It’s What The Brooklyn Heights Association Wanted And Fought For: As Library-Replacing Lux Tower Gets Ready To Sprint Toward Full Height With Its Last Stack of Floors It Begins To Dominate Heights Skies

View of library-replacing luxury tower from Montague Street (crane working to add the last stack of thus boosted floors to achieve its final ultimate height)

The luxury condo tower, which in a shrink-and-sink deal is replacing the Business, Career and Education Federal Depository Library in Downtown Brooklyn, has another stack of floors to be constructed before it reaches full “stature,” if that’s the word for it.

The advertised condominium apartment views now available on the developer’s website show those views looking down on the federal courthouse across the way (once opposed by neighbors as being too tall) and looking over the top of the adjacent One Pierrepont Plaza Ratner 1988 skyscraper.  Those views are from only the height of the building’s twenty-sixth floor, round about the height the building is reaching now.  When the 400+ foot tall building is complete it will be 36 stories tall, an additional ten stories over that 26.

Looking down on the federal courthouse, a building one opposed as too big

The slightly higher than mid-level 26th Floor view gets you to the top of the Ratner skyscraper that vexed the Brooklyn Heights Association because of its size

But even at the threshold height it has now reached where it is, finally starting to leave the Ratner skyscraper below, it is now becoming clear how the building will dominate the skies of Brooklyn Heights.  We offer pictures here so you can imagine it even taller still.

It is interesting to think that this is what the Brooklyn Heights Association wanted for Brooklyn Heights, that it is what the association fought hard to bring into existence against the overwhelming consensus of neighbors who did not want to give up the second biggest library in Brooklyn, a central destination downtown library that conveniently served all Brooklynites and many other New Yorkers coming from all around the city.

It must be recognized that hugely tall buildings that leave their neighbors in the dust, at certain times, have, for many of us, a certain commanding beauty.  Sometimes you just have to begrudgingly admit that, even if and when they might make you feel small and insignificant or cast shadows onto your parks, they have an arresting way of whispering (or shouting) progress, achievement and newness while advertising human technological proficiency.  Maybe some who settled or who have dwelled enviously in Brooklyn Heights with a Manhattan-wannabe complex will feel that this building announces that Brooklyn Heights has arrived. 

Is this why the Brooklyn Heights Association fought so hard, often secretively and behind-the-scenes, to have this shiny new tower provide contrast for New York’s oldest historic district and  neighborhood by poking up into its skies where it will be seen from repeated vantages as the casual stroller meanders through local townhouse streets? . . .

. . .  Or was it that the Brooklyn Heights Association was just eager to see an important library squashed out of existence in a shrink-and-sink deal that would push the much diminished library space underground, while eliminating books and librarians, disappearing the Business Library, the Career Library, the Education library and the federal depository library resources?  Of course this means that the Brooklyn Heights Association was reversing itself from the time when it was opposing the height of the adjacent Ratner skyscraper and (in connection therewith) was negotiating for a bigger, better library.  And that bigger, better library the BHA said it wanted then is something the neighborhood finally got fairly recently, but now it's been been torn down for the luxury tower even though it was expanded and fully upgraded to be one of the best and most modern in the Brooklyn Public Library system.

. . . Of course shrinking the library and getting rid of the Business, Career and Education Federal depository resources does have the effect of evicting those who were coming from elsewhere, such as the nearby projects, to use the libraries.

. . .  Or did the Brooklyn Heights Association want to see the luxury tower replace the library because the Saint Ann’s private school was going to get a private windfall from the sale of real estate development rights it possessed provided that the city proceeded with eliminating the library?  Did it want that because the Saint Ann’s school contingent was better than well represented in the Brooklyn Heights Association’s decision making about what to do about the sale of the city land and public asset to create the luxury tower?  Moreover, the entangled Brooklyn Heights Association sidelined itself and eschewed speaking out in the name of good government, remaining steadfastly indifferent to the pay-to-play investigation scandals that emerged concerning the sale of the city owned library sale to a connected developer the de Blasio administration favored in the hand-off of the property for so much less than it was worth.  Once compromised in this regard it is more difficult to speak out in the future.

