Sections

Ridge Republican vows to kill parking permits for Barclays neighbors

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

A controversial plan to sell street parking permits to residents near the Barclays Center arena has already broke down in the pothole of the Republican-controlled state Senate days after the City Council approved the proposal.

“This law is dead on arrival in Albany,” said an Albany source with firsthand knowledge of the GOP leadership’s discussion of the so-called “residential parking permit” proposal, which passed the City Council on Nov. 3.

The main roadblock is state Sen. Marty Golden (R–Bay Ridge), who believes that charging for street parking is wrong.

“The idea that someone would have to pay to park in front of their own home is ludicrous,” Golden said before the Council’s vote last week, which was technically a “home rule” resolution authorizing the state legislature to take up the measure. “This is nothing more than another tax on our communities.”

Golden opposition was shared by other legislators in southern Brooklyn, where car ownership is more prevalent, but in Brownstone Brooklyn and in Prospect Heights, where 19,000 Nets fans will soon converge at the Barclays Center and its 1,100 parking spaces, residential parking permits are seen as a solution.

“Right now it’s almost impossible to park” near the under-construction arena, said District Leader Jo Anne Simon (D–Boerum Hill). “We want to make sure our neighborhoods are not overrun [after the arena opens].”

Under the proposal — which is being pushed by state Sen. Daniel Squadron (D–Brooklyn Heights) and Assemblywoman Joan Millman (D–Cobble Hill) — residents would have the option of buying the permits for a yet-to-be determined fee. They wouldn’t be guaranteed a spot, but roughly eight out of every 10 spaces on residential streets near the arena would be reserved for permit holders.

Other neighborhoods would be allowed to opt into the citywide program. Neighborhoods such as Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope have supported residential parking permits as a shield against commuters from southern Brooklyn and elsewhere who park in their neighborhoods and then take mass transit into Manhattan.

Supporters believe that a permit system will also reduce the long-term impact of traffic congestion around the Atlantic Yards mega-project, which is slated to include 6,430 apartments on a 22-acre site that stretches from Flatbush Avenue to Vanderbilt Avenue.

Similar programs have been adopted in Boston, Washington D.C. and Chicago, where residents around Wrigley Field pay $25 annually for “reasonable access to parking” near the baseball stadium known to fans as the Friendly Confines.

Citing the success of those programs, Councilman Brad Lander (D–Park Slope) called a permit plan “the one piece of public policy that can make a difference” on Atlantic Yards traffic.

City transportation officials oppose a citywide permit plan, but have agreed to study the areas around the Barclays Center and Yankee Stadium because of the residential nature of the neighborhoods.

Residential parking permits were shelved in 2008 after Mayor Bloomberg’s broader congestion pricing legislation failed in Albany.

Squadron said there’s more support for the measure this time around, thanks to provisions that allow neighborhoods and individuals to opt out of participating. “This is not going to be implemented in neighborhoods that don’t want it,” Squadron said.

Jerry Kassar, Golden’s chief of staff, said it probably won’t be implemented at all because Senate Republicans have indicated that they won’t move the bill without support from Golden or the city’s other GOP senator, Andrew Lanza (R–Staten Island), who also opposes the plan.

“We feel very confident that the senators’ views will be upheld,” said Kassar.

Still, residents who live near the Barclays Center said they would buy into the program — if it’s not too expensive.

“Between $50 and $200 is reasonable,” said Wayne Bailey, a car owner who lives on Pacific Street between Carlton and Sixth avenues. “The arena isn’t even open and parking is already total chaos.”

— with Colin Mixson

Reach reporter Daniel Bush at dbush@cnglocal.com or by calling (718) 260-8310.

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

jj from brooklyn says:
barclays neighbors have no one but themselves to blame. they were mostly silent during the pre-build controversies.

you build a sports arena, there will be parking problems. live with it.

this is one city, and discriminating against southern brooklynites so a brownstoner can plant his/her car in front of his house is unwise.
Nov. 9, 2011, 6:42 am
henry ford from bay ridge says:
Sorry Trans Alt activists, another one of your passive aggressive schemes to rid NYC of automobiles has failed.
Nov. 9, 2011, 7:49 am
ty from pps says:
Henry Ford -- Do you even understand what you are saying? How *exactly* is a residential permit a "passive aggressive schemes to rid NYC of automobiles"?

Are other cities (i.e., almost all I can think of) car-free?

