Although Gov. Cuomo Halted Most Construction Statewide In Response Coronavirus Crisis, In NYC Where Crisis Is Worst, The Construction Of Tower Replacing Beloved Central Library Continues As “Essential Construction” of “Affordable Housing,” Except It’s NOT- It’s A Luxury Condo Tower

Address: One Clinton Street, Brooklyn
Category: Affordable Housing
All jobs for this BIN are approved

This is interesting– In a time when we are all wearing masks to deal with the Covid-19 crisis, the luxury tower replacing what was one the second biggest library in Brooklyn, the Business, Career, Education, and federal depository Brooklyn Heights library is wearing the mask of “affordable housing” in order to be able to continue construction despite Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s declared halt to most residential and commercial construction.

Apparently the luxury condo tower is calling itself “affordable housing” in order to be considered “essential construction” (see the image above with the site’s classification taken from the “Essential Active Construction Sites” data page.)   Let’s be clear, there is no affordable housing being built on this site.

The luxury housing was able to be built extra tall with more floor area because the developer has agreed to build and complete, ahead of time, affordable housing in Clinton Hill, but this luxury tower is not that affordable housing; there is no affordable housing being built at this site.

Curbed Governor Cuomo suspends construction in March, but "Affordable Housing Still Allowed"

At the end of March Governor Cuomo suspended “most construction statewide in response to the novel coronavirus pandemic sweeping New York, following outcry from workers and lawmakers when the industry was largely unaffected by a shut down of all nonessential businesses.”

Under Cuomo’s directive certain “crucial work, including on infrastructure, hospitals, and affordable housing, along with emergency repairs” was to be permitted.  Ergo, the luxury tower puts on a coronavirus mask and becomes “affordable housing.”

The Department of Buildings Commissioner Melanie E. La Rocca said that to “protect New Yorkers during this pandemic” there will be “stiff enforcement” of the rules (including shutdowns and fines of to $10,000) because “we simply cannot afford to continue business as usual.”  We'll see if this building being built by one of Mayor Bill de Blasio's favored developers, David Kramer, gets subject to that “stiff enforcement.”

Meanwhile, we will note that New York City libraries have been shut down during the crisis.  So libraries are not essential anymore, but that which replaces them is?  The shrink-and-sink deal agreed to by the city when it agreed to sell the central destination library means that a smaller library with far fewer books, pushed more underground is ultimately supposed to be built under the luxury tower.  Arguably that’s the actual public benefit to allowing the construction of the luxury tower to proceed.– We might hope then that, when that much smaller library is finally built, it is actually allowed to open, rather then the public simply being told at that time we have gone so long without libraries and physical books it proves they were never a necessity in the first place; that the only necessity in this world is luxury condos!

Views of David Kramer's Hudson Companies luxury One Clinton condo tower interspersed with the garden and library wall inscription that was lost

POST SCRIPT ADDENDUM: At the April 28, 2020 Brooklyn Public Library Trustees meeting following the original posting of this article, Jordan Barowitz of the Durst real estate organization, the BPL trustee who heads the BPL trustee committee overseeing real estate construction, told the trustees that most BPL library construction projects were halted.  He said that all DDC (New York City "Department of Design and Construction") library projects are halted.  DDC is the city's civil service agency accountable to the mayor from which library officials are working to wrest control, with among other things, the possibility of shifting projects to the Economic Development Corporation, an agency frequently criticized for how it is subject to developer capture.  Mr. Barowitz said that, because of its “affordable housing” component, the Sunset Park project was not halted.  Mr. Barowitz told the trustees that the David Kramer luxury tower Brooklyn Heights library construction was halted, but he added permission had been obtained to start construction again on the Brooklyn Heights project on May 5th.  Mr. Barowitz did not tell the trustees the basis for the grant of that permission unlike with the Sunset Park project.

POST SCRIPT ADDENDUM #2:  On May 7th, one of our Library Defenders reported the following-- They saw a project construction worker at the corner Pierrepont and Clinton, coming from Montague, holding a tall coffee or soda, no mask, ready to use cell phone.  First asking about when the building was to be completed, our Library Defender then curiously inquired: "I thought there was a ban on construction."  The construction worker answered, "This is essential construction."  To which our Library Defender responded asking, "How is it essential?"  The construction worker's answer: "It's affordable housing."  When the Library Defender expressed astonishment and insisted, "But this is a luxury condo!"  the construction workers disputed the point, saying that the building had an affordable connection.  "But that's in another neighborhood," our Library Defenders said.  "No, it's in this condo," the construction worker replied.  Perhaps the construction worker did not know he was wrong about where the "affordable housing" will be located?

Our Defending Libraries Testimony On Councilman Steve Levin's Proposal To Change NYC Law To Pour More Money Into Mayor de Blasio's Legal Defense Fund For Fending Off Pay-To-Play Investigations

Steve Levin at the hearing on his proposal to help de Blasio pay his legal bills for being investigated for selling off public assets like the Brooklyn Heights Library

Below is our Citizens Defending Libraries Testimony on Councilman Steve Levin's proposal to change New York City's law so as to pour more money into Mayor de Blasio's legal defense fund used by him to fending off pay-to-play investigations.

If you read our testimony it will be quickly be evident what is in issue.  And why is Councilman Levin the one proposing this law change? He shouldn't be, and that's something that will be quickly evident too.

If you would like to refer to some of the minimal reporting on this as background, you can look at:

•        New York Post: Opinion- editorial-  Don’t give de Blasio a sleazy way to pay his legal bills, by Post Editorial Board, January 8, 2019.

•        Politico: City Council introducing legislation that would help de Blasio with unpaid lawyers' bills, by Sally Goldenberg, January 7, 2019.


•        Politico: De Blasio approves his own contract for legal fees after city comptroller rejects it, by Sally Goldenberg, November 20, 2018.

Video of the largely unheralded January 14, 2019 City Council hearing taking oral testimony is also available. 

Our Citizens Defending Libraries Testimony:

* * * *

January 14, 2019

Committee on Governmental Operations
Fernando Cabrera, Chair
Committee on Governmental Operations
c/o Elizabeth Adams eadams@council.nyc.gov

Re: Testimony respecting Councilman Steve Levin’s proposed change in law respecting a legal trust fund to facilitate Mayor de Blasio’s payment of legal bills related to investigation of his conduct.

Dear City Council Members and Committee on Governmental Operations:

This letter states why Citizens Defending Libraries is opposed to the current move to change the law to allow much larger scale donations for the purpose of enabling Mayor Bill de Blasio to pay his legal fees for fending off and defeating investigations of his conduct while in the office of mayor, including what appears to be pay-to-play conduct involving public assets that need to be properly protected by our public officials in office.   

