Apt paying for mechanicals

1. I'm not an opponent of the park. Please serve your canard at Thanksgiving, not here.

2. I did not bring up indoor recreation in my original post, you did. Nonetheless, depending on the kind of recreation, there are big spaces sufficient for many activities in 1 BBP, even if a basketball court won't fit.

3. Hudson River Park has taken a LONG time to build, I don't believe it's finished yet, and it has had a very difficult history. Please also note that it is not PILOT-dependent. Sadly, BBP is basically relying on 1 type of financing. People who invest all their assets in one type investment vehicle(say, mortgage-backed securities) are pretty much broke right now. Like the impoverished Madoff investors, the park must diversify its revenue stream.

3. If you use the (very pricey) wave attenuators to justify the inclusion of water acres, then you should also weight the water maintenance costs differently in the overall equation. Certainly picking up garbage on the water is cheaper than the mowing, fertilizing, pruning, de-weeding, etc of land acres? This is also a convenient way to pad the costs, not to mention 2 1/2, I believe, wave-attenuated water spaces between piers -- when local kayaking groups said the wave attenuators were unnecessary.

4. If you are getting all your information from the ESDC, then you are not truly assessing the costs and issues of the park. If you are buying a house, you don't rely on the owner's version of the home's condition. You search the documents and hire an inspector. The ESDC has a decidedly poor reputation -- Atlantic Yards, anyone?

5. Your comparison of BBP to Battery Park City is telling. There's a reason it's called "Battery Park CITY"...the parks are accessories for the buildings. If you walk along the eastern border of Battery Park City, there are no signs directing you to Teardrop Park, or to the different playgrounds or green spaces. That's because the parks are designed for the apartment owners/renters and not for anyyone else. If you were to spend any time in those parks you would know that this is corrent. Battery Park is NOT a "World Class Park," it is a housing development with above-average amenities.

6. The street around the buildings is not a public street -- it's a driveway. It is there to service the buildings, and doesn not lead to another significant destination.

7. The city can figure out how to increae our property tax assessments - why can't they differentiate PIRC money? The semi-functional state government can, it seems, administrate PILOTs -- the explanantion for them is no less complex. Additionally, many planners do not vew PILOTS as desirable funding mechanisms by many planners. The people developing the Hudson River-side development and park space in Ossining, NY, 1 hour north of here, fought hard NOT to have PILOTS. Other areas have done the same thing.

Probably very few people will be reading this, since it's a new week on this blog. Look at the obvious: Nowhere on the latest park maps mounte on the promenade fence are the grey blocks in the plan labeled as "Housing." The planners know that common-sense individuals will not want housing in the park. And so the decepetion goes on...Nonetheless, I had to post again to do something to slow the Brooklyn Bridge Park propaganda machine.

Posted by: bklyn20 at November 16, 2009 12:50 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park Progress Report

Bklynre, thanks for crediting some of my infomation. I admire Ms Francis very much. But actually I have been involved in park issues well before she got involved with Brooklyn Bridge Park -- although by now I'm sure her knowledge of BBP far exceeds mine.

1. In my post I did not advocate for any indoor facilities. Yes, year-round recreation would be good -- maybe it could go into the empty spaces in 1 BBP, rather than putting in another building.

2 Yes, the open playing spaces are in the next phase of the plan. Perhaps the ESDC preferred not to mention on the tour that the next phase of the park is not funded. They have admitted that in other forums, however.

3. The current park plan uses well more than 10% of the land for buildings. You and others should not continue to believe the current plan's deceptive mathematics, which includes all the water acres between the piers in the total acreage, consequently making the housing acres decrease by comparison. The maintenance figure per acre is HIGHER than that of comparable parks if the illusory water acres are out of the equation. The park's total acreage is actually about 60 acres, not the 85 acres they claim.

4. Perhaps there is another way to attenuate the sound. What else was studied? Why not work on redesigning the BQE to attenuate sound for the park AND the surrounding neighborhoods when the cantilever is redone in the next few years? Why not enclose the BQE instead of enclosing the east side of the park?

5. Reforming Brooklyn Bridge Park's financing was a MAJOR reason why Daniel Squadron is now our State Senator, and why Marty Connor is not. Connor was the man who shepherded in the legislation to put luxury condos in the park with ZERO public process. He didn't even pretend to have hearings first. Thankfully, not everyone drank the condo Kool-Aid.

6. The PIRC plan sends revenue increases from proximity to the new park back INTO THE PARK, rather than into the city's general funds. If you live near a "World Class Park," your home's value will increase. Why is it good to have a viable, even excellent, public school in Brooklyn Heights even if you're single or don't have children? Becasue a good school in the neighborhood increases your property value.

7. Deeded parkland makes BIG difference. To the best of my knowledge, all the other parks in NYC are built on deeded parkland. Once the land is deeded, it remains parkland in perpetuity. Until this park is deeded parkland, the ESDC can take it back, or whatever part of it isn't built, and turn it into a megamall, a Jai Alai (sp?) stadium, whatever they choose, The ESDC is not subject to ULURP, ie public zoning review, and thus they can create a new plan without having to act on anything they hear from the public, public hearings or not. Even the Brooklyn Heights Association, which I admire in many ways but disagree with on the current park plan, agrees with me on this one.

