To the editor,

I’m appalled that Marty Markowitz called The Brooklyn Paper’s coverage of the Atlantic Yards project “biased” (“Marty’s humble opinion,” Dec. 30). I, for one, am thankful for your “bias” towards accurate coverage. Even just a few days into 2007, I can see that you intend to follow that course. Thank you.

Your interview with Borough President Markowitz was revealing. You included his comments on surveillance around the project site and his justifications for Ratner placing cameras everywhere. But you didn’t ask how he feels about all the surveillance that will come when events begin in Frank Gehry’s glass arena. The issue of the public’s reaction to excessive surveillance recently came up in Chicago. It is only one of the many predicted “unintended consequences” of this project that were raised by the community and subsequently ignored by our political leaders and the Empire State Development Corporation.

A second, almost Freudian example of the discomfort with issues of responding rationally to a post 9-11 world appears in the audio portion of the interview.

There, Marty goes off about how his critics care more about Atlantic Yards than catching Osama Bin Laden. Marty needed to be asked if he agrees with the ESDC’s assertion that addressing terrorism in regards to Atlantic Yards is “unreasonable.” And if so, is it then “unreasonable” that Methodist Hospital has used the thwarted Atlantic Avenue Station suicide bomb plot (from 1997) in his emergency preparedness planning?

These kind of dots need to be connected. We need to know more about how security issues will be playing out over time.

Alan Rosner, Prospect Heights

• • •

To the editor,

I am a Brooklyn native and lifelong resident who is in favor of the Atlantic Yards project and dismayed that some (including your newspaper) so strongly oppose it.

In his recent interview with Gersh Kuntzman, Borough President Markowitz hit the nail right on the head: The Brooklyn Paper has been solidly anti-Yards, even in its news coverage. As Marty says, you are quite free to express your opinions in editorials. But he’s right when he says that your paper has not been objective in its news coverage of the project.

Although I do favor complete environmental and financial reviews of the project, and a reasonable scale, I support major development in the [LIRR yards] area. It will be nice to finally see that area become something worth visiting.

All through the 1960s through the late 1980s, as I grew up, I passed the area countless times. It was always a disgrace. Dirty, unattractive and downtrodden [with] dingy meat-packing plants, weeded lots, homeless people. Now, someone is finally interested in fixing the place up and your publication is dedicated to stopping it!

Opponents say that the project will destroy Brooklyn’s character. That’s nonsense. Brooklyn is huge and can undoubtedly benefit from finally having a REAL downtown area.

Will Coney Island, Williamsburg, Marine Park, Greenpoint, East New York, Flatbush, Ditmas Park or dozens of other Brooklyn neighborhoods be negatively affected by this project? More likely, the folks living in these areas will finally have a new area within Brooklyn to shop, hang out and maybe even watch a basketball game if the project goes forward. Is “brownstone” Brooklyn ALL of Brooklyn? I don’t think so.

The opponents also say public money is being used in the project. That’s OK by me. I have no problem seeing some of my tax money used to bring employment, housing and economic benefits to Brooklyn.

Without the Ratner project (which will include below- and market-rate housing), can the average New Yorker afford to live in that area? No. The surrounding neighborhood has improved over the years, and with that has come much higher property values and rents. Unless you happen to enjoy rent-control status or a pretty high income, you can’t afford to live in Prospect Heights or Park Slope.

So who’s complaining? A lot of people who are in a better position than many to pack their bags and move on should they need to, that’s who.

As a single parent, I lived through years of high rents in Prospect Heights and Park Slope from the late 1980s until 2000. I did not enjoy the benefit of rent control or rent stabilization. When the rent became too much, I didn’t complain. I did what I had to do and bought a house in Crown Heights (I couldn’t afford one in Park Slope or Prospect Heights and still can’t).

The folks who live in the arena area who oppose the project are thinking mainly of themselves, but they represent a vocal minority. These people, unlike many Brooklynites, do have an alternative if the project troubles them so greatly: they can move somewhere else, preferably back to where they came from before they discovered Brooklyn.

Brian Major, Crown Heights

Atlantic Yards is big

To the editor,

After reading your ongoing coverage of the Atlantic Yards project, I thought you might consider characterizing the project as “two times the size of Rockefeller Center.”

It’s actually bigger than twice the size in both square footage and in acreage. Of course none of the square footage in the Manhattan project is for residential use, but it still is a way to give readers a sense of the dimension of Atlantic Yards — you know, put it in perspective.

Eric Albert, Boerum Hill

A polite note

To the editor,

Congratulations on your recent editorial “Covering Atlantic Yards” (Dec. 30).

It was a great trip down Memory Lane. The Brooklyn Paper’s consistent coverage all year long on this issue was the most complete of any media outlet. Your piece reminded me of how fortunate we are living in one of the few remaining free societies with a wealth of information sources available for any citizen to access.

Larry Penner, Great Neck

A not-so-polite note

To the editor,

Do you make a habit of bitching about all the neighborhoods you serve, or is Park Slope special (“Another politically correct year,” Dec. 30)?

Do you think we don’t read your paper here? Do you ever wonder if we might stop? Happy New Year, a-holes.

Name withheld, Park Slope

City’s right Hook

To the editor,

In a recent article about development in Red Hook (“Big pricetag in Hook,” Jan 6), you wrote that “not one elected official or local resident spoke in support of the plan” at a hearing in December.

There’s one possible reason: No one knows when such hearings are being held. Many of us in Red Hook broadly support the city’s plan for the waterfront, but we are being drowned out by the more strident voices, including the paid supporters of the American Stevedoring company, such as our own congressman, Rep. Jerry Nadler.

The location of this tax-payer subsidized operation on some of the most stunning and underused section of the Brooklyn waterfront is a terrible disservice to Red Hook. The city’s plan for visitor-friendly, maritime-themed uses of this parcel of land seemed visionary to those of us who have craved more open space and access to the waterfront, while still maintaining the balance of housing and industry which makes Red Hook unique.

On the north side of Hamilton Avenue, we could use more housing. But Stevedoring has worked against residential development such as the Imlay Street proposal.

They feel residential cannot live by industrial maritime use — a notion that is disproved by many cities around the world. In Australia, ferries, water taxis and cruise ships pull in and out right next to condominiums and the Sydney Opera House, no less.

It makes for a more interesting and appealing environment, not less.

Adam Armstrong, Red Hook

©2007 The Brooklyn Paper