Citizens Defending Libraries has called for Mr. De Blasio’s conduct in selling off the Business, Career and Education Brooklyn Heights Library to be investigated.  See our letter attached and available on-line:

Open Letter to US Attorney Preet Bharara, NYS Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer, et al: Use Your Staggering Powers as Law Enforcers & Public Guardians To Immediately Halt the Corrupt Sale & Shrinking of Brooklyn Heights Library

We do not currently feel that investigation has ever been properly attended to.

We feel that passage of this change in the law to deal retroactively with this situation of concern still outstanding signals that impunity for Mr. De Blasio is acceptable, rather than the appropriate further investigation that would be appropriate and should be conducted.

As for what is signaled to be “acceptable,” we must note that while we and others think that there should be investigation as to whether criminal and/or civil laws have been broken, it is widely viewed that Mr. De Blasio’s conduct was at least improper to the degree that it skirted the law thus raising both the question of whether the law has actually been broken, and, if it hasn’t, whether the law needs to be changed.  Changes to the law that retroactively coddle this conduct sends the wrong message about what we expect from our public officials.

Next, and very significantly, we have a problem with the fact the change in this law (this change in the administrative code of the City of New York) is sponsored for adoption by another public official, Councilman Steve Levin, who worked with Mr. de Blasio to hand off the valuable downtown Brooklyn Heights Library to a developer for a pittance. (This recently enlarged and completely upgraded central destination library was Brooklyn’s second biggest library.)  Department of Education funds were also raided to push through the deal. Quite clearly, if the investigation we have called for were to be conducted Councilman Levin would be central to its scrutiny.  It is therefore a public embarrassment that Mr. Levin is the one who is proposing this change in the law at this time.

Lastly, the law as it currently stands serves a good purpose: It allows the public to deliver a verdict.  Contributions can indeed currently be made to pay fees to defend Mr. de Blasio’s conduct, it is just that they must be limited to $50.00 per person.  The reason a change is being requested in this law is because, without that change, there are too few New Yorkers with whom Mr. de Blasio’s conduct would find favor to pay these bills.  Mr. de Blasio and his administration officials represent that he is selling off valuable libraries to give the public a better deal.  But that is not actually believed by enough of the eight million-plus New Yorkers so that the minimal number will endorse the mayor’s conduct by paying his bills.  More typically, we regard such conduct on Mr. de Blasio’s part as generating public losses that hurt the average citizen.

Changing this law, allows Mr. De Blasio to turn to another, quite different, class of citizen for his verdict.  It’s a more well-healed, less democratic elite able to pay $5,000 without flinching, and they are the same class of citizen, who are more likely to be involved in schemes to sell off our libraries, turning them into real estate deals like the deals we have asked be adequately investigated.           

Accordingly, we oppose this change in the law that blesses past behavior of the mayor, which we think should be investigated rather than blessed.

Sincerely,

Michael D. D. White
Citizens Defending Libraries

* * * *

Here is more testimony submitted by Marilyn Berkon another of our activists who has long been active in our fight to defend our libraries against sale and shrinkage, the removal of books and elimination of librarians.

* * * *

Subject: Steve Levin's proposal allowing legal defense fund for public officials

Submitted on January 11, 2019 for Public Hearing scheduled January 14th, 2019 at City Hall, 10 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

Mayor de Blasio  has requested that a bill be passed allowing a defense fund to aid public officials with their legal expenses.  The names of contributors would be recorded with amounts given, so that the process would have the appearance, at least, of propriety.  But how easy it is to disguise actual names and amounts and motives for contribution!  Passing such a bill would give permission for even more corruption and would create a new, even longer list of victims.  And corrupt officials would not be deterred by the fear of personal expense in a lawsuit.  Moreover, we would be back to square one when de Blasio was under scrutiny for questionable campaign donations to him from people with business pending before the city.  Or for donations to his so-called non-profit funds, which were actually from lobbyists in disguise.  That was Campaign for One NY.  People contributing to such a fund are looking for favors in return for their donations.  Printing their names and amounts does not hinder them since they escape with a shrug, saying that they were favored simply because their project was deemed the best.  And the politicians who benefit from these contributors concur with the same explanation.

Naturally, de Blasio would request such a bill, and naturally his good friend Steve Levin would promote it.  De Blasio may have had charges of corruption dismissed against him, but thousands of people were astonished when word came through, only days after the firing of Preet Bharara by Trump, that de Blasio was exonerated of all wrongdoing!  Preet Bharara's investigation was meant to continue for a long time until all investigations were complete.  That never happened.  The prosecutors admit that although they could not indict him, it was clear that he had engaged in corrupt practices.  And I recently learned that the taxpayers, who were actually his victims, ended up paying for his legal troubles involving Campaign for One NY.  Now he is looking to pay off his remaining $300,000 debt to a private law firm.  He knows he can't get the taxpayers to do it for him again!

One example where de Blasio escaped investigation altogether regards the Brooklyn Heights Library.  Bharara had a full report of the corruption, but was fired before the investigation of the pay-for-play campaign contributions to de Blasio from the developer who tore down the Brooklyn Heights Library to replace it with a luxury condo.  What we were promised was a replacement library less than half the original size, crushed beneath the condo, half below ground, and the ugliness of construction noise and toxins, traffic tie ups, shadows over our park from a condo that no one wanted, except the people who would benefit financially from the deal.  There was hard evidence of pay-for-play with pictures, names and dates of the developer's fund raiser, and hard print evidence of other campaign donation amounts from the developer, all occurring illegally during the time his application to build was still pending.  The so-called affordable housing connected to the condo will be built two miles away in another neighborhood.

That is only one example of de Blasio's corruption throughout the city, never properly investigated.  One could cite many examples that stir up anger and bitterness against this mayor who responds by dismissing the accusations as unimportant, or nonsensical.  We remain his victims in this city.  He won the re-election on only 24% of voters, people who dutifully came out on that raw, rainy, windy day, but had no choice other than de Blasio.  No one knew who was running against him because his excellent opponent Sal Albanese was kept off the second debate on some absurd technicality.  Bo Dietl was allowed to debate him, a man that no one took seriously.  Even de Blasio's re-election created suspicion.

Now de Blasio wants a handout, and his friend Levin is providing it with bill #1325.  Levin betrayed 98% of his constituents, a percentage he himself offered in a video that revealed the fierce opposition to the condo plan.  Yet he gave us the clear impression at the final City Hall hearing that he would stand by his constituents.  We even made calls to his office to extend our praise and thanks for the way he questioned the developer there.  And in a radio interview one day before the vote, he said that he had no compromise in mind with the developer.

But clearly, he did not want to cross, or fall out of favor with de Blasio, who took the pay-for-play donations from the developer and gave permission for the library demolition and the luxury condo construction on the site.  So Levin made a last-minute backroom deal with the developer and stunned us all with his vote against us as we sat at City Hall waiting for him to save our library.  Nor did members of the council cross Levin since they feared retaliation, not getting whatever they might need for their district in the future. And, as for the STEM program he received in that deal--the chancellor, Carmen Farina, had already told him that the Department of Education absolutely did not want a STEM program, that the district already had more than enough, that he was depriving the Department of Education of funds that were much needed elsewhere for students throughout the city. So we see that even before the last-minute deal, he was already conferring with the developer about a compromise he was hiding from his constituents.  How can we possibly respect any bill Levin puts forward on behalf of de Blasio?  It is already tainted, and it would fail to be taint-free in the future. 