6. The point about Fort Greene Park and Prospect Park is that neither of these parks use housing, luxury or otherwise, to fund their operations for capital expenses. (The original public-planned plan was slated to be self-sufficient only enogh to fund the park'smaintenance. The new 2004 non-public plan includes capital maintenance.) Both Fort Greene and Prospect Park have two sidewalks and a large public street between themselves and already extant housing -- housing that was there before the parks were built. They don't have housing in the park because housing is antithetical to parkland. It makes open space into a front yard for the housing, and restricts the uses in the park. Just as many homeowners wouldn't want strangers traipsing on their front lawn, housing in parks creates a conflict between people in the housing and people in the park. If it worked, someone would have tried it already.

Posted by: bklyn20 at November 14, 2009 8:20 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park Progress Report

Squibb has been closed for at least 20 years, I believe, The neighborhood, while safer than most, used to more dangerous. For more background, read the NY Times "Weekend Explorer" column from 10/2/08.

The rumor I have heard is that someone was brutally attacked or murdered in Squibb Park, at which time it was locked and closed. Since the park is below grade, and thus invisible from the street, it's always had the potential to be dangerous. (The Times article mentions the corner of Middagh and Columbia Heights at the end of the article.) Between PS 8 teachers during the day and a probable attendant at other times, it should be safer now. If (and I hope it's "when," not "if") the bridge to BBP is built, foot traffic should increase and help keep it safer.

Posted by: bklyn20 at November 14, 2009 11:53 AM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park Progress Report

The refrigerator warehouse/cold storage building is being torn down (beautiful old building, I think it's a shame) and a smallish hotel will be built in its place. I agree that reclaimed wood, etc from the old building(s)are being used in either the hotel or park construction.

Also, sorry, I meant Fort Greene Park in my earlier post.

I hope everyone resding this blog is also aware that Brooklyn Bridge Park is being built on a site officially called a project. It is not yet dedicated parkland.

Posted by: bklyn20 at November 14, 2009 10:41 AM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park Progress Report

It's great the park is finally happening. It's unfortunate that we're getting a flashy showplace park at the price of more green open space. Regarding Furman Street, I believe that the nearly the entire west side of Furman Street is lined with a 20+ foot tall berm, further blocking access to the park, in an attempt to block BQE noise from. Granted the BQE IS noisy, but a berm takes up a lot of horizontal as well as vertical space. We need the level space for active recreation (as seen by the conflicts over the astroturf space in Cadman Park.) I also pray that the ESDC starts considering the PIRC plan advanced by State Senator Daniel Squadron (as well as by recent City Council candiate Evan Thies) so we can avoid adding 2 more luxury condos (c. 16 and 30 stories high.) Why is the ESDC spending money on expensive marsh landscapes? Why not build what we can afford for now, use the PIRC plan (google it, please) and avoid more empty buildings? Let's put a glass tower in Fort Green Park and Prospect Park instead and keep those PILOT payments -- how would that fly? Clawbacks for park budgets, anyone?

Posted by: bklyn20 at November 13, 2009 2:03 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park Progress Report

Aren't a lot of the problems at the DOB related to the flawed system of self-certification by architects? I don't deny that there are have been problems with the DOB system in general. Still and all, hasn't allowing people (architects/developers) to certify their own work during a building boom caused a virulent case of self-interest in many? (Apologies in advance to the many architects, designers, etc. reading this blog.) This is not my area of expertise, but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Posted by: bklyn20 at November 2, 2009 8:09 PM in response to DOB: A Challenge for All Times (and Mayors)

This is an exquisite neighborhood. I have a good friend who owns and grew up nearby, on Lincoln Road. When I visit, everyone seemed to know everyone, but in a positive way -- I smiled at anyone looking my way and they all smiled right back. And didn't this area -- maybe even Lincoln Road -- win "Greenest Block in Brooklyn" this year? If this area is re-zoned, lord knows what !"#* will get built given the current economy.

Posted by: bklyn20 at October 15, 2009 10:39 PM in response to Meeting About Special Lefferts Rezoning Request Tonight

Aren't the sign and lighting a total violation of landmarks rules? It's really out of place next to the surrounding stores. There must be a way to make your store noticeable without the vinyl canopy, etc.

Posted by: bklyn20 at October 6, 2009 7:12 PM in response to Streetlevel: New Pharmacy for Atlantic

Call 311/DOS, whatever you have to do to stop this inconsiderate behavior. Due to the threatening husband, maybe you could get a restraining order? Go to the Precinct yourself with the evidence (I meant the video, but the actual byproducts in bags might be effective too!)

Also, even if they are sociable dogs, the sight of unleashed dogs on the street gives tacit permission to owners of unsocialized, uncontrolled dogs. Some people are -- perhaps irrationally - deathly afraid of animals. Some dogs, on leash, don't like other dogs. Let me tell you, there's no better 11:00 pm fun than having a loose dog run up to your leashed dog while the owner is ambling along down the dark block saying "don't worry, he's friendly!" The neighbors don't enjoy waking up to the snarly sounds and yelling either.

This is really bad. It gives a bad name to all dogowners. I have 3 dogs, 1 medium and 2 largeish. They too have big ><#$%s. Would you like a contribution to add to your revenge ammunition?

Posted by: bklyn20 at September 25, 2009 10:51 AM in response to Dog Pooping in Front of House

To bkre -- The housing issue is not related to the size of the land they take up. The housing's residents will want to determine what activities go on in the park -- do you see much organized or unorganized sports play in Barttey Park City? It's natural for homeowners to want to control their front yard, but it's also contradictory to the purpose of public parkland. This is the reason that there's no housing in 99% of parks around the world.