Please explain.
Nov. 9, 2011, 8:37 am
SENSE from Carroll Gardens says:
If the supporters say that it is "next to impossible" to park right now -- then what sense is there to worry that anyone from outside the areas WILL FIND A PARKING SPACE?

Clearly, this is a continued ruse of the bicycle/anti-car lobbyist (that this area's pol follow) called Transportation Alternatives. The head of this lobby group lives in Park Slope, which doubtless is why local pols do his bidding.

Someone remind our elected leaders that this is the worst sustained downturned economy since the Depression. These pols don't even have the plan fleshed out, but VOTED FOR the tax for residents?
Nov. 9, 2011, 9:53 am
Big Bicycle from Everywhere says:
Yeah, we're calling all the shots, and we WILL get your car. Which is why you should keep supporting smart, progressive politicians like Marty Golden and Lew Fidler.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
Nov. 9, 2011, 10:04 am
InTheSlope from Park Slope says:
Great Marty the nab HATES the arena; now they'll hate the Nets even more, do Barclay's, Nets, FCR need more of this s.it? This isn't your problem, stay out of it....
Nov. 9, 2011, 10:28 am
Al from Bay Ridge says:
I want a permit to park my car on the street where I live too. It’s tough to park in most of Brooklyn. I don’t favor the permit plan, but if the plan is eventually implemented, why shouldn't similar permits be offered to all residents of Brooklyn, or even just to all residents of the many traffic-congested areas in Brooklyn? Why isn't there a similar permit plan for Bronx residents surrounding Yankee Stadium?
Nov. 9, 2011, 10:32 am
s from ppw says:
Lost of cities have FREE residential parking permits. Why is Golden scaring people into thinking they'll definitely have to pay? Boston's permit is free. DC's permit is maybe $30. Hoboken's permit is $15!

And the idea that one shouldn't have to pay to park in front of one's house is absolutely absurd. This isn't the suburbs and the area around the arena isn't some tree-lined rural neighborhood with quiet cul de sacs of 10 homes each. A permit makes sense.

New York City streets belong to New York City residents and taxpayers.
Nov. 9, 2011, 10:35 am
henry ford from bay ridge says:
Every idea from Transportation Alternatives and their minions is an incremental step in their goal of ridding NYC of motor vehicles. For example, what are traffic calming, pedestrian plazas, etc, but creative ways of creating gridlock until drivers give up and go away.

TA should just be upfront about what they really want, but they know how unpopular their true mission is, so they use passive-aggressive tactics to slowly implement their agenda.
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:05 am
henry ford from bay ridge says:
@s from ppw: Because the parking permits will not be free, or anything close to affordable. One of TA's most effective tactics in their anti car offensive is lobbying for higher fees, tolls, and taxes on everything auto related.

The end result of everything TA fights for will be that only the wealthy will be able to afford to have a car in NYC.
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:10 am
Daniel from Park Slope says:

Well, if Marty Golden who loudly supported Atlantic Yards doesn't like permit parking, he at least ought to proposesome solution to alleviate the parking problem caused by the project. But he won't.
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:15 am
Joey from Clinton Hills says:
Marty Golden probably registers his cars out of state!

Hey Marty, why don't help out your neighbors and work to eliminate all the illegal curb cuts in Bay Ridge?
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:16 am
Sid from Boerum Hill says:
Jj we have nothing to blame but ourselves. the four communities of Boerum Hill, Park Slope, Prospect Heights and Brooklyn Heights have been the outspoken opposition of the failure to take the community needs into consideration from the beginning. We testified against it, rallied against it, filed lawsuits and did everything but stand in front of the bulldozers. We met with every politician and the ESDC. The lawsuit was only filed after it became clear that NONE of our concerns were being addressed. the local council members and state office officials have all come to the defense of what we tried to do...which is to have a voice- not a veto in what was happening. Even Marty agrees that something needs to be done. We may disagree on some goals but not the need for community input. This has been a top down imposed event on the community. No where else in NYC has a development be done with so little local community input. Even the Brooklyn paper was initially opposed to this. We have done everything we can except for violence. If you have not seen it its because you weren't listening... see the Brooklyn speaks website please. http://www.brooklynspeaks.net/
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:21 am
AY Info NYC from Prospect Heights says:
@henry ford from bay ridge or others that don't live in the arena footprint: you have no idea what the hell your taking about.... I don't own a car but live in the footprint, TA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS....if you would have went to ANY of the meetings you would have discovered that TA was NOT involved in ANY way, GET IT? this is about having 6,000 cars in MY neighborhood cruising for a space instead of PAYING for parking, GET IT? if there is NO parking then they don't drive, GET IT? The wealthy all ready get free parking @ the arena's 1,100 car park @ Vanderbilt & Pacific so they don't care....
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:22 am
Pher from Prospect Heights says:
1) There is no example anywhere in the U.S. where parking permits have been used to pillage taxpayers. As another commenter pointed out, the cost is generally modest or free. Where a cost exists, it is simply to prevent abuse.

