LETTERS:

Not withstanding your football metaphor, each board member is responsible
for his or her own respective vote on this and every other issue that
is brought to the full board of Community Board 2 for vote. All community
board members were well aware of the Downtown Brooklyn Plan and its importance
on setting the directional future for Downtown Brooklyn, the entire borough
and indeed, the entire city.

Community Board 2’s game plan for the Downtown Brooklyn Plan (DBP)
began in November 2002 with the first of TWENTY MEETINGS relating to the
DBP. To the credit of the city agencies, representatives of the Department
of City Planning, Economic Development Corporation and Housing Preservation
and Development, as well as representatives from the Downtown Brooklyn
Council were always on hand to answer questions and deliver presentations
whenever requested. These meetings and/or presentations were all informative
and delivered to community board committee chairpersons, community board
members and community-based organizations in many different forums. Attached
to this letter is a list of these meetings (I am sure I have omitted a
few).

The Downtown Brooklyn Plan Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) was
certified on Dec. 3, 2003 and received at the community board office on
Dec. 5. Community board comment was due Feb. 9, 2004. All Board members
were encouraged to attend the many committee meetings and the public hearing
at which representatives from EDC and City Planning were present to hear
community concerns.

Each committee met over the last two months under stringent timelines
in order to evaluate the Downtown Brooklyn Plan and to come up with recommendations
to the Land Use committee.

It is the Land Use committee’s responsibility to submit ULURP land
use recommendations to the full board. Many of the concerns raised by
the committees were considered helpful builds to the Downtown Brooklyn
Plan and were addressed accordingly in follow up correspondence from the
involved city agencies.

At the public hearing some of our local elected representatives commented
on their dissatisfaction with the plan and urged the community board to
vote against the plan in its entirety. Clearly, that recommendation does
come with substantial impact.

There were board members for whom those recommendations weighed heavily.
Add to that the substantial opposition from the community, albeit some
based on misinformation, and the equivocation of the board vote becomes
more obvious.

The vote of the board does not negate the many positive recommendations
made by the committees. Most reasonable people would agree that this plan,
if implemented, must proceed while strongly considering these recommendations.

What is interesting is that you define the many components that will ultimately
determine whether the Downtown Brooklyn Plan will come to fruition. Those
individuals and agencies responsible for implementation must incorporate
the concerns of the community and the recommendations made by the board
if the implementation is to be successful.

While the outcome of the CB2 vote did not proceed as was preferred by
many, our voices have been heard. And will not be discounted!

In regards to your comments related to Mr. Diamondstone’s proposal,
if you were at the meeting you would know that I actually helped Mr. Diamondstone
in his attempt to make his motion by informing him that he was seeking
a motion to divide to which his response was “yes” and he returned
to his seat. In Mr. Diamondstone’s motion he did not specify how
the division was to take place!

Although others from your paper have attended some of the meetings sponsored
by the community board I don’t recall that you were present and if
you were how your reporting on this project could be so erroneous. You
might consider reading the Brooklyn Heights Courier’s Feb. 9 cover
story on this issue.

Your apology to this board is anticipated.