Posted Jun 12, 2013, 1:16 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,072
|
|
This project is in jeopardy at the moment, depending on the actions of the City Council.
Fate of big BAM expansion is a cliff-hanger
Noisy Councilwoman gets pushy, Two Trees may build as-of-right and kill cultural and residential components altogether
Quote:
The drama surrounding a major expansion of the Brooklyn Academy of Music's campus, the so-called BAM South development in Fort Greene, is now worthy of the 105-year-old theater.
At center stage is local Councilwoman Letitia James, who has long sung the praises of the project to bring 300 apartments and three cultural institutions to a site just off Flatbush Avenue. Just last week, however, Ms. James said she will oppose the development unless a series of demands are met. BAM South's developer, Two Trees Management Co., along with the project's many boosters, fear Ms. James' change of heart could foil the plan before the development comes up for its final City Council vote.
"If the project is turned down, the losers are going to be the affordable housing and cultural community and not the developer and the council member," said Tucker Reed, president of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership. "We've been working on this for years, and for it to be undone in a week for political reasons is a real shame for the community and the city."
Ms. James argues that she has always been skeptical of the project, where 20% of the units would be set aside for affordable housing. Furthermore, she said that she is only now voicing her concern because the project, which has been in the works since 2006 is finally before the City Council. In addition to more affordable housing units, Ms. James is pushing for "prevailing wages" for construction workers on the project, which essentially means bringing them up to union levels.
Critics argue that Ms. James is simply making this last minute stand to appease labor leaders, many of whom are backing her current campaign for public advocate, a charge dismissed by the councilwoman. "The two have nothing to do with each other," Ms. James said. "This is a public project, where the developer is receiving tax breaks and getting a good price for the land from the city, so it is appropriate a prevailing wage standard be met."
Two Trees, which has always built its projects in the borough with a mix of union and non-union labor, said that it simply cannot afford to compromise on construction costs, because it is already providing the 60 units of affordable housing along with the cultural space in the project. Two Trees estimates that paying prevailing wages would boost its construction costs by 30%.
A rezoning, which is needed for the project to move forward, is what the City Council will take up on Wednesday. The proposed zoning change would tweak the commercial zoning on the site to allow for the residential development.
The Bloomberg administration began weighing the fate of three parking lots across the street from BAM in the last decade, and Two Trees was selected to develop one of them, the site known as BAM South in 2009. In addition to being a site for affordable housing, the property at the corner of Flatbush and Lafayette avenues was always intended to also become a new cultural anchor, with space for BAM, the Brooklyn Public Library and 651 ARTS, a group dedicated to performing arts of "the African Diaspora."
These and other cultural groups have taken a stand against Ms. James, sending two strongly worded letters to City Council Speaker Christine Quinn imploring her to rally support for the project in spite of Ms. James' opposition. Negotiations are said to be ongoing with labor unions, the Bloomberg administration and Ms. James in the hopes of reaching some agreement before Wednesday's vote.
One possible outcome in the high drama is that Ms. James could formally lodge her protest vote, while the rest of the council rallies to pass the project. Such a thing has happened before, as it did with the huge Jamaica, Queens, rezoning in 2007. Then two local council members opposed the project, but it still passed the Council 45-3. Typically, council members back the local representatives, lest they face opposition when projects come up in their own districts.
[...]
|
|