2) The Squadron plan is an "opt in" plan. Neighborhoods decide if they want parking permits. That's called democracy.

3) FCR's own environmental analysis states that the fact that parking here is scarce already will not deter arena patrons from attempting to park on the streets for free.

Marty Golden has a long history of victimizing brownstone Brooklyn with populist claptrap that doesn't amount to even an ounce of benefit for his own constituents. Why don't they call him on it?
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:32 am
Mike from Williamsburg says:
I favor the permit plan because I like good policies, but I have some schadenfreude about car owners suffering from cars because of a car-loving state senator who wants to hand over public resources to a lucky few.

It's like when I ride a bike past cars stuck in traffic and think "the congestion tax is for you poor saps sitting here and not moving."
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:40 am
ty from pps says:
I still haven't heard why *exactly* this is a bad thing?!

If the city charges, say, $30 PER YEAR for a permit... this will actually INCREASE your likelihood of getting a parking spot if you live here. Every block has at least 20% (if not more) out-of-state registrations... NJ, NC, FL, PA, etc. Those cars will either disappear or *finally* get registered and legally insured in our state.
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:54 am
adamben from bedstuy says:
i gave up long time ago on trying to drive my infant to his pediatrician in boerum hill, so, hopefully the arena fans will do the same. i don't think parking permits are a bad idea, even though i would never go to those neighborhoods to shop anymore. maybe the permits should only be in effect when there is a game on? shouldn't be too hard in this digital era. i call 311 every morning to find out the alt park status for the day so they can add when permits will be honored around the stadiums too.
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:56 am
Neighbors Against Everything from Brooklyn says:
We will soon be releasing a press statement against any proposed solution to parking woes. Any effort to do anything will be met with complaints. The real middle class (not to be confused with the other middle class) does not like any change, ever. Not only do we not want anything in our backyards, we do not want anything in anybody's backyards. Also, we stand against the very concept of backyards itself.
Nov. 9, 2011, 12:18 pm
Bay Ridger from Bay Ridge says:
Just commenting on some of the comments. Thanks all for a good chuckle...

P.S. How do I join "neighbors against everything"??
Nov. 9, 2011, 12:43 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
This issue hasn't been created by TA, but their bots sure have latched onto it as yet another way to screw drivers though. Just like they did in the comment section of the Poly Prep article on this site.

The simple solution is to ban all public parking in the affected area during AY events, like Boston does during Red Sox games at Fenway.
Nov. 9, 2011, 12:59 pm
ty from pps says:
Henry Ford -- Your comments are becoming more and more ridiculous. So, let me get this straight... your solution to "not screw" drivers is to remove ALL parking 100 days per year instead of simply giving local residents an extra privilege through a parking permit???

For realz?
Nov. 9, 2011, 1:15 pm
ty from pps says:
(Henry must be Tal's cousin or something.)
Nov. 9, 2011, 1:15 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
Like I said, that is the simplest solution. Discouraging people from driving to AY isn't screwing them. Opening the door to the theft and abuse that permit parking will bring citywide(permits costing 100's of $$, and the money going down a sinkhole), will end up screwing drivers a lot more.
Nov. 9, 2011, 2:10 pm
ty from pps says:
Theft and abuse? How so?!?!?

I've have lived in TWO cities that have parking permits for residents. You can only get a sticker unless you are registered to an address in that residential area. Period.

The stickers have you license plate number on them. Period.

You can steal them. You can abuse them. Period.

They are stuck on your window.

And why is it "hundreds of $$"? I don't think any actual numbers have been floated. I'm just thinking about all of the potential revenue for the city from the thousands and thousands of illegally registered/uninsured cars from with out-of-state plates. Sounds like a win-win for all!
Nov. 9, 2011, 2:21 pm
ty from pps says:
Sorry.... can't steal... can't abuse.
Nov. 9, 2011, 2:21 pm
ty from pps says:
All-in-all... I find this really amusing. It's not like there aren't DOZENS of examples of residential parking permits across the country and across the work. Folks are reacting like it's this crazy new idea.