Posted by: bklyn20 at August 13, 2009 6:43 PM in response to Closing Bell: (Astro)turf War

Last time I was there (admttedly in June), the grassy side was not full of dog *&^%. And to correct a few incorrect statements here, PS 8 has no organized play in Cadman--on either side of the memorial building. Maybe kids playing there over the summer are PS8 students, but they're not there by direction of PS 8. St Ann's DOES indeed take over the astroturf side every afternoon with the big kids about 3:00 pm, just as younger St Ann's kids take over Pierrepont Playground (the one adjoining the Promenade) every Mon-Fri mid-day. Toddlers from ILC (day-care/pre-school on Monroe Place) also come into Pierrepoint most days. AND, in addition, older kids from the Atlantic Avenue Y summer camp visit State Street Playground most weekdays, although it's a pretty pathetic place for them. They sit on the equipment and behave themslelves, although the little kids then can't play there. AND the big kids aren't getting any exercise either!

Parks needs to set up times for different groups at Cadman, at least until Walt Whitman Park's re-do nearby is finished. Parks should also ticket non-picker-uppers on the grass side of the park.

While there are playgrounds to play in for smaller children, it's not the same as wide open space to run in.
The Cadman difficulty arises because the Parks Dept won't permit, ie officially block out time, for any group. So there's a de facto takeover by larger groups on a regular basis. Short of a "play-in," with little kids and parents outnumbering big kids, this situation seems largely insoluble. Long-term, one major answer would be an aditional (besides 360 Furman) housing-free, ball-playing-friendly, Brooklyn Bridge Park.

Posted by: bklyn20 at August 12, 2009 8:34 PM in response to Closing Bell: (Astro)turf War

Ms. Montrose,

I live near the Riverside Houses and have many friends there. Please contact me privately(can you do that through the blog?) and I will be very happy to set you up with a long-time resident or two who can give you a tour.

Thanks.

Posted by: bklyn20 at August 5, 2009 12:02 PM in response to Walkabout with Montrose: Tenement Living

Look at Brownstoner posts related to the Riverside Apartments Garage Proposal. This issue gets many negative reactions on this (landlord-filled) blog, but the historic rental building has some pretty good zoning people on board.

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 26, 2009 8:41 PM in response to Zoning Lawyer Needed

Sorry for multi-posts. My Palm repeatedly said "download failed" so , oops, I did it again.

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 18, 2009 11:02 AM in response to No Fire Escape or Sprinkler?

I own the bottom apt in a 3 family coop. We have a very ugly fire escape -- but it is necessary, because if there were a fire in our floors and the main stairwell, people upstairs could not get out! One rather unsatisfactory alternative until this is corrected would be a metal ladder with chain rather than rigid sides. There's a pair of large hooks at the top to hang over the windowsil. A poor substitute but better than death.

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 18, 2009 10:59 AM in response to No Fire Escape or Sprinkler?

I own the bottom apt in a 3 family coop. We have a very ugly fire escape -- but it is necessary, because if there were a fire in our floors and the main stairwell, people upstairs could not get out! One rather unsatisfactory alternative until this is corrected would be a metal ladder with chain rather than rigid sides. There's a pair of large hooks at the top to hang over the windowsil. A poor substitute but better than death.

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 18, 2009 10:58 AM in response to No Fire Escape or Sprinkler?

I own the bottom apt in a 3 family coop. We have a very ugly fire escape -- but it is necessary, because if there were a fire in our floors and the main stairwell, people upstairs could not get out! One rather unsatisfactory alternative until this is corrected would be a metal ladder with chain rather than rigid sides. There's a pair of large hooks at the top to hang over the windowsil. A poor substitute but better than death.

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 18, 2009 10:55 AM in response to No Fire Escape or Sprinkler?

Please don't characterize PS 8 parents unless you know them and are one of them. Of course we want all the kids to do well -- there are our children's classmates AND friends. If you are using the Dock Street fracas as a basis for your insults, you are responding to the Walentas' lobbying campaign and not to reality. The school succeeds when the children succeed.

I was at the Fort Greene Prep presentation and had some reservations, but have a few years before I must make a decision. Many parents were quite interested. To those who would characterize PS 8 parents -- were you at the presentation? What is your knowledge of PS 8, or the new middle school under discussion?

My daughter's class last year was over 50% minority children -- this is her 5th year at the school and we aren't changing schools until she graduates from 5th grade. Somehow I think parents and students must care about more than 50% of our community. I can speak only a little for all PS 8 parents, and certainly can't speak for all the white Brooklyn Heights Parents, or for all the parents of other races at PS 8 or elsewhere...

And Seth is a Brooklyn Friends School alum, not St. Ann's.

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 16, 2009 3:08 PM in response to New Middle School Coming to Fort Greene

Over the past year or two, this building had very contentious board difficulties regarding, if I have it right, roof repairs. Potential buyers might want to have a look at the board minutes for the past 2 years before plunking down a deposit.

Beautiful building and lobby , though!

Posted by: bklyn20 at June 16, 2009 6:10 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 70 Remsen Street, #3J

I apologize if 2 Trees doesn't won the building -- I had heard they did from a (previously) reliable source. But the other point still obtains -- a newspaper shouldn't have a building model in its window! And I don't live in DUMBO, and have no views to lose. The same is true of many opponents of this project.

Posted by: bklyn20 at May 20, 2009 5:05 PM in response to Council Vote Approaching, Dock Street Debate Crescendos

2 Trees was the landlord of The Brooklyn Paper AND is The Brooklyn Eagle/Brooklyn Heights Press' landlord (yes, at 30 Henry Street.) If you don't know, 30 Henry Street is conveniently located close to PS8 -- very suitable location for a marketing campaign. In addition, newspapers that pretend to be impartial outside their editorial pages should not be displaying models of proposed development projects -- whoever their landlord might be.

