Brooklyn Bridge Park Meeting Monday Evening

You are right . Just think about all the patronage jobs our local state elected reps have filled while waiting 20+ years for his thing to happen. The staid and proper Brooklyn Heights Association has also feathered their nest. Association children and friends have gotten jobs and who is to sell the bonds for the housing etc etc. The husbands of the Heights and their wall st. firms. WHERE IS OUR PUBLIC PARK

Did anyone attend last night’s pathetic meeting sponsored by the BBP Conservancy? The vast majority of community members in attendance were clear in their desire to see a real park along the shore and not the luxury condo development it has become. It is apparent to all that the recreation and cultural venues originally planned for the park are gone because the people who will live inside the park do not want the intending noise and activity a real park generates. Elected officials who spoke, David Yasky and Bill DeBlasio, were hissed at, as was the evening’s hostess, Marianna Koval. Why? For their support of condos inside this public park. Yasky still believes that the height of the condo buildings (it looks like we are up to 7 new buildings folks) is the problem. Can’t he figure out that it is the mere presence of condos inside of parks is the problem? And this is a guy who wants to be comptroller? Let him ferret out what city deals are legit or not? Yikes. Get rid of the condos, restore the recreation long needed, and get back to seeing this as an asset for all Brooklynites and not just an asset for real estate moguls (and the politicians that do their bidding). Shame on anyone, including this new park president, Regina Myer, who believe that we must sell our public park lands to the highest real estate bidder. The deal was NOT to make BBPark a totally self-sustaining park. That is a fiction made dangerous by the Brooklyn Heights Association that promulgated it. Call Yasky, DeBlasio, Joan Milman and Regina Myer. Tell them you want a real park not landscaping and highrises for the wealthy.

Why does the BBPark have to be self-sustaining? Can you imagine the howls of protest that would be heard if such a thing were planned for a Manhattan Park? While the BBPark languishes on the drawing board, the entire shoreline around Manhattan will be taxpayer-funded revitalized and rebuilt and Brooklyn Bridge Park will still be in the planning stages.

It does seem WRONG for there to be condos in the park. A park is a public place and the presence of these housing units will give the people who live in them a sense of entitlement that they alone should be allowed to use the park. It is human nature. Look to Battery Park City and its esplanade and you will see that visitors are not really made to feel welcome.

Although a member of the Brooklyn Heights Association, I am beginning to see that they seem to do things that are not necessarily good for the area (i.e. Years ago, they supported the building of the Barnes and Noble and movie complex on Court Street and opposed the building which houses Garden of Eden on Montague Street – which do you think is more detrimental for the neighborhood?)

They encourage “clean” tenants on Montague Street and so now we have banks and real estate stores that make the area a dull ghost town in the evenings. Forget the Baby Gap that the BHA wants – where are our bakeries?

They have some philosophical problem with the new (and very good) restaurants in the North Heights because they have determined that Brooklyn Heights people like to leave the neighborhood to go out to eat – sez who?

They concentrate all of their cleaning efforts on Montague Street and yet the Clark Street subway Station and the three blocks of Henry Street from Clark to Cranberry are the dirtiest areas in all of the Heights. Can’t they use their efforts to get that area to look a bit better?

Sorry that this turned into a diatribe against the BHA, but I am beginning to wonder just what good this organization does for the neighborhood and the planning of the Brooklyn Bridge Park!

I like and use the Barnes and Noble and the movie theater. I hate the building that has Garden of Eden as a tenant. But I think what you’re trying to get at James, is that black people patronize the bookstore and movie theater and thus, it’s a big problem (for you, I guess).

The Bha has turned the heights into whhite bread . It is boring . An entry to BBp from Montague St. would liven up the area but they are afraid of people other than themselves.

sorry, I don’t buy it james. if you can’t deal with people, time to move out of NYC. barnes and noble and the movie theater are perfectly placed on Court St. and heavily used, by your admission.

Oh come on, the movie theater is NOT overdevelopment. It’s located on Court Street and in downtown, which historically contained many theaters. If anything, the 180 Montague Street highrise is overdevelopment, adding hundreds of extra residents (and their cars, via the garage) into our neighborhood, and adding to a ring of out-of-character highrises that started with Cadman Plaze in the 60s. Nor is Barnes & Noble a “big box” store. Sure, it’s a national chain, and wouldn’t it be nice if local booksellers were thriving, but they aren’t, and that’s a national problem, not something to lay at the feet of the BHA.

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread. Again I’m neutral as to BHA, but IIRC they are doing more to get the park going than the dogmatic opponents who seem like they’d rather have no park than one with surrounding condos. As for access, I don’t recall if they have taken a stance on a Montague Street connection, but I do think there is a legitimate concern about having Joralemon be the (a) main entry point, given that it’s a cobblestone street.

Do you all forget that years back there was a movie theatre on that same block, albeit it was a porno theatre. Would you prefer that back? Doubtful … Regardless, as far as I can recall the developers of that movie house agreed that one screen was to be dedicated to foreign films and \”art\” films. What happened to that?!?