Develop Don’t Destroy Destroys Their Clients (victims) Lives For The Holiday

Develop Don’t Destroy has become the ultimate Grinch who stole their clients Christmas.
The court has disallowed all their idiotic motions and Barclay's Center is set to move forward.
As this blog has reported the clients (victims) of Develop Don’t Destroy
Have lost their opportunity to cash in and buy decent homes. They will now be thrown out with no compensation. The insensitivity to the plight of these poor people rests soley on Develop Don’t Destroy and of course the vehemence of Mr. Odor of Atlantic Yards Report.
Their behavior is reprehensible. Their clients (victims) deserved better.
Barclay's Center will proceed and Brooklyn will be better for it. Too bad Develop Don’t Destroy decided to ruin peoples lives in the process.

Highlighted words are HOT links that open in a new window

They're Every Where

We have two on my block alone. And it is getting so you see them on many blocks in the city.

It just makes urban sense.

Shameful

Another failure by DDDB to stop what will be a great asset to Brooklyn.
The misguided opposition to the development of the Atlantic Yards by Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn and the vicious Atlantic Yards Report and Mr. Oder has seen another failure.
DDDB has now wasted the poor defendant’s final appeals and left them with NOTHING!!
The last holdouts who depended on DDDB good judgment will now lose their homes and realize that the generous buyouts they were offered are long gone.
Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn is a huge misnomer. They NEVER wanted to “develop” anything. They only wanted to stop any possibility of Brooklyn moving forward. Like the Republicans and healthcare there was never any way they intended to find a way for all of Brooklyn to prosper.
Worst they used the people living there and ruined their opportunities to find decent housing elsewhere that Ratner would have paid for.
That is shameful.

Highlighted words are HOT links that open in a new window

Double Edged Sword

Speaking of gentrification you might want to read Double Edge to Brooklyn’s Success
in the NYTimes.
It tells how the Brooklyn Brewery, Amy’s Cookies and Bagels by Bell are hard pressed to find space to expand in Brooklyn because real estate is expensive and being eaten up by residential conversions. Because of gentrification thier businesses are doing better and they need to expand and hire more people (i.e. gentrification is "good") but at the same time the success has made it harder to find space.
It would be a drag if “Brooklyn Brewery” had to make their (our?) beer in Long Island.

Highlighted words are HOT links that open in a new window

“Gentrification…” is good

The following is a response to a post on the Ditmas Park Blog .

With apologies to Oliver Stone and Gordon Gekko…
“Gentrification…” is good.


I know many feel new buildings should provide a percentage of the apartments as “affordable” housing but in my opinion there are too many ways to get around that and the prices are only lower in relation to the highest priced apartment in that building, not truly affordable.
So I would argue that gentrification here helps develop other less desirable neighborhoods.
I moved here five years ago from the village and the price of my apartment was astonishing compared to other parts of New York including Queens and Brooklyn. Now we are at or near market rate but still quite low compared to Manhattan or the more developed parts of Brooklyn.
What that does for those who are still looking is make them search further south or across CIA in areas that were or still are marginal. Slowly the pattern helps all the neighborhoods take a step up. Those people who bought here many years ago are rewarded for their foresight and those who own in less desirable neighborhoods will slowly see new people move in and need services like groceries and restaurants. New businesses that couldn’t exist before will find they can make a go of it.
I lived in the Village back when it was the “Village”, small Mom and Pop stores and affordable café’s, well that’s gone but the new Village moved to East Village then down to the lower East Side. Friends who were willing walk past Tompkins Sq. Park at night in 80’s are now living in a very desirable neighborhood. Same here.
BTW – As I was being evicted from my regulated garden apartment in the Village I was traumatized, I now see it as the best thing that could have happened to me. I’m a home owner in a great neighborhood.
The artists, musicians etc. who bought these Victorian houses 10-15 years ago are seeing the neighborhood come alive. Those “pioneers” deserve their reward and we “newcomers” benefit from their courage.
The article about Jim Mamary and Allan Harding is another great example. Smith Street was not a destination to say the least when they started there. And who would have thought about putting a Bistro, of all things, in a bodega on Newkirk?
IMO - Pomme de Terre will bring major social changes to that area. By example the neighbors can see the possibilities.
The question is what happens to renters. If they are unregulated their rents will go up and they will have to either buy or move. But they will help the neighborhoods they move to by making grocery stores viable as well as other businesses.
I see gentrification to be the same as Darwinism.
Brutal? Yes in some cases but an opportunity to some that are willing to take a chance on owning their own place to live.
The one thing I think the government could and should do is help with affordable loans. The subprime beast of the unfettered capitol markets is exactly the opposite of what good government should allow and we will pay for it for a long time.

Why shouldn’t ALL of NYC eventually be a “nice” place to live?

Highlighted words are HOT links that open in a new window