Of course all of this raises questions about what the BHA can be expected to do in the future and how reliable the BHA is, and for what (ditto an elected official like Councilman Steve Levin).  What will the BHA decide to oppose and what will it decide to promote?  There was, not long ago, a proposal to build another similar luxury tower just doors down from the library-replacing lux tower, the Pineapple Walk building.  The Heights Association, inconsistently we would say, opposed it.  That was then.  Real estate development is a long game.  No doubt that proposal will be back and when the library-replacing lux tower is fully present and accounted for it will seem even harder, seemingly sillier to oppose it. Maybe some of the new residents in the library-replacing tower will by then even be members of the BHA and arguing that it would be great to have a sister luxury Cadman Tower West building.

Then, aside from the question of what the BHA `opposes,' there is the question of what the BHA will be timely and effective at opposing.  We can note that the sale of Long Island College Hospital, The view-destroying over-construction of Brooklyn Bridge Park Pier One Pierrehouse buildings, the building at Pier Six in Brooklyn Bridge Park of more buildings than the agreed upon formula dictated, a lot of construction period as local public schools get more crowded were all things the BHA opposed, but its opposition was ineffective.

From Henry Street seen rising behind the Supreme Court Appellate Division Building

As seen from 101 Clark Street where many meetings were held to try to stop sale of the library

As seen currently (floors to go) from Monroe Place from where impetus and support for the building came.

Go all the way to to the end of this newly landscaped Brooklyn Bridge Park pier and you will find the tower following you like the moon follows you on along a road on a moonlight night

Behind the Unitarian Universalist church on Pierrepont Street

How Brooklyn Heights looks from the 26th floor of the luxury tower

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       
   

WHO Is Selling Our Libraries?

The plans to sell our libraries were announced under the Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration and it appears that they go back to at least 2005 and probably at least 2004.  Prior to the Bloomberg administration, NYC libraries were being expanded significantly under the Giuliani administration.  During the 2013 mayoral race, candidate Bill de Blasio said that the library sales should be halted, but in short order Mr. de Blasio was taking money from real estate developers "behind the curtain  . .very anxious to get their hands on these valuable properties.”

Once in office, Mayor Bill de Blasio continued with the library sales he decried as a candidate, although, to give the devil his due, de Blasio did not proceed with the full-blown NYPL Central Library Plan.  While the Mid-Manhattan library is now being subjected to a consolidating shrinkage it is no longer being sold straight out, but, under Mayor de Blasio we are still selling SIBL the city's biggest science library.  We are also still exiling research books off premises from where they were once readily and quickly retrievable at the 42nd Street Library.


There are other elected officials that are avidly taking the lead pushing these city library sales.  Foremost among them is city council member Brad Lander.  Also clearly conspicuous in his enthusiastic and unrelenting support for these plans is Jimmy Van Bramer head of the City Council Cultural Committee of which the city council's library subcommittee is a sub-component he domainates in leading.  .  .

 . .  Each particular local city council member must also be held responsible for what happens to the libraries in their districts, but revelations are that many of them, like Councilman Stephen Levin (Brooklyn Heights and Williamsburg libraries), Ydanis Rodriguez (Inwood Library) and Carlos Manchacca (Sunset Park Library), were brought on board behind the scenes in advance to help push these library deals through without regard to what their community constituents want.

New Yorkers are, of course, more and more accustomed to local New York City officials selling out the public interest to favor the real estate industry, but they will still often ask, rather incredulously, whether the people running the libraries and setting policy are opposing these library sales expecting that to be their duty.  The answer is that they are not.  The sale and shrinkage of the city libraries is happening only because top library administration officials and the boards of the three library systems are supporting these sales and working to advance them.

Back in the 1970s when the real estate industry wanted to get hold of Brooklyn's Pacific Street Library the head of the Brooklyn Public Library joined the community in fighting to defeat them, but now. . .

