Sections

Councilmembers unanimously approve shrunken 80 Flatbush project

Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:

Councilmembers on Thursday unanimously voted to approve the rezoning application a developer filed in order to erect its controversial five-building 80 Flatbush complex at the edge of Boerum Hill, hours after the builder reduced the size of its massive project in order to win the local pol’s key vote.

Alloy Development agreed to cut the floor-area ratio of the complex — which contains nearly 900 apartments, roughly 200 of which are so-called affordable, two new schools, and cultural and commercial space — that it wants to erect on land bounded by Flatbush and Third avenues and State and Schermerhorn streets, where the current “far” is 6.5, from 18 to 15.75, according to Councilman Stephen Levin, who said the shrinkage will result in a development that can retain its public benefits and is more appropriate for a lot he previously stressed must be transitional between Boerum Hill’s Brownstones and Downtown’s skyscrapers.

“It gets the community benefit, while also being responsive to concerns about density and height,” Levin told the Brooklyn Paper minutes before the vote took place during Council’s Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises meeting, despite earlier this week saying he’d “find it difficult” to approve the complex with a far above 15.

The reduction will not affect the size of the new 350-seat elementary school, according to Levin, or the newly built classrooms for high schoolers enrolled at the Khalil Gibran International Academy, whose current crumbling building is on the 80 Flatbush lot and would be restored for reuse along with two other on-site structures as part of Alloy’s scheme, which also calls for constructing two new towers.

The taller tower containing the affordable housing will shrink from 986 to 840 feet — but will still rise above the borough’s current tallest building, Schermerhorn Street’s 610-foot Hub, and the 720-foot Brooklyn Point tower in the works Downtown, while falling more than a hundred feet below the planned 1,066-foot structure that will rise from inside DeKalb Avenue’s landmarked Dime Savings Bank nearby. And the smaller high-rise will fall from 561 to 510 feet — topping out just below its landmarked neighbor, the Williamsburgh Savings Bank tower.

The complex’s number of below-market-rate units will not change, but in order to scale down the development, the builders agreed to nix 30 market-rate units, reducing the total number of apartments from 900 to 870, according to a rep for the developer. Some of 80 Flatbush’s commerical space will also be reduced, according to Alloy spokesman James Yolles, who said the exact amount has yet to be determined.

Construction of the shorter high-rise, and the schools, is expected to wrap in 2022, with the taller tower scheduled for completion in 2025.

Alloy bigwigs also redesigned the shape of the bigger building by placing its denser floors at the bottom and slimming floors out as they rise, in an attempt to reduce the shadows it will cast over the neighborhood and the nearby Brooklyn Bears’ Rockwell Garden, whose green thumbs feared the sky-scraper would block too much sunlight from their growing patch, according to Levin.

“A lot of density at the top of the tower shifted, so that will have an significant impact on light and air issues, and overall density issues,” he said.

Other wins for the community negotiated during closed-door discussions that continued right up until the vote included Alloy nixing all State Street loading docks from the complex, doling out $250,000 for improvements to the nearby community garden, and creating a 30-foot setback on State Street to better blend the complex with its neighboring Brownstones, Levin said.

“No loading docks on State Street, so no beeping trucks at two in the morning,” said the pol, who praised the developer for making changes that resulted in a project all involved agreed on.

Following the committee’s vote, the revised scheme snaking its way through the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure is all but certain to get the zoning change it needs, as its final hurdles are a full Council vote — which is more a formality with the committee’s approval — and a green light from Mayor DeBlasio, whose administration supported the development before its builders downsized it.

The modified project is the result of dozens of meetings with local stakeholders after the towers were formally announced in 2017 — roughly seven months after this newspaper first reported that Alloy was planning a mystery project in the neighborhood — that created an even-better development for the community, Alloy’s chief executive said following the vote.

“We’re proud that 80 Flatbush will deliver so many critically needed public benefits and help address the housing crisis,” said Jared Della Valle.

