Open Letter To New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan Regarding Non-disclosures By Ginia Bellafante and the New York Times In Connection With Article About Proposed Sale And Shrinkage of Brooklyn Heights Library

The following is an open letter from Citizens Defending Libraries co-founder Michael D. D. White to the New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan.

* * * *
To: Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor, New York Times
Public@nytimes.com

Dear Ms. Sullivan,

Subject: Non-disclosure of reporter's connection to significant aspect relevant to article about proposed sale and shrinkage of major Brooklyn Library, that private school will benefit very substantially behind the scenes.

I am writing to call to your attention to and ask for your evaluation as New York Times Public Editor of an article written by a New York Times reporter, Ginia Bellafante, with a slant that may not have been discernable to many New York Times readers, but should be very discernible to those who know the facts concerning the subject as well as I believe Ms. Bellafante did.  Ms. Bellafante's editor observes that the article reflects an "opinion" Ms. Bellafante's formed about a very important public issue, whether a major public asset should be sold for redevelopment, the Brooklyn Heights Library, the central destination library in downtown Brooklyn, proposed to be replaced by a luxury tower with a drastically shrunken library at its base.

The article is: Brooklyn Libraries, Development and Misdirected Fear, July 10, 2015

Ms. Bellafante left out of her article many facts, some might think oddly or preferentially, that would very likely have caused her readers to form an opinion, contrary to her own, and conclude that the proposed library sale and shrinkage is unwise.  Her omissions included leaving out the fact that, quite shocking to many, a private school, Saint Ann's, is benefitting to the tune of what is likely to be tens of millions of dollars if the library is sold and shrunk.  Behind the scenes the possibility of materializing this private benefit for the private school seems to be a significant factor in driving forward this public transaction with its attendant public losses.

More important, in terms of letting readers evaluate the objectivity with which Ms. Bellafante was presenting what she wrote, Ms. Bellafante neglected to disclose to them, something unknown to me when she was interviewing me for the article: that she is a parent with a child in that Saint Ann's school that stands to benefit from the transaction she was writing about.

In addition to Ms. Bellafante not disclosing this herself when she wrote the article, the New York Times thereafter chose not to publish a comment on her article (the article was one that was open for comment) that I wrote that would have filled in this omission.  My comment on the article, provided below, noted that Ms. Bellafante disclosed to me, as she was writing the article, that she already knew about how Saint Ann's, a private school, is getting a significant payday (in a currently undisclosed amount) if the proposed sale and shrinkage of the public's library proceeds. Plus my comment noted that Ms. Bellafante and I had discussed the issue of Saint Ann's lobbying for the sale and shrinkage of the library in the background.  I also noted that  Ms. Bellafante did NOT tell me during those discussions that she is a Saint Ann's parent.

The Times decision not to publish my comment was apparently made after my ultimately-not-to-be-published comment was forwarded to Ms. Bellafante's editor who, apparently after consultation with Ms Bellafante, contacted me to say that it was not being published and to explain her view as editor that these things were not of concern.  I do not concur with Ms Bellafante’s editor in this assessment and I am providing our email exchange about this below.

Unfortunately, the publishing of Ms. Bellafante’s article was very well timed to influence an important political vote by Brooklyn Community Board 2 about whether the transaction should proceed and was used as propaganda by those attempting to push the transaction forward.

It would probably be worthwhile to consider chronologically the following concerning Ms. Bellafante’s writing of the article.

On July 6, 2015, the Monday after the 4th of July weekend Ms. Bellafante showed up at a hastily scheduled meeting of the Brooklyn Community Board 2 Land Use Committee.   Because the meeting was atypically being set up ad hoc at the very last minute with notice not going out to the public until 8:55 PM, Thursday, June 30th (essentially for all practical purposes Friday morning of the 4th of July weekend) Citizens Defending Libraries of which I am a part and co-founder of, had a tough time notifying as many people as we could to get the word out that this meeting was to occur.

According to what Robert Perris, the District Manager for CB2 told CB2 members later (July 11, 2015) when distributing and touting Ms. Bellafante’s “observations,” Ms. Bellafante “apparently walked over from her Brooklyn Heights home to attend the community board's public hearing on the ULURP applications associated with the Brooklyn Public Library's plans for its Brooklyn Heights and Business and Career branches” to attend the meeting.

Attending the meeting Ms. Bellafante heard discussion by a CB2 Land use committee that was obviously flailing about helplessly with, for instance, a total lack of knowledge about how much they were actually shrinking the library.  The public was not allowed to speak before the Land Use Committee voted, but it would be hard to think that anyone attending would not have been greatly affected, taking expressed sentiments to heart, when, at the end of the meeting, a long line of community members got up and spoke absolutely unanimously and very eloquently (we should get all our video posted on this) inveighing against sale and shrinkage of the library. No member of the public attending the meeting spoke any words of approval for the scheme.

In news coverage of that night summarizing many of the comments I am quoted as follows:

"This is a very sad vote," said Michael D. D. White, co-founder of Citizens Defending Libraries, which has been fighting the sale. "You've declared open season on selling off of libraries, you've declared open season on the selling off of public assets in general. And you've set the precedent for selling them off at an extraordinarily low price."

See:  the Brooklyn Eagle:  CB2 committee approves sale of Brooklyn Heights Library, with caveats, By Mary Frost, July 7, 2015.  I said much the same thing on News 12 coverage which, with a few short minutes and few words managed to cover other essential points Ms. Bellafante neglected in her article.

Apparently, however, Ms. Bellafante's point of view was not, and perhaps could not be, swayed by the public sentiments expressed that night.  Ms. Bellafante’s editor email to me stated that Ms. Bellfante’s “opinion” that “the redevelopment of the Brooklyn Heights branch should go forward had already been formed” and, in fact, was formed before she learned that the Saint Ann’s school her child attends was benefitting.  We don’t know when Ms. Bellafante decided she would write her article, but it has come to our attention that Ms. Bellafante was informed that Saint Ann’s was benefitting at least by the evening of Monday, June 29, 2015. . .  which means that her “opinion” was already formed by that Monday.

Tuesday, July 7th, the day after the Land Use Committee meeting Ms. Bellafante attended, Ms Bellafante reached out to me leaving a message on Facebook at 3:42 PM.  See below:

Michael: I am a Brooklyn Heights resident and columnist at the NYT and I'm writing this week about some of the changes facing Brooklyn libraries (both at Cadman and Sunset Plaza).

I was at the Community Board meeting last night and noticed some folks holding up signs and assumed they were affiliated with Citizens Defending Libraries. I'd love to talk to you (and/or you and your wife, who I understand is also very involved in this issue) about some of your concerns. I live right on Willow so could meet for coffee in the AM if you have time or we could talk on the phone if that's easier.

Let me know. My email is  giniab[at]nytimes.com

Many thanks,
Ginia

Ms Bellafante finally reached me the following afternoon (Wednesday July 8th) when she called my cell phone wanting a call back “before 6:30 PM” because she was “on a deadline.”

I called her back and we talked extensively starting about 4:30 PM.  In multiple respects I was surprised by how much she told me she already knew about the library sales.  Although she was contacting me with a stated deadline that was imminent, Ms. Bellafnate’s preparation for her article with its pro-development message the article did not appear to have been be rushed into production. 

Her article, published in the Metropolitan Section, was posted on line Friday afternoon.

In collecting more information from me, Ms. Bellafante let me know that she was already very familiar with many facts she later left out of the article, including how Saint Ann's private school is benefitting behind the scenes if the public's library is sold and shrunk.  She was also aware of the linkage between the sale of the Donnell Library for an inexcusably low price and the virtual carbon-copy replication of that model with the proposed sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library: She said she knew that when David Offensend was at the NYPL overseeing the much criticized Donnell sale, his wife, Janet Offensend, went to the BPL where she was key in evolving the "real estate strategy" and concurrent decision to sell and shrink the Heights Library.

Nevertheless, there were a fair number of things I told her that she didn't know that I noted didn't show up in her article even when I think they were of significance.  For instance, that Bill de Blasio had stood on the steps of the 42nd Street Central Reference Library in July of 2013 calling for a halt to the sale and shrinkage of libraries, including this particular Brooklyn Heights Library,* but then not long after, while developer applications were pending was taking money from the development team his administration ultimately selected as he let the sale proceed through to the next steps preceding the public approval process that Ms. Bellafante was writing about.  At Ms. Bellfante's request I directed her to a video available on the Citizens Defending Libraries YouTube channel of de Blasio's July 2013 statements appearing beside us to opposing the library sales.

(* Mr. de Blasio (7/12/2013): "It's public land and public facilities and public value under threat. . . and once again we see, lurking right behind the curtain, real estate developers who are very anxious to get their hands on these valuable properties")

Instead of mentioning anything about de Blasio in connection with the above, Ms. Bellafante downplayed the likely legitimacy of suspicions about our top elected officials and the sacrifice public assets for real estate development by suggesting to her readers that such suspicions were a sort of reflexive hangover, an "aftermath of the Bloomberg era" (therefore safely past tense and dissociated from the de Blasio era?).