 Let de Blasio pay his own legal bills, and let all politicians who have to fight corruption charges pay their own bills.  De Blasio is a public official who escaped punishment, having slipped through many loopholes that were cleverly designed for him.  Our outrage is against him, not his accusers, since we are his victims.  Let public officials keep clean, and no one will be able to sully them.  If anyone tries and fails, that false accuser should be forced to pay the legal expenses incurred.

De Blasio was simply lucky that Trump fired Bharara.  He got off free because the ones aiding in Bharara's investigation perhaps could not manage all the bulk of evidence, or the heavy pressure coming from friends of de Blasio in corrupt government.  He got off free, but we remain his victims.  And he with his smug, self-important attitude, dismisses our complaints as unimportant.

Please don't set up a defense fund for him or any other public official.  It is sure to end in more corruption since the regulations applied will be no stronger than the people who oversee them. And they, too, will be easily corrupted.  Nor do the regulations, in themselves, protect against corruption.  The loopholes are huge, no different from the ones that have already eased de Blasio's path.  And it is not believable that anyone contributing to such a fund would not want a favor in return.  Levin wants the limit to be $5000!  Who would give that kind of money without a favor in mind?  Nor would anyone want to contribute even the $50.00 amount, considering that it is essentially a gift for corrupt politicians.  De Blasio has wreaked destruction here and cares nothing for our consternation. Let him pay his own legal fees..

I repeat, please do not support this bill proposed by Steve Levin regarding a legal defense fund for public officials.  It will only lead to more corruption in government, give unsavory politicians a free pass to act without regard to ethics and the law.  They will do what they do with impunity and will not have to think twice about any consequences they might have to suffer for it in an expensive law suit.  Nor will they ever have to worry about their victims and the price we have to pay.

I end by saying that there is good in everyone, in de Blasio, in Levin--but the good must not be an excuse to ignore the deeply harmful effects of corruption in our city.  That corruption will be made all the more possible, if the proposed bill is passed into law.

Thank you for your attention to this.

Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn Berkon 

Brooklyn, NY 11201       
   

Pay-To-Play Library Sale Questions Loom Larger As New York Post Reports Uncovering Emails That Confirm “Probably Inappropriate” de Blasio Administration Communications With Favored Developer And Possible “Violation” Of Bid Process- Post Editorial Calls For Investigation

Deputy Mayor fro Development and de Blasio selling off libraries, our letter to prosecutors calling for investigation. .  just like the New York Post

Questions having been looming, pretty much from the get-go, about the probability of the de Blasio administration’s engagement in pay-to-play activity when it sold, for far below its actual value, Brooklyn’s second biggest library, the Business, Career and Education Federal Depository Brooklyn Heights Library in downtown Brooklyn.

As of last week those questions loom still larger and more starkly as the New York Post reported uncovering emails from 2014 (March & September) confirming that the favored developer who was awarded the library site for a fraction of its value to the public, David Kramer of the Hudson Companies, whose development team channeled money to the de Blasio campaign, was communicating with de Blasio’s Deputy Mayor for development, Alicia Glen, for her assistance before being given the contract.  Kramer thanked Glen for “being the expeditor” saying that “Ever since our call in August, it feels like momentum finally started happening” and that he was “quite pleased with the outcome (how’s that for understatement).”  Kramer had at least two conversations with Glen before being granted the property.  The Post says that such conversations were barred under state law.

Going back in time to put this in context, that August referred to in Kramer’s email to Glen was the same August that Noticing New York laid out the history of the BPL’s systematic marshaling up its library assets, including the Heights Library, for sale as real estate deals, benefitting developers, not the public.  The month before, in July, Noticing New York had written about Spaceworks as just one vehicle for turning New York City Libraries into real estate deals.  September 16th, Citizens Defending Libraries followed up with a press release about its follow-up with its Citizens Audit and Investigation of Brooklyn Public Library- FOIL Requests and held a rally in connection therewith outside the Brooklyn Public Library Trustees meeting as the trustees voted to give the city-owned library to Kramer. 

The Post article quoted “a source familiar with the procurement process” who called the contacts between Glen and Kramer “completely inappropriate, and depending on what happens, probably a violation of the procurement rules.”  The Post article also noted that it had previous reported that Hudson won the contract despite that fact that its bid “was not the highest bid.”  And it noted that “Hudson received $10 million in financing from the same Goldman Sachs division that Glen used to oversee.”

Two days after the Post article ran, it was followed up with by an editorial calling for an investigation again noting that Kramer’s bid was not the highest plus the troubling Alicia Glen-Goldman Sachs connection to Kramer’s financing and adding:

State law bars contacts between firms and officials during bidding competitions to prevent favoritism or even the appearance of it.

    * * *

Worse, the deal fits a pattern of de Blasio donors getting favorable treatment: Who can forget City Hall’s OK for a nursing home to be turned into condos, reaping the developer a $72 million windfall? Or the favors for fat cats and unions that gave handsomely to the mayor’s campaign and his Campaign for One New York slush fund?

Prosecutors have failed to find enough smoking-gun evidence to charge anyone at City Hall. Let’s hope they’re still trying.

Here are links to the article and editorial:

•    Condo developer’s chat with deputy mayor raises questions about bid process, by Yoav Gonen, October 9, 2018

•    Yet another case of de Blasio’s City Hall for sale, By Post Editorial Board, October 11, 2018

We are thankful for the Post article and editorial and for the freedom of information request effort through which the Post obtained this information (even if belatedly). . .  The BPL and de Blasio administration have stonewalled Citizens Defending Libraries' FOIL, never turning over information that would similarly be relevant to discovering more about the library sales. . .

We are thankful, but we have to point out that there is more of this story to be told, more dots to be connected.

The Post article could have made much more clear that what was being sold off was not the “site of the Brooklyn Heights library branch” the article mentions, or the “Brooklyn library site” the editorial mentions, but the actual, still standing library itself.  Furthermore, the Post is incorrect in referring to the site as merely the site of a “branch” library: It was the site of a huge central destination library, the Business, Career and Education Federal Depository Library.  Neither the article nor the editorial says that this was the second biggest library in Brooklyn.  We had nothing else close either in terms of size or its valuable location.

Yes, the Post does make clear that Kramer, the low bidder, paid less for the site than the city would have gotten if it had given the site to another developer bidding to take the site, thus making clear its implication that in return for campaign contributions the de Blasio administration was willing sell a city asset for less than its value. . .  It is probably not a surprise that the de Blasio administration in such an exchange would sell a city asset for less than its worth as indicated by the Post, but the only way to truly realize how much was squandered by the de Blasio administration selling this central destination library off to the low bidder is to realize the value that this still-standing library had to the public.

