Slate Property Group, Mega Developments and Community Boards – Voting Down these Projects
It would take quite a lot to convince us that the major property groups involved in New York’s mega projects have anything except money and financial benefit in mind. It would take a concerted effort of conciliatory behavior and cooperation with (not only journalists) but with civic and community leaders for us to even consider that there are “civic duties and responsibilities at play”. Slate is no exception. Consider the Rivington Street fiasco that has caused the owners of Slate a considerable amount of time and money to perform “damage control” and we have a hard time accepting that this is anything more than lip service. (See the following from November 28,2016. If you click on the title, you can follow the link)
To the community leaders in control of the votes necessary to pass measures that would allow these projects to pass, we recommend you look carefully. Perform your due diligence. Leopards do not change their spots. And if you want to know how the future is going to look, check the past behavior of the principals. There are precious few truly altruistic property developers in New York and far too many officials willing to accept significant offers of advancement in one form or another to count on them to have a straight moral compass.
We have provided you with a multitude of links to start your research. If it leads you to believe that the men like the principals of Slate are community minded, then so be it. We believe a project like this is a clean slate towards making money for the principals and housing unaffordable. The decision is for the community.
Brooklyn Paper – Click here to read full article:
Split decision: Vote on Downtown tower galvanizes board before majority pans project
It’s an “aye” toward compromise.
Community Board 2’s full board last week outright rejected a developer’s request to rezone Fulton Street land in order to erect a 40-story tower — but not before the civic guru who cast the lone vote in favor of the 80 Flatbush megadevelopment when the full board voted against it earlier this year urged his colleagues to follow suit this time around, arguing doing so would at least give the panel a seat at the table for discussions should the project move forward.
Clinton Hiller Lenny Singletary, CB2’s second vice chairman, told the panel that by not flat out opposing the proposed high-rise, it may be in a better position to negotiate some changes to the project in order to make it as beneficial as possible for the community.
“In this particular case, there is nothing wrong with making our own recommendation on what we want conditions to be,” Singletary said at a Wednesday full-board meeting. “It’s not whether you are pro or against development. It’s not an all or nothing thing.
Last month, the board’s Land Use Committee panned Manhattan-based builder Slate Property Group’s application to upzone a Fulton Street plot between Rockwell Place and Flatbush Avenue in order to erect the 558-foot, mixed-use tower with 139 apartments, roughly 40 of which will be below-market-rate, and office space.
And despite Singletary’s appeal, the full board ultimately voted to pan the proposal 19 to 13 with one abstention — even after other panel members urged their colleagues to think carefully before simply saying no, noting their opposition to 80 Flatbush did little to stop Council from approving a slightly shrunken version of the five-building complex in the end.
“We as a community board have to think going forward, we can pretty much tinker around the edges ” said John Dew, who once chaired the panel. “Our job is to do what’s best for the community, not stand and stomp.”
Singletary said board members could have used their concerns about the development — which include that it offers too little affordable housing, and creates too few jobs — as ammunition to demand the builder find ways to add more below-market-rate units and employment opportunities if they voted to approve the project with conditions, instead of simply telling the firm to take a hike.
The full board, however, unanimously cast its purely advisory vote against the proposal a month later. But that did not stop Council from green-lighting the project in July , a decision that led leaders of anti-development group Preserve Our Brooklyn Neighborhoods to sue the city in an attempt to stop construction of the tower, according to the organization’s president, who said its lawyer filed an Article 78 appeal — a motion that challenges decisions made by local or state agencies — last week.
And CB2’s full board voting to reject developments outright isn’t a new phenomenon, according to the panel’s district manager, who said he couldn’t recall a single time in recent history that its members voted to approve a project with conditions.
“Nothing immediately comes to mind,” said Rob Perris.
Slate Property Group
Slate Property Group Starts Lending Arm With $500M Yearly Goal
BFC, Slate to Redevelop Bedford Armory Into Mixed-Use Complex