I was also able to inform Ms. Bellafante, because she did not know, that Scott Sherman, who had written a series of articles about proposed NYC library sales and shrinkages for The Nation, had a new book book just out, "Patience and Fortitude- Power, Real Estate, and the Fight to Save a Public Library," that included in it new revelations about just how extremely little the NYPL netted from the sale and shrinkage of the Donnell Library: Less than $33 million.  From that amount must still be subtracted annual rent for a temporary replacement Donnell that started at $850,000 after Donnell, still not reopened in any form, closed in spring of 2008 and also must be subtracted millions of dollars paid to high-priced professionals associated with making that transaction materialize.  That very low net price was for a 97,000 square foot library shrunk down to a largely underground and largely bookless library of just just 28,000 square feet, while the penthouse apartment in the 50-story luxury tower replacing this public building is on the market for $60 million and other apartments in the building are selling for prices in the neighborhood of what the NYPL netted.

Ms. Bellafante did not tell me that she had already formulated an opinion that the Heights Library should similarly be sold and shrunk, but a few odd things indicated she might already have some leanings about certain things . . .  

Ms. Bellafante dismissed with disinterest the inconsistencies of the Brooklyn Heights Association respecting its position on selling and shrinking the library because of the gap in time between when it advocated the library be enlarged and its switch to now advocate that it be shrunk.

The fact that the library was significantly enlarged and completely upgraded with appreciable public expense in 1993, making the building essentially 5 years newer than the adjacent Forest City Ratner One Pierrepont Plaza, Morgan Stanley building, was irrelevant to her.  That Morgan Stanley building is where Hillary Clinton has chosen to locate her National Campaign Headquarters.  “After all,” that (1993) was “twenty years” back at the time the BPL announced it wanted to sell the library Ms. Bellafante reasoned aloud sharing her thoughts.

The Friday afternoon Ms. Bellafante's article went up, I immediately started posting comments to the article to add to it facts and perspective that I felt the article lacked.  Processing of comments was slow with some taking five hours to appear.

Publication of Ms. Bellafante’s article this particular weekend was very well-timed to have an influence on a CB2 vote scheduled for the following Wednesday, July 15, 2015, as to whether the library should be sold and shrunk and Saturday, the afternoon following the article’s publication it was sent around to all the CB2 members as propaganda by the CB2 District Manager suggesting the relevance of Ms. Bellfante’s “observations” to the upcoming vote.  See below:

July 11, 2015 at 3:20:21 PM EDT.

"Ginia Bellafante, who writes the "Big City" column in the Metropolitan section of the New York Times, apparently walked over from her Brooklyn Heights home to attend the community board's public hearing on the ULURP applications associated with the Brooklyn Public Library's plans for its Brooklyn Heights and Business and Career branches.  The applications are on the agenda for this Wednesday's general meeting, to be held at 6:00 pm at St. Francis College.  I thought the members of Community Board 2 and its Land Use Committee might be interested in Ms. Bellafante's observations."- District Manager Robert Perris.

(For what it’s worth, almost as soon as Ms. Bellfante’s article was posted on Friday, 3:04 PM, Ashley Cotton, Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff of Forest City Ratner, another of the real estate parities involved in the proposed library sale and shrinkage tweeted Ms. Bellafante’s article embedding a “thank you.”)

On Sunday, July 12th when I learned in the afternoon that Ms. Bellafante was a Saint Ann’s parent I submitted the following comment to the Times article (I was still awaiting publication of a previous comment about digital books).  This is the comment the Times would not publish:

When I spoke with Ms. Bellafante there was a great deal of information she impressed me by telling me that she already knew,, most of which doesn't appear here.  For instance, the background connections explaining how this proposed sale is modeled on the Donnell sale debacle, conceived at the same time.

Ms. Bellafante also explained that she knew all about how Saint Ann's, a private school, is getting a significant payday from the sale and shrinkage of the public's library in a currently undisclosed amount.  We discussed the issue of Saint Ann's lobbying for the sale in the background.

What Ms. Bellafante did NOT tell me and I now understand to be true is that Ms. Bellafante is a Saint Ann's parent, something not disclosed in this article.

Here is what Ms. Bellafante's editor wrote back to me at the end of the next day confirming that Ms. Bellfante was a Saint Ann's parent together with reasoning about my comment that was not being published:

From: Virshup, Amy  
To: mddwhite  
Sent: Mon, Jul 13, 2015 4:39 pm
Subject: Your comment on Ginia Bellafante's column

Dear Mr. White,

I am Ginia Bellafante's editor at the Sunday Metropolitan section of the Times and your comment about Ms. Bellafante's recent column on proposed library redevelopments in Brooklyn was forwarded along to me. The comment was not posted on the site, as I'm sure you know.  But I didn't want to let the moment pass without getting back to you.

I spoke to Ms. Bellafante about any possible conflict of interest. She began following the library issue before she knew that any possible sale of air rights by St. Ann's could be part of the project. She had not heard that anyone in the school was lobbying for the redevelopment to go forward, until you and other opponents claimed to her this was the case. Her opinion of whether the redevelopment of the Brooklyn Heights branch should go forward had already been formed and was not influenced by this news, or by the fact that she has a child at St. Ann's.

As citizens of New York, we here at the Times often end up writing and editing about things that intersect with our own lives. There are cases in which we feel that a reporter or columnist is simply too close to an issue to write fairly about it. We don't think this is one of those cases.

Sincerely,
Amy Virshup

Here is what I wrote back: 

Monday, July 20, 2015 9:21 pm

Dear Ms. Virshup,

Yes, thank you, I am aware that the Times did not publish my comment.

When I talked with Ginia she told me that she knew all about the Saint Ann's payday.  I was surprised by how much she knew about this and other things like the linkage between Donnnell and other library sales with the Offensends (from our shared Brooklyn Heights neighborhood*) in the background and somewhat surprised by how much she chose to leave out as too unimportant to specifically mention, and too unimportant apparently to weigh in the balance of her conclusions.

        * We also similarly talked about Mr. Gutman.

Talking about Saint Ann's, we talked about the PowerPoint presentation that Saint Ann's did for its faculty about the library sale.  We also discussed at length the issue of Saint Ann's lobbying for its private benefit behind the scenes to drive forward this transaction where the public incurs significant loss.  I don't know when Ms. Bellafante first became well informed about the Saint Ann's payday before talking to me, nor do I know when she formulated her opinions, but I firmly feel it was, as a matter of good journalistic practice, a matter for her to disclose to her readers.  Ostensibly, at least she was formulating her thoughts when seeking information from me, and perhaps she should still have been.  On the other hand you are suggesting she already had a fixed idea of the conclusions she intended to promulgate before contacting me.

Failing disclosure in her article, I think it would have been fairest to the public and Ms. Bellafante's readers to at least learn that Ms. Bellafante was a Saint Ann's parent via my comment when I offered it rather than blocking it. This would have been especially valuable to have done on a timely basis, because Ms. Bellafante's article was used as a propaganda piece sent out officially by the CB2 office for CB2 board member consideration in connection with their vote before the CB2 members voted.  It was very well timed and well written for that purpose.

I could quibble about other matters in the article that look like they reflected an agenda on Ms. Bellafante's part, but I suppose I will only add that Ms. Bellafante did not mention to me that she was was going to depict Citizens Defending Libraries as having a sort of a feud with Urban Librarians Unite.  I don't believe she mentioned Urban Librarians Unite at all, and she certainly didn't mention her intent to have them comment on Citizens Defending Libraries or offer any opportunities of balance in that regard.

As for the question of when a columnist is too close to an issue to write fairly about it there will be different opinions. I, myself, personally, believe it is often necessary to write about things intersecting closely with our own lives. .  although maybe this is less often the case at the Times where the staff is large.  The lack of disclosure is what is troubling.

As to whether these or other relationships affected Ms. Bellafante's judgement in these matters, some of her logic troubled me like quickly dismissing the oddness of so drastically shrinking a library we so recently expanded (effectively the library is five years newer than the adjacent Ratner building, One Pierrepont Plaza, where Hillary Clinton has located her national headquarters).  Right now I'll leave the question of whether Ms. Bellafante's judgement was affected to others to consider without stating my own conclusion.  It's something I believe you and the Times should still be thinking about.   As for the public, it  won't be able to evaluate the question for itself without disclosure.

MICHAEL D. D. WHITE
Citizens Defending Libraries 
Noticing New York
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/
National Notice
http://nationalnotice.blogspot.com/
W: (718) 834-6184
C: (917) 885-1478
mddwhite [at]aol.com

I did not get a response back.

One additional afterthought I’ve had is that, even if Ms. Bellafante formulated her apparently irrevocable opinion that the library should she sold before she formally knew that Saint Ann’s was getting a great deal of financial benefit in the background, she still formulated her opinion with that Saint Ann's sale being part of the milieu, the background and social environment of people around her, against which she formulated her thoughts.  Without being very careful it is not so easy to say that there was no consequent influence.
 