Oh, right. NYC is special and nothing that applies elsewhere could possibly work or be appropriate here. Uggh.
Nov. 9, 2011, 2:37 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
First off all, I have never been in favor of this project from the start. Also, it's a bad idea to place a sports facility in the middle of an area that is not only far from any highway, but happens to be primarily residential as well. Don't forget that the most busiest intersection is there, and this will make it worse. Still, I am not in full support of RPP. However, I am willing to compromise that they can to the immediate blocks, but not the entire neighborhood just like around the Prudential Center in Newark, which should be enough. I am sure that even the area around Wrigley Fields doesn't do the entire area as well. The real problem with parking is overdevelopement especially if it's out of scale, because they tend to supersaturate an already packed area, so not only are the parking spaces always filled, but the subways are overcrowded as well. On a side note, I don't know this henry ford person, so I expect an apology from whoever thinks he is related or sent here by me when I can do my own talking.
Nov. 9, 2011, 2:53 pm
ty from pps says:
Expect away...
Nov. 9, 2011, 2:58 pm
ty from pps says:
Also -- "plan to sell street parking permits" is not correct.

The city would *issue* parking permits. There would be a fee associated with it.

Does the city *sell* building permits? Does the city *sell* vendor licenses?
Nov. 9, 2011, 3:12 pm
Jo Anne from Boerum Hill says:
In Boston, residential parking permits are free. That's fine by me. This is not about raising revenue. It is about reducing congestion, increasing safety and encouraging public transportation.
Nov. 9, 2011, 3:43 pm
HERBERT GRANT from parkslope says:
Hey I dont want this permit plan....I live in the area but I use my sister's car which has out of state PLATES....THIS program will kill me although i do live in the area. I agree with Golden kill this plan in the senate........I have a hard time already.......this will make me have to park miles away from where I live.........For once I agree with the Republicans!!! they have my vote on this one!!!!!!!!
Nov. 9, 2011, 5:39 pm
AY Info NYC from Prospect Heights says:
Just remember to all you "know it all's" that don't want parking permits; Barclay's has to sell out at least 220 nights a year to break even,,... so you'll NEVER have a place to park... ask the residents around Yankee Stadium.... I don't drive so I hope you get what you ask for.... TRAFFIC up the a$$...
Nov. 9, 2011, 7:42 pm
Mike Bloomberg from City Hall says:
Shut up.
Nov. 9, 2011, 8:44 pm
AY Info NYC from Prospect Heights says:
@Mike Bloomberg from City Hall, you're so f-ing original...
Nov. 9, 2011, 9:02 pm
Williamsburg from Dennis says:
Neighbors Against Everything, I bow.
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:10 pm
Eazy D from Sheepshead Bay says:
Norm needs a parking space.
Nov. 9, 2011, 11:16 pm
UmadBro? from wat says:
AHhhhahahaha car owners, what a bunch of saps you all are. This city is no longer a car friendly city and it never will be again. Just get over it, sell your car and save some money.
Enjoy the gridlock, lack of parking, and general cost of owning a car.
You dolts.
Nov. 10, 2011, 10:12 am
al pankin from downtown says:
what is the big deal, you can't get a parking spot now and the area isn't even open..alot of half baked schemes over nothing.
Nov. 10, 2011, 11:52 am
greenasgreen from bayridge says:
I am going to close off a section of the street today and put my couch out their and lay down for awhile, regardless of how it effects others. Oh wait, I can not do that because that would effectively privatize public property. Cars lease public space when they park on public property and they pay nothing, externalizing the costs to others. Parking permits should be issued that are a modest fee, and rise slightly over time.
Nov. 10, 2011, 12:01 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
@umad: When was NYC ever friendly towards drivers, bikers, or pedestrians?

Gridlock can be avoided, parking is still plentiful, and having a car is essential if want to go anywhere outside of Brooklyn or Manhattan. Happy motoring.
Nov. 10, 2011, 12:30 pm
greenasgreen from bay ridge says:
@ henry

Your simplistic approach is pretty sad, especially since I am from bay ridge.

"and having a car is essential if want to go anywhere outside of Brooklyn or Manhattan"

3-year sample for the American Community Survey 2008-2010 shows that car ownership for households is as follows:

Bronx: 59.1 do not own a car

Queens: 36.9 do not own a car

Staten Island 16.1 do not own a car

I can understand Staten Island, but who really goes to SI besides the people that live there? Bronx has a clear majority of household who do not own a car. Queens has a large minority who do not own a car. How can it be "essential" is so many people do not do it?