My second point is that the Brooklyn Bridge is a national and international landmark. Thus, it should not have any additional buildings impinging on its airspace. That's why I liken it to the Eiffel Tower -- nothing is built cose to the Eiffel Tower, even a much-needed middle school, nursery school, hospital... whatever.

Posted by: bklyn20 at May 20, 2009 1:58 PM in response to Council Vote Approaching, Dock Street Debate Crescendos

I think it's worth mentioning that the Brooklyn Eagle's landlord is, yes, 2 Trees/David Walentas. The office had a (slanted to Walentas'advantage) diorama of the project in their window for weeks until people questioned the idea.

When a preschool is built adjacent to the Eiffel Tower, then this project will be appropriate. (I.e., never.)

Posted by: bklyn20 at May 20, 2009 1:10 PM in response to Council Vote Approaching, Dock Street Debate Crescendos

Bkre -- By "fuzzy math," might you also be speaking of the park plan that includes the acres of water to increase the number of acres in the plan, and consequently to drive down the maintenance cost per acre and make the absurd plan for Battery Park City East seem more reasonable? Quite fuzzy!

This is how the BBP planners made the costs into a rationale for housing and PILOT payments. But have you ever mowed an acre of river water? How might one irrigate an acre of river ?? Maybe we should pay for seaweed (riverweed?) on the river bottom to complete the landscaping....

If the 20+ acres of water are excluded from the funding formula, a park without additional housing seems far more reasonable and possible. Why would condos/housing be a good finance scheme, when 360 Furman is less than half sold?

It's imperative to have a bridge or ramp from Squibb, or ideally from the Promenade. Of course the Squibb bridge may come later -- Bloomberg is probably just flexing his muscles. And far better the Squadron financial plan than the O'Connor model, where he literally sold the park down the river without informing any of his constituents!

A (smallish) hotel is fine by me. A safe water zone -- maybe. I'd rather see the grandiosely overpaid Van Valkenburg and Co earn their bloated fee by revising the park plan, removing the berm, and making an accessible world-class park in Brooklyn, not Teardrop Park II (his work in Battery Park City.) The only part of Teardrop that's ever used is the kiddie slide. The rest is just a backyard for the fishbowl of buildings around it.

Posted by: bklyn20 at May 11, 2009 6:51 PM in response to Squibb Bridge Axed from Brooklyn Bridge Park Budget

Bkre -- By "fuzzy math," might you also be speaking of the park plan that includes the acres of water to increase the number of acres in the plan, and consequently to drive down the maintenance cost per acre and make the absurd plan for Battery Park City East seem more reasonable? Quite fuzzy!

This is how the BBP planners made the costs into a rationale for housing and PILOT payments. But have you ever mowed an acre of river water? How might one irrigate an acre of river ?? Maybe we should pay for seaweed (riverweed?) on the river bottom to complete the landscaping....

If the 20+ acres of water are excluded from the funding formula, a park without additional housing seems far more reasonable and possible. Why would condos/housing be a good finance scheme, when 360 Furman is less than half sold?

It's imperative to have a bridge or ramp from Squibb, or ideally from the Promenade. Of course the Squibb bridge may come later -- Bloomberg is probably just flexing his muscles. And far better the Squadron financial plan than the O'Connor model, where he literally sold the park down the river without informing any of his constituents!

A (smallish) hotel is fine by me. A safe water zone -- maybe. I'd rather see the grandiosely overpaid Van Valkenburg and Co earn their bloated fee by revising the park plan, removing the berm, and making an accessible world-class park in Brooklyn, not Teardrop Park II (his work in Battery Park City.) The only part of Teardrop that's ever used is the kiddie slide. The rest is just a backyard for the fishbowl of buildings around it.

Posted by: bklyn20 at May 11, 2009 5:42 PM in response to Squibb Bridge Axed from Brooklyn Bridge Park Budget

Judi Francis is most certainly NOT a spokeswoman for the BHA. Judi Francis IS, however, President of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Defense Fund, and a spokeswoman for a real Brooklyn Bridge Park, rather than a housing development with some green trim around the edges and big berms on the sides.

The BHA is right on many issues, but not on this one. (There are some signs of a change in their position on BBP - but only time will tell.)

We can have hope now, thanks to the Squadron victory and his new financing plan, that we won't be seeing Battery Park City East rise up on this side of the East River. How people will get to this park now, with yet another connection severed, still remains a concern.

Posted by: bklyn20 at May 8, 2009 12:38 PM in response to Squibb Bridge Axed from Brooklyn Bridge Park Budget

Thanks for the compliment, mshook. As you may know, the ASPCA does temperament test, and thus a pit from that shelter would likely be more amicable with dogs or people than would a pit from the CACC. Like the Humane Society, Bide-a Wee, BARC, etc., the ASPCA can choose what animals to take in and which not to take in. They are able to hold them for a while and assess them. THE CACCs (Center for Animal Care and Control) branches in Manhattan, Bklyn and Staten Island (I think) have to take any dogs surrendered to them , and are the repository for dogs caught by the police. Many animals there are euthanized within days or weeks, since there is so little room to hold them for any length of time. It's been a few years since I was so involved with dog rescue, but I believe my basic facts are correct.

Posted by: bklyn20 at April 28, 2009 2:15 PM in response to More Problems with Pit Bulls — And Their Owners

I think that the dogs in the Christmas attacks were Presa Canarios or Cane Corsos, large mastiff-type dogs that tend to be much bigger (and rarer) than pit bulls.