Reach reporter Julianne Cuba at (718) 260–4577 or by e-mail at jcuba@cnglocal.com. Follow her on Twitter @julcuba.
Updated 9:49 am, September 21, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

Mike from Williamsburg says:
It's hard to believe that Stephen Levin believes that 15 FAR provides for a transition but 18 FAR would be a bridge too far. (sorry) Surely the NIMBYs will still be mad. But the result is a senseless cutting of 130,000 square feet for no reason at all.
Sept. 20, 11:40 am
blogger Bill from from Boerum Hill says:
Councilman Levin just squandered his reputation. Steve, the manager of dog catcher position in Flint, MI is still open which looks like your future for betraying your constituents. "Vaya con perros" as we say in Boerum Hill.
Sept. 20, 1:16 pm
Charles from Bklyn says:
So can any landlord receive a sweetheart zoning deal? No, only those who pay to play.
Sept. 20, 2:14 pm
Mike from Williamsburg says:
Charles, if you know any landlords that want to turn their properties into much bigger properties that provide homes for many more people, I will write kind comments about their project here.
Sept. 20, 2:45 pm
AC from Upper West Side says:
The new design is actually better than the old one, and while I think the original heights should've been left, this is a great thing, and this is great news for all of Brooklyn, and all of the city. And props to Alloy for actually being able to reduce the height without cutting the benefits. 840 feet is a fine height though, even though I would've preferred to see the 986 foot height stay. The one thing I would say is that they didn't need to cut the smaller tower, that wasn't a problem. Thank you council member Levin, now if only more government officials could operate, and freely negotiate like you.
Sept. 20, 3:45 pm
blogger Bill from from Boerum Hill says:
AC from Upper West Side; with respect, go back to Moscow or wherever you are from. Clearly, you are a fool.
Sept. 20, 6:51 pm
AC from Upper West Side says:
Blogger Bill, I am not Russian, and I am not being paid to say this by anyone, and I am no bot. A similar thing is happening in my neighborhood right now, and the building in question, 50 West 66th Street, offers almost nothing in comparison to this building (A new facility for the Jewish Guild for the Blind... and 127 super-luxurious condos.) I've called for the building to actually grow a little bit, and stick 23 more condos on top of 75 affordable apartments. If sunlight, keeping out density, and context is that much more important than a brand new elementary school to alleviate overcrowded schools, a brand new facility for a much-needed high school, PRESERVATION OF SOME EXISTING BUILDINGS, a cultural center, and housing for 200 families that make as little as $29000, honestly, that frightens me... very much so. How about in the future, look at what goes in instead of what goes up. That's what I have encouraged people in my neighborhood to do as well.
Sept. 20, 8:19 pm
AC from Upper West Side says:
Also, Blogger Bill, Levin didn't betray you, he made a compromise. He saw that this building had more pros than cons, and he was able to work out a deal with Alloy Development to slightly cut the height, and they managed to keep everything good in it, and cut out 30 of the market-rate apartments. And honestly, if this didn't go through, you would still lose. Why? Alloy could've built as of right 580 feet. Given that the tower is on is on the Flatbush side of the complex, and doing some basic trigonometry (I am not going to bother with the explaining), if Alloy were to build as of right, the garden would still lose all of it's light from Mid-July to Mid-May... In other words, 2 months of unobstructed sunlight, with no public benefits to the community. Would you rather that, or slightly less unobstructed light with far more benefits to the community? Which comes first? The city's needs or the Garden?...
Sept. 20, 8:40 pm
Frank from Ft Greene says:
Levin will always sell out Brooklyn. He gave away the Brooklyn Heights library to a low bidding friend of the mayor's. No one expected he wouldn't do the same on 80 Flatbush.
Sept. 20, 9:53 pm
Jerome from Boerum Hill says:
Hey, AC, you ask whose benfits come first,the City's or the communuty's. The Mayor's and the Councilmembers's and the developers' always come first. The residents get rolled.
Sept. 20, 10:01 pm
Ben from Fort Greene says:
AC from UWS: which REBNY billionaire has you on the payroll? You're doing a fine job of reading their PR spin and ppt docs, but you can let it go. We don't need someone masquerading as a real citizen doing that. They've done it plenty, thanks. It's over. Money and power won as always. Please carry on with your campaign to turn UWS into Dubai. Have fun.
Sept. 20, 10:13 pm
Pedro from Boerum Hill says:
Our esteemed mayor just put a dagger into the heart of Brooklyn - 840 feet of vapid nothingness. AMI is a sham and will quickly be filled by the YIMBY crowd, not deserving families. The elementary school is tiny - ONE additional class per grade (wow) when mitigated for people in the buildings, the retail space will sit empty (have you checked out The Hub? Nobody has because the retail is VACANT). Some booming market. No, the developers will make a ton of money and whine the whole time, and Bill will get his press release, which is the only thing he cares about. And REBNY will continue to fund campaigns for every politician that wants money (only a tiny few refuse). And the zoning will keep magically changing so the developers make more money. And the luxury towers will sit half empty like 300 Ashland. And the city will keep giving away valuable land for nothing. REBNY and the YIMBY crowd are raiding the public trust and bribing our politicians and our political system. It’s not that complicated. The community hated this project from the beginning. Which is why the CB2 voted it down 32-1. It didn’t matter. The mayor got what he wanted. Expect more zoning changes, We are in the middle of a dirty money gold rush.
