Below are excerpts from an interview with Bill DeBlasio in the Brooklyn Eagle.
The Councilman has been more visible these days in his district than he has been for the last 6 or 7 years of his term. Though he has not come out and stated it in definite terms, it is clear to me that he is campaigning. First, he meets with local bloggers, now he sits down with a local newspaper...he seems to be busy clearing up some of his more controversial positions in the neighborhoods he represents. Most of them seem to be about his position on development in Brownstone Brooklyn, or rather, the over-development.
He sure has some explaining to do since he is for the Atlantic Yards project, doesn't see anything wrong with allowing development corporation Two Trees Management exceeding the 50 feet height limit in landmarked Cobble Hill, but seems to be for the down-zoning of Carroll Carroll. Bill De Blasio has always struck me as a very astute political animal who knows exactly what side to be on to further his own carrier. (After all, Hillary Clinton trusted him to run her first senatorial campaign here in New York State.) Mr. De Blasio effortlessly puts a positive spin on all of his positions. It will be up to us, the voter, to remember that he was mostly absent for most of his tenure and that he said yes to most of the big development projects that will change our neighborhoods forever.
From The Brooklyn Eagle (read entire article here)
You’ve been quite active on the 360 Smith St. project (by architect Robert Scarano), and staving off what some residents consider over-development in Carroll Gardens. Why do you think it’s important that a 50-foot height limit be maintained in that neighborhood?
There’s no question that the neighborhood has a certain character and it’s important that we preserve it. People love the neighborhood because it feels like a village, people know each other, and to suddenly drop large buildings in like that really tears up the fabric of the community.
What do you think of the temporary moratorium on buildings that exceed 50 feet in Carroll Gardens? Do you think it’s a realistic proposal?
I agree with [the residents calling for it]. I think it’s very helpful that they’re pushing it. We’re trying to find a way to achieve it more quickly than a downzoning, which will take a year or two. There is no current law that allows for a moratorium, but there is a new piece of legislation that I support that will freeze development as soon as a new zoning change has begun [the approval process].
Are there areas, or circumstances, where you think it’s appropriate to allow variances in historic districts that have 50-foot height limits?
Very, very rarely. I think the historic districts are there for a reason and we need to respect that. I think from time to time there will be an exception, such as at 130 Court St. (and Atlantic Avenue) because of the presence of a major landmark building on that site. But very, very rarely should there be any exception to the historic district rules.
Some Cobble Hill residents are angry that you haven’t opposed the project at 130 Court St., where Two Trees Management is in the process of being granted a zoning variation allowing a 60-foot residential building, with ground-floor retail, in a historic district with a 50-foot height limitation. Why do you support this variation?
I supported it, but I still wanted to see if there was a way to get the project down to the 50-foot level The Independence Bank building is a very important building in our community. It’s a signature building in our community but it’s also a white elephant economically, and to make sure it will be kept properly for the future it may be a valid exception to allow the additional 10 feet of development on [the adjacent] site. But I want to emphasize that it’s a very public process going on here. We’re still in discussions, we’re in fact going to have a meeting of community activists with the developer to see if there are any other improvements we can make here.
Why was the extra 10 feet necessary?
The idea that was presented to me originally by the bank and the developer was that this was a way to guarantee the future of this building, and I’m a big believer in landmarks preservation, and this landmark is important to our community. This project may be necessary to preserve that building for decades to come.
0 comments:
Post a Comment