Contrary to some posts here, pit bulls' jaws do not lock. They have very strong jaw muscles, as do most terriers, whose traditional job was to grab hold and probably shake to death vermin, prey, etc. Pit fighter use sticks ("breaking sticks") to get separate 2 dogs that are latching on to each other. They do not call the 24 Hour Locksmith!

Most pit bull terriers are very people-oriented -- they were the first breed, I think, to be known as "velcro dogs." They are easy to train, much easier that Pointers, Hounds, Airedales, etc. Their very "trainability" is what makes Pits willing to do anything for their owners, including in some cases maiming other living beings.

Owners who cultivate aggression in pit bulls through selective breeding (aggression toward humans or other dogs) are only part of the problem. The other problem is the number of pits who are adopted off the street or from overcrowded shelters by well-meaning people. The NYC Animal Control shelters are VERY overburdened and VERY under-funded; when I was last there a couple of years ago, they put up dogs for adoption 24 hours or less after they were found on the street or surrendered by owners. They did little or nothing in the way of behavioral assessment -- how could they when 1 shelter alone was getting 75+ dogs in per day??

If any dog is starving and sickly, its true temperament will not show until it's healthy and secure. For some dogs this means aggression of one kind or another will appear; for others, it means that fearful snarling at strangers or other dogs will cease. It can take months for the changeover to happen; people who get a pit on Sunday and bring it to the park on Monday don't know what they have and are risking trouble. Most also don't know that friendly with people may not equate with friendly with dogs, or the reverse.

This applies to all dogs, not just pits. But since the average pit has a stronger, more powerful bite than other breeds, and may be from a line that was bred for aggression over generations, well-meaning people must be extra-careful when bring a new dog into the run/park/street.

I spent 7 years volunteering at The Humane Society in Manhattan on weekends, ran my own rescue group with friends after that, fostered 20 dogs (including pits and pit mixes) in my apartment over 10 years, and now have 1 mix and 2 hounds who are themselves very independent animals. Other people may have other opinions -- these are just mine based on my own experiences. Owners need to know their dog's traits,and to be held responsible for their dog's behavior.

Posted by: bklyn20 at April 28, 2009 1:22 PM in response to More Problems with Pit Bulls — And Their Owners

Try Cathy FitzSimons at Willowtown Gardens -- I don't have the phone # but try her website (www.willowowngardens.com)

She has been doing gardens in Bklyn for about 20 years, and has done many that, as you will see from her website, you may have been admiring for quite some time. (And no, I am not Cathy!)

She's a very nice person also.

Posted by: bklyn20 at March 10, 2009 3:22 PM in response to developing our rowhouse garden

Speak for yourselves, bloggers! Willowtowners and Cobble Hillers ARE NOT AGAINST THE PARK. They are against a development project full of luxury apartments in new buildings, full of berms without possibility of recreation, and without (until perhaps now) an open public process.

PLEASE don't bring up the NAC, CAC, CACK, or whatever the latest name is -- they're not a true public entity and the members are a hand-picked unrepresentative microcosm chosen by the Conservancy, rather than by their own neighborhoods or neighborhood associations. Many may be fine people, but they are not neighborhood representatives. Those who don't believe there's a sizeable constituency, please see:

1. The election of Daniel Squadron over the 20+ year incumbent, who ushered in private housing WITHOUT ANY OPEN PUBLIC PROCESS.

2. Repeated full-to-the-gills workshops at LICH to re-envsion the park as an actual PARK.

And realize that the true NIMBYs are those who will either settle, or even wish for, a park full of private housing to discourage people from outside the Heights/DUMBO visiting the park. These deluded people need to consider the legitimacy of the budget figures used to justify housing, rather than alternative sources of revenue. (Not to mention acreage formulas using water acres to bring down the cost per acre!) We can only pray that we're approaching that goal with the meeting coming up.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 20, 2009 7:17 PM in response to Apartments, Hotel in Brooklyn Bridge Park On Hold

The brand-new public school will be for all of District 13, not just for P.S.8 kids -- who are attending a very diverse school right now, by the way. This is not going to be a "neighborhood school" -- a phrase which, I might add, has been disingenuously used by the Walentas team as a coded language term.

You need not have to worry about your views to dislike this proposal. I, and many others, think the building, like the J and others, is too tall -- but this is much closer to the Bridge, too.

You may remember that Walentas declined to renew the lease for The League School in DUMBO -- what does that say about 2 Trees' commitment to education? He may be a better developer than Gutman or Scarano. Does that then give 2 Trees the right to elbow in on a national (international) landmark for profit?

The buildings at Court & Atlantic improved on a raised parking lot. The current Dock Street proposal disparages the Brooklyn Bridge. There is no comparison.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 14, 2009 5:56 PM in response to CB2 To Vote Tonight on Dock Street

To Montrose Morris -- you can probably donate to Baltic Bazaar, a fabric store/second hand clothing boutique on Atlantic Ave between Henry and Hicks, on the north side of the street. Ask for Dan. They can then sell it for a (501c3) charitable purpose in their store.

If not, or as an alternative, try calling local public elementary schools, like PS 8 (718) 834-6740, PS 261, PS 58, etc., and see if the art teachers would like a donation. And last, how about Pratt students?

It's VERY hard for me to give up anything, so donating to something or someone meaningful to me always eases the pain.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 13, 2009 12:00 PM in response to Open Thread

Sam, unfortunately it seems you know very little about the building or its inhabitants.

