But Atlantic Yards isn't just any development project. Although modified since it was first announced in December of 2003, the original $4.5 billion plan featured a new sports stadium that would be home to the Nets basketball franchise, 16 high rise buildings (some as tall as 58 stories), over a million square feet of commercial space, thousands of residential housing units, and a 15 story billboard. Covering 22 acres of land, which includes the Vanderbilt Rail Yards that is controlled by the New York State Metropolitan Transit Authority, Atlantic Yards constitutes the densest housing tract in the country and the largest development project ever by a single developer in New York City. The proposed development requires street re-mapping, billions in public subsidies, and probably the razing of private homes through eminent domain (the process through which the government exercises the power to take private property for public use).

In addition to its considerable environmental impact, one of the most controversial aspects of the Atlantic Yards project is how it received approval from New York State to use state land, while by-passing New York City land use approval procedures. Among the arguments the state has used to take such aggressive action is that the land is currently blighted and would be better served with higher density development like the Atlantic Yards project, a contention that is intensely disputed by Atlantic Yards critics.

On the other hand, the project is welcomed by many who look forward to its promise of news jobs, affordable housing and the first big league Brooklyn sports team since the Dodgers left for Los Angeles. In 2005, Ratner entered into an agreement with a group of community organizations in which he promised to create job and job training opportunities, affordable housing, and other supportive measures for people living in the surrounding area. One of the most prominent co-signers of the Community Benefits Agreement was the community organizing group, ACORN.

Today, the project remains in limbo. Recent news reports have begun to cast doubt on whether Ratner will have the financial resources to complete the project. But no matter what the fate of Atlantic Yards, there is much to be learned from the various, and often competing, attempts by community stakeholders to bring accountability and transparency to this project.

Part I: Defining Community Interest
The Accountability Project opens up the Interview Series with the first of a two-part conversation with Daniel Goldstein, the founder and spokesman of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. Goldstein, whose condo is located in a building that sits in the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint, has refused to accept a buy-out from Ratner and make way for demolition. Along with his wife, he is the sole remaining occupant of his building.

Ever since Atlantic Yards was announced, Goldstein has been leading an effective David vs. Goliath campaign against Forest City Ratner's development of Atlantic Yards. He has also sharply criticized the actions of the organizations that co-signed the Community Benefits Agreement with Forest City Ratner.

Goldstein is, of course, not without his own critics, many of whom have painted him as arrogantly standing in the way of progress. But even one of Goldstein's most vocal enemies recently noted that Goldstein and his allies , through their organizing and day-to-day blogging [found, most notably, in the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn website, Norman Oder's Atlantic Yards Report, and the No Land Grab website, for example] have effectively managed to control the terms of the Atlantic Yards debate.

MWG: Give me an idea of where things are now. What’s the status of the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn campaign against the Atlantic Yards project?

Goldstein: We are about 4 ½ years into our fight. Our campaign from the beginning was against the Atlantic Yards project as it was proposed, and for finding a way, through compromise or through alternatives, to develop the rail yards, which sit on eight acres of the twenty two acre site that Ratner wants. We opposed the use of eminent domain and what became clear would be a sham process that bypassed the city ULURP [Uniform Land Use Review Procedure] process and everything that entails.

The initial opposition grew both out of people living in the footprint of the project site who would face displacement through eminent domain or the pressure of eminent domain, as well as opposition from people who lived in the surrounding neighborhood. And particularly because the project was bypassing the most democratic process available, we knew early on that litigation was going to have to be one of our tools and weapons.

MWG: Whether it's true or not, your detractors have depicted you and the membership of Develop Don't Destroy as mostly white gentrifiers who are relatively transient and do not have the authority to advocate or fight on behalf of the community, as opposed to other community stakeholders, whether it be ACORN members or anyone else, who are depicted as predominately people of color, predominately low and moderate income, and people who’ve been here for generations. How do you claim your own legitimacy as a member of the community and what do you feel is, and is not, a legitimate check on your community credentials? Who gets to speak for the community in these kinds of matters?

Goldstein: First of all, unfortunately I think, to some extent, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s Develop Don't Destroy or ACORN or whatever other organization because this stuff is going on in back rooms and we’re kind of a side show to it in a lot of ways.