Developers bidding for the library “site” (not the library) were bidding only for the tear-down value of the property, to them that was less valuable than the value of a vacant lot.  But this central destination library had recently been greatly expanded and fully ungraded in 1993.  It was one of the most technologically advanced in the system with more computers and access internet access at exactly the time when library administration officials said this was what they needed much more of.   It was one of the most solidly built libraries in the system. The Post describes David Kramer as paying “$52 million” for the site, but after all is reckoned and the many expenses and losses of selling the library are subtracted out, it is likely the sale will perhaps net not much more than $20 million— We’ll one day learn more about this from future FOIL requests, we hope . .  

The Brooklyn Heights Central destination library would cost at least $120 million to replace.  But we are not getting back our Business, Career and Education Federal Depository library.  Its books are disappearing, so are the librarians.  It’s a huge public loss.

The Post editorial incorrectly says that the Brooklyn Public Library “owned the site” of the library.  It didn’t; the city did.  That’s an example of the bureaucratic fuzz behind which city and library officials are trying to hide and to baffle the public with.  (However, the BPL, as the library tenant in the property, could have easily fought the sale.)  But, because of quotes offered by David Kramer defending his contacts with Alicia Glen in the original Post article we can strip away the illusion that the Brooklyn Public Library board is somehow politically independent enough to represent the public interest rather than just taking orders from City Hall.  Kramer explained about his calling Glen about the library sale told the Post (emphasis supplied):

Eight months into the new administration, we kept on hearing that EDC and [Brooklyn Public Library] were awaiting direction from City Hall    

Carolee Fink appointed to BPL board

If the Post wanted an addition to its reporting to make more ominous the de Blasio threat to our libraries when contributing developers `lurk,' it could have gone on to report that this April  Carolee Fink, Alicia Glen’s Chief of Staff, was appointed to BPL board by Mayor Bill de Blasio.  Ms. Fink’s status as Glen’s Chief of Staff can be explained by her deep involvement in pushing through real estate development projects.

More about Ms. Glen who, as noted, came from Goldman Sachs to the city to do development. In December 2015 when BPL president Linda Johnson told the BPL board of trustees how the sale of that library sale went down, a shrink-and-sink deal replacing the central destination library with a luxury tower, Johnson told the BPL board of trustees that Ms. Glen had adopted the library sale and shrinkage deal as “her own” to “push it across the finish line.”  The secretive final negotiations at City Hall included raiding Department of Education funds for space in the luxury building to help the developer. 

Not mentioned by the Post is that Glen’s push “across the finish line” also involved a raid on Department of Education Funds to help push the deal through with the manipulative and cockeyed idea of writing a black check to the developer to put a “STEM” or “STEAM” facility in the building.
  
Moreover, the trustees were told that this sale was a “huge turning point for the library system” and “across the city in general” with Johnson `pioneering’ the future of libraries.  And previously Ms. Johnson had told the city council that the shrink-and-sink sale would be a model for all three of the city’s library systems.

The Post fits the de Blasio gift of the library to Kramer in the “pattern of de Blasio donors getting favorable treatment” referring to Kramer as “a donor and longtime pal of Mayor de Blasio.”  We would have loved the Post to use the images we obtained of a de Blasio fund-raising event Kramer’s development team held for him, that they bragged about.  Their bragging was posted online just weeks after de Blasio held a big campaign event with Citizens Defending Libraries telling people he opposed the library sales and that there were, “lurking right behind the curtain, real estate developers who are very anxious to get their hands on these valuable properties.”

Kramer team de Blasio fund raiser picture taken down hastily by Marvel Architects as pay-to-play investigation heated up.

As the pay-to-play scandal escalated Marvel Architects, working for Kramer on the sale took down the images and their posted brags hoping no one would remember, but we have the images already, and they won’t go away.  See:

As Feeding Frenzy Elevates NY1 Covers De Blasio “Pay To Play” Violation: Taking Campaign Contributions From Kramer’s Hudson Companies While Handing Out Brooklyn Heights Library Deal- Marvel Architects Runs But Can’t Hide

The Post editorial ‘hoped’ that “prosecutors” were “still trying” to “find smoking-gun evidence to charge” people in City Hall.  We would have loved it if the Post had mentioned our open letter to those potential “prosecutors” requesting the exact same thing. See:

Open Letter to US Attorney Preet Bharara, NYS Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer, et al: Use Your Staggering Powers as Law Enforcers & Public Guardians To Immediately Halt the Corrupt Sale & Shrinking of Brooklyn Heights Library

One of the addressees we beseeched in our letter was Letitia James, currently Public Advocate for the City of New York, who with her likely step up to New York State Attorney General given her Democratic primary victory will have a lot more power to pursue this. . . if only she will.  We hope the Post will put pressure on Attorney General James to do so.

In February 2015, when the scandal about the facts pointing to a pay-to-play sale of the library were already getting press, Citizens Defending Libraries implored the Brooklyn Heights Association at its annual meeting to withdraw support for the library sale and back investigation of the sale, but the BHA refused.  See:

Annual Meeting of Brooklyn Heights Association- The BHA President Patrick Killackey Insists That BHA Will Continue To Betray Community By Supporting The Brooklyn Heights Library Sale & Shrinkage Notwithstanding Recent Scandals

The Post story and editorial about these emails breaks just as Kramer is about to market the luxury condos in the tower replacing the library sold for such a small fraction of its actual value to the public. See:

As Condo Apartments Set Brooklyn Heights Sales Records (You Heard About Matt Damon’s $16.645 Million Penthouse?) Central Library Sold To Build (Now About To be Marketed) Luxury Condos Nets Mere Pittance

Quoted in the above post, the Brooklyn Heights Association speaking through its executive director Peter Bray reiterated all over again its continuing support for the sale of the library saying, “We’ve taken a very close look at this project from day one.” 

The sale of the library could never have been pushed through without the BHA’s support.

Testimony Respecting Proposed Sale of Inwood Library for Redevelopment and Upzoning of the Inwood Community

The community's message in chalk outside the library vs. that of elected officials creating "done deals" without public knowledge or participation: Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer standing next to City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez in blue suit as he promotes the sale of the Inwood Library.  The man with the folded arms on Gale Brewer's other side is from de Blasio's HPD, also there to promote the sale of the Inwood Library. The man with the lowered head is a PR official from the NYPL.

Here is the testimony that Citizens Defending Libraries has submitted to Manhattan Community Board 12 and its Land Use Committee respecting the proposed sale of the Inwood Library for redevelopment and the upzoning of the Inwood community.

* * * * 

February 20, 2018

Mr. Wayne Benjamin, Chair
Land Use Committee
Manhattan Community Board 12
c/o Ebenezer Smith, District Manager
Manhattan Community Board 12
ebsmith@cb.nyc.gov

Re: Testimony respecting proposed sale of Inwood Library for redevelopment and upzoning of the Inwood community

Dear Manhattan Community Board 12 and Land Use Committee:

Don’t let the NYPL and de Blasio administration put another notch in the belt sacrificing a public library to real estate interests with real estate deals that harm and don’t benefit the public as they waste and squander public assets.  We are asking that Manhattan Community Board 12 and its Land Use Committee not let another such notch be put in that belt with the sale for redevelopment of the Inwood Library which is tied in with another attack on the Inwood neighborhood. . . that is the upzoning of the neighborhood as real estate greed goes on the war path.

As the community will surely testify, the upzoning will drastically change the character of the neighborhood with the expected introduction of upsurging gentrification that will displace existing residents.  Existing lower income residents are likely to be hit especially hard.  Plus what thought has been given to how the existing fabric of the neighborhood and its culture will be shredded as change evicts the familiar and affordable mom and pop stores?

The sale of the library has been laminated to the upzoning.  Why?  What a strange thing to do.  At the developer meeting held in connection with the prospective sale of the Inwood Library the developers when they asked were told by city and library officials the library sale would only go forward if the upzoning goes forward.  Therefore the developers were told not to prepare any packages of proposals that did not assume that the upzoning would not go forward at the same time.

But to show you how out of control this process is, a developer at the meeting noted that the Request For Proposal guidelines specified that the proposals for a redevelopment of what is now the Inwood library should take into account the character and nature of the surrounding neighborhood.  The developer pointed out that the upzoning was going to change the neighborhood tremendously, probably in ways that can’t even be predicted.  He asked whether proposals should take into account the character of the existing neighborhood or the character of the neighborhood as it might possibly be after the effect of the rezoning.  “You figure it out,” library and city officials told him.  That illustrates not only how out of control these proposals are, it also illustrates an attitude that is execrably cavalier.  The last thing it illustrates is just how completely laissez faire public officials are being in turning over the public welfare to the whims (or worse) of the real estate industry and those trolling for profit at public expense.

The real estate industry looks at libraries, not as the community does, but as playthings with which to manipulate the community and perhaps bamboozle it into accepting what is against the community’s interest.  At a January 12, 2015 New School conference that addressed the real estate uses of libraries the New School’s host told the assembled professionals that in the end “a library is real estate” and that she had found:

it's often a nice placating gesture in a real estate development. You want to do commercial development?: Put a library in it and you win a new public that you might not have had on your team initially.

The sale of the Inwood Library may have been strangely and confusingly laminated to the upzoning in this instance, but probably the greater fool-or-confuse-the-community manipulation associated with the proposal to redevelop and privatize much of the site where the library now stands is the talk of the so-called affordable housing that is unlikely to replace the affordable housing lost when existing residents are displaced.

It is wrong to sell a library that has just been renovated and expanded.  It is impossible to recoup that investment when you destructively tear down and have to rebuild all over again.  The proposal is to give up most of the library real estate that the public now owns and put a replacement library in the bottom of a privately owned residential building.  That means the library can never be expanded when it needs to be.  If the library were to be put into a city-owned building that was also commercial it could be expanded, but that is not the proposal. .

. . . The proposal is the shrinkage of what the public owns, a shrinkage of the public realm, a shrinkage of the public commons.  And because libraries are the public commons that represent democracy so quintessentially, this is a shrinkage of democracy.  Because the shrinkage is laminated to an overall upzoning of the neighborhood that shrinkage is proportionately all the greater.

And the NYPL and de Blasio officials do not care one whit about that loss.  At the meeting they held for developers submitting RFP’s to tear down the Inwood library and acquire the site for redevelopment we made sure certain questions were asked and answered.  Will developer proposals supplying a bigger library get extra credit? No. Will developer proposals supplying more above ground space for the library get extra credit?  No. Will developer proposals that create the possibility for an expansion of the library in the future get extra credit?  No.  Is there a particular shape or configuration that would be good for the library that officials would like to specify would be good (rather than just leaving the public with the dregs after the developer has creamed off for itself the space the developer likes best)?  No.   

It is to be remembered that all these Nos were after the plan to sell the library was presented to the community as a `done deal’ with unaccountable local politicians signing onto the plan before it was ever communicated to the public for reaction in any way.

As others in the community will surely testify, the library is an essential ancillary facility to the neighborhood schools it abuts and is immediately proximate to.  These schools stand to suffer loss for a generation of the student classes passing through.  This loss should not be underestimated.  No interim arrangement is going to come close to meeting the community’s true needs- But then, from the standpoint of the real estate industry, and therefore city and library officials, that is not the point.  Don’t let them put another notch in their belt.

If you let them sell the Inwood Library for a concocted real estate scheme, you put every other library in New York City more at risk.  And even if you want to move out of Inwood after the rezoning and loss of the library you stand to be affected in those other neighborhoods.

Citizens Defending Libraries, formed in the beginning of 2013, has been witness to the callousness of the many concocted plans of the real estates industry supported by the library and city administration officials. We invite you to study our web page where we lay out and catalogue a record on the part of those officials that is not at all pretty.  Please consult the attached addendum with more information about what is on our web page.  It is the intent of Citizens Defending Libraries to shine a light and hold accountable over the long term all those participating in the irresponsible sale of our libraries.

Sincerely,
       
Michael D. D. White
Citizens Defending Libraries   

- - - - -

Citizens Defending Libraries Web Page Information

Citizens Defending Libraries Main Web Page is at:

https://citizensdefendinglibraries.blogspot.com/2017/12/citizens-defending-libraries-main-page.html

Or you can read the page LONG FORM if you want to read straight through to go more deeply into topics without clicking on them to do so as you read:       

https://citizensdefendinglibraries.blogspot.com/2017/12/

Here is the way that our web page now breaks down into important subject headings, each of which can be individually read:

SIGN OUR PETITION TO SUPPORT LIBRARIES (Defend our libraries, don't defund them. . . . . fund 'em, don't plunder 'em)

When Citizens Defending Libraries Started and Why
Achievements of Citizens Defending Libraries

What Libraries Are Affected By New York City Plans To Sell Libraries As Real Estate Deals, Shrink And Underfund Libraries And Eliminate Books?

Are The Libraries Being Shrunk, Pushed Underground, Books and Librarians Eliminated Because the World Is "Going Digital"? NO, That's NOT a Reason It Should Happen.

Are Libraries Just Too Expensive a Luxury to Pay For? Absolutely NOT!

NYC Libraries Are Being Sold For Huge Losses And For Minuscule Fractions of Their Value

WHO Is Selling Our Libraries?

When Did The Plans To Sell Libraries (Plus The Launching of The Concomitant Underfunding of Libraries) Begin?

It's Not Just The Real Estate Industry Threatening Libraries: Examining The Panoply of Other Threats

Who Is Hurt Most When Libraries Are Defunded and Dismantled? The Poor, The Racially Discriminated Against, Scholars, Future Leaders

How Many Books Are Disappearing From New York City Libraries?

Why Turning Libraries Into Real Estate Deals Isn't The Good Deal Library and City Development Officials Describe

Selling Libraries And The Broader Issue of Private Sector Plunder of Public Property
   
The Biggest Lies To Watch Out For When Officials Sell Libraries

How To Defend Libraries - What You Can Do

November 7, 2017 (Tuesday) NYC Elections- Voting Options & What Library Defenders Should About Candidates Running For Office

Candidates Steve Levin Victoria Crambranes, both running to be council member representing the 33rd district

Please remember to vote on Tuesday and remind all the library defenders you know to vote too. . .

No matter what, your votes sends a message to our elected officials that you vote and it can send a message* about what you care about, including libraries.

(* NOTE: If you are unhappy with the choices you can send a message by NOT voting particular lines or by writing in alternatives.  And, on things like judges, if you know and like some, but don't know about the others, only vote for the judges you like so you don't dilute your vote.  Voting Green Party can send a message and help that party get their message out better and better over time.)

Here is a roundup of some important voting options this Tuesday when it comes to defending libraries and information about the candidates’ positions and their records on selling libraries.

The second biggest library in Brooklyn was just sold, the central destination Business, Career, and Education Library Brooklyn Heights Library in Downtown Brooklyn.  It was sold for a minuscule fraction of its value in a shrink-and-sink-deal mirroring the Donnell Library shrink-and-sink-deal debacle (a central destination library likewise replaced with a luxury tower).

That makes several races on Tuesday all the more important.

Race for 33rd City Council District

One of those important races is the City Council race for the 33rd district where incumbent City Councilman Steve Levin who pushed through that Brooklyn library sale (and let the top floor of the Williamsburg Library be given away) is running against challenger Victoria Cambranes.  The debate between the candidates was very telling.  More information here:

Debate Between Candidates For 33rd NYC Council District, Incumbent Councilman Steve Levin And Challenger Victoria Cabranes

On Eve of 10/29/'17 Debate With Victoria Cambranes, Challenger For His Office, Councilman Steve Levin Sends Transparency Request Letter to Brooklyn Public Library Promised in Spring 2015 (But it's deficient!)

The Race For New York City Mayor

City Councilman Steve Levin could not have pushed through the sale of the second biggest library in Brooklyn had it not been the plan of library-selling Mayor de Blasio who is now also pushing forward other ill-advised library sales like the Inwood Library.

Running against him is a candidate who opposes these sales and has signed out Citizens Defending Libraries Letter of Support.  More information here.

Democratic Primary (September 12, 2017)- Candidates For Mayor: Sal Albanese vs. Bill de Blasio

Race for Public Advocate

For years ago Tish James as Candidate for Public Advocate ran with full-throated statements about how if she was elected she would oppose and stop the sale of city libraries.  But what has she really done when had the chance.  David Eisenbach was running against her and supposedly remains on the Liberal line for the general election (but is apparently not actually on the ballot).  He has spoken out against the library sales and signed our Citizens Defending Libraries Letter of Support.  More information (important about Tish James) here.

Democratic Primary (September 12, 2017)- Candidates For Public Advocate: David Eisenbach vs. incumbent Tish James

Since it looks like you won't find Mr. Eisenbach on the ballot it is all the more important to direct your attention to another candidate running for Public Advocate (who you will not have any problem finding on the ballot), James Lane, whose strong position about not selling libraries was made very clear by him at our Public Advocates Forum.

Race for 35rd City Council DistrictAnother city council race to care about is the City Council race for the 35th district (Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Prospect Heights, Bed Stuy, and Crown Heights) where incumbent City Council Member Laurie Cumbo is running against challenger Jabari Brisport.  Laurie Cumbo wholeheartedly backed Councilman Levin’s sale of the second biggest library in Brooklyn and is enthusiastic about library sales generally.  (That’s notwithstanding that when she was running to first obtain office she signed our petition opposing the library sales.)  She is funded by a ton of real estate money and generally characterized as being blindly in that industry’s pocket.

In contrast, challenger Brisport has vigorously opposed the selling of the Bedford Union Armory in Crown Heights, currently one of the biggest issues in the district with respect to which Cumbo (whom we find untrustworthy when it comes to the sale of public assets) is no better than “ambiguous.” 

An Extra Thought About Why You Should Vote

And just in case you needed an extra push to think about why it is important to vote and why it is important to think about libraries when you vote, you may want to consider this:

How Did Trump Get Elected?: Michael Moore In "Terms of My Surrender" Envisions That It Was A Dumbing Down of the Country That Involved Closing Libraries

The United States is at the bottom of the list of countries in the world in terms of voter turn-out.  And of the fifty states New York is at the bottom of the list in terms of voter turn-out.  That unfortunate fact actually means that your vote counts all the more.  It's an unfortunate fact that can be explained by the way that our elected officials disappoint and fail to represent us when in office.  Still when the choices are wrong we can still send a message that the choices are wrong if we vote and, if necessary, don't vote certain lines or write in candidates.

Democratic Primary (September 12, 2017)- Candidates For Mayor: Sal Albanese vs. Bill de Blasio

Sal Albanese, candidate for NYC Mayor, speaking Thursday to Save the Inwood Library crowd

What do Library defenders need to know about the candidates running to be the Democratic candidate for New York City mayor?  Sal Albanese and Bill de Blasio are running.

Thursday of this week, Sal Albanese was up in the neighborhood of Inwood standing with a large crowd outside the Inwood Library calling for that library to be saved from sale for development by Mayor Bill de Blasio and his administration.

The Inwood Press Conference Thursday

The news of Bill de Blasio is far more disconcerting, really quite damning.  Four years ago the de Blasio campaign called up Citizens Defending Libraries and asked that we stand en mass before another library, the 42nd Street Central Reference Library, so that Mr. de Blasio could trumpet his call to halt the sale and plunder of New York City libraries.  He said:

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

But then, within weeks, even before he was elected, de Blasio was taking campaign fund from the development team to whom he would be giving away the Brooklyn Heights centrals destination library in downtown Brooklyn, the borough’s second biggest library.  (See: WNYC Reports Mayor de Blasio's "Furiously Raising Funds"- Including From Developers "Lurking Behind The Curtain" of Library Real Estate Sales- And WNYC's Money?)

As mayor, de Blasio would go on to pursue the sale of SIBL: That means an elimination of the city’s biggest science library, that will also result in a concomitant shrinkage of the Mid-Manhattan Library, the central library in Manhattan that is the city’s biggest circulating library from which so many books will then disappear.  Mayor de Blasio also plans to sell the Inwood Library in another redevelopment scheme just like he is selling the Sunset Park Library.

Four years ago, when de Blasio, Citizens Defending Libraries called up to ask us to produce a crowd while he proclaimed that he was against selling New York City Libraries including the Brooklyn Heights Library, he was trying to catch up with the other candidates for mayor running against him like Sal Albanese (John Liu and others) who were saying these library sales were as wrong as the public absolutely knows them to be.  (Previously, candidate de Blasio had blown Citizens Defending Libraries off saying he couldn’t be bothered with the issue of libraries.)

Do want to know what Sal Albanese says about library sales?

Sal Albanese has signed our Citizens Defending Libraries letter of support.  See: Support and Sign-On Letter: Full and Adequate Library Funding, A Growing System, Transparency, Books and Librarians.

Sal Albanese was eloquent at our Citizens Defending Libraries Mayoral Forum running against de Blasio in the last election: Mayoral Forum on Libraries Held August 30, 2013.

Here is Sal Albanese’s response to our Citizens Defending Libraries questionnaire back then: Response of Mayoral Candidate Sal Albanese to Citizens Defending Libraries Questions For Candidates For New York City Offices.

You can see Mr. Albanese at our Mayoral forum on video: Sal Albanese Speaks At Mayoral Forum on NYC Libraries (click through to YouTube for best viewing).



Sal Albanese Speaks At Mayoral Forum on NYC Libraries

Want to hear more about what Mr. Albanese has to say about the library sales?: Tune in the Monday, September 11th to WBAI Radio's Morning Show where he will be interviewed.  The topic of libraries is certain to come up.

Sal Albanese at forum by Mike Delia

Here is some of what Sal Albanese said at our Mayoral forum:

“These libraries are essential to the city’s future and we are watching the erosion of it. The real estate industry is running amuck, basically, in this city.  That’s what’s happening.  I’ve drawn a very, very clear line when it comes to contributions.  I am not accepting a dime from real estate developers in this city or the lobbyists who represent them.

Look, real estate developers are business people.  They want to maximize their profits.  They see these huge building, these great buildings, these landmarked buildings like the libraries in Manhattan and Brooklyn Height and they see dollar signs, but the bottom line is that government officials should be making decisions on the merits.

They shouldn’t be working with the real esate industry behind the scenes to sell these libraries off.  We saw what happened with the Donnell Library, it was sold off in 2007.  There was no public input at all.  Where was the City Council?  It’s easy to blame Bloomberg, but we do have a City Council.  We have a Public Advocate.  We have a Comptroller.  These things don’t happen by accident.  They’re not happening in isolation.  I mean where was the public hearing on these issues that are so important to the city?  The City Council does have a library committee, I think.

* * *

The political system is really broken and has really been co-opted by big money.  The New York Times has a great editorial today about the real estate industry is now piling on to get involved in City Council races.  They’re spending millions of dollars.  Look, they’re in business.  This is what they do.  It’s legal.  But elected officials have the obligation to represent the public, not folks who are trying to maximize their profits.. . .

* * *

Here we do things in an opaque way.  It’s not transparent.

* * *

Listen carefully to what all the candidates say.  I’ve said this before: They're outraged . .  They’re furious. . . They’re shocked.  You’d think they were block association presidents.  One is the Comptroller, one is the Public Advocate, one is the Council Speaker!  I mean I can’t believe the incredible nerve of some of these people, because they should be held accountable for some of the things that have happened in this city on their watch.          

* * *

The City Council should have held major hearings.  It was a major issue and no one seems to know where $100 million in capital money or how it got to that point without any real hearing or public input.  That’s the crux of our problem.  It’s a broken political system.

* * *

It’s just wrong and it’s bad public policy.  I mean, William Rudin from the real estate industry was front and center in terms of the proposals to sell off the libraries [in the Central Library Plan], and they see tremendous opportunities for huge profits like the sale of Saint Vincent’s Hospital so I think it’s bad pubic policy. . . .”

Our Election Edition Respecting The Democratic Primary (September 12, 2017): Races For Mayor, Public Advocate, City Council

Save The Library press conference in Inwood Thursday

We hope that library defenders registered as Democratic in New York City will be voting this Tuesday (September 12, 2017), in the primary.  Much of what you as a voter might want to know you were likely to find out if, this Thursday, you were with the crowd up in the neighborhood of Inwood standing outside the Inwood Library calling for that library to be saved from sale from development by Mayor Bill de Blasio and his administration.

Sal Albanese, candidate for Mayor

You would have heard Sal Albanese, running for mayor against library-selling Bill de Blasio decrying the de Blasio administration’s many library sales, including the Inwood library.  Sal Albanese has signed our Citizens Defending Libraries Letter of Support.  More on what you need to know about the two Democratic candidates for mayor is available here: Democratic Primary (September 12, 2017)- Candidates For Mayor: Sal Albanese vs. Bill de Blasio.

David Eisenbach, candidate for NYC Public Advocate

David Eisenbach was there.  He is running against incumbent Tish James for the office of Public Advocate.   David Eisenbach has signed our Citizens Defending Libraries Letter of Support.  More on what you need to know about the two Democratic candidates for Public Advocate is available here:  Democratic Primary (September 12, 2017)- Candidates For Public Advocate: David Eisenbach vs. incumbent Tish James.

You also need to know that a lot of the people who are causing trouble for the communities they are supposed to represent are city councilmen helping to push through sale of the libraries.  In the neighborhood of Inwood, Josue Perez is running against the local library-selling city councilman Ydanis Rodriguez and therefore has gotten “support of several Uptown groups, including Save the Inwood Library.”  Josue Perez spoke at Thursday’s Save The Inwood Library Press conference.

Josue Perez, running for city council against library-selling Ydanis Rodriguez

Other city council members high on the list NOT to vote for because they favor and push through library sales: Brad Lander, Steve Levin (sales are shrinking two libraries in his district the Brooklyn Heights Library and Williamsburg Library), Carlos Menchaca (selling the Sunset park Library), and Laurie Cumbo.

Ede Fox is running against Ms. Cumbo and her real estate money.

Guess What? Emails Withheld By de Blasio Administration Show de Blasio Fundraiser Putting Library Developers On Wish List For Mayor- Evidence of Guilt?: “Can we take this off official thread please.”

 We Facebooked it and we Tweeted it. - And it is turning out to be fun.

We said. . . . .

DOES THIS SOUND FUN? Want to GUESS what can be found in the hundreds of pages of recently released emails between de Blasio and Berlin Rosen concerning: Deals about our libraries, David Kramer, Hudson Companies, Marvel Architects, Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen, the Fifth Avenue Committee, EDC, The Springer spouses, the BPL, Linda Johnson, the NYPL, the Queens Library, Steven Schwarzman, Marshall Rose, Booz Allen, Center For An Urban Future, Goldman, Rivington Nursing Home, Brad Lander, Steve Levin, Brooklyn Bridge Park, the City Planning Commission, holding back on audits?

It may take your sharp eye and some diligent searching, but whatever is available in this first batch of released emails is available here. Of course, it may be that they are tactically holding back and that there is nothing here in this initial release, but we won't know without searching through. . .

Let us know if you are looking and we'll share what we find.

Mayor's Office Releases Hundreds of Pages of Emails Between de Blasio and 'Agent of the City'
By Grace Rauh
Updated Thursday, November 24, 2016

Our Citizens Defending Library team members have been reviewing emails (you can pitch in- contact us) and finding things, like in an from a high-profile de Blasio fundraiser, Ross Offiinger to de Blasio’s chief of staff Emma Wolfe putting library developer names on a wish list.  Evidence that this was improper come when senior de Blasio advisor Peter Ragone emails back “Can we take this off official thread please.”
  
The de Blasio administration long resisted giving these emails in response to the freedom of information law, delivered what they has so far heavily blacked out with redactions, and still has not delivered more.  Expect that they will have to be forthcoming with many more. As it was, these emails were delivered using a classic age-old tactic: A massive document dump on Thanksgiving Eve, hoping that nobody would notice.

Fundraiser to de Blasio chief of staff: Developer wish list with the names of library developers David Kramer, Bruce Ratner, Jed Walentas- Click to enlarge

The emails show two developers on the wish list, Bruce Ratner and David Kramer, that are both connected to the shrink-and-sink Brooklyn Heights Library sale now under scrutiny and federal criminal investigation for a pay-to-play situation where the real estate, already being sold for a minuscule fraction of its value to the public, is being given to an inferior bidder, David Kramer, sending contributions de Blasio’s way.

“Can we take this off official thread please.” - Apparently a demand, not a question from senior de Blasio advisor Peter Ragone.

As things currently stand, David Kramer is expecting to be the principal developer of the site if the library is torn down.   Bruce Ratner, already owning part of the overall development parcel (transferred to him by the city in 1986) is a gatekeeper of the transaction involved in the transfer of development rights being used.

Footnote on Ratner: Breaking news on Ratner presents some losing-the-devil-we-know news- Ratner is being kicked off the board at his company and the Ratner family may be on the road to losing control.  See: Atlantic Yards Report: Forest City Realty Trust reverses itself, will drop family control; Bruce Ratner to leave board (Pacific Park loss a factor?), December 07, 2016.

There is another developer on the email wish list involved who is involved with library deals, Jed Walentas.  His tower across from BAM, BAM South, has been involved in shifting plans respecting the libraries.  Originally, he was being assisted in getting a variance for his building (which he originally bid to get form the city as a parking lot) based on the idea that it would include a library paid for by selling the Pacific Street Library across the street from Ratner’s Atlantic Yards, thus freeing up the land next to the Ratner’s mega-monopoly for redevelopment.  Last time other developers and real estate owners were competing near his turf in the area Ratner used the city government to kick them off their land.

We have more we expect to publish here.  Our team is has a lot to look at.

Scruffing Things Up As Fast As Possible, De Blasio’s Pay-To-Play Developer Starts Trashing Brooklyn’s Still Publicly Owned Second Largest Library

This week on Wednesday, David Karmer’s Hudson Company sent a crew of men out to start trashing the still publicly owned Brooklyn Heights Library.

This very important destination library is still city-owned.  It’s Brooklyn second biggest and with the substantial enlargement and full upgrading it got in 1993 it is one of the most technologically advanced and up-to-date libraries in terms of supporting computers and modern technology.

Why would the de Blasio allow his pay-to-play developer, apparently granting the developer a license, to come in and start wrecking, scuffing up and trashing a still publicly owned building?  Bear in mind that allowing this wreckage before the developer has closed on or acquired rights to the property violates the oft touted promises of Mr. de Blasio and his representatives and people like Councilman Steve Levin that the library and its public property would suffer no destruction until a full set of protections was put in place to ensure that the luxury condo and the teeny replacement library (a much more underground library) would be built.

Here are some thoughts on why this is occurring now.

    1.    De Blasio, the developer and the BPL board and honchos don’t want a pristine and perfect piece of public property sitting grandly and obviously unused on Tuesday, November 8th the day that people are supposed to go out to vote for Hillary Clinton (not Trump, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson according to de Blasio).  The library’s public auditorium has been a key neighborhood polling spot for sometime.  With its doors sealed there isn’t currently an adequate replacement which has caused considerable public complaint about the failure to use this obviously still available valuable public asset.  You don’t want people going to the polls in November more angry than they have to be.  And Hillary surely doesn’t want Democrats showing up angry or not showing up at out of disgust or discouragement–   This library is, after all, given the intersection of the streets where it is located, the “Tillary Clinton Library.”  It is, furthermore, immediately adjacent to the Forest City Ratner owned building where Hillary has her national campaign headquarters.  The building is even, for development purposes, part of the same real estate development parcel as Hillary’s headquarters thus constituting Hillary’s Forest City Ratner landlord a gatekeeper to the library sale, shrink and sink transaction.  Notwithstanding, Hillary did not answer our calls to come forth and oppose this privatization of public assets that was laying at her doorstep. – It is important to note that while Hillary can be scolded for how this library sale lays uncriticized by her at her very doorstep, Trump has much the same problem: The shrink-and-sink sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library was modeled on the shrink-and-sink sale of the Donnell Library (there was an overlap of the people behind both) and one of the principal financial beneficiaries of the sale of Donnell for a pittance was Jered Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and top campaign advisor.

    2.    Via the symbolism attendant with a cavalier degradation of the still publicly owned library, the city wants to help the Hudson Companies prove to banks and those from whom the developer is seeking financing and guarantees that the developer isn’t afraid of the investigations into his deal, including the criminal pay-to-play investigation by Preet Bharara’s US Attorney’s office.   The impunity with which the developer hopes to vandalize the library before he owns it is like a thumb in the eye of the investigators to proclaim that he doesn’t fear them or being held financially responsible for the astronomical losses that will be engendered for the public when he proceeds.  It’s a risky ploy.  The developer is not a good faith purchaser for value of this property and the world is adequately on notice so that the developer and the property can be directly proceeded against resulting in substantial losses sustained by those who do business with him on this property.

    3.    As an extension of number 2 above, the developer wants, with a toe-in-the-water or camels-nose-under-the-tent, to show that no one is going to stop him even as promises are not kept.  While he may not be taking final steps here, the developer would surely like to demonstrate that no one is going to stop him, even as he imitate without keeping promises.   He’d like to show that community won’t stop him and that public officials like Comptroller Scott Stringer and Public Advocate Tish James won’t let out a squeak of opposition.  We buttonholed Comptroller Stringer just the other day and complained about his non-investigation of the library together with his failure to produce the BPL library audit he promised.  “I don’t investigate libraries,” he said.   We responded that his website, his press releases and public statements all represent that he does investigate corruption, fraud and abuse and the waste of city funds.  And Comptroller did produce an audit of the Queens Library where he went into details about much less significant matters comparatively involving just a few dollars: How the former Queen Library head improper used his library credit car to put gasoline in his other family members’ cars.

The head of the crew of men trashing the library didn’t want pictures taken or people walking on the public property near the library.  “You can’t do that!” he said, “they gave us the library!”