The problem is not simply a garage. It is a garage under this garden behind this historic building in this historic neighborhood. A walk around the building would show warehoused storefronts that the landlord won't rent out in order to plead poverty more convincingly. The brick, steps, etc., are chipped and falling apart. Any plantings surrounding the building are done and maintained by the tenants you love to denigrate.

We are not discussing a garage, underground or no, beneath a brownfield in Maspeth, Queens. AT White is cited by Jacob Riis in "How the Other Half Lives" for this ground-breaking project. Should a garage go under the AT White buildings in Cobble Hill, in place of their gardens?? How about the gardens by the Promenade?? Even if the building WERE NOT diverse, it's still a travesty.

Is it OK because a percentage (and far from ALL) of the tenants are on rent control? Should the apartments of free-market renters fresh out of the Ivy League get one window box each in compensation, since they are more important??
Should YOUR apartment/building/home be surrounded by fumes in direct proportion to your rent/maintenance/tax bill?

Posted by: bklyn20 at November 24, 2008 8:28 PM in response to Riverside Apartment Tenants Resist Garage

This building is probably the most diverse in Broklyn Heights -- not exactly a likely location for a "gated community." The parking lot "garagecarden" is a problem because, among other things, the garden itself should be a landmark.

Given the current lousy economy, why can't Packer decide to put a garage in their front or back yard, or Plymouth Church? What about the giant gardens behind the Remsen street townhouses that open onto Grace Court? All these beautiful and historic places could then become built-up lots, garages, etc.

Botanically speaking, the 50- to 100- year old trees in the current historc garden are 5 stories high. The proposed garden will not have sufficient soil (4 or so feet, by Pinnacle's own estimation) to support such large and beautiful trees. And given the current landlord's poor record on building maintenance, they won't take care of the new trees in their de facto container garedn any better than they have the facade, the stairs, the stonework, etc. Trees in shallow soil need more frequent replacement, watering, pruning, etc. Check the Bklyn Botanical Garden's own info if you want a reality check.

Pinnacle recently fired most of the maintenance people for the building, so why will they stick to their promise of a trust for the building to maintain the trees? How will they enforce the monthly-parkers only rule -- and how will DOB/landmarks enforce it?

Sure, we ned more parking, but we DON'T need it in anyone's historic backyard. Dessicated bonsai trees atop a parking garage are NOT the same as a properly restored historic garden designed by AT White. Those who think it's the same, hope soon have neighbors crying poor and renting out parking spaces in lieu of front'yard gardens. I hope they enjoy the fumes and honking on spring mornings.

Posted by: bklyn20 at November 24, 2008 5:29 PM in response to Riverside Apartment Tenants Resist Garage

The plan to include housing was discussed for weeks before the public heard about it through a leak to a local newspaper. It was a secret held by a few for some time, presented to the general public as a fait accompli. I believe that a full public hearing process was not held for this plan either (scoping hearings. etc.) And the EIS said, among other things , that in 2005 PS 8 would have plenty of room for all the children in the 1,000 + apts in the condos... when a quick read of the Heights Press would suggest otherwise, even in 2005...

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 2, 2008 3:57 PM in response to A Look at the Future of Brooklyn Bridge Park

Well, if they're so vehemently against any ordinary people (as opposed to extraordinary people?) walking down Joralemon, why weren't trip wires and land mines laid on Joralemons to topple people walking to the floating poll last summer? Because people walking down that street is fine with the people there.

Joralemon should be closed to non-emergencey traffic -- not to pedestrians. Please don't speak about what you don't know about.

Maybe the "guest" is someone from the central Heights who doesn't want any non-neighbors walking on Columbia Heights or Pierrepont Street...and thus must sling misguided insults at people at the ends of the neighborhood burdened with all the housing and traffic AND all the specious insults. If this "guest" works for a BBP-related organization, they should remember that their charge is to support the public interest; perhaps their salary is paid by that public.

Conflict of interest, anyone??

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 2, 2008 3:28 PM in response to A Look at the Future of Brooklyn Bridge Park

The housing and commercial aspects are at the ends of the park becsue the viewplane from the Promenade is protected (Landmarks I think.)

The "park haters' I believe you refer to are actually people who want a real park, not another Battery Park City -- the East River version. The folks who made a secret plan in 2004 to foist housing on the public without any honest public process are the park eroders, at the very least.

It's great that some park is starting. Regina Meyer seems to be a great improvemeent over Wendy Leventer. Only time will tell what really happens.

Posted by: bklyn20 at July 2, 2008 2:21 PM in response to A Look at the Future of Brooklyn Bridge Park

FYI, should the Witnesses really be considered "volunteers?" I believe they are part of the group/sect, they live here and their job is to garden, or to cook at the cafeteria (on Columbia Heights, I think), etc. In return, the Witness community takes care of their food, shelter, dryleaning, etc. The Watchtower folks are good neighbors in that they take great care of their buildings and the surrounding green space, Conversely, they don't pay property taxes and use few or no local businesses, which need all the help they can get when Montague is now 75% chain strip mall, scenic though it may be.

Bridge Park 2 is reallly sad to look at now --it's great they're helping with the redesign. But I think it's disingenuous to accept that many Witnesses are "volunteers." They don't need to earn money because 90% of their needs are taken care of.

If I am incorrect, please feel free to explain.