But, you know, I don’t know what “the” community is. I don’t think “the” community exists. I think demographics exist, neighborhoods exist, and allegiances exist, and blocks exist. What I do think is that people living in and around this footprint should have a pretty strong say in things. That doesn’t mean what they say goes absolutely, but has legitimacy. And I think that’s the case whether they’ve been here for a year or eighty years.

Look, we’re not completely segregated in Brooklyn but it’s not completely un-segregated. It’s divided and those divisions were there long before Ratner. He’s exploited them. Do I think that I speak for "the" community? No. But I do think that I have represented the community that opposes Atlantic Yards. And that community is not monolithic. I truly believe it involves all income levels, Black, White, many ethnicities, many newcomers, old timers.

Why does [New York City Councilman and Atlantic Yards critic] Charles Barron agree with me on Atlantic Yards? Why does he say it's "instant gentrification"? Is he in thrall to me? Is he wrong? Is he misguided? I think that there are a lot of people in [the Brooklyn neighborhood of] Park Slope who are white, relatively wealthy, old timers, who like the project because "the rail yards have been a hole in the ground forever" and you know, there are a lot of liberals in Park Slope who think, "well, this is going to be good for those poor people."

I’ve spent years meeting with a group of Black clergy, trying to deal with the project, people who have had a different range of views on it. I’m not going to say I’ve walked Ingersoll, Whitman, and Farragut [Public Housing projects located in Fort Greene, the neighborhood adjacent to the proposed Atlantic Yards project] but I’ve gone to a few meetings there, to some of the public housing closer to the site. We have formed a committee that’s called itself “United Neighbors of Brooklyn,” the sole purpose of which is to try to bring together people who live in public housing. There's no hidden agenda.

Yeah, the Unity Plan [an alternative development plan described in Conversation with Daniel Goldstein, part II] would provide fewer units of affordable housing than Ratner’s plan. But it would provide a similar or better percentage. And it wouldn’t waste money and space on an arena. I know that a lot of people in ACORN, ACORN members, Working Families Party [a New York based political party founded by ACORN and several unions] members, who are unhappy with what’s gone on. I know there are even people in some of the trade unions that don’t like the project.

There are 2,920 units of housing – that's units, not just people - that could be displaced by the project. The units at risk are mostly to the east of the project, which are predominantly Black neighborhoods, right? Imagine if all the groups that have devoted so much time to this on both sides had come together, or even now came together, and say, “We’re tired of this, Ratner," and joined forces. There’d be better deals for everyone.

I remember Reverend Clinton Miller, and Reverend Dillon and a few other local Black ministers called a community meeting on Atlantic Yards years ago and there were six hundred people, mostly Black, pissed off about Atlantic Yards. I remember sitting in his church along with a few hundred people, watching Brooklyn Matters [a documentary film about the protest against Atlantic Yards]. People were angry and embarrassed by some of what was seen in the film. A lot of people who’ve had long careers in issues of affordable housing and development and community organizing think this will hurt African-American and low income communities more than anybody.

MWG: Why don’t you talk some more about the moral justification for this campaign, the public good that you feel is threatened by the taking of private land? What do you think is at stake here? What's the moral authority that your campaign hinges on?

Goldstein: I think that the misuse of eminent domain is a symptom of this larger political problem that we have in New York City, which I think is the over influence of the real estate industry and how they’re kind of calling the shots.

Eminent domain is a necessary tool that the government should only use sparingly, appropriately and when necessary. And if you misuse it in the service of private enterprise, you’re distorting its purposes.

I don’t think we have any question that it’s not being used properly for this project. You can achieve all the purported public benefits without using it. Brooklyn can get an arena, Brooklyn can get affordable housing at this location with high density and create an open space. All these things can be achieved without the eminent domain.

The eminent domain is being used to give a huge windfall to the developer. The taxpayers are putting out $100 million to Ratner to pay for the lucrative buy-outs of people he conducted using the threat of eminent domain.

MWG: And for you, would this campaign exist if it were not for eminent domain?

Goldstein: I think it would exist.