Sept. 20, 10:44 pm
Pedro from Boerum Hill says:
I’d like to also thank the press - especially Brooklyn Paper and Julianne Cuba. After the CB 2 voted down the project 32-1, Julianne’s article on the ONE CB 2 board member who said yes will be an incredible example of press bias to be used in stories for years to come. Great Job Julianne - you’re a part of history now! I wish this was the only example of such egregious bias, but most articles contained huge sections lifted directly from the developers press releases.
Sept. 20, 11:03 pm
Ben from Fort Greene says:
Well said Pedro. AC from UWS and Mike from Williamsburg are foolish pawns in the game. Unfortunately little or nothing can compete with billions of dollars. The media seems to love it too sadly.
Sept. 20, 11:04 pm
Mike from Williamsburg says:
Pedro, could you explain the difference between the YIMBY crowd and deserving families? And if you have time after that, explain how the retail space is going to sit vacant but the developers will make a ton of money. Oh! and the towers are also going to sit half empty! Yes, please explain how the retail space will be empty, the towers will be empty, and the developers are going to make a ton of money. Methinks something doesn't add up here.
Sept. 20, 11:28 pm
Ben from Fort Greene says:
Mike, I would invite you to visit the neighborhood you are so eager to rebuild and attempt to shop in the 100s of thousands of sq. ft. of retail space sitting empty. I'm sure it's the same where you live. The building won't be full, but it will be full enough to make Alloy the billions they have calculated. If you want to understand how the math works, ask your REBNY daddy or your friends at Alloy. We have, but they won't tell us. I'm sure they will show you their spreadsheet. It doesn't need to be full for them to make money. That's the beauty of getting a 2/3rds bonus on top of what you bought for free. One retail that won't be there is the thriving CKO Kickboxing business that's getting pushed out, along with the HIV center that currently serves hundreds of patients in need of their services. That will be displaced to Bushwick. As for the YIMBY crowd, we'll have to wait to see when the press does thorough coverage and interviews of the 200 people who get access to the "affordable" units. 160 of them will probably be studios filled with YIMBY millenials like yourself. Time will tell, but I'm sure you'll be onto something else by then. Please collect your REBNY check and be on your merry way.
Sept. 21, 7:20 am
Mike from Williamsburg says:
Ben is obsessed with the idea that people who support housing are someone being paid off for that support. But the only people getting money are the local shakedown artists. "doling out $250,000 for improvements to the nearby community garden" for a limited access playground for the rich? Disgusting.
Sept. 21, 7:54 am
AC from Upper West Side says:
Ok... What do you guys want instead? What do you think would be a proper alternative to this project? What do you think would better serve Boerum Hill than a refurbished and expanded international high school, a brand new elementary school, office space, cultural center, and 200 affordable apartments? What do you say to 200 families who make as little as $29000 a year? "Sorry, go find somewhere else to find affordable housing?" If this project got nixed, and then we had several more smaller luxury projects going up deeper into Brooklyn, in poorer neighborhoods what do you say to those people who would inevitably be displaced? "Sorry, we didn't want a tall building in our neighborhood, so now you guys have to suffer?" Do you really think a slightly taller building does more harm than providing a new school, a refurbished school, a cultural center, and 200 affordable apartments does good? Again, would you rather have an as of right LUXURY ONLY development that is 260 feet shorter than this development, which, again, means that you still lose sunlight, and the garden loses too, or would you take the more height, but all the community benefits? You guys can't cry about overcrowded schools and the housing crisis, while at the same time, shut down this project, because, while an imperfect solution, it is the best tactic so far that we've gotten.
Sept. 21, 8:14 am
AC from Upper West Side says:
And again, I am not a bot, I am not Russian, and I am not being paid by anyone to do this. I just see that the good far outweighs the bad. In the Upper West Side, there is one building that is being fought, and another building that just got passed. I called on both developers, SJP and Extell, to add some more housing, retail, and affordable units, and then they would gain my full support. I don't blindly support development, while I like tall buildings, I look at what's going in. For example, I love the design of 1 Manhattan Square, but I don't think it should've been built where it's being erected. Sutton 58 does nothing for Sutton Place, so it should be moved, or adjusted to something closer to 40 or 50 stories, I would actually call for a total redesign of 249 East 62nd street. That building is a terrible waste of space, and it's ugly. Compare those buildings to 80 Flatbush... you'll see where I am going with this