The purpose of this letter is not to point out where Ms. Bellafante and I may disagree in about conclusions that could be subjective, but pointing out some of these differences will help indicate instances where more wary and alerted readers might conclude that Ms. Bellafante's judgment was off.

Ms. Bellafante is entitled to a personal observation upon which she describes the library as "dilapidated," especially since she told me that she has visited the library with her son, but it is an assessment we don't share and I directed her to an extensively complete set of photographs including all the space not normally viewable by the public that I believe supports a different conclusion.  While it must be treated as Bellafante's own assessment it seems less accurate than an indication that she was looking to pass along promulgated talking points of the BPL.  Using sarcasm to belittle the idea that there is need for scrutiny because the BPL estimated costs of $9 million in necessary repairs for the library, $3.5 million for a partially out of commission air conditioning system (actually estimated by the BPL as higher than that) are likely inflated, Ms. Bellafante tossed off to her readers a disbelief that library administrators are interested in doing real estate deals, but the BPL's minutes show that when Linda Johnson arrived as BPL president she told her board that real estate deals were her top priority.

While Ms. Bellafante's quoting me about digital books is an accurate portion of our conversation about digital vs. phyical books it is a highly truncated one.  Yes, as recently covered by a WNYC "On The Media" segment and National Notice article, digital books and keeping physical books off site does mean libraries cease to have zones of privacy, but in saying that we are not against digital books I cited librarian John Palfrey's new "BiblioTech" book as calling for digital plus physical books (requiring more, not less, room), and I noted that people tend to prefer physical books (probably in part because they learn better with them- as covered in the Times) so that, despite the push of the BPL and NYPL toward digital books, circulation is way up with almost all of that circulation being physical books.  I also cited the just-out Washington Post article about how much more expensive digital books are and how with a push to digital rental models and increasingly consolidated content control digital books may mean that content winds up just vanishing from the libraries. . . .

. . . Instead, Ms. Bellefante's article uses was written to imply that the Brooklyn Heights Library is being shrunk based on "library science."

In conclusion, I believe that that there is substantial evidence that Ms. Bellafante approached her subject with bias and a fixed predetermination about what she would write that improperly fore-ran her collection and analysis of relevant facts and that, partly because that fixed predetermination persisted the way it did that Ms. Bellafante being a Saint Ann's parent, a school benefitting very significantly from this transaction, should have been disclosed in her article.  Similarly, I think the Times should have published rather than blocked my comment that would have provided an alternative, though less effective, disclosure of that relevant fact.  In fact, I see no reason why the Times did not publish my comment other than the original lack of disclosure might have been viewed as potentially embarrassing.

Had readers been informed by such disclosure there would have been cause to be more alert for the balance that I believe was missing from Ms.Bellafante's article.

Here, albeit with a few overlaps from what is cited above, are things Ms. Bellafante left out of her article:

    1.    The mistake of shrinking this library ( last enlarged with public expense and sacrifice Oct.1993) down to just  one-third size* can  never be corrected, nor can the “replacement” library, stuck in the bottom of a luxury residential tower, ever grow with the neighborhood, CBD, borough or city.  Though this shrinkage is to a preordained size, no replacement library has been designed and  no estimation at all has been done of how many books it should hold.

            (*  63,000 square feet to just 21,000 square feet.)

    2.    The BPL is selling a  sturdy,  readily adaptable library in good shape, together with its land and development rights worth over $100 million (probably $120 million or more) to the public in order to net next to nothing in a transaction that may even incur a  net cash loss.  Further, there is no assurance that the paltry sums, if any, gleaned from the sale,  all going to the city, would ever subsequently go to libraries.  Libraries, highly valued by the public, cost relatively little to fund, but this sale is apt to encourage further underfunding like this.

    3.    This sale would sacrifice one more public asset (an education-supporting one at that) to build yet another new, huge residential tower that would further burden the public infrastructure such as PS8, already at  140% capacity.

    4.    The gentrifying aspects of this project are unmistakable with a public asset democratically serving everyone equally being shut down, lower income patrons coming to the neighborhood  kicked out, and so-called “affordable” housing units built  “poor door” style at a far remove from Brooklyn’s burgeoning downtown and upper crust Brooklyn Heights.

    5.    The developer has  refused to say how much of a payday the private Saint Ann’s School is getting from the public’s sale and shrinkage of the library, because that’s a “ private” transaction, even though  it’s driving this  public one.  Shouldn’t Saint Ann’s be paying the BPL?  (It may likely get more from this sale than the BPL is getting.)

    6.    This sale sets the unfortunate precedent for serially underfunding and selling off other libraries (per the BPL strategic real estate plan) and other public assets (like  public housing) setting a template for how public assets can be picked off one by one.  This developer is making hundreds of millions of dollars: The incentives for other such deals will always be there.   If we can’t stop them at libraries . . .where can we stop them?

    7.    It’s improper that while the developer’s application for this project was pending Bill de Blasio was taking money sent to him by its development team,  in his words:  “lurking right behind the curtain . .  very anxious to get their hands on these valuable properties.”

Here are links I supplied Ms. Bellafante as research resources to supplement what I understood she had found:

    •    This Citizens Defending Libraries page with a handout we gave the CB2 Land Use Committee members (linking to other handouts including the memo about environmental issues).  It links backward to other valuable sources.  Monday, July 6, 2015,  Handout Number 1 For July 6, 2014 Brooklyn Community Board 2 Land Use Committee Meeting- Let's Get the Record Straight! Concerns Re Proposed Library Sale+Shrinkage To be Voted On 

   •    This is the Citizens Defending Libraries YouTube 12-minute interview with the 2-minute de Blasio clip right after the introduction.  BK Indie Media Interviews CDL On Library Selloff Schemes

    •    This is the product of the Citizens Defending Libraries forums we've had on the subject of selling off and privatizing public assets in general.  Our Public Assets Under Attack- A Calamity of the Commons Unfolding That We Must Act Collectively Against- How best To Express It? 

   •    This presentation of the tour photos showing the library to be in very good shape with lots of readily usable space.   In A Closed Library, A Tour of Much The Public Doesn't Get To See- Don't Let Them Close This Library, The Brooklyn Heights Library On Cadman Plaza West, Corner of Tillary & Clinton
 
    •    This is Citizens Defending Libraries statement of principles posted in connection with the Sunset Park library proposal.  Monday, November 3, 2014,  Proposed Statement of Principles Concerning Any Possible Redevelopment of Library-- Sunset Park Branch.

    •    Reference to recent Noticing New York articles I wrote about the libraries from July and June.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL D. D. WHITE
Citizens Defending Libraries 
Noticing New York
http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/
National Notice
http://nationalnotice.blogspot.com/
W: (718) 834-6184
C: (917) 885-1478
mddwhite [at]aol.com

Conflicts of Interest Inquiry- Inquiry Submitted To The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board Respecting Brooklyn Community Board 2 and The Proposed Sale and Shrinkage of Brooklyn Heights Library

The following is a conflicts of interest inquiry submitted August 3, 2015 to the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.  As of that day we received oral confirmation that the inquiry was accepted and an investigation with respect thereto will proceed.

* * * * 
Conflicts of Interest Inquiry

Can a New York City community board member or community board committee member vote  (or participate in discussions respecting a vote) that will directly affect the financial interests of a private school (probably to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) if that board or committee member assures the public and others voting that they are voting independently using their own personal judgment about what would be right and wrong, not being influenced by the their full-time employer or any other entity.

Background

We already have a statement of assurance to the public from the community board's District Manager that this is not the kind of conflict of interest and "does not meet the Conflicts of Interest Board's definition of a conflict" so as to be prohibited by the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board.   Further, the community board committee member when voting and advocating for the outcome that would benefit the private school, the outcome that her employer (more facts below) was specifically advocating for, stated that she was voting for what she personally believed was right, not what any other entity wanted.

The committee member and another board member, both participating in several outcome determinative votes and related discussions (in June and July 2015), were both full time employees of the Brooklyn Heights Association.  The Brooklyn Heights Association was taking the position that a major public asset, the Brooklyn Heights Library, should be sold and drastically shrunk.  The Brooklyn Heights Association president explained that this decision, greatly surprising most people in the neighborhood, was being made by its library committee, "which is how we operate," she explained.  The library committee was comprised so that key deciders on that committee steering its decision in this regard were connected with the Saint Ann's school that will benefit significantly if the library is sold and shrunk.  One such committee member was from a family that considers itself a founding family of the private school, another is a Saint Ann's parent.

It is probably surplusage, but a later addition to this BHA library committee also had traceable connections to those with vested interests in selling the library and, while the library sale plans were being formulated, one of the BHA board members, a former president of the BHA, was the architect and implementer of the NYPL's plans to sell and shrink libraries, turning them into real estate deals while his wife, with a position on the board of the Brooklyn Public Library, was involved in helping to structure mirroring transactions for similar deals at the BPL, including this particular sale and shrinkage proposal that the BHA employees were voting on, a virtual replica of her husband's Donnell Library sale and shrinkage.