I travel regularly from bay ridge to flushing by train. So, please research a little before you make huge claims that are not supported by evidence.
Nov. 10, 2011, 1:36 pm
InTheSlope from Park Slope says:
Marty G & Marty M Brooklyn's Roly Poly clown twins are like NJ Chris Christie.... too overweight to do anything else but drive everywhere & run their mouths....
Nov. 10, 2011, 2:48 pm
henry ford from bay ridge says:
@greenasgreen: Believe it or not, there are other places outside the 5 boroughs that are worth seeing from time to time. Some people are also unfortunate enough to have relatives on SI that they are forced to visit. :)
Nov. 10, 2011, 2:56 pm
greenasgreen from bay ridge says:
"Believe it or not, there are other places outside the 5 boroughs that are worth seeing from time to time."

I know, that is why from time to time people can rent cars if they can not get their by train or bus. I used to go frequently to DC by bus, when my partner lived their. Clearly, it would not be justifiable to own a car just to go out of the 5 boroughs once in awhile

"Some people are also unfortunate enough to have relatives on SI that they are forced to visit. :)"

Hey man, my girl's family lives in SI, so I just hop on the s53. I know no one likes a forced visit, thankfully mine aren't. There should really be a train that connects into SI. It was in the works a long time ago, when the R was being built but never panned out.

all i am saying is that we are lucky that our city was planned by forward-thinking people in the past. Most American cities are very ugly, full of strip malls and huge roads. Ours isn't. (SI is though, and the parts I have been look pretty ugly.) We need to be forward thinking and cars are the center of this. We are all in this together.
Nov. 10, 2011, 3:51 pm
ty from pps says:
Seriously.... I can't imagine how you might get to Staten Island without a car. If there were only buses, boats or subways. Man. When with this city get those? Until then, I guess we can drive everywhere, right?!

Uggh.
Nov. 10, 2011, 6:42 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
How about surveying the residents of that area first? This way we will see who actually owns a car or not. Also, we can see who has parking on their own property, which means that it will make no sense for them to have a permit when they already have their own garage or driveway for it. Before deciding what blocks get the permit only signs should be based on how many actually own cars and where they park them, then decide how many blocks it can go for.
Nov. 10, 2011, 6:49 pm
Marc from Windsor Terrace says:
A couple of thoughts: 1) People have forgotten that the Atlantic Yards monstrosity will include over 6,000 units of new housing, more than half of which will be market rate. All of those new residents will be entitled to residential permits just like the long-time residents.

2) Residents of neighborhoods with permits will have to say goodbye to hosting any events in those neighborhoods where guests will need to park such as weddings, christenings, brises, bar/bat mitzvahs, funerals, wakes, shivah/condolences calls, Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner, seders, and parties unless there are liberal guest permits available.
Nov. 10, 2011, 9:17 pm
InTheSlope from Park Slope says:
@Marc from Windsor Terrace:
BullS-it read what's proposed by law..... Gez get facts right, this is what's pisses me off.... go to the meetings, stop guessing... the plan is:

20% for NON-residents-80% for residents

Now how much more do NON-residents need to park?
Nov. 10, 2011, 10:47 pm
Peter from WindsorTerrace says:

Thanks Bruce Ratner, Empire State Boondoggle enablers.



Nov. 11, 2011, 7:03 am
AY Info NYC from Prospect Heights says:
You can sign a petition to support RPP's here

http://www.petitiononline.com/petitions/rpp4nyc/signatures?page=1
Nov. 11, 2011, 11:34 am
Mike from the subway says:
This would be a huge benefit to car owners -- they would pretty much get a guaranteed spot on their block for next to nothing. But if the drivers of Bay Ridge want to keep circling the block, I guess that's their choice.
Nov. 11, 2011, 2:39 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Marc, the claim that good number of those apartment will be affordable for the middle class and lower is nothing but a lie. In reality, the majority of it will actually be luxury condos. It's very likely that any part that is remotely affordable will be built last or not even at all. If you have read a poster by OWS on this, it will say what it's really about as it was shown on No Land Grab. When Ratner offers to watch your place when you leave, I suggest you don't let him, because he has a history of not being trusted.
Nov. 11, 2011, 3:46 pm
Marc from Windsor Terrace says:
Bulls_it, to you, InTheSlope. I read the law and havbe been following the debate in detail. The bill requires that 20% of the spaces in the permit area or areas be available to nonresidents, not restricted to nonresidents. People will park in the first space they find. With only one in five spots available for visitors from out of the neighborhood, it will be that much harder for any visitor to find a spot. Where do you think all the scofflaws who illegally register their cars out of state will park?

