|
Click
for this letter in pdf format.
 |
October 23, 2004
Dear Community Board 2, 6, 8 Member,
We understand that it is not customary to contact individual board members directly, but under these unusual and urgent circumstances waiting until your next committee meeting would be too late to get our message to you. We should also like to clarify that in no way does this letter indicate that we support the CBA process as a substitute for the ULURP process. The ULURP process was brought into existence in the 1970s as a way to standardize direct negotiations between developers and communities, to ensure that all members of the effected communities are equally represented and that all our elected council members eventually vote on the negotiated points. We consider it unfortunate that certain elected representatives are seeking to shortchange Brooklyn in this regard and urge you to continue to fight to ensure that this project will go through the ULURP process. The excuse that this cannot be done because part of the project is on State land is unacceptable; the Atlantic Terminal Mall sits entirely on State-owned MTA land, yet that proposal went through ULURP.
We have watched with concern the process by which the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), negotiated between Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC), Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD), ACORN, and the Downtown Brooklyn Advisory and Oversight Committee (DBOAC), is being rushed through without any true, meaningful participation from the community. We understand that the parties have requested comments from members of the Community Boards (CBs) by the end of October. We urge you to consider the impact of offering your comments by the imposed deadline and also to play a more active role in ensuring that the CBA will truly represent the wishes of the affected communities.
CBAs are traditionally the result of a negotiation process between
the developer and representatives from the affected communities.
In these negotiations, the developer agrees to provide specific
community benefits, and in exchange the community groups promise
to support the proposed project.1 The developer's interest
in getting the CBA signed is that it facilitates the ability
to obtain government subsidies, while giving the project the
imprimatur of community support.
Accordingly, we urge that you be cautious about giving input into the CBA, as doing so might result in your unwittingly endorsing the project. At the very least, you will be legitimizing the closed, under-inclusive process.
The undersigned organizations urge their CB members to pass resolutions and take appropriate steps such that the CBA will truly represent the affected communities. To that end we ask that you:
PUT ON RECORD that you are not in a position
to give input on behalf of the community until you have received
input from the community in a widely advertised community wide
hearing where each citizen attending can speak for 3 minutes.
Each community boardÁs public hearing should take place on different
nights so the public is able to attend each hearing.
PUT ON RECORD that the communities need to
be fully apprised of all the particulars of the proposal before
any meaningful comments can be offered. This should include
a full accounting of all public subsidies being requested. This
process should also include fact-finding on alternative development
options such as the community
plan initiated by Councilmember Letitia James and lead architect
Marshall Brown.
PUT ON RECORD, if you find that the proposed
counterparties to the CBA (ACORN, BUILD and DBAOC) do not provide
sufficient representation of the affected communities and recent
studies by an independent urban planning group indicate they
do not2 the CBs must work to identify a group of organizations
that represent a genuine cross section of our communities. CBA
negotiations ideally include those community groups who have
vigorously voiced a wide range of concerns about the proposal.
The integrity of your Board must not be compromised by creating
a false impression, of support and representation, among the
citizens of your community that only serves the developerÁs
goals.3
PUT ON RECORD that it is a disservice to require the
CBs to offer comments in two weeks. The CBs should not be rushed
when what is needed is a far-reaching effort to gather the concerns
of members of the community å a process that will require a
few months.
While the CBs are being told that this might be their last chance to give input into the project and that not doing so would be irresponsible of them, the truth is that FCRC recognizes that an illusion of support from the communities and CBs facilitate the receipt of government subsidies and allay investors' concerns of delay. Thus, we urge the CBs to recognize that they are in the advantageous position to make the CBA truly representative of the communities' concerns and needs, and, therefore, they should not be rushed into "approving" an agreement representative of a flawed process.
Upon reviewing the CBA outline, the Traffic and Transportation Committee and the Land Use Committee of CB2 passed resolutions on October 19 and 20 stating that they will not participate in any CBA until the community has received all information about, and full disclosure on public financing for the proposed project, and until public hearings on the project take place.
We urge all the community boards to pass similar resolutions on behalf of our communities.
(1) See
"Community Benefits Agreement: Making Development Projects Accountable,"
by Julian Gross, Greg LeRoy and Madeline Janis-Aparicio.
(2) See
ËProspect Heights Neighborhood SurveyÓ, by the Pratt Institute
Center for Community and Environment Development.
(3) Just this week Forest City Ratner mailed hundreds of thousands
of Atlantic Yards promotional fliers to Brooklynites. The contents
of this flier imply that CB 2,6, 8 are supporting the FCR proposal.
Respectfully yours,
Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association (AABA)
Brooklyn Bear's Community Gardens
Brooklyn Vision
Dean Street Block Association.
Develop å Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDb)
Fort Greene Association (FGA)
Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus (FROGG)
Park Slope Greens
Pratt Area Community Council (PACC)
People Against Urban Removal
Prospect Heights Action Coalition (PHAC)
Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council (PHNDC)
South Portland Block Association
Good Jobs New York
Cc: Members of Community Boards 2, 6, 8
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Borough President Marty Markowtiz
Council Member Letitia James
Council Speaker Gifford Miller
State Senator Velmanette Montgomery
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver
Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno
Congressman Major Owens
|
|
|
|
|
|
Untitled Document
|
|
 |
Go to: Community Board 2
6
8
|
| |
| |
|
|
