor (and Ratner) depend on public subsidies, tax abatements and special privileges from the city and state (and sometimes federal) governments which sticks it squarely in the realm of “socialism.” Can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want “socialism,” don’t ask for favors.
I think the appropriate adjective for MAS would be respected. They will have very little influence in the upcoming approval process…
Heaven forbid a person develop his property without the intervention of officious socialists to stick in their $0.02, and furthermore to get the government, a bastion of coercive violence to enforce what they- the nonowners- desire for the property.
I’d love to give these MAS idiots a taste of their own medicine, to dictate how their apartments/homes/businesses should appear, be festooned, what usage that I have determined is proper.
the MAS is so full of shit.
Unfortunately, Thor Equities seems to be holding sway. I have a friend on the community board there- all he can say is the plan he just saw stinks. Big time.
Si MAS
another vote for MAS