There are far better ways to deal with an onslaught of cars from visitors to Ratner's idiotic arena restricting parking on the streets to two hours or less at the time of events at the arena except for residents with minimally priced permits with normal neighborhood parking. Other cities have figured out how to do this for neighborhoods near arenas, stadiums, and beaches.

The current plan will cause a domino effect as neighborhoods those that initially implement the program will be forced to adopt them as well to defend against being overrun.
Nov. 11, 2011, 5:41 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
@ Henry from Bay Ridge, and to anyone who thinks the City or the State or the Federal Government of the United States has ever been "anti-automobile"--ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Do you even understand how New York City eventually reached the grid pattern it has? How it was laid down? Why city blocks are city blocks? Why buildings are built along a sidewalk line? Why we even have sidewalks? Do you understand how or why many many many billions of dollars is allotted to the Dept. of Transportation every year without question? Do you understand why our military forces are fashioned the way they are right now? Why ours is a fossil fuel society, and why, ultimately, we currently endure climate change? Why ours is the foreign policy we have? Why ours is the domestic policy we have.

BECAUSE OF THE AUTOMOBILE.

All societies are built along a combination and tension of domicile-passagethrough development. In the United States, irrespective of how and what type of domiciles have been built in the last 100 years, THE PASSAGETHROUGH PORTION OF OUR DEVELOPMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PREDICATED ON THE AUTOMOBILE. If anything, our land development is based more on automobile passage routes than actual concentrations of domiciles. Look out your window--if you don't see a street, lane, highway, freeway, ramp or otherwise, then you don't live in the civilized world.

My suggestion to you is to stop this —— rhetoric of victimization [entirely a projection] and read Geography of Nowhere by James Howard Kunstler. Here:
http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Nowhere-Americas-Man-Made-Landscape/dp/0671888250
Nov. 12, 2011, 11:18 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Not to mention that the most significant percentage of eminent domain petitions IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES revolve around the automobile. Consider the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway--do you know how many thousands and thousands of households were displaced because of the automobile? Whether or not you agree with such eminent domain petitions, THE POINT IS THAT OURS IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF AN ANTI-AUTOMOBILE SOCIETY.

Give us a break. For Real.
Nov. 12, 2011, 11:29 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
From the wiki, "The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
Nov. 12, 2011, 11:45 am
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Dennis, just to let you know, this project is actually the abuse of eminent domain. I say that because it's using eminent domain to give a private owner such as Ratner when it's supposed to be for the public only. BTW, some of what you mentioned are a few examples, but there are a lot more that you didn't mentioned. Nevertheless, eminent domain is defined as taking property for the use of the public. On a side note, Mississippi became another state in stopping eminent domain abuse, but this still isn't the case here in NY, and that's mainly because developers have very strong relationships with the developers.
Nov. 12, 2011, 4:47 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
I'm aware of the eminent domain dimensions behind this project, Tal Barzilai--I'm not responding to that. I'm responding specifically to the idea that ours is an "anti-car," "anti-driver," "anti-automobile" city or state or national or international society, which is ludicrous. But then again, this entire project is a hierarchy, a pleroma of the ludicrous.
Nov. 12, 2011, 8:06 pm
Guido Fauci from Owls Head says:
Back to the narrow issue, parking problems downtown. The real naysayer in the piece is State Senator Martin Golden. He and his ilk are arrogantly blocking citizens, Boards and elected representatives in certain downtown Brooklyn areas well-outside his district from trying to a fix to the Ratner mess, which Golden supports 100%.

Golden SOLD himself and now he's following through on that sell-out, possibly for a Ratner bonus in 2012.
Nov. 13, 2011, 11:19 am
InTheSlope from Park Slope says:
Marc from Windsor Terrace.... took you a while to look it up..... yawn....
Nov. 13, 2011, 12:21 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Dennis, eminent domain isn't just about roads and highways, they can be about things that don't involve motor vehicles, and there is a whole list of them. Some of them can be commuter rails, subways, light rails, public housing, public schools, police stations, firehouses, government buildings, courthouses, electrical substations, parks, hospitals, senior centers, post offices, bridges, tunnels, bike lanes and paths, and pedestrian plazas. In other words, eminent domain doesn't have to be just for the use of motor vehicles when there are many other things that don't even involve them just as long as they are for a public project only, and not for a private owner.
Nov. 13, 2011, 9:39 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
Tal Barzilai, what exactly is your point? Did I say "eminent domain has been petitioned exclusively for the use of automobiles"? I did not, so please read more carefully.