Stephen A. Schwarzman, a trustee on the board of the NYPL and the head of the Blackstone Group, which as just one of the arms of its business is the world's largest real estate investment company (including buildings close by on Bryant Park), transferred $100 million to the NYPL based on his understanding that the consolidating shrinkage of the Central Library Plan was to proceed.  Mr. Schwarzman is now spearheading Trump administration ambitions to privatize many more of the nation's public assets in deals where it is likely private insiders will benefit the way that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner did when the Donnell Library was sold (with whom he is now doing many, many troublesome deals.)

Similarly, the board of trustees of the Brooklyn Public Library is rife with people who crop up in connection with promoting other real estate development (including working to maximize development in Brooklyn Bridge Park), political operatives, Goldman Sachs people, a long list of people whose agenda would seem to be adverse to the patrons and users of the libraries.  You have situations such as David Offensend being in place as Chief Operating Officer at the NYPL implementing the Donnell Library sale and the Central Library Plan sales at the same time that his wife, Janet Offensend, was concocting a fate for the Brooklyn Heights Library based on replication of the Donnell deal. There is much to say about the way that boards like these that should have non-profit goals are straying from their missions.  It is expected that the recent recomposition of the Queens Library board will have that board following suit with the NYPL and BPL.

There are also other outside groups that, while they talk about how they believe in the importance of libraries, actually work to promote and support these sales and shrinkages.  For instance, the Center for an Urban Future supported the Donnell Library sale and shrinkage and the Central Library Plan, as did a group named Urban Librarians Unite, which was formed in 2008 just as the library administration and city officials were unveiling and gearing up promotion for their library real estate plans.  Both of these groups (like library-shrinking Spaceworks) get significant funding from The Revson Foundation which has been involved in promoting libraries as real estate deals from the beginning. The Revson Foundation can be connected to Bloomberg Daniel Doctoroff development people formerly on the BPL board like Sharon Greenberger and to the Robin Hood Foundation that is taking the lead in the Inwood Library sale.

Unexpected wild cards also crop up: The Brooklyn Heights Association that once fought to enlarge the central downtown Brooklyn Heights Library, later betrayed the community to instead advocate for the library's sale and shrinkage when, behind the scenes, a number of its board members were connected with Saint Ann's, a private school that was benefitting terrifically from its participation in the real estate deal.  (The Heights Association became a strange empty doughnut hole in the list of surrounding neighborhood associations signing our letter of support to opposing such library sales.-   For cover the BHA hid behind the skirts of a recently taken over and shrunken Friends of the Brooklyn Heights Library.)  The Fifth Avenue Committee, a group that holds itself out as acting in the community interest and has some history of doing so has gone out of its way to vociferously support  library sales and shrinkage while its deep involvement benefitting from such development necessitated recusal of its head, Michelle de la Uz, on the City Planing Commission.

Another category of public officials who can be held responsible for the library sales are those who have not done enough to stand up to the real estate industry to oppose them.  The borough presidents have considerable power to oppose these deals.  Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams who at one point showed courage opposing the destruction of the Brooklyn Heights Library, ultimately reversed, surrendering his support for that and the Sunset Park Library sale.  Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer has been far more complicit in supporting the destruction of SIBL, and the consolidating shrinkage of the Midtown Campus Plan plus the sale of the Inwood Library.  The borough presidents also have representatives on the City Planning Commission, which although loaded with conflicts that bias it towards dispensing favor to the real estate community, must do things like weigh in on most city library sales.

The current NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer wrote a strong letter critical of the BPL's sale and shrinkage of its second biggest biggest library in Brooklyn with the current NYC Public Advocate Tish James following suit to write similarly, and as a candidate for office candidate James campaigned against such shrinkages . . . Nevertheless, the list of public officials who have not done enough to exercise their formidable powers must notably include those two top elected officials as well as investigators and law enforcement officials such as the New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman who, aside from investigating and prosecuting transgressions of New York State Law is also, by state law, specifically assigned the responsibility for ensuring that the charities like those running the libraries properly perform the missions.  Had Mr. Schneiderman investigated the Donnell Library sale as we asked he might have prophylactically side-lined the likes of Stephen A. Schwarzman and Jared Kushner, key players in Donald Trump's campaign for president and now in his administration.

There are also reasons to expect that state and federal officials could be doing more to fend off the library destructions, although in this regard it should be considered that Stephen Schwarzman and his Blackstone Group make major contributions to Senator Schumer (making Schumer in 2014 the #1 Blackstone-supported politician in New York State and the #4 Blackstone supported politician nationwide) and Senator Schumer's wife, Iris Weinshall, having replaced David Offensend as Chief Operating Officer at the NYPL, is now the one in charge of such things as selling SIBL, the consolidating shrinkage of the Midtown Campus Plan, and adding the Inwood Library to the list of libraries targeted for sale (after she engaged in similar work with respect to real estate assets of CUNY).

The sale of our libraries bleeds into our national politics in other ways with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Schwarzman being involved in the sale of Donnell while Hillary Clinton's national campaign headquarters were located at a building which was for real estate development purposes was at the corner of Tillary and Clinton part of the same real estate parcel as Brooklyn's second biggest library being sold, with her landlord Forest City Ratner participating in that deal offensively replicating the shrink-and-sink Donnell sale.

For complete information go back to our Citizens Defending Libraries Main Page (or to read through all the content of our Main Page in LONG FORM CLICK)

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.

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!)

Asking about the letter sent on the eve of the debate . . . And Levin's answer was?

On the afternoon of his October 29, 2017 debate with Victoria Cambranes, the challenger for the NYC 33rd Council District he holds Steve Levin forwarded to Citizens Defending Libraries a version of a letter he had promised in the spring of 2015 to demand transparency from the Brooklyn Public Library about the sale of Brooklyn Libraries and particularly the Brooklyn Heights Library.

It would, of course, be nice for Councilman Levin to have demanded transparency from the BPL about it sale of the library in 2015, before the library sale was approved and consummated.

Another problem, almost as significant, the letter that Councilman Levin so belatedly sent side-steps requesting a lot of the most important information that needs to be requested for the sake of achieving transparency, like what’s the actual cost and public loss associated with selling the library, information about the financial windfall from the transaction to the private Saint Ann's school, what was being spent on high-paid lobbyists to push the library sale transaction forward, and how many books were disappearing from Downtown Brooklyn with the sell-off of this central destination library, the second biggest in Brooklyn.

Citizens Defending Libraries has been pursuing Councilman Levin for some time now to have Councilman Levin fulfill his fundamental obligation to work with the community to obtain this transparency.  But Councilman Levin has been avoiding it.  See:

Councilman Stephen T. Levin Comes To Speak About His Approving The Sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library at Independent Neighborhood Democrats Meeting- Doesn't Answer Questions Asked, Including Whether & When He Will Insist on Transparency from the BPL (Thursday, February 18, 2016)

 Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats passed a resolution asking for such transparency that Councilman Levin did not respond to.  See:

Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats Resolution Calling Upon Councilman Steve Levin To Demand Transparency From Brooklyn Public Library Respecting Its Library Sales. ( Thursday, April 28, 2016)

Not surprisingly the question of the letter came up during Councilman Levin’s debate with Victoria Cambranes.  It was during the Q&A.  You can hear it specifically addressed in the video below starting at minute 1:20.

From Victoria Cambranes Facebook Page- Preserved Live Stream Part 2 (for best possible viewing also click through to Facebook posting also posted on the Citizens Defending Libraries page.)



In the exchange of communications below you will find the letter Councilman sent to BPL president Linda Johnson dated October 27, 2017, Councilman Levin’s debate afternoon transmittal of it to Citizens Defending Libraries and the reply that day of Citizens Defending Libraries noting its insufficiencies with an itemization of what was drafted and left out of the letter.

October 29, 2017
Dear Councilman Levin,

Thank you for letting us know you sent the October 27, 2017 letter below.

A quick review looks to me as if the letter that you have now sent out to BPL president Johnson as you were promising back in the spring of 2015 asks president Johnson to supply some information in exactly the same form the BPL has previously been stating it for PR purposes (and therefore, we believe, in a somewhat obfuscatory manner) and it sidesteps asking for the following information needed for real transparency (previously identified as drafted below):

    •    Information about the true and complete costs to the public of selling and shrinking this library as proposed.  That includes:

    •        The current value, from the public’s perspective, of the recently expanded and fully upgraded library being given up (i.e. not from the perspective of the acquiring developer who sees its value as less than that of a vacant lot).
    •        What it would cost to replace the asset that is being given up (including land and development rights), in total apparently well over $120+ million.
    •        All the costs, including construction and design, associated with moving the Business, Career and Education functions of the library from Downtown Brooklyn and reestablishing them at the Grand Army Plaza Library.  Also please supply the date and details about when those Education functions were moved from Grand Army Plaza to the Brooklyn Heights Library because of, as I understand it, the shortage of space at Grand Army Plaza.
    •        It should also include all the costs of disruptions and what the public must forgo and bear to undergo this transaction.  That should include, among other things, the cost of moving books back and forth as well as storing them off-site.

    •    The background communications between the BPL and the Department of Design and Construction based upon which representations about the acceptability and suitability of the air conditioning at the Brooklyn Heights Library were made to this council district’s office, back when David Yassky held my office, before any planned sale and shrinkage of the library.  Information has also been requested and not furnished to the public about the air conditioning repair firm, Performance Mechanical Corporation, that the BPL engaged in an extended multi–year contract for its entire system not all that long before problems with the Brooklyn Heights Library’s and a number of other air library’s air conditioning systems started receiving attention.  Early analysis in this regard about the Brooklyn Heights Library (2007/2008) by Karen Backus and communications regarding the air conditioning have also not been provided.

    •    Information about your communications with the city’s Landmarks Commission about which historic libraries might get designated as such, and which libraries the BPL has indicated it would, instead, prefer to push forward into real estate deals avoiding such likely appropriate designation.

    •    Further, it is my impression that in a time when the scarcity of available funds is cited as troubling, the BPL is spending a considerable amount of money on consultants and lobbyists in connection with its promotion of its real estate plans for libraries.  The requested information about this has not been furnished.  It is a matter about which the BPL needs to be forthcoming.  That includes monies paid to Booz & Co., BerlinRosen, WSP Flack & Kurtz, K&K Property Solutions, Ed Tettemer and Mo (Maureen) Craig for branding and PR advice.

    •    Information about book counts: what they have been, what they are now and what they are intended to be in the future.  For instance, the BPL and the architect representing it, and the developer in this regard have not been able to state what the book shelf capacity of the entire Brooklyn Heights Library (we are not talking about supposed branch sub-component) has historically been, or what it is intended to be in the future.  Information respecting the entire system would be relevant.

    •    All communications with Saint Ann's School respecting development rights and the Brooklyn Heights Library. As you know (to provide perspective on this), what Saint Ann's School will net in income, motivating it to push for this transaction is proportionately more in the scheme of things given that half the city’s development rights were already transferred to Forest City Ratner in 1986. Saint Ann’s, with all its extra development rights still intact, doesn’t have to tear down its own building or incur a loss to cash in. By contrast, the library’s potential sale of its air rights is not such a painless transaction or opportunity.

So for instance, besides not asking about the costs of selling the Brooklyn Heights Library, you chose to ask about book counts for the Downtown Brooklyn Heights Library not regarding it as Brooklyn's second biggest library, a central destination library, but only about books that the BPL might nominally assign as associated with its branch functions.

Nevertheless, obtaining the Strategic Real Estate plan and the Revson Study will be important (we may have actually obtained the latter now, but have yet to confirm this to be the case).

MICHAEL D. D. WHITE
Citizens Defending Libraries

* * * *

From: Levin, Stephen <SLevin@council.nyc.gov>
To:  [Michael D. D. White & Carolyn McIntyre]
Sent: Sun, Oct 29, 2017 3:12 pm
Subject: Letter to BPL President Johnson

Dear Michael and Carolyn,
Below please find the text of the letter that I sent to BPL President Johnson on Friday, October 27, 2017. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Steve

Stephen Levin
New York City Council Member, District 33

October 27, 2017


Linda Johnson
President, Brooklyn Public Library
10 Grand Army Plaza
Brooklyn, NY 11238


Dear President Johnson,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing at this time because, as it has been almost two years since the Council's approval of the disposition and sale of the Brooklyn Heights branch of the Brooklyn Public Library to Hudson Companies and its subsequent development, I think it is a good time to circle back on some of the issues that were debated during that process. As you know, many members of the public and constituents of the 33rd District, who were both for and against this action, were very passionate about preserving our libraries, both in terms of their physical spaces and in terms of the services that are provided to the public in our libraries. Many of those constituents continue to ask me for additional information pertaining to BPL.

As you know, one of the primary reasons why BPL pursued the disposition and sale at Brooklyn Heights to Hudson Companies was to help address the significant capital needs throughout the entire BPL system. In light of that consideration, I am requesting that BPL provide me information regarding the current financial picture at BPL.

I would appreciate any information that is available regarding the funds that were generated by the disposition and sale at Brooklyn Heights.. Specifically, I am asking:

-How much funding was generated by the sale?
-To which capital needs will the proceeds of the sale be directed?
-Are there additional real estate transactions throughout the system that BPL is continuing to consider along the lines of the Brooklyn Heights sale? I have heard for some years about a "strategic real estate" plan and "Revson study"-do these documents exist and can you provide them to me?
-Can you provide me with any current documents that present an overview of BPL's financial situation such as you provide to members of your board?

Also, with regard specifically to the Brooklyn Heights branch, can you provide me with the book count of Brooklyn Heights branch at his highest number prior to its disposition (both the local branch and the business branch) compared to the proposed replacement branch? Lastly, can you provide a similar comparison regarding the amount of shelf space at the Brooklyn Heights branch before and after the sale.

Thank you very much for your consideration and l look forward to continuing to work with you to further a love of learning for all Brooklyn residents.

Best regards,
Stephen Levin
Councilmember, 33rd District

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

Councilman Levin vs. challenger Cambranes at debate in Brooklyn Commons

Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 7:00 PM a debate took place between the Candidates in the November 7, 2017 election for 33rd NYC Council District, incumbent Councilman Steve Levin and challenger Victoria Cabranes.

You can watch the video of the debate below and we will be adding to it with additional posts.

On the afternoon of his October 29, 2017 debate with Victoria Cambranes Steve Levin forwarded to Citizens Defending Libraries a version of a letter he had promised in the spring of 2015 to demand transparency from the Brooklyn Public Library about the sale of Brooklyn Libraries and particularly the Brooklyn Heights Library.

It would, of course, be nice for Councilman Levin to have demanded transparency from the BPL about it sale of the library in 2015, before the library sale was approved and consummated.

Another problem, almost as significant, the letter that Councilman Levin so belatedly sent side-steps requesting a lot of the most important information that needs to be requested for the sake of achieving transparency, like what’s the actual cost and public loss associated with selling the library, information about the financial windfall from the transaction to the private Saint Ann's school, what was being spent on high-paid lobbyists to push the library sale transaction forward, and how many books were disappearing from Downtown Brooklyn with the sell-off of this central destination library, the second biggest in Brooklyn.

More about that here:

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!)

From Victoria Cambranes Facebook Page- Preserved Live Stream Part 1 (for best possible viewing also click through to Facebook posting also posted on the Citizens Defending Libraries page.)



From Victoria Cambranes Facebook Page- Preserved Live Stream Part 2 (for best possible viewing also click through to Facebook posting also posted on the Citizens Defending Libraries page.)


xx

The Brooklyn Commons hosting the event also produced a viewable live stream that you can watch, but you may find the sound gets to low after about the first eight minutes.

Viewable live stream produced by the Brooklyn Commons

We are working on a Citizens Defending Libraries video of the event.

There is said to be more development going on in Brooklyn than anywhere else in the United States right now and the 33rd Councilmatic District is almost certainly topping the list of where in Brooklyn that development is occurring during the eight year period that Councilman Levin, now running for his third term, has been in office.

With three bulges that snake along the Brooklyn waterfront, The 33rd council district where Steve Levin currently holds the seat covers Brooklyn Heights, Downtown Brooklyn, Fulton Ferry and Dumbo, Boerum Hill, Vinegar Hill, the Brooklyn Navy Yard and neighboring public housing projects, Greenpoint, Williamsburg.

PRESS COVERAGE OF DEBATE

•    Brooklyn Eagle: Levin to debate challenger Cambranes Sunday in Brooklyn City Council race, by Mary Frost, October 26, 2017

•    Brooklyn Eagle: New York City Council District 33 candidates Levin, Cambranes debate in Boerum Hill, by Andy Katz, October 30, 2017

•    King County Politics: Levin-Cambranes Debate Gentrification and Rapid Development In Northern Brooklyn, By Kelly Mena, October 30, 2017

•    King County Politics: Cambranes Is Here For The People & Is Looking To Bring Integrity and Transparency Back To City Hall, by  By Kelly Mena,  October 30, 2017

 •    Greenpoint Star: Levin defends record in office at City Council debate, by Benjamin Fang, October 31, 2017

Brooklyn Heights Association 2017 Annual Meeting- "What To Do In The Age of Trump"

BHA 2017 Annual Meeting- Well attended, but public participation "in the age of Trump" was not invited

This post will be updated.

The Brooklyn Heights Association 2017 Annual Meeting was held Monday, February 27, 20017 at the Saint Francis College auditorium on Remsen Street.

The BHA gave its neighborhood report.  That report contained no mention of the destruction of the Brooklyn Heights Library, the BHA's continuing support of its shrink-and-sink sale or the ongoing abuses such as the felling just days before of five neighborhood trees, at the library's Truth Park excused by the false representation that the developer had already acquired the property from the city.

Things were tightly controlled this year with no invitation for public questioning or input, except that, as part of panel discussion of de Blasio's proposed (and at this meeting largely ridiculed) BQX riverfront trolley proposal, the public could hand in suggestions questions written on index cards.  Virtually no time was devoted to those questions and essentially none of them asked.

An example of one of the many questions from attendees that were submitted, but never asked.

Not surprisingly, the BHA proclaimed with great solemnity how important it was to consider what its role should be "in the age of Trump."   Its answer was that locals should get more involved supporting the BHA and working for better schools. . . . We had a flyer prepared and distributed it to nearly everyone at the very well attended meeting that we think addresses in much more telling and pertinent terms what the BHA's responsibilities should be "in the age of Trump."   

Below, in both text and as a jpg is the flyer we distributed.

ALLOWING SALES THAT LOOT OUR LIBRARIES, (pushing our libraries out the door to plundering plutocrats, handing them over to developers) HAS CONSEQUENCES

It has been noted that if Steve Mnuchin had been vigorously prosecuted at the local level for his business’s mortgage fraud, misrepresentations, backdating and falsification of documents to rev up the pace of his OneWest foreclosure mill, he wouldn’t be Treasury Secretary, appointed by Donald Trump today- Similarly, had NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman investigated the shrink-and-sink Donnell Library plunder with Blackstone’s Stephen A. Schwarzman involved on the selling side and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner as principal financial beneficiary, those two Trump henchmen might not be in significant positions of power today.  The whole political landscape at the national level could be different, not to mention having healthier local politics.

When our local officials and organizations allow the corrupt plundering of valuable public assets, like the shrink-and-sink Brooklyn Heights Library deal modeled on the sale of Donnell with some of the same people in the background, it feeds the beasts who go on to prey on us in so many other ways.

It doesn’t serve us that Stephen A. Schwarzman, spearheading Trump’s economic policy, is also one of Senator Schumer’s biggest donors, just as Schumer’s wife’s connections with selling libraries and privatizing public assets also do not.  City Councilman Steve Levin misleadingly assured that he would do his job and insist on transparency respecting the library sales but, betraying his constituents, never has. Thus the lack of transparency in Brooklyn Heights helps Donnell sink unchallenged into the sunset (even as Preet Bhrara investigates the mayor’s play-to-play).

Meanwhile, five trees were felled at the Heights library by a developer who doesn’t not yet own it, while the Brooklyn Heights Association lets such library-trashing abuses multiply despite having sworn to protect the public. (The library was promised to stay open until it was acquired, and should be open even now.)

We can commend Irene Janner, receiving an award today, for her first CB2 vote against selling the library, but can’t let go unobserved the awkwardness, as the library stills hangs in the balance, of those two subsequent votes involving flip-flops where the BHA forced the library sale through,  overriding the original hearing.  WE DESERVE BETTER!
    
Sign our petition on the web: Citizens Defending Libraries

For Distribution At NYC Democratic and Other Political Clubs: A “Rigged System”: The Case For New Democratic Leadership

Citizens Defending Libraries has prepared a flyer for distribution at NYC Democratic clubs and other political clubs: "A “Rigged System”: The Case For New Democratic Leadership."  The flyer is also good for distribution at events like community board meetings.

The text appears below (you can copy and email it to fiends and associates that way.  You can also right click on the jpg (picture) or pdf version below to print and photocopy it for distribution.  It is set up with two flyers per sheet to reduce the cost and use of paper by half.

You can download and/or print this jpg (picture) for photocopying and distribution.  By cutting it in half your costs will be cut in half

 Text of flyer (can be copied, including its embedded links, into emails) is below.   

* * * * *

A “Rigged System”: The Case For New Democratic Leadership   

Every notable candidate in this last election, Jeb Bush, Bernie Sanders, Hillary, Trump (and more Republican candidates) spoke to the voters about how the system `is rigged’ exacerbating income inequality. . . Between the two choices finally presented the electorate chose the threat of a Trump wrecking ball over Hillary’s status quo.

How “rigged” is the system?: Trump’s de facto campaign manager, chief political advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was a principal financial beneficiary of the sudden, secretively shrink-and-sink sale plundering the Donnell Library.

Did Hillary make political hay of the millions upon millions of dollars that went to Kushner at public expense via a rather non-credible behind-the-scenes “bid”?  (See: Hillary Clinton & The Winning Campaign That Might Have Been- Thoughts From Citizens Defending Libraries.)  Unfortunately, Hillary’s national campaign headquarters were adjacent to and, for real estate development purposes, actually a part of another library, the Brooklyn Heights Library (at Tillary and Clinton), subject to a shrink-and-sink sale modeled on the Donnell sale, some of the same people in the background.  Her landlord, Ratner, is a gatekeeper to the transaction.

That shrink-and-sink Heights library sale entangles local Democrats. It is now subject to a federal pay-to-play investigation of Bill de Blasio (Hillary’s one-time campaign manger) for his hand-off of the library to an inferior bidder who channeled him funds behind-the-scenes.  The shrink-and-sink sale, and the other similar library sales, have been supported by Brad Lander, and his fellow local councilman, Steve Levin, has perpetually refused what he once promised: To insist on transparency for this and the other Brooklyn library sales (See: Citizens Defending Libraries: Open Letter To Councilman Steve Levin About His Letter To Brooklyn Public Library Demanding Transparency About Library Sales).

Despite what Trump may have managed, Democrats should know that they handicap themselves immeasurably when they campaign against `a rigged’ system while embedded with those rigging and who give license to such rigging.

This last election should have should have been impossible to lose. . . Impossible to lose even notwithstanding the voter suppression that included a multi-state coordinated Republican-managed voter purge (exit polls and the number uncounted provisional ballots tell us it was probably enough to swing the electoral college result). But that raises another issue: How are we to effectively fight rigged “voter purges” when the Democratic machine similarly purged over 200,000 NYS voters from the rolls in Brooklyn.*

                               Sign our petition on the web: Citizens Defending Libraries
* * * * * *

(* We need to update the flyer, or you cane by hand before photocopying- a more dramatic effect: The number is now recently acknowledged to be more than 200,000 Brooklyn voters purged.)

   16111701 Flyer for in d Meeting New Leadership by MDDWhite on Scribd