Clearly discernible, these influences are highlighted by several stark BHA inconsistencies related to not representing neighborhood and public interest:  1.) The BHA, now advocating for the shrinkage of the library, previously advocated for its substantial enlargement (in fact, at appreciable public cost and sacrifice the library was substantially enlarged by one-third, building out over two wings, and was fully upgraded, brought into the modern computer technology-supporting era in 1993), 2.) The BHA is, as a rule, opposing discretionary public approvals of new towers in the neighborhood until the need for an augmenting balance of new public school infrastructure is addressed, but, by omission from its rule, doesn't oppose this tower and instead continues to argue for the conversion of the library into a new luxury tower, and 3.) The BHA refused to advocate for more funding for NYC libraries when it meant that this library might not be sold as a result, but now advocates for funding for NYC libraries (in other neighborhoods) as a premise and rationale for selling the Brooklyn Heights Library.

Although one of the BHA's employees faced with the issue of her BHA employment said (June 17th):  "I am not here representing any organization.  I am here on this committee to do what I think is right,"  it was readily apparent to witnesses that the other BHA employee was clearly put under pressure and therefore reversed her vote about selling and shrinking the library as a result.

Initially (June 17th), this other employee spoke forcefully in opposition to the library sale and shrinkage stating that "I will not vote for any large scale residential development until we get a school."  She also forcefully pointed out the lack of any credible assurance for believing, as posited by some, including the BPL, that a sale and shrinkage of the library would mean that there would be funds coming to the libraries as a result in the future.

Then, on two succeeding occasions (July 6th and July 15th), CB2 had meetings to reverse and supersede (we believe quite likely improperly) the votes in which that CB2 member and Land Use Committee member participated that night.  First (July 6th) it held another meeting of the Land Use Committee, comprising that committee of different attending individuals.  The CB2 Member and Committee member did not attend that meeting, reportedly "on vacation," helping to change the composition of the committee members meeting.  When there was a discussion at that meeting of whether the proposed developer had been lobbying any of the Land Use Committee members in the interim, it was reported that the developer had tried to reach this member, calling the offices of the BHA as a way of doing so, with her immediate supervisor being informed of the attempt.  Her immediate supervisor is the BHA employee Land Use Committee member who has been forceful and faithful in voting and arguments for how to proceed consistent with the BHA's efforts to have the library sold and shrunk (the one who nevertheless describes themself as being "on this committee to do what I think is right.")

Thereupon (July 15th), the entire CB2 then  met to vote with this BHA employee CB2 member being present where she:  1) inexplicably reversed her previous (June 17th) vote and voted in favor of selling and shrinking the library, and 2) sat in stony silence throughout the discussions with a strange, uncomfortable look on her face.

The exact dollar amount of benefit that the private Saint Ann's school will get from the library sale and shrinkage when it is able to sell its development rights as a result is not out in the open as public information, nor is information about what Saint Ann's has done to lobby behind the scenes.  The amount the school is getting is likely in the tens of millions of dollars. The developer refused to answer when asked how much he was paying the school, saying that it was a "private" transaction even though it is clearly an influence helping to drive forward a public transaction that will be a significant loss for the public.  (The dollar value of the library to the public is over $120 million, $60 million to replace the building alone and over another $60 million to replace the land and associated rights for expansions of public use, yet any cash netted by the city on this sale would be paltry, perhaps even less than zero when the math is completely done.)

What we do know from prior disclosures is that Saint Ann's was previously proposed to get a 20,000 square foot student theater in the new building as part of its payment for its rights, but it will now, instead, take all cash.  Also, the developer, in saying (June 17th) he would NOT disclose how much Saint Ann's was getting, referenced a tax-exempt borrowing by Saint Ann's in the amount of "$40 million" (public records indicate it is actually $30 million), and said that these transactions were unrelated and should not be viewed as reflecting what he was actually paying the school.

Needless to say we can alert you that your answer and analysis will be freighted with importance to a community that is up in arms about all of the above.

Brooklyn Community Board 2 Votes To Sell and Shrink Brooklyn Heights Library, Largely In the Dark, With Much Manipulation And Strong-Arming In Background- Developer’s Says He’s “Super-duper Excited” And Thankful

Image above and below from Brooklyn News 12 coverage

CB2 Chair Shirley McRea with microphone in the background who throughout the evening found various ways to tell the public she was not going to listen to them.  Foreground is BHA's Irene Janner who, silent and mute, switched to vote against her own prior advice and for selling and shrinking library.

This page will be updated.

The next step in the public approval process to sell and shrink a major publicly owned asset, the Brooklyn Heights Library, the central destination library in downtown Brooklyn, will a hearing where Borough President Eric Adams will take public testimony as to whether the library should be sold and shrunk, whether the proposed transaction resulting in great public loss and little net cash (perhaps none or less than zero) should be allowed to proceed.

Setting the stage for this next step, on Wednesday July 15 2015, about half the members of Brooklyn’s Community Board 2 voted to approve the sale and shrinkage of the library.

One of the big headlines is that on Wednesday night library defenders, out in force, packed the room.*  Another headline is how much of the evening was an exercise in the CB2 board ignoring the public on various levels and,  despite the room being packed with these defenders having much to say about why the library should not be sold or sold or shrunk, the CB2 Chair and board stuck to an intention not to take any public comment from the public about the library until after they voted.

(* Aside from the developer, there were also a lot of press. Links to news articles are  provided below.)

Also in the headlines was how, during the course of the evening, most of CB2 members demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge about what they were approving, and how it was evident that there had been behind-the-scenes strong-arming and questionable procedures to push the vote through.  Despite a few somewhat redeeming brighter spots, the discussion held by the CB2 board as to whether the library should be sold and shrunk was clearly inadequate, in many respects confused, and somewhat bizarre with respect to some of the key issues not discussed. . .

. . .  It is therefore not surprising that another headline of the evening is that, when the board voted, a chant of "Shame on you!" spontaneously rose up from the crowd filling the room.

How Blindly Did CB2 Approve Library Sale/Shrinkage? Asked and Answered: Very!

Here is a telling two minutes that occurred at the end of the Wednesday night meeting (thereby escaping notice by the departed press) where the CB2 Board members documented that they were almost all very uninformed about the library sale and shrinkage they had just approved. .

VIDEO: CB2 Denied Crucial Facts Before Approving Library Sale . . . . . (click through to YouTube fo best viewing)

What should the CB2 known and considered before it voted?: That was very clearly laid out in Citizens Defending Libraries Press Release issued before the CB2 general meeting.  (Some quotes from this press release were picked up in some of the press coverage for which there are links provided below.)

PRESS RELEASE & NEWS ADVISORY- Forewarned and Forearmed Brooklyn Community Board 2 Votes Wednesday, July 15th On Proposed Fire Sale of Major Public Asset, Central Destination Library In Downtown Brooklyn

What the CB2 Board Did Not Address In Its Discussions 

Some of the things not discussed by the CB2 board while not listening to the public the night that it voted?  Many were pretty basic: * The dollar value of the library to the public, * how little the library was being sold for, * the Brooklyn Public Library's lack of transparency in selling it, * the setting of a dangerous precedent of for selling off public assets in general, * that Bill de Blasio who warned that "once again we see, lurking right behind the curtain, real estate developers who are very anxious to get their hands on these valuable properties" was taking money from the development team for the proposed library sale while their application was pending, * how the library had just been enlarged and fully upgraded in 1993 * how by placing the shrunken library in the bottom of a luxury residential building it will never be possible to increase it in size later despite that fact that library usage is greatly up, and the wealthier city is growing along with, even faster, the borough, the Central Business District and the surrounding residential neighborhood.  (The last point, while not discussed by by CB2 members, was part of the Brooklyn News 12 report of the meeting.)

One of the really critical things not discussed during the evening involved another headline that arresting people's attention that night: Irene Janner, an employee of the Brooklyn Heights Association switched her vote to vote for the sale and shrinkage of the library.  . .

. . . On the night of the 15th not one CB2 board member present mentioned how little money, if any, might go to libraries because of the sale and shrinkage of the library.  On the night of June 17th, the night the Land Use Committee held a hearing, listened to the public, and voted not to approve the sale and shrinkage of the library Ms. Janner had spoken eloquently and knowledgeably about how there was absolutely "no guarantee" that any money would go to the libraries as a result of the sale even if the BPL is pledging (manipulatively) to move certain libraries to the head of its list for capital funding.  That's because money from the sale goes to the city, and there is no guarantee that the city, likely netting very little if anything on this transaction, will send any of it back, nor is there a way to track whether it has.

That night, in a vote of the CB2 Land Use Committee that should have been let stand, Ms. Janner voted against the library sale and shrinkage.  On the 15th Ms. Janner sat in stoney silence letting these warnings go unexpressed, no one picking up the slack.

That ties in with something else no CB2 board member raised during the entire night of discussion, that behind the scenes Saint Ann's, a private school, will get a big payday (selling development rights) if the public's library is sold and shrunk.  The developer refuses to say how big a payday Saint Ann's is getting (it may be getting more free and clear cash than the public will net).  He says that this is because it is a "private" transaction even though it seems to be driving a public one.

Ms Janner's switched vote and silence could be accounted for by the fact that her employer, the Brooklyn Heights Association, being highly, and almost inexplicably, inconsistent about its duty to represent community's interests, is pushing for the sale.  Looking to explain why the Brooklyn Heights Association is urging the approval of the sale and shrinkage of the library and its replacement with a luxury condominium tower one must note that its decision was made by its library committee where key deciders of this issue were connected with Saint Ann's the private school benefitting from the sale.

As discussed in greater detail further below, the Brooklyn Heights Association, with (private school) Saint Ann's connected decision-makers steering it, factored in profoundly to CB2's voting outcomes. . . .

In all CB2 held three meetings, two meetings of its Land Use Committee and one general meeting of the entire CB2 board in connection with approving the proposal.

At only one meeting, the first meeting of the Land Use Committee, was the public permitted to address those voting about the public’s viewpoint and at that meeting the Committee voted twice not to approve the project and also voted twice not to meet again to possibly consider and vote again about the proposal as it was being pushed to do so by Land Use Committee member Judy Stanton, an employee of the Brooklyn Heights Association, which has been pushing for the sale and shrinkage of the library, something that would benefit Saint Ann’s School, a private school.. .  Stanton, aware of the issue her conflict of interest, said that she was voting to reflect her personal beliefs, not what her employer wanted, but, of course, there would be no way to prove that.  

Confusion About Basics

Some of the most significant confusion in CB2's discussions involved how much the library is proposed to be shrunk and what CB2 might actually be approving in that regard.  At the beginning of the meeting on the 15th CB2  and Land use Committee member Eric Spruiell sought to have it be clarified to reflect the understanding upon which he had based his at its second, specially held, July 6th meeting of the Land Use committee where he voted differently premised on newly introduced conditions, and specifically, as Mr. Spruiell wanted clarified, that the library would not be shrunk, the new replacement library would be the same size (63,000 square feet) as the current existing library.  Not all the Land Use Committee members were in agreement on what they had voted on in this respect.  Mr. Spruiell also voted on July 6th on the understanding that the business and career functions of the library would not be moved out of it.

A clarifying motion introduced by Mr. Spruiell was not passed on the 15th so that for purposes of that general meeting the CB2 members then assumed that the library would remain the same size in terms of "usable" space, but what was meant by that went unspecified and unclarified.   No doubt the developer, assisted by the BPL officials, will argue that the library should still be shrunk to the small size he'd like and others will argue that the condition imposed means something to the contrary.

There were other, unfortunately lamely conceived and impossible to implement for real effect conditions the Land Use Committee came up with at the strangely held second July 6th Land Use Committee meeting involving a $2 million escrow and a "Community Benefits Agreement" with unspecified terms but certain named stakeholders, including, at Mr. Spruiell's suggestion, Citizens Defending Libraries.

Improper/Strong-Arming Procedure 

CB's process involving holding a second Land Use Committee meeting to supersede the votes of the Land Use after its first meeting following its hearing was suspect and CB2 member Doreen Gallo challenged it accordingly with a resolution (further below).

The four votes of the first meeting of the Land Use Committee, the committee composed of members who actually all heard the public testimony that evening were final and should probably stand as the committee's final actions for multiple reasons.  The motion was made by CB2 member Doreen Gallo to that effect, but referred to the CB2 "parliamentarian" by the Chair, was evaluated to be incorrect.  Was it really?

The effect of denying Ms. Gallo's motion was to put the CB2 deciders, those at the differently composed CB2 gathering on July 6th and those at the general CB2 meeting on the 15th at a much greater remove from the testimony and information the public was seeking to have taken into account in CB2's decision making.

Leading the Charge for Selling and Shrinking a Library For Virtually No Money

If there was a main leader and spearhead in the discussions arguing for the sale and shrinkage of the library it was stockbroker and CB2 member, chairperson of it Economic Development and Employment Committee, William Flounoy.  Mr Flounoy specifically rejected the offer to receive any of the information offered to him from Citizens Defending Libraries ahead of time, explaining that he preferred to do "independent research" on the subject which he said he was good at because of his job.  Based on his speeches at the July 15th CB2 meeting his "independent research" consisted of memorizing for straight-up, unadulterated repetition all the talking points of the BPL and developer seeking to have the library sold, shrunk and given over to the site of a condominium.   This was probably easy for Mr Flounoy to do as he sits on the  Schermerhorn BID connected with the Downtown Partnership (were you find him with the like of Forest City Ratner) where he could do "independent research" talking with fellow BID member Jordan Barowitz of the Durst real estate organization who is also on the BPL board pushing this sale.

Mr Flounoy's speeches calling for the sale and shrinkage of the library did not, as far as we could detect, involve any intermediating thoughts of his own.  For instance, speaking of the BPL's refusal to repair the air conditioning at the library that suspiciously broke down six months before the BPL announce its proposal to sale and shrink the library (and five years after it secretively made the decision to sell it): "There's no money in the system to maintain it."

The library sale and shrinkage was also pushed strongly by CB2 member John Dew.  In a streamlined approach to adopting the BPL's talking points, he argued for credulous acceptance of what the BPL says as it pushes its development plans: “This will improve their ability to provide library services within our community. . .  This is something that the public library system in Brooklyn has asked us to approve. For me that is very important.”

A fair number of the CB2 members voiced their votes quietly on Wednesday night as if they might be as ashamed as they out to have been.   Mr. Flounoy and Mr. Dew shouted out their "Yes" votes that night with gusto and afterwards hobnobbed in a happy, congratulatory fashion with the developer, David Kramer.

Before the meeting was over Mr. Kramer thanked the CB2 for delivering their vote to him, saying that he was "super-duper excited."  The other member of his development team, architect Jonathan Marvel, also involved in Brooklyn Bridge Park (also discussed that night as a giveaway of public assets) similarly thanked the CB2 members.

For more of the comments of CB2 board members who did raise at least some of the controversial issues about selling and shrinking the library see the quotes in the press coverage appearing with the links below.    

BPL trustee Peter Aschkenasy (who has said the BPL should be more transparent, but not acted perceptibly to bring that about) sitting with Developer David Kramer of the Hudson Companies.  Aschkenasy is also on the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation board also discussed by CB2 this same night as being too pro-development and insufficiently transparent.

Ms. Gallo's Motion

Here is the motion Doreen Gallo made.  It is relatively self-explanatory about some of the strong-arming that contributed to the vote that night.
  

   MOTION/RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND LET STAND
  AS THE FINAL APPROPRIATE OUTCOME OF THE BROOKLYN COMMUNITY BOARD LAND USE COMMITTEE VOTES
   OF JUNE 17th 2015 MEETING AND HEARING DATE

WHEREAS, Land Use Committee of Brooklyn Community Board 2 (Committee) met on June 17, 2015 to hold a hearing with respect to and consider a proposal to sell and shrink the publicly owned Brooklyn Heights Library in Downtown Brooklyn; and

WHEREAS, after presentations by the developer and the Brooklyn Public Library to sell and shrink the library and conducting the hearing where the Committee listened to the public, the Committee discussed the proposal and voted twice NOT to approve the proposal: The first vote on (all three pieces of the proposal) failed by 6:6 (6 yes - 4 no votes and 2 abstentions); the second non-approval vote (only two pieces, leaving out modification of the agreement with Ratner) was a more profound defeat for the proposal 5:7 (5 yes, 5 no and 2 abstentions); and

WHEREAS, also as part of its decisions at its June 17th meeting the Committee voted twice NOT to meet again to consider the this matter: The first 4:7 (four to meet and 7 not meet), the second vote 5:7 (five to take more time to make a decision and 7 not to take more time to make a decision); and

WHEREAS, these votes not to approve the proposal and not to meet again about approving the sale and shrinkage of the library were valid as final outcomes of the Committee’s process; and

WHEREAS, the June 17th votes could and should have been let stand as the Committee’s final action; and

WHEREAS, the Committee subsequently convened a hastily scheduled, previously uncalendared  meeting on July 6, 2015, the day after the Fourth of July Weekend, where for voting and discussion purposes the Committee members were different and did not represent the same group of committee members who had participated in and benefitted from the presentations and being present to listening to the public at the hearing; and

WHEREAS, there wasn’t sufficient means by which the reconstituted version of the Committee could be as adequately and comparably informed as the Committee originally constituted when it conducted all the predicate actions to its June 17th vote, including presence at the hearing; and

WHEREAS, the CB2 Chair stated to the CB2 Executive Committee that the meeting had been convened so that the Committee would now do “what they were supposed to. .  What should have taken place, what should have taken place at” the Wednesday hearing, specifically without having to listen to the public before coming to a decision; and

WHEREAS, the Committee had, according to Robert’s Rules, already properly conducted and concluded its business without having to reconvene making this instruction incorrect and therefore improper, seeming to put pressure on the reconstituted Committee for a particular vote and means to achieve it; and

WHEREAS, the outcome of the July 6, 2015 Committee meeting of reconstituted members was somewhat confused in a number of respects including with respect to provisos and caveats about the project which would be unenforceable:

WHEREAS, the Committee on June 17, 2015, as constituted the day of the presentations and hearing, thereupon adjourned its meeting, the business of the meeting and the hearing held that day completed, now therefore be it resolved:
 
Section 1.  The votes of non-approval of the proposal passed by the Committee, as originally constituted on June 17, 2015, the day of the presentations, hearing, and ensuing discussion should be let stand as the final proper outcome and disposition of the Committee’s process.

Section 2.   The subsequent vote of the Committee on July 6, 2015 should be set aside, as failing to supersede the original proper and final disposition of the June 17, 2015 non-approval votes of the Committee conducting its proceedings in connection with the approval request before it that day.

Ms. Gallo's motion was not voted on.  Instead Chair MacRea called upon CB2 member Jon Quint (not present at the previous Land Use Commitee meetings to address Ms. Gallo.

Mr. Quint said that "in response to" Ms. Gallo’s “position”:

“The committee decides how it operates, and if the committee decided it wanted to reconvene and take an action that’s a vote, that’s a decision that the committee itself can make.

* * *

The fact is that now that the board has convened, it can take any action it wants.

The fact that the committee was a different. . Ah- constituted differently than at the time it remet is irrelevant, because the board. . er . the committee is its own judge of what it can do. 

The public hearing was all the opportunity for the public to be heard

Once the public hearing was concluded, the committee members whether they heard the public or not, and I and every other board member received, before the July 7th meeting, [sic: actually July 6th meeting] a very extensive, and very well done summary of what had occurred at the public hearing, so that fact is that the committee action that was taken on July 7th [sic: actually July 6th] was proper.  The motion that they made was proper.  Its now before this committee [sic board].

He then stressed that the board could take any action it wanted ignoring what the committee did.

However, the description of the way that the process for generating the new substitute votes taken by the committee given by Chair Shirley McRea’s at the June 22, 2015 CB2 Executive Committee meeting does not exactly quite jibe with the interpretation Mr. Quint as parliamentarian was giving for why the substitute vote was proper.  There Ms. McCrea announced , “I will take this opportunity to say that this item is being sent back to committee” and in connection with this she referred cryptically to the CB2 members knowing that they had “received an email from the board office” explaining that the item was sent back to committee to set the stage for the July 15th vote.

She further explained at that meeting:

Now the follow-up meeting to last Wednesday’s meeting, and everyone needs to be very clear on this, the public hearings are closed, There are no more hearings on the BPL.  It’s over.  It's done with.   It was done on Wednesday.  When this committee meets next it will be to do what they were supposed to. .  What should have taken place, what should have taken place at last Wednesday’s meeting without having sat there for three, four, five hours and then trying to come to some decision.  I just want everyone to be clear on that: It is not a repeat of the public hearing.  This is for the committee now to come together and do the business of the committee.

As for the record of the hearing that CB2 members received as referred to the Mr. Quint?: Perhaps it was sufficient as minutes, but some who testified felt the briefer summaries censored the points they made and corrections requested were not made: For instance, including testimony that Mayor de Blasio was taking money from the development team while the team's application to acquire the library for development was pending.  . .  Those testifying who thought that by submitting testimony in writing the might circumvent any problems with undue truncation of their thoughts found that their written testimony was also not passed on to the other CB2 members. . .

. . . At the second, hastily convened, July 6th Land Use Committee the public was not permitted to speak until after the committee's vote.  But then, a long line of community members lined up to speak unanimously against the sale.  Again, these statement from the public, the only ones made after, and with a chance to reaction the formulation of new "conditions," was not relayed to the rest of the CB2 members.

Meanwhile, CB2 was distributing pro-sale-and-shrinkage material to the CB2 members to the deciding CB2 members, like a new article seemingly planted in the New York Times article written by a Saint Ann's parent (not disclosing herself to be such) suggesting that the deciding CB2 members "might be interested" in her pro-library sale and shrinkage "observations" and presumably her message too.  At the same time the CB2 office was not passing along other negative viewpoints expressed and sent to the CB2 members,** because it was outside the time limit for things to be considered by the CB2 members. 

(* "Ginia Bellafante, who writes the “Big City” column in the Metropolitan section of the New York Times, apparently walked over from her Brooklyn Heights home to attend the community board’s public hearing on the ULURP applications associated with the Brooklyn Public Library’s plans for its Brooklyn Heights and Business and Career branches.  The applications are on the agenda for this Wednesday’s general meeting, to be held at 6:00 pm at St. Francis College.  I thought the members of Community Board 2 and its Land Use Committee might be interested in Ms. Bellafante’s observations."- District Manager Robert Perris.)

(** Versus:  "Sean, thank you for your submission.  The public hearing is closed and the community board is not accepting additional testimony.  Rob" [District Manager Robert Perris]-  That was in response to “Landmark West! submits the attached testimony for your consideration in regards to your vote on the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Branch.  We are very concerned about this potential and hope you consider our testimony.   . .   Sean Khorsandi, Advocacy Director, Landmark West")

Although CB2 could have allowed the public comment to speak at the beginning of its meeting, before the vote, its intention to allow the public to speak only afterward didn't depart from the way it usually conducts business. . .    But deciding on the sale of a major $120 million publicly owned asset, one of the most significant libraries in the city, is highly unusual, essentially unprecedented.  That considered, every decision CB2 made from manipulating to supersede the vote made the day of, and responding to, the hearing testimony on, served to insulate and put the CB2 members at a far remove from the public and the CB2 members possible effective education about the significant action they were taking. 

Influence of Brooklyn Heights Association on CB2 Votes

The Brooklyn Heights Association, with (private school) Saint Ann's connected decision-makers steering it, factored in profoundly to the voting outcomes. . . .

Among other things at the June 17th hearing the BHA testified urging the sale and shrinkage of the library.
  
. . .  This might be TMI, but, taking it up a notch, all of the four votes of the 17th (and any on the 6th) would have been one more in our favor if Judy Stanton, Executive Director and an employee of the BHA, had been precluded from voting based on her conflict of interest. What makes this conflict of interest significant is that the key deciders (with a compounding improper preponderance under the way it was set up) on the BHA library committee were connected with Saint Ann's).

Albeit, this raises the question of Irene Janner, also a BHA employee.  On the 17th she voted against the sale and shrinkage of the library.  Subtracting her out for conflict of interest would have had the same effect of putting her in the negative column since the requirement was for a required number of affirmative votes.

On the 17th Ms. Janner spoke cogently about how there is absolutely no assurance that any money is going to the libraries from this sale (1000% true) and I think she also spoke of the burden on the schools and the committee's previous position on that.  Wednesday night she sat silently, stonily expressing nothing, and switched her vote in favor of what she's previously opposed knowledgeably and eloquently.  On the 6th, she was "on vacation" but on that date Judy Stanton stated that the developer calling the BHA office (presumably speaking to Ms. Stanton too) while calling for Ms. Janner.  Stanton provided this information when it was asked whether anyone on the Land Use committee had had been contacted by the developer to lobby them.

Judy Stanton, Executive Director of the Brooklyn Heights Association and Patrick Killackey, president of the Brooklyn Heights Association, both after the library vote cleared the room.  What were their felling about representing their inconsistent representation of the community's interests?  

Press Coverage
   
Here are links to coverage where comments are often possible (those links with asterisks following the bullets are one where no comments are possible).

    •    Brooklyn Eagle: CB2 approves Brooklyn Heights Library plan and Pier 6 affordable housing, but adds provisions, by May Frost, July 16, 2015

. . . a number of board members expressed concerns with problems brought on by the development boom in the Brooklyn Heights and Downtown area, including overcrowded schools, traffic and lack of infrastructure.

"No planning is going on in this city," said CB2 member Kenn Lowy. "I don't blame the developer, I blame the city."

Concerns were also expressed about the affordable housing component being built outside of Brooklyn Heights, in Clinton Hill.

* * * *

A number of members expressed doubt about the enforceability of Community Benefit Agreements.

"We're still recovering from Atlantic Yards," one man said.

Another called the Atlantic Yards CBA "just a piece of paper. It's worthless."

Some speakers also asked that the construction jobs at the site be union jobs. "Hudson [Companies] has a spotty record with contractors," one man said.

Board member Doreen Gallo read a resolution calling on the board to let stand a June 17 vote resulting in "non-approval" of the proposal, which followed a four-hour hearing featuring presentations and public comment.

* * * *

William Flounoy, chairperson of the Economic Development and Employment Committee, said the current library is "consistently closed with HVAC issues. There's no money in the system to maintain it."

* * * *

In a statement after the vote, Brooklyn Public Library President Linda Johnson said, "The community agrees - building a new Brooklyn Heights Library will provide residents with the world-class library they need and deserve, while also ensuring that branches throughout the borough receive much-needed repairs and renovations.

    •    Brooklyn Paper: Community board OKs plan to stick high-rise on Heights library, crowd goes wild, By Noah Hurowitz, July 16, 2015 

. .  vocal group of local activists have opposed the plan to sell the branch every step of the way, arguing that the library should not be pawning off its property to private interests.

Members of the group Citizens Defending Libraries packed into the Founders Hall in St. Francis College for Wednesday's meeting, derailing discussions and booing when board members spoke in favor of the sale. The debate became so fiery at times that board chair Shirley McRae paused several times to threaten activists with expulsion.

    •    Brooklyn News 12: Vote favors sale of Brooklyn Heights Library, July 16, 2015

    •    Brooklyn Heights Blog:  Community Board 2 Approves Library and Pier 6 Housing Plans, Both With Conditions, by Claude Scales, July 17, 2015

. .  a sometimes tumultuous meeting (see photo) Wednesday evening, with frequent shouting, chanting, and heckling from the public attendees, especially during the consideration of . . the planned sale of the Brooklyn Heights Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library. .

    •*    New York Times: Community Board Approves Redevelopment Plan for Brooklyn Public Library Branch, by Ileana Najarro, July 16, 2015

Although the city's 2016 budget contains a large increase in operating and capital funding for libraries, the investment is still not enough for the three library systems.

* * * *

Opponents of the proposed plan, led by the local group Citizens Defending Libraries, have argued against privatizing public space and claimed the library would shrink in size as a result of the project. Ms. Johnson countered that the library would not shrink . . .

* * * *

At the community board meeting on Wednesday, audience members, many holding up paper signs reading "Don't sell our libraries!" throughout the discussion of the plan, booed and shouted at board members seemingly in favor of the plan.

Among the concerns brought up by community board members questioning the plan, who received applause from many in the audience, were a call for a new school to open on the library site and a call for affordable housing units to be on or closer to the library site rather than in Clinton Hill.

One of the points raised by a board member, William Flounoy, that drew vocal criticism was that the Brooklyn Public Library system needs this plan because it is short on funds to properly maintain the Brooklyn Heights branch.

Many shouted back at him, calling him a liar.

"The library is not functioning the way it should be," he said.

    •    Patch: Brooklyn Community Board Votes to Stack Condos Atop Public Library- Condo developer would build new library on ground floor, by Simone Wilson, July 16, 2015

Depending on who you talk to, last night’s Brooklyn Community Board 2 meeting was a big win or a catastrophic loss for Brooklyn’s public library system.

    •    DNAinfo: Community Board OKs Sale of Brooklyn Heights Library to Condo Developer
By Nikhita Venugopal, July 16, 2015

. .  despite ultimate support for the proposal, board members voiced concerns with the project's residential component that would bring thousands of new residents to an already congested area.

Some members pushed for a new school to be added to the project to address severe overcrowding in existing schools.

* * *

. . .  The general board meeting does not allow for a public hearing, which typically takes place at committee meetings.

[INSERTED VIDEO]

At one point, the audience chanted, "not for sale, not for sale."

* * * *

"The community agrees — . . . ” the Brooklyn Public Library said in a statement.

    •    Brownstoner: Community Board 2 to Hold "Momentous" Vote on Heights Library Development Plan, by Chriserikson, 07/15/15

Whichever way the board goes, "CB2's vote will be momentous," judges the group Citizens Defending Libraries, which strongly opposes the $52,000,000 sale, believing it would "set the table for future developers to feast on public assets."

    •    Curbed: Controversial Brooklyn Heights Library Tower Moves Forward, July 16, 2015

Even with an outpouring of opposition present in the audience, Community Board 2 of Brooklyn voted last night at a meeting at St. Francis College to approve its land use committee's recommendation to demolish the existing Brooklyn Heights Library building in order to build a 36-story condo tower.

* * * *

The debate over the future of one of Brooklyn's most treasured libraries stretched through hours and hours of discussion, with last night's meeting scheduled ad hoc because of the timeliness of this topic and several other agenda items. (The board's calendar normally allows for a recess in the months of July and August.)

* * * *

. . .The meeting began with a motion by board member Eric Spruiell, part of the land use committee, to remove the word "usable" from the second addendum, citing the vagueness of the word and its implication that the amount of library space in the new facility will not match the maximum space available.

* * *

Doreen Gallo, another board member, tried to pass a more extensive resolution that would've made the June 16 denial on the recommendation the board's final vote. She claimed that the second meeting's radically different vote was due to the absence of some board members at the first meeting and the lack of formal presentation by the library or the developer at the second meeting. Gallo's proposal was popular with the crowd, but it was quickly shut down by board.

* * * *

 the discussion turned to the existing recommendation, and board members deliberated for nearly an hour on the merits and pitfalls of the proposed development. Several speakers noted the lack of protection for construction workers in the recommendation. Hilda Cohen, a member of the land use committee, emphasized that CBAs would not suffice, as "they are unenforceable pieces of paper." Many other board members were concerned that the influx of wealthy residents would continue to overcrowd the existing infrastructure, i.e. schools, while offsetting the economic class range of the neighborhood.

"I'm concerned that this is another case where we're not thinking about the long-term consequences," said Alejandro Varela, also calling the proposal a "charter school approach to land use." His comments were met with loud applause. Kenn Lowy noted that the neighborhood has only gotten one new school in recent years, and yet its population has expanded greatly. "There's no infrastructure," he said. "I don't know how we can even think about approving a plan when we know it's not going to work."

* * *

. . .  Later on in the meeting, Juliet Cullen-Chang pushed back against Lowy's statement [Lowy objected to the “affordable” housing being off site]  . .

When the vote was finally announced, audience members stood up and waved their flyers and posters angrily while shouting or jeering at the board. Within seconds, the crowd erupted into a chant of "shame on you," which lasted for a few minutes before the audience began to thin.

    •    The Real Deal: Board OKs Hudson Cos.' library redevelopment plan- Developer would buy public land for $52 million and build housing, by Tess Hofmann, July 16, 2015.

Across all Brooklyn Public Library branches, there are about $300 million in capital needs. Linda E. Johnson, Brooklyn Public Library president, said the sale should “make a dent” in that amount. The plan has been opposed by some who consider the city selling its libraries to be an affront to the community.

The next step would be for the plan to pass through the office of the borough president, as it makes its way toward the City Planning Commission.

    •    Capital New York: Local councilman not sold on Brooklyn Heights library redevelopment, By Sally Goldenberg, Jul. 19, 2015.

. . in an interview, councilman Steve Levin criticized the current proposal and said without some changes he might oppose it when the project lands before the Council for a final vote.

Primarily, the Brooklyn Democrat said he philosophically opposes the city's intention to sell a public asset-the land on which the library sits and the air rights to build above the current structure-to a private developer.

"I have had concerns that have come up throughout the whole process," Levin said last week, reached by telephone while driving through the Midwest on his honeymoon.

"Is it necessary to do this? Is it necessary to build a development on top of a library?" he asked, referring to the sale of air rights. "It is, in some way, privatizing public assets."

* * * *
"There is a philosophical issue here, whether or not this is the appropriate use of those air rights," he said, adding that any similar project proposed in his district "would always raise the same concern."

* * *

The project, he said, "doesn't add any new school space but it would impact the population, and we don't have enough elementary schools in the neighborhood."

He also said the developer should pay unionized construction workers a mandatory prevailing wage, something a union leader alluded to the night of the community board vote.

     •    Queen Ledger: Board votes in favor of BK Heights library sale, by Holly Bieler, July 21, 2015.

Michael White, founder of the group Citizens Defending Libraries, which advocates against the private sale of libraries and long one of the project's most vocal opponents, said despite Wednesday's vote he was optimistic the sale would not go through

"The outrage that the community is experiencing will ripple outward," he said. "I think we will have a victory, but it's going to be a very hard-fought one."

The application next hits the Borough President's desk next month before going on to the City Planning Commission and City Council.

    •    The Indypenden: Turning Libraries Into Condos, By Peter Rugh, August 5, 2015,

"Shut not your doors to me proud libraries," Whitman wrote. We in present-day New York would do well to listen. Libraries, like other bastions of the public sphere - our parks, hospitals, schools, public housing - are under siege from a real estate industry that sees the finite space of our city as a bottomless cash cow.

      * * *

In a July 15 roll call vote nearly drowned out by chants of "Not for sale!" from the audience, members of Brooklyn Community Board 2 in Brooklyn Heights voted 25-14 with four abstentions in support of Hudson's plan. Under city law, the proposed luxury condo tower still needs to be reviewed by the Brooklyn Borough President and the City Planning Commission and then be voted on by City Council.

    * * *

"We used to fight about getting enough funds to build and expand our libraries," said Michael White a former city planner and co-founder of the activist group Citizens Defending Libraries. "Now we're fighting about not getting enough money so that we don't have to sell off and shrink our libraries."

    * * *

The defunding of New York's libraries has come at a time when their popularity has been surging. From 2002 to 2014, annual attendance at programs put on by libraries increased from 1.7 to 2.8 million people per year. Checkouts of physical and e-books and other items have increased by 30 percent. Altogether, the city's libraries receive 37 million visitors per year, a number that exceeds the combined annual attendance at New York's major professional sports events, performing arts centers, museums, historical sites, botanical gardens and zoos.

    * * *

"They've let things deteriorate," said Tom Angotti, a professor of urban planning at Hunter College and author of New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, remarking on what he describes as the New York's pervasive neoliberal development model, "So now they can turn around and say, `You see, this is not working. We'll give it to a private company and they'll know how to use it.'"

     * * *

The sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library is the latest in a series of transactions with developers involving New York's libraries. These privatizations began under Bloomberg and have continued with de Blasio. Two prior dealings between the libraries and the real estate industry offer a glimpse into what the public can expect from such activity. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

    * * *

"It's a matter of community," said Angotti. "Libraries are one of the few democratic places left in the city. You go to a local library, people are reading, going to events, socializing, people of all ages. They are places where people can go for advice and look for information, using a variety of different media. It has a value that goes beyond the dollar value. It's a value to people."

The proposed deal is now under review by Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams. He will hold a public hearing on the proposed sale at Brooklyn Borough Hall on August 18 at 6pm. In a recent interview with The Brooklyn Paper, Adams said he envisions book-free libraries in the future.

"We no longer need shelves of books in libraries to look impressive," he commented.

On the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library, Adams remains officially non-committal.

"I look forward to reviewing Community Board 2's recommendations and hearing from local residents about the proposed plans for the Brooklyn Heights branch of the Brooklyn Public Library," Adams said in a statement released by a press spokesperson.

The fate of the highrise and the life of the library underneath it might just depend on the pressure that comes from below, which critics like White vow to supply.

"We'll be talking with the borough president," said White, who, along with other members of Citizens Defending Libraries, plans on attending the hearings Adams is holding on the sale in August. "You cannot sell off a publicly owned library like this without going through a public process, and we're still at the very beginning of that process."

 

    •    World Socialist Web Site: Brooklyn Library locations sold to real estate developers, by Isaac Finn, July 20, 2015.

The administration of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio continues to sell public property to real estate developers, most recently with the decision last week to sell two library locations.

On July 15, Brooklyn Community Board 2 voted, amid protests from neighborhood residents, to approve the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library location for $52 million to the Hudson Companies. Protesters waved fliers and chanted "shame on you," following the Community Board vote . . .

* * * *

In addition, city officials announced earlier this month the sale of the Sunset Park Library location, also in Brooklyn, to the nonprofit developer Fifth Avenue Committee. Under the stated plan, the library would be expanded to roughly double its size, with an additional 49 housing units built on top.

The announcement of these plans, part of a plan to supposedly build 3,740 affordable housing units in New York State, including 2,500 in New York City, drew criticism from Sunset Park residents, who fear the program is an attempt attract more affluent renters and push out current neighborhood residents. Protesters shouted “Affordable for who?” and “Stop gentrification!”

* * * *

The decision to sell the Brooklyn Heights and Sunset Park library locations is part of an ongoing strategy—initiated under the administration of Michael Bloomberg and continued under de Blasio—of utilizing the funding crisis of New York City libraries to open up their locations to developers.

This policy has already devastated New York’s library system, with the demolition of the famous Donnell Library Center in 2008. The Donnell Library location was first sold to the American Folk Art Museum, which subsequently lost the location after defaulting on its debts. The Donnell Library, after seven years of being closed, is now planned to reopen at a third of its former size and inside the same building as a luxury hotel.

De Blasio has played a particularly duplicitous role in these developments. He stated during his 2013 election campaign that he would defend public facilities from real estate developers, but since taking office, he has allowed library locations to be sold.

* * * *

The de Blasio administration aims to maintain a progressive veneer by providing the library system with slightly more funds and building a negligible number of affordable housing units, even while the mayor opens up library locations to developers and real-estate speculators.

How Did The Members of CB2 Vote On Sale and Shrinkage of The Library?

How did CB2 members vote about sale and shrinkage of the library?   Which CB2 board members voted for the sale and shrinkage of the library?  Which CB2 board members voted against the sale and shrinkage of the library?

Here, from the roll-call vote, is detailed information about how the individual CB2 members voted on the proposed library sale.  We will be updating this information with more to explain who the Brooklyn CB2 members are, why each may have voted the way they did and what their interests may have been in that regard.

Roll Call Vote:

Ekoyo Atkins- Voted to sell and shrink library

    1.    Ekoyo Atkins- Yes . Ms. Atkins, newly appointed to CB2 board, is fisr on the list because of the alphabet.  She is the niece of pro-library sale CB2 member and Land Use Committee member Ernest Augustus.  Before the vote she confabbed with Ms. Gallo, the CB2 member most prominently opposing the sale and shrinkage plan, saying she was going to vote against the library sale.  Right after CB2's library vote, as the CB2 meeting proceeded with another critical agenda item concerning Brooklyn Bridge Park, Ms. Atkins appeared outside the meeting, essentially becoming the face of the board, to speak to Brooklyn New 12 stating that "But I do know the big picture Is that we would like a library.  And so that's what I voted on.  I didn't vote on what he would do.  I voted on us getting an opportunity to have a state of the arts library in Brooklyn."  Afterward, she said that she probably made a mistake to vote the way she dis and had been influnced because the developer, David Kramer, told her [tricked her?] that Public Advocate Tish James was in favor of selling and shrinking the library.  We understand Ms. Atkins has an interest in going to law school and entering politics.
    2.    Quinn Caruthers- Yes
    3.    Hilda Cohen- No
    4.    (Lionel ??) Cohen- Abstain
    5.    Juliet Cullen-Cheung- Yes  Exec. VP. Steiner NYC (real estate project manager) that acts as a developer is affiliated with Steiner Studios that seeks a lot of subsidies and land arrangements from city
    6.    Kate Davey- No
    7.    Christopher DeVito- Yes
    8.    John Dew- Yes- Big Kramer supporter who hobnobbed with the developer after the vote.
    9.    Betty Feibusch- Yes

William Flounoy-Voted to sell and shrink library, (leading the fight)

    10.  William Flounoy- Yes  Mr. Flounoy took the lead in supporting the sale and shrinkage and hobnobbed with the developer afterward.  He is a stock broker for Oppenheimer in involved in Schermerhorn BID connected with the Downtown Partnership were you find him with the like of Forest City Ratner and Jordan Barowitz of the Durst real estate organization who is also on the BPL board pushing this sale.  BIDs are "Business Improvement Districts" that involve a diversion of tax-collecting authority into a quasi-replacement for conventional city government, where property ownership or interests vote and people don't.  In other words, a side-stepping of “one man one vote.”
    11.    Doreen Gallo- No
    12.    Carlton Gordon- Yes
    13.    William Harris- No
    14.    John Harrison- Yes
    15.    Carolyn Hubbard-Kamunanwire- No
    16.    Anthony Ibelli- No

Irene Janner- BHA employee who switched vote to vote for sale and shrinkage of the library

    17.    Irene Janner- Yes    Ms. Janner is an employee of the Brooklyn Heights Association, which with Saint Ann's poople as its deciders, is pushing for the sale and shrinkage of the library from which the private Saint Ann's school will benefit  Ms. Janner switched her vote to a "Yes" and sat in stoney silence during the discussions after having voted against it on the Land Use Committee and speaking eloquently and knowledgeable about why the project was bad during those discussions.
    18.    Karen Johnson- No
    19.    Samantha Johnson- Abstain
    20.    Leonard T. Jordan, Jr.- No
    21.    Andrew Lastowecky- Yes
    22.    Kenn Lowy- No
    23.    Tamara McCaw- No
    24.    Shirley McRae- Yes
    25.    Sidney Meyer- Yes
    26.    Thomas Michael- Yes
    27.    Maisha Morales- No
    28.    Samantha Norino (spelling?)- Yes
    29.    Santia Pelliccia- Yes
    30.    Denise Peterson- Abstain
    31.    Meredith Phillips Almeida- Yes
    32.    Jon Quint- ?? Inaudible, but probably “No” based on math
    33.    Sandra Rothbard- No
    34.    Saunders/Sanders?-Yes
    35.    Ciro Scala- No
    36.    Lenue Singletary- Yes
    37.    Brandon Smith- No
    38.    Dwight Smith-Abstain
    39.    Eric Spruiell- Yes
    40.    Alejandro Varela- No
    41.    Lawrence Whiteside- Yes
    42.    Joan Whitsett- Yes
    43.    Barbara Zahler-Gringer- Yes  Ms. Zahler-Gringeris an attorney.
    44.    Absent- Hazra Ali
    45.    Absent- Ernest Augustus
    46.    Absent- Akosua Cobb
    47.    Absent- Thomas Lee
    48.    Absent- Helen Nwosu
    49.    Absent- Dorothea Thompson-Manning 

A bad vote yes. but if CB2 can always change votes afterwards, like those of it Land Use Committee, then maybe it means a little bit less in the scheme of things. . . and could be changed.