What I did say is that the principal use of eminent domain since the formation of the United States federal government has been to facilitate not just the passage traffic of automobiles, but it's construction and development. PRINCIPAL, not EXCLUSIVE. That means that pointing out the historical fact that the primary goal of the majority of eminent domain petitions does not preclude eminent domain petitions for many of the other uses you're describing, which, when measured all together still do not exceed the percentage of eminent domain petitions filed in our courts for the automobile.

There have been several positions taken here on this thread and on other threads in Brooklyn Paper that have alleged, whenever convenient but especially when "bike lanes" are discussed, that ours is an "anti-car" or "anti-driver" society. I AM SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THAT CLAIM AND HAVE USED EMINENT DOMAIN, WHICH IS GERMANE AND SALIENT TO THIS LARGER PROJECT [IRONICALLY], AS A HISTORICAL EXAMPLE OF OUR VERY PRO-AUTOMOBILE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. Again, whether or not eminent domain "can be [about] commuter rails, subways, light rails, public housing, public schools, police stations, firehouses, government buildings, courthouses, electrical substations, parks, hospitals, senior centers, post offices, bridges, tunnels, bike lanes and paths, and pedestrian plazas" IS NOT MY POINT, and even if I considered this argument, all those public works put together still do not match the sheer amount of eminent domain petitions that have been filed in our courts, are filed right now as we speak, and will be filed in the near future [but I hope not long] ON BEHALF, ULTIMATELY, OF THE AUTOMOBILE.

I feel I have been quite clear about the fact that I am being "specific" and I also am being quite clear about the fact about what I am being "specific" about, whereas you're position is contingent on the more general dimensions of this argument. I AM NOT ADDRESSING THAT, so I'd appreciate it if you stop listing examples as though I'm not understanding what "eminent domain" is about. Because, so you can know how it feels, let me demonstrate to you the limits of your understanding of eminent domain: EMINENT DOMAIN IS NOT LIMITED TO PUBLIC PROJECTS. When private and for-profit corporations have demonstrated that their eminent domain petition ultimately served a "public good", the courts have ruled in their favor--REPEATEDLY. Consider the excellent example of General Motors [LOOK AT THAT, AN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER], in 1981, seeking considerable land for a manufacturing plant in Poletown, Michigan.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in GM's favor. Why? GM is certainly not a public utility--they are a private, for-profit corporation who, in recent fact, was one of the first beneficiaries of government bailout money at the end of President W. Bush's second term. MAYBE IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THEY'RE AN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER.

Oh, and SEVEN of the examples you mentioned in your list that graciously completed my seeming "oversimplification" are due to the automobile: [commuter rails, subways, light rails, police stations, firehouses, bridges and tunnels.]
Nov. 13, 2011, 11:52 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
See Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit 304 N.W.2d 455, 410 Mich. 616 (1981) Cooter and Ulen, 3rd Edition
County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 671 NW 2d 40 - Mich: Supreme Court 2003

But most importantly, so that there is less misunderstanding between us, see Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). From the related wiki on Poletwon v. Detroit that discusses Kelo v. New London, "the 2005 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London states that the use of eminent domain to promote economic development is constitutional on a federal level, the opinion in Kelo cites the Hathcock decision as an example of how states may choose to impose their own restrictions on the taking of property."
Nov. 13, 2011, 11:58 pm
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
And so we're clear and at the risk of belaboring, I wish to return to the exact language of one of my posts above that refers to the wiki on eminent domain:

"From the wiki, "The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain"

THE WIKI SAYS THE MOST COMMON USES, NOT THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN, so my observation was not meant to prejudice, preclude or otherwise limit the use of eminent domain as the courts have historically interpreted it. As I have now repeatedly and earlier stated, I am not addressing the many dimensions of the Barclay Project, or even offering a comprehensive survey of the history of eminent domain petitions in American jurisprudence. AGAIN, WHAT I AM SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING IS THE CANARD THAT OURS IS AN "ANTI-CAR" OR "ANTI-DRIVER" SOCIETY, which has zero basis in fact. Any suggestion otherwise is specious argumentation.
Nov. 14, 2011, 12:05 am
Dennis sinneD from Williamsburg says:
And another earlier post [11/12/11, @ 11:29am], "Whether or not you agree with such eminent domain petitions, THE POINT IS THAT OURS IS THE VERY OPPOSITE OF AN ANTI-AUTOMOBILE SOCIETY."
Nov. 14, 2011, 12:25 am
AY Info NYC from Prospect Heights says:
Busting the Myths of Residential Parking Permits:
By Gib Veconi
http://prospectheights.patch.com/blog_posts/busting-the-myths-of-residential-parking-permits