Posted by: bklyn20 at April 29, 2008 2:24 PM in response to Jehovah's Witnesses Volunteers Try Their Hands At City Park

I oppose ths plan and don't live there. You don't need to live there, or to rent, you just need to consider the situation. Your need to park or to lord your real estate wealth over your neighbors is not a reason to trash a community . How about some facts? The majority of apts in Riverside are market rate. The majority of the tenants don't have cars, nor will they use or want the garage. Many apts are rented to students who leave in a year or two. Then the owner can up the rent again! Who knows -- maybe in a few years the rents willl be high enough for the pro-garage philistines out there to suddenly realize the value of the building and garden. Just because something is expensve doesn't make it good--it just makes it cost more money. The Riverside is beautiful and important regardless of who lives there and what they pay for the priviledge of doing so.

Posted by: bklyn20 at March 26, 2008 11:29 PM in response to Garage Plan for Heights Building Rears Its Head Again

This bldg and garden are all of a piece. They should be an INDEPENDENT landmark. The garden and bldg have eroded after a sucession of slumlords, of which Pinnacle is only the most recent. (Google them and read ther sorry history.) The garden was never an equine bathhouse. T was beautfully planted and for use of tenants and their kids. There' s a 2004 DHCR order to restore the garden -- never done. The tenants re-plant it in the summer. The central fountain still stands. The bldg + gdn were praised by Jacob Riis in his book "How the Other Half Lives." Probably the grand - and grrat-grandparents of many of those reading this blog lived n much worse than this when they frst came to the US. The bldg is only c.30 percent rent controlled./stabilzed--remainder is market rate. Last of all, if the Riversde should have a garage in the garden, how about a few valet spaces in front of The Bklyn Hitorical Society? There's just too much space under the entry arch of the Eagle Warehouse -- at least a few Lexi/Beemers could fit i n there! Oh, and all those gardens along the Promenade -- HUMVEE TIME!

Posted by: bklyn20 at March 26, 2008 4:52 PM in response to Garage Plan for Heights Building Rears Its Head Again

This bldg and garden are all of a piece. They should be an INDEPENDENT landmark. The garden and bldg have eroded after a sucession of slumlords, of which Pinnacle is only the most recent. (Google them and read ther sorry history.) The garden was never an equine bathhouse. T was beautfully planted and for use of tenants and their kids. There' s a 2004 DHCR order to restore the garden -- never done. The tenants re-plant it in the summer. The central fountain still stands. The bldg + gdn were praised by Jacob Riis in his book "How the Other Half Lives." Probably the grand - and grrat-grandparents of many of those reading this blog lived n much worse than this when they frst came to the US. The bldg is only c.30 percent rent controlled./stabilzed--remainder is market rate. Last of all, if the Riversde should have a garage in the garden, how about a few valet spaces in front of The Bklyn Hitorical Society? There's just too much space under the entry arch of the Eagle Warehouse -- at least a few Lexi/Beemers could fit i n there! Oh, and all those gardens along the Promenade -- HUMVEE TIME!

Posted by: bklyn20 at March 26, 2008 4:51 PM in response to Garage Plan for Heights Building Rears Its Head Again

There is no dedicated,legally permanent parkland in the plan. The GPP notwithstanding, the park spaces are not protected. At a CB2 hearing last winter on 360 Furman's lease, a Doctoroff employee who attended all these meetings acknowledged this fact. It is also a major concern of the BHA. The BHA and I may have disagreements on the park plan, but this is something we can all agree on, or almost all of us. The 13 Guiding Principles of the pre-2004 real park plan discouraged housing. That was no guarantee either. Until it is signed into law, there are no assurances.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 30, 2008 6:36 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park: It’s a Go!

Is there any dedicated parkland in this park yet? What is there to stop BBPDC et al from putting all kinds of residential in and denying us the fantastic park we were slated to have before the Christmas Surprise of 2004? If residential is such a slam-dunk, why are there rumors that 1BBP is actually only 35% sold, and keeps on holding open houses for that reason? Why are visitors to the Open Houses told about a road circling the building -- more pavement for housing, less grass for Brooklyn. Why not a real park with appropriate amenities to support the maintenance of the 60-something acre park. The "85 acre park" is a pretext for housing, and raises the cost figure to justify the unnecessary overdevelopment.

To those who reply to these posts with scathing and invalid insults: Are you some of the people who work for the Development Corp/BBPDC or else the BBPC/Conservancy -- people who have a vested interest in supporting the current park plan and thus should have their opinions discounted more than a bit? And also should stop slingng mud as either public employees or people who theoretlcally represent the best interests of the community???

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 30, 2008 1:54 PM in response to Brooklyn Bridge Park: It’s a Go!

9:04, I agree with your basic premise. Since 360 Furman (OOPS) will not be demolished by eminent domain anytime soon, I simply want to mitigate its effect on the surrounding neighborhoods. The same goes for whatever goes in on the first floor. The other residential bldgs in the plan won't be necessary if the bloated budget were properly revised--how many Priuses are we at these days? Are they still counting the water as part of the 80+ acreage figure to decrease the cost per acre? (My secret theory is that the need the $ to buy 1,000 cans of Aquanet hairspray per month to properly style the East River tides. Wait --maybe thr,illions for wave attenuators will take care of that.) If only the land acres are used in calculations, it's only a 60-odd acre park. Therfore less $$ needed to maintain the park. If the marina area were instead something to make money for the park, and other appropriate amenities were used to generate funds rather than serve the needs of only the residents, enough $$ could be generated to support a park and not another Battery Park City. As a last thought, perhaps the Conservancy should stop paying $ 100,000+++ for consultants whose main area of expertise is museums and galleries and not parks for all the people of Brooklyn and New York.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 13, 2008 10:21 AM in response to Latest BBP Brouhaha: A Supermarket in the Park

Gman et al, I know that the BBP Dev Corp is not the final "determiner" of transportation issues like Joralemon St. Nonetheless, when the BBPDC head says something. it should have some credence. Experience shows that is not the case. We'll see how Regina Meyer does. My pointwas more that Joralemon St residents (neither gaseoues nor penniless, as a general rule) did not come up with the idea in a sudden fit of xenophobia. At a CB2 Transportation mtg this fall, Chris Hrones of the DOT said they would consider closing the street when the park is complete (2012, I believe he said) or at an earlier appropriate time. The DOT can certainly be in the wrong. Area residents have an uphill battle on this downhill street.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 12, 2008 9:10 PM in response to Latest BBP Brouhaha: A Supermarket in the Park

Gman et al, I know that the BBP Dev Corp is not the final "determiner" of transportation issues like Joralemon St. Nonetheless, when the BBPDC head says something. it should have some credence. Experience shows that is not the case. We'll see how Regina Meyer does. My pointwas more that Joralemon St residents (neither gaseoues nor penniless, as a general rule) did not come up with the idea in a sudden fit of xenophobia. At a CB2 Transportation mtg this fall, Chris Hrones of the DOT said they would consider closing the street when the park is complete (2012, I believe he said) or at an earlier appropriate time. The DOT can certainly be in the wrong. Area residents have an uphill battle on this downhill street.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 12, 2008 9:09 PM in response to Latest BBP Brouhaha: A Supermarket in the Park

I don't know that anything is being rerouted except for the possibility of a 2-way Furman and the hope of closing off Joralemon at Furman. Joralemon was to be closed just for the park' expected traffic -- the 500+ people in 1 BBP, not to mention the 700 or so people in the other 2 buildings near Atlantic Ave, are just more reason to consider the impact of the park and its residents on the surrounding neighborhoods. A great park, rather than a luxury housing development with a little green around the edges, would be worth it.. 1BBP isn't going anywhere, but the rest of the housing? The costs in many parts of the plan are so inflated that they may not be necessary. And the marina they didn't mention at the latest "public meeting?" It gives no revenue to the park and will be run by a private operator. Why not a permanent floating pool? Whatever we get in the end, Joralemon should be closed at Furman. Other entrances and access points are necessary.. I just pray we actually get a park when all is said and done.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 12, 2008 10:09 AM in response to Latest BBP Brouhaha: A Supermarket in the Park

There won't be guards at Joralemon, as far as I've heard. (Although there are plenty of them in the BBP plan. They used to be armed -- not sure if the guns are out or in now.)

No, Joralemon is not a dogpatch cul-de-sac. It is not even a non-dogpatch cul-de-sac. It is important but also SMALL and NARROW. A proper park plan would have appropriate access points; Central Park has car entrances every 10 or so blocks, as does Prospect Park. Pedestrian access is even better.

If this is a "World-Class Park" it needs a world-class transportation plan. Perhaps Brooklyn Bridge Park is actually a gated community off a cul-de-sac off of an important street in an important part of an important city that won't plan realistic transporation for all of it very important inhabitants?

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 11, 2008 9:18 PM in response to Latest BBP Brouhaha: A Supermarket in the Park

Joralemon would not be closed to fire trucks, police cars or the Mayor's limo. Retractable bollards would be used -- they are on Wall Street where it meets Broadway, in front of the White House, and other areas in cities around the US. If they work on Wall Street, why not here?

This was proposed to me by a Michael Van Valkenurgh employee (the park's landscape architect) 2 or 3 years ago. Sensors on firetrucks, EMT vehicles, etc. signal the bollards to recede into the street. It works on Wall Street -- I have seen it myself, and quizzed people who are down there more than I am.

Why not create a mid-park connection to BBP with easy mass transit access? Or reliable, regularly scheduled shuttle buses that go down Furman and bring people to the buildings, the park and its amenities? Furman may be 2-way in a few years, making this solution all the more workable. we don't need an artery if circulation improves elswhere in the area. (But enough with the medical metaphors.) Joralemon can and should be closed to non-emergency traffic at Furman Street.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 11, 2008 8:36 PM in response to Latest BBP Brouhaha: A Supermarket in the Park

Of course it's a public street. It is also a narrow public street with paving stones over a major subway line. 500+ additional residents, as well as park visitors and grocery store customers, driving down on a daily basis is unfeasible in even a practical sense. Joralemon is the same size as Cranberry Street, Willow Street, etc. I am sure none of them are feasible high-volume thoroughfares either. The fact that blocking off the street was acknowledged at earlier BBPark meetings, even after housing was added, proves the point. Even everyone's "favorite" person, former BBPDC Wendy Leventer, told a public meeting in the Brooklyn Polytech auditorium in Winter 2005 that it would be closed to through traffic, as did the Van Valkenburgh park planners at "open houses" on the park plan in 2005 or 2006. This is not something the neighborhood thought up to create a gated community -- it is an appropriate measure for a narrow street in an historic district.

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 11, 2008 8:07 PM in response to Latest BBP Brouhaha: A Supermarket in the Park

That is, 1 real entrance for people and cars between Atlantic and Old Fulton -- Joralemon Street. The pedestrian bridge at Middagh Street will be built when? 2020?

Posted by: bklyn20 at January 11, 2008 7:17 PM in response to Latest BBP Brouhaha: A Supermarket in the Park

sanitation can give a ticket too

Posted by: 5 COUNTY ALARM at October 29, 2009 9:40 PM in response to Dog Pooping in Front of House