MWG: So, if eminent domain was not being used, on what grounds would you be opposing the project?

Goldstein: I would still oppose a process that bypasses the community, elected officials, and community boards. I would still oppose the fixed deal to sell the rail yards and the terrible urban plan that they’ve proposed which, at its core, uses outmoded "superblock" planning. The surrounding communities would still be upset about the scale and the traffic. No one is upset about having affordable housing here, having a mix of incomes.

The reason I have the role as a public spokesman is because I have pretty rock solid moral authority. I’ve stayed here in the footprint and I have nothing personally to gain by staying and everything to gain personally by leaving, financially speaking. As a result, I’ve been given, unfortunately, much more power to impact this project than, say the City Council, because it went around the city process. Because I happen to live in this apartment, I could impact things.

MWG: Could you talk more specifically about how the project bypassed processes that were designed to allow public input and create public accountability?

Goldstein: ULURP, the city’s land use planning process, was bypassed completely. The authorities never even debated whether or not to use it.

The counter-argument is “Well it’s state land so it should be a state process,” but it's only the rail yard that’s state land. It's eight acres out of 22. So that’s not a good reason or good excuse. The proposed relocation of Jets Stadium went through a state process but all the surrounding land went through a ULURP process for rezoning and this is kind of the same thing. The development of Hudson Yards [MTA rail yards located on the Hudson River, between 30th and 34th Streets] now are going through ULURP and that’s state land.

It should’ve gone through both a city and state review process. It could’ve been two projects.

And the bidding process held by the MTA was a sham. A year and a half after the project was announced, the MTA put out an RFP [Request For Proposals] for the rail yards and they allowed 42 days for people to respond and submit a very complicated plan to develop over the rail yards. So, Ratner, for at least two years prior to the bid process, had been talking to the MTA about doing this, so of course they have this full-fledged plan with all the details you’d ever want.

MWG: And correct me if I’m wrong. It wasn’t like the state approached Ratner. Ratner is the one that initiated the deal.

Goldstein: Yes, that’s the fundamental argument in the eminent domain issue. You know, if you can have the developer go to the city and state and say, “Take these properties for me” then go through this sham process that avoids all the democratic processes available, and at the end they rubber stamp it and say, “Yes. It’s a public use. You can have these properties,” -- that’s sort of a real problem.

The environmental disclosure process was a problem too. It’s not a planning process like ULURP. It's a process that goes through the Empire State Development Corporation, an unelected, unaccountable board controlled by the governor. I went to the meeting where they approved the project, and they took fifteen minutes to discuss it in full. So that’s an attenuated process that only requires the state, really, to disclose the environmental impacts. It doesn’t require them to say "You can’t build this," if there are overwhelming impacts. I think the state statutes that require this process need to be fixed.

So we’ve sued their final environmental impact statement, we’ve sued over procedural issues, like they didn’t allow enough time for the public to hand in their written comment under state law.

Most people, fair minded people I think, would agree that this area can use more density. So the way to do that is you re-zone it. But if you re-zone it, you’re not giving control to Ratner. And you’re not giving him an eminent domain windfall. So instead of re-zoning it, instead of saying it’s underutilized, it’s lower density than it should be, what the State did was say that "underutilization is a characteristic of blight, therefore we can use eminent domain."

So what really was required here was a re-zoning. You would have development, you just wouldn’t have Atlantic Yards.

Next Week: A Conversation with Daniel Goldstein, Part II:The Mechanics of Accountability
Two Weeks: A Conversation with Bertha Lewis of ACORN

About the Accountability Project Interview Series
The Interview Series provides insight into the process of social change organizing and advocacy by conducting extended inquiries into campaigns and strategies used to address economic justice challenges. The Interview Series features frank discussions with activists fighting to hold corporations and government accountable to working families and neighborhoods of color.

The Interview Series is presented by DMI's Accountability Project. By dissecting economic justice issues and asserting the voices and perspectives of progressive-minded organizations and the marginalized communities they serve, the Accountability Project seeks to shift corporate behavior and spur progressive public policy change.

All of the interviews are conducted by Mark Winston Griffith, the Senior Fellow for Economic Justice at DMI, and the director of the Accountability Project.