Sept. 21, 8:19 am
Pedro from Boerum Hill says:
AC - I understand your points, but you haven't looked at the fine print. Of course we want new schools (even though this part of District 15 the elementary school that's here already is UNDER enrolled). But they are adding roughly a 1/4 of an elementary school, and touting their "gymnatorium" (meaning there's one room that's a combined gym and an auditorium). That's not progress. And watch how many of the apartments are actually available for those making $29k a year. It's going to be a paltry few. Most will be studios and one bedrooms for YIMBY folks just out of college. This is why the Brooklyn BP in his report asked them to ensure that they build 2 bedrooms, so families can live there. Nothing at press time indicates any move by the developers to do so. Again, you have to read the fine print. This is all about the city being unable or unwilling to pay for things - like schools and affordable housing, that it used to include as part of it's public mission, for the public good. Thus the developers can add sprinklings of these "benefits" and the city gives them all they want. They can then claim they got them "for free" but thats absurd of course - the tax abatements go into the hundreds of millions of $. If you think upzoning this space from a 6.5 to a 15.75 FAR is going to magically keep developers from building in poorer neighborhoods I have a bridge to sell you. They aren't responding to a specific need in the community, they are simply looking for places they can make money.
Sept. 21, 1:08 pm
Mike from Williamsburg says:
Pedro, where do you think college graduates should be allowed to live?
Sept. 21, 1:19 pm
Pedro from Boerum Hill says:
They can live anywhere, but they don't need "below market" apartments.
Sept. 21, 1:45 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Perhaps the reason to why there is so much opposition to this could be that many are tired of broken promises by developers. As a matter of fact, the way both Mike and AC talk sound as if they are paid supporters for this project, and acting defensive seems to prove that. Let's not forget that the Atlantic Yards (now called Pacific Park) was also known for having broken promises yet there were those who fell for it hook, line, and sinker, but that was mainly because they were paid to support it otherwise they would never do so. All Forest City Ratner needed was just a group of poor minorities to promote his project at hearings and nothing else. Once he got what he wanted, he didn't even need them anymore and snubbed them. My point to that is that all developers just need are a group of regulars to act as yes men for them just to help them get through and nothing else. On a side note, the reason I said don't shoot the messenger on the other post involving this issue was because I didn't write that letter, somebody else did, and you can always write back to the Daily News if you didn't like it.
Sept. 21, 5:48 pm
steph from ft greene says:
AC and Mike your points are worthless as it is obvious you are the developers themselves. No one else wants these stupid ugly generic towers in their neighborhood.
Sept. 21, 7:19 pm
Mike from Williamsburg says:
My only connection to real estate is that I live in an apartment that I rent. The reason I support building more housing is I don't want some rich person to try to come live here.
Sept. 21, 8:18 pm
AC from Upper West Side says:
I don't know if I have said this on this site before Tal, but while you're points aren't invalid, in this instance, they're highly unlikely. Alloy is a small development firm. They're about to pull off a project with a tower 7x taller than they've ever built before, in a hotly contested area. Given Alloy's small stature, and relatively minor impact in the real estate world of NYC, it would be an extremely dumb move for them to pull a bait and switch tactic like what you describe. They would immediately lose all credibility, and it would become an extremely arduous process for them to ever build something again, even something of the stature of what they've previously built. Again, I completely understand, and respect your concern, but I wouldn't start worrying until the 4th or 5th project they try to muster up. Extell did a similar thing in my neighborhood, where they submitted one rendering, quickly demolished for the site, left it as is, and then submitted a new rendering, with a building 3x taller. And while frankly, I like the design of the new building I think the number of apartments and the use of space is appalling, and I've called on them to make major changes.
Sept. 21, 8:53 pm
AC from Upper West Side says:
Also, Steph, I'm still in high school... I do possibly want to go into the real estate/developing business as a profession though. But right now, I am just following New York YIMBY, and Curbed. And like Mike said, this kind of defiance towards projects like these is exactly how a project like 1 Manhattan Square comes about, a project that is truly too tall for it's neighborhood, and truly economically out of context, and does real harm to the neighborhood, and actually steals light. This building is now more in context by your definitions, is not too tall at all, is economically in context, and contributes so much to your neighborhood. If we were having a discussion about 9 DeKalb being built in that lot, that would be another argument, and I might actually side with you on that one, but the public benefits in this building outweigh every other problem. And again, it could've been a 580 foot super luxurious condominium project that did nothing for the neighborhood while still contributing the same problems.
Sept. 21, 9:03 pm
AC from Upper West Side says:
Pedro, developers are going to keep building in poor neighborhoods, the city is going to grow that way. Have you seen the Bronx below Fordham Road lately? Go on a ride on the 2/5 train from 3 Ave - 149th Street to East 180th Street, you'll see 20 brand new or under construction projects right along the route. Is it necessarily a good thing? Honestly, I couldn't tell you, I don't know what half the projects are, they don't get as much press time as many other projects going up across the city. You're right, up-zoning isn't going to stop gentrification, but it's definitely a better solution than leaving current zoning. What this project does that's different is that it alleviates potential gentrification, and I am talking about the market rate apartments. Yes, believe it or not, I don't know if this has already been said, but having so many apartments actually bodes well for the rest of the borough, because now, instead of potentially moving deeper into more working-class sections of Brooklyn, they will settle in this project here. You're utilizing the space here to the fullest so you're not dislocating other elsewhere. Again, you don't want more 1 Manhattan Square type buildings being built. And I will ask again, honestly, I am curious. What did you want to see out of this? What kind of building did you want built? Give me floor numbers, actual height (Floors don't have to equal 10 feet, in fact, they should most often be more than that.), amenities, commercial, office, different public benefits. Seriously, I want to know what people would've wanted to see instead.
Sept. 21, 9:22 pm
Letitia Jetson from Futurama says:
Nothing worse than the losers who call people who support the development “paid by the developers”. These are the same losers who call people who support the #walkaway campaign against the failed Democratic Party “Russian bots”. They literally cannot handle people having a different opinion and cannot intelligently debate an issue. Everyone of an opposing viewpoint is invalidated. Bunch of fascists.
Sept. 21, 10:11 pm
Rally For Our Neighborhoods from All NYC-5 Boroughs! says:
Rally against overdevelopment & big real estate giveaways at the expense of our neighborhoods and the people who already live in them To draw public attention to these problems show up and speak up! Bring signs/banners AND your own block's issues. When: Saturday, October 13 Time: 12-1 (rain or shine) Where: City Hall, Manhattan
Sept. 22, 12:49 pm
Tal Barzilai from Pleasantville, NY says:
Considering those who support this project to be paid may not be as farfetched as claimed to be. I can still remember the groups who supported the Atlantic Yards usually getting a lot of benefits from FCR, plus they had a history of even being disruptive at certain hearings involving that said project whenever the opposition spoke, which I experienced first hand. Personally, I just find the promises to be mostly lies, and I'm not that one who will only wait until after to find out that I was duped. When they say affordable housing, it makes me want to know what they really mean by that. Will it be affordable to those on the lower incomes such as the working class or do they really mean around the middle class and higher up? The reason I use the Atlantic Yards was because it was all about using broken promises and so many fell for them hook, line, and sinker. If it didn't involve the Nets, which was used as the project's Trojan Horse, it would have a lot of questioning and other issues from concerned residents and politicians. Then again, there are developers that can get their way just by saying that they will endorse certain politicians for supporting them as if they say that they now own them. On a side note, if you want to know what really went on with the Atlantic Yards, there is a blog known as the Atlantic Yards Report, which is done by famous blogger Norman Oder.
Sept. 22, 1:03 pm
AC from Upper West Side says:
Okay sure, that's fair. Just know that I, unfortunately, couldn't go to any of these meetings, and was restricted to the ones in my neighborhood regarding 200 Amsterdam Avenue, which got passed. Again, I do want to possibly go into the real estate business for college, but I pride myself in deviating from popular opinion, and standing on my own in most cases, and this case is no different. One more thing I would like to point out. One thing that Stephen Levin did that I haven't seen any other councilmember do when it came to situations like this was that he compromised, and he knew what he wanted. He said initially, "I want a Far of about 12, or a 610 foot tower." That was huge. Did I agree with his proposal, not necessarily, but honestly, it was a start. One thing that I would say YIMBYs do wrong is that they don't express a concrete example of what they want as an alternative. Like in my neighborhood, and here sometimes too, I constantly asked what people wanted, and it wasn't out of the blue. Levin demonstrated how that question gets somewhere, and in the end, he got a compromise. He got 40% of his originally requested height cut. This is exactly why I ask people what they want, and I seriously and honestly applaud Levin and Alloy for coming to an agreement in the end, where everyone won. If Helen Rosenthal did the same thing in the Upper West Side, maybe 200 Amsterdam Avenue would be 510 feet instead of 670 feet, but the fact that total defiance ultimately led to no change, and a in depth discussion led to a good trimming says a whole lot about approaches to this kind of topic. Anyone who opposed this project, and who opposes any potential projects, I call on you to do one simple thing: Express what you want to see built, and work from there to negotiate a middle ground, and a decent compromise. Instead of saying "It's too tall, don't build that" Say, "I wanna see something different go up." or "You could use the space a lot more effectively, here's what you should insert." It works, this case is evidence of that.
Sept. 22, 8:28 pm
Historian from Fort Greene says:
I really hope the City Council is smart enough to look at sanitation issues already developing from over development without major infrastructure upgrades in the areas past Fulton-Lafayette-Dekalb in Fort Greene community. The tunnels as they are are around 118 yrs of subway trains usage for residents. Infrastructure is old, solidly built underground, not above ground. Developers are known for making promises, but never keeping them. Remove Tax Abatements and I am all for development, but while they get free money, plus billions using the bogus AMI (average monthly income) index to determine if folk move in our out, they will be vacant for most residents that make Brooklyn so desirable. Many buildings are empty, supposedly affordable for YIMBYs and the gentrifying "think they can handle" folk coming here only to find the city chews and spits folk who can't handle it. NYC is ripe with accidents happening, not to mention technology outage with the massive amounts of construction. Sites are not protected well, dust blows without the monstrosities being dumped in Brooklyn. Wind tunnels are about to get crazy. Two tunnels with crumbling activity are small signs that the over development may cause crumbling of the tunnels. Over use without proper infrastructure studies, patches will cause such infrastructure to crumble from over use of the trains to carry the massive amounts of people. Ground should be sampled for hardness and ability to take the oncoming pressure of overdevelopment. Platforms are horribly overcrowded, ignorant behaviors of yelling to fix the subway doesn't help. For those of us who live and like it, it's a part of this city. For any of you living in Ft. Greene, pay attention what seems to be too many sewage smells lingering for too longer period of a time. Please call 311 and report. The sanitation and waste system was built and designed for the residential neighborhoods. Idiot greedy politicians are either too dumb to have engineers investigate the stability of what will happen or just refusing to look at supporting infrastructure to see what will happen. Most architects refuse to build on contentious ground. I hope this goes without any harm to the community. Tunnel crumbling is a warning.
Sept. 23, 1:36 am
Long-time resident from Downtown Brooklyn says:
As someone who has been engaged for decades in letter-writing campaigns opposing out-of-context buildings of whatever height and participating in the public review process, I wish to support AC. He (or she) is the only person here who goes below the surface by reasoning. I agree that the impacts of such high structures are anything but pleasant. But we must accept the fact that nothing remains the same over one's lifetime, and there are and will always be those with more power, personal and political, whether or not they "grease" politicians' palms. Those who call others names may be the same who have never engaged in, or at least observed, a political process; attended a meeting of their local community board; and have no idea what struggle it is to arrive at a compromise. I suggest that those who live in Council member Levin's district either run for public office or back an opposition candidate and vote Levin out.
Sept. 23, 3:03 pm
Smart development from Fort Greene says:
1. You can't vote Levin out because he is term limited at the end of this, his third term. 2. Don't you all love that that about $2 billion of our tax dollars subsidized the Chinese Government at Atlantic Yards as well as a Russian Oligarch? And that is on top of endless broken promises by Ratner and his enablers in government. Why trust anything that a developer says? 3. Why is it that the word infrastructure never crosses the lips of those who support these massive developments. As said before the infrastructure was designed a long time ago to accommodate mostly row houses and is entirely inadequate to accommodate the many high rises in the area. Be aware that most of Flatbush is coming down as well as much of Fulton Street and now the precedent is set for out of scale development. Ignoring antiquated infrastructure is as smart as ignoring global warming. That transit rich area is entirely overburdened because every developer has called it transit rich. 4. Aren't you tired of endless glass and steel structures blocking out the sky?
Sept. 23, 11:38 pm
AC from Upper West Side says:
Again, the subway is the MTA's problem, not the developer. Your concern is well intentioned, but ill-informed. If we were to follow that logic, almost every construction project going up today would have to be halted, and we would only be able to build on the outskirts of the boroughs, which isn't a great idea, because we all know how those people would react, and every single proposed project would immediately get shut down.
Sept. 24, 7:25 am

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: