Brooklyn Reflection
There is a lot of controversy over the development plans for the “Atlantic Yards” project in Brooklyn, New York. As discussed in class there is also controversy over how these projects should be financed. These developments, such as the “Atlantic Yards”, are usually being pushed by large corporations and rich moguls like Bruce Ratner.
It is hard to say which financial options are the best for developments. It depends on the area and all of the specific plans for development. Bringing tourism into any area is a good idea. Although it is a difficult process, and you are going to run into unhappy people, the end product tends to benefit the communities. In the class reading “Law- Urban Tourism” these issues of financing are addressed. It is said that, “…many studies have attempted to show that there are benefits from tourism and that any public sector investment can be justified,” (p. 51).
Not every situation is the same, though, as I have stated before. The Brooklyn Case Study delves into the issues of the developers vs. the community. The area that is being developed isn’t necessarily in need of the new sky scrapers, an arena and various shops. In the PBS video viewed in class Candace Carpenter, member of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, discusses how the majority of the community will not be able to achieve the $65,000/year income to meet the affordable housing requirements. The community is upset about the developing because of these issues. Many residents will be displaced from their homes and unable to come back to the area. Though the new developments can potentially bring a lot of revenue, the costs of the project seem to keep going up. “16 Skyscrapers and a $950 million Arena (cost was $636 million at approval in December 2006, but has been reported at $950 million since March 2008) that will cost taxpayers nearly $2 billion, according to independent analysis,” (Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn).
Other issues that are problematic with public financing of these large developments are political “promises”. Developers are quick to list of potential benefits of taxpayers money, but they can’t really make these promises set in stone. A lot of times these are hopes of what will happen, not necessarily what does happen. In the Brooklyn Case it is claimed, “that Atlantic Yards will create 10,000 permanent jobs and 15,000 temporary construction jobs,” (www.nolandgrab.org). However, the facts show that their claims were far off from what is now being estimated. The New York City Economic Development Corporation estimates that instead of 10,000 it will be 2,500 jobs and only 700 of them would be new to NYC (www.nolandgrab.org). The claims that were once made to the community are not going to be successfully followed through by the developers and this is only going to hurt the people.
There are positive perks to development in certain areas. However, if the development is mainly unwanted from community members and development only hurts them, it will not be as positive as expected. The developments may bring tourists to an area, but it will not be welcomed by the community. If there is resentment of tourism by the majority of a community the two will not mix well together. Bad word of mouth will spread about these areas and it will only hurt community members who paid all of the tax money to develop the area. By using public funding developers take a chance with community members. They risk trust, commitment and support from local people who are essentially paying for their projects. It is a difficult topic that literally changes from every single place and project.