More than any other demand management strategy, residential parking permits have the potential to meaningfully reduce the impact of traffic from Barclays Center patrons. The overwhelming support from a standing-room-only crowd at a recent City Council committee hearing on residential parking permits, the near-unanimous vote of the committee to send a “home rule message” to the State legislature, and its subsequent speedy approval by the Council, all indicate that residential permit parking in New York City is an idea whose time has come. Even before parking permits have been authorized by the State, DOT has begun to study implementation around “trip generators” like Yankee Stadium and Barclays.

But a proposal with broad support from City legislators and residents in communities overrun with cars can still have a few detractors. The problem is that the myths being advanced against residential parking permits have more to do with stirring up fear and resentment than adding to an informed public dialogue. And some of the people making them, like State Senator Marty Golden of Bay Ridge, are threatening to block State authorization of the programs, holding New Yorkers hostage to score some cheap political points.

Myth #1: Parking permits are nothing more than a new kind of tax that the City will use to boost revenues.

Reality: There is no place in the United States where a municipality has built a significant revenue stream around residential parking permit fees. In Washington, DC, the fee is $35 ($25 for seniors). In Chicago and New Haven, the fee is $20. In Boston, the program is free. Under the Squadron bill that the City Council voted to support, fees collected from residential parking permits go to New York City Transit for improvements to subway and bus service, not to the City’s general fund. And any parking permit program enacted in New York would require public hearings and approval by the City Council. Neighborhoods that don’t want parking permits won’t get them.

Myth #2: Nobody should have the right to reserve a parking space on the street in front of his house.

Reality: Under residential parking permit programs, no one will. Parking permits don’t guarantee the holder a parking space. The permit simply enables the holder to avoid a ticket for parking his car on a local street during specified hours.

Myth #3: Parking permits will turn neighborhoods into gated communities, and make it impossible for others to drive there.

Reality: Residential parking permits won’t apply to commercial avenues, or any space where a parking meter is in operation. And permits are generally not in effect 24/7. Instead, residential parking restrictions are enforced when out-of-zone parking expected to be highest. For example, Atlantic Yards’ environmental impact statement (EIS) projects that an estimated 2,500 arena patrons will arrive at arena events by car. It’s true that requiring parking permits during arena events would also make it difficult for other drivers to park in the surrounding communities at those times. But without parking permits, it would have been nearly impossible for those drivers to park near the arena on event nights, anyway, as the EIS also says arena patrons will take up almost all available on-street parking. So either way, motorists will want to avoid surrounding streets during arena events.

Myth #4: The parking situation is already so bad in brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods, it’s too late for residential permits to do any good.

Reality: Like all catch-22’s, this one (which was floated by DOT Deputy Commissioner of External Affairs David Woloch at the November 2 City Council hearing) doesn’t ring true. For instance, a 2007 Transportation Alternatives study of traffic in Park Slope found that as much as 45% of drivers were cruising local streets in search of parking. During the Bloomberg administration’s 2008 push for congestion pricing in Manhattan, the administration proposed parking permits for Brooklyn neighborhoods close to transit hubs to discourage commuter parking. And a 2006 study by the Downtown Brooklyn Council found that one third of parking on the streets in Brooklyn Heights, Boerum Hill and Fort Greene was taken by cars registered outside of New York City, and one fifth were registered outside of New York State. There’s obviously a huge potential for parking permits to significantly reduce traffic in these neighborhoods.

The myths of residential parking permits give opportunistic politicians and press commentators fertile ground for all sorts of populist pronouncements about taxes and exclusionary policies. It’s especially galling to hear local legislators mislead the public at the expense of residents of neighborhoods outside their districts. Don’t fall for it. With more and more cars on the streets of New York City, it’s time to follow the example of successful programs in other cities, and give communities the choice to reduce traffic through implementing parking permits.

The clock counting down to the September 2012 Barclays Center opening is ticking. A gathering storm of traffic ready to bear down on neighborhoods around the arena is on the horizon. The State legislature has only the spring session left to authorize residential parking permits for New York City to avert traffic chaos in central Brooklyn. Let’s remind the State Senate Republicans that democracy requires enabling, not preventing, the public’s right to make choices.
Nov. 15, 2011, 1:32 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter:

Optional: