In the Brooklyn Rail this month, NORMAN KELLEY interviews David Dyson, a veteran social justice activist and pastor of Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church in Fort Greene. Kelley is the author of The Head Negro in Charge Syndrome: The Dead End of Black Politics.
Kelley: …some of the alliances that you and the church have with ACORN and Reverend [Herbert] Daughtry, who have signed onto this project, are now threatened, which is distressing. Would you say that Ratner is playing the race card?
Dyson: Yes, and it’s very depressing. This project has actually split lifelong partners in the progressive movement. We feel that Reverend Daughtry and ACORN have been brought in by Ratner not as advocates for the community but as private business partners in the deal. We’re trying to prevent the misuse of eminent domain, trying to increase the number of affordable housing units, trying to decrease the number of high-rise luxury office buildings. Those are the kinds of issues that a community group should have, but the Reverend Daughtry—who’s also an old friend—and our friends at ACORN are trying to cut a personal deal so that they can be brokers over whatever little piece or crumb of this pie falls from Ratner’s table. Ratner has been to Brooklyn what Karl Rove was to Ohio and Florida—brilliantly able to play on people’s worst instincts in order to get what he wants in a way that he wants it.”
Thanks to No Land Grab for the find. [PHOTO: Brian Molyneaux.]
I’d say Ratner is doing both: he’s being a brilliant strategist by using many tactics, including the race card. The race card has proven a highly effective tactic in certain situations, such as those where African-Americans and college-educated white liberals are involved. By donating a million dollars to Carver Federal Savings Bank and getting Daughtry and ACORN into his corner with promises of rewards, Ratner is gradually eliminating the opposition. Also, he is fully aware that many white liberals, for a variety of reasons, are often hesitant to criticize African-Americans (unless, of course, those African-Americans are avowed Republicans, like Clarence Thomas or Condoleezza Rice). In cases where white liberals are willing to level such criticism, it is always less severe than if the targets were, say, stockbrokers or members of the Christian Coalition. In the end, it silences some and tempers others. As far as I can tell, it’s worked pretty well for him so far. Little by little, he’s acquiring properties, increasing the number of people in his corner, and furthering his agenda. Whether you or not you approve of his tactics, he knows what he’s doing and it helps explain why he is such a successful businessman. Generally speaking, people don’t get rich by being nice to others.
By the way, Dyson’s book looks interesting. I’ll have to pick it up.
Actually, the $1 million check was not a “donation” but rather a deposit into Carver Federal Bank, which is the largest Black/Caribbean-owned bank in the country. I do applaud him for making such a sizable deposit at Carver and hope that other business people in Brooklyn will do the same.
1 million is a joke for ratner, thats like one high end apartment. He’s laughing all the way to the bank and back.
Jack. The DBLC (Downtown Brooklyn Leadership Coalition) is a coalition of mainly black clergy from the surrounding communities. They are fully opposed to Ratner’s proposal. Rev. Herbert Daughtry is ONE black reverend who supports the project. I don’t think that Ratner has the “black community” in his corner any more than he has the “white community” in his corner. Despite the perception Mr. Ratner would like to create, support and opposition does NOT break along racial or class lines. What I DO give him credit for is exploiting the desperate needs for jobs and affordable housing to grease the skids of his land grab. He has done that very well.
Here is a bit of racism I”ve seen that people don’t seem to think about:
“Only white yuppies care about contextual development, in-scale development, preservation and views.”
That is racism. Suggesting that black people do not hold those things dear is bigoted. But you hear blacks and whites say this all the time.
Lastly you know something is wrong when Daughtry, BUILD and the Carpenter’s Union file a joint amicus brief in FAVOR of eminent domain abuse. Then you know the world has gone topsey turvey.
More power to Reverend Dave Dyson.
While $1 million might be a “joke for Ratner”, I don’t see any other high profile business people or developers making deposits at Carver.
DeeDee, its called buying support. If more billionares needed the same support they’d drop off some change too
Duh…you seem to think I’m too ignorant to realize that Ratner is trying to “buy support”. All smart business people do this whether on a large or small scale…That’s why local businesses sponsor little league teams and Target sponsors first Saturday at the Brooklyn Museum. I’m a fundraiser at a nonprofit organization so I’m well aware.
Hopefully, we can see the irony that many big box stores bank out of state.
I guess that having a huge withdrawal slip doesn’t exactly make a good photo op.
I’m saying no one else needs their support thats why no other billionaires are making chump deposits. Youd have to be a bit gullible to believe that Ratner is really making an “investment” in that bank over “buying” a few votes. Whats your point?
Let me also say that the financial and social burden put upon us by local businesses and even Target, is nothing compared to Ratners plan.
Ratnerville: I didn’t intend to imply that Ratner has the “black community” in his pocket. I was merely analyzing his tactics. The racial makeup of opponents vs. proponents is an interesting topic, though. Maybe there’ll be a thread on that here one day.
Understanding that this is a generalization, and based only on limited observations at numerous community board meetings and community forums, it seems that the affinity group MOST SUPPORTIVE of Ratner’s proposal is:
1. middle or lower middle class,
2. local (Prospect/Crown Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy),
3. black, and
4. hungry for jobs in the community.
JOBS is the hot-button issue for this group: this type of development promises not only construction jobs (and their support for this project goes hand in hand with their long-standing cry for bidding out work to minority contractors) but also jobs at the arena, in the offices, at the stores. This project is viewed first and foremost as a bushel-ful of employment opportunities. Consideration of aesthetic merits, of social impact, even of quality of life fall a distant second to the promise of jobs. Is this really the case? Ratner and Stuckey have surely not shied away from portraying it as such; Daughtry and ACORN seem to think it’s true; and it is BUILD’s raison d’etre.
Interestingly enough, opponents of this plan also tend to be middle/lower middle class, black, and local. This affinity group does not question the volume of jobs. They instead are not content with the QUALITY of jobs: they question the need to create more cashiers and stock clerks, more baristas and burger flippers, more low-paying, low-benefit, low-security, low-potential for advancement, menial labor.
My observations on what splinters this otherwise homogenous faction? I could venture some uninformed suggestions:
Age: the very old and the very young are for the project (jobs at any cost) while the 30-40-50ish tend to oppose it (jobs must possess quality and meaning).
Job status: actively employed professionals – still middle class – who work outside of the neighborhood and who don’t work in the building trade oppose – perhaps these are people who have made a living without compromising, who have advanced on their own merits, and don’t see why anyone else need do differently. They perhaps see the arrival of so many low-wage menial jobs so close to home as an easy way out: “sure, you can get a job, but is it going to get you anywhere? It doesn’t even mean you have to take a train to work!”.
Property owners: the incidence of ownership among this affinity group – the community that has most likely lived in this neighborhood all its life and therefore has the greatest ‘claim’ on it – is appallingly low, I am sure. Most of the property is owned by landlords who live elsewhere, or Manhattan fleeing interlopers. Forget property values, or whether or not they could ever afford to buy even 20 years ago – that is a topic for another thread: but those who do own their house, co-op, or condo tend to oppose the project. And not out of a financial motive (remember I am talking about people whose roots are in this community – not the average Newswalk purchaser), but out of something more ineffable: fear of instability? Am not sure…
I do find it interesting that the whole issue of property valuation is largely absent from the dialogue (except for the footprint inhabitants): what will the impact be on the price of a Newswalk condo? of a Clinton Hill or Prospect Heights brownstone? Up? DOwn? By how much? the glut of new apartments combined with the potential undesirability of the arena could depress prices; on the other hand, thousands of office jobs and a revitalized commercial strip on Atlantic Ave could make prices jump even higher that they are now…
Other supporters: the free market absolutists who think any development is good development, and those who abhor the vacuum that is Atlantic Avenue between 5th ave and Washington, really…if not further. Generally these are white people who don’t live in the footprint or within even a few blocks. They may or may not be property owners, they probably have not have lived in the neighborhood more than a few years, they come from a part of the country where big box stores are positive signs.
Other opponents: those in the footprint, who fight out of property value-centered self-interest, a misguided sense of historic preservation, or some perverse lack of anything better to do with their life (I won’t name names, but an NYTimes real estate article a few months ago made someone look pretty pathetically monomaniacal on this topic…). Again, usually white, immigrated to the neighborhood (regardless of time) because their career enabled them to afford it.
You don’t want to name names. AND then you write this post anonymously. Funny, that. The name you don’t want to name is me, and I think you have no idea what I believe or why I spend 12 hours a day fighting this project. I could not possible spend this kind of time if i was fighting for my property rights or self-interest. Fighting on behalf of the community that opposes this project is, dare I say, fairly selfless. I’ve already lost my home, one way or the other, the home I bought is gone. The community I bought into (yes, thats an investment in place) will be gone if the project goes through. I believe strongly in development, developing the rail yards and spurring job creation and affordable housing. Hell, my preference would be to build all public housing on the yards. Were that proposed then you’d REALLY see opposition from many of those who now support the Ratner project.
I’m not a property rightist, but I do believe that the abuse of eminent domain is a civil liberties and civil rights issue that affects ALL homeowner and all tenants in this country.
You are calling me pathetically monomaniacal? Well F you.
From walking the streets and talking with people for the past 18 months about the Ratner project, the group I’ve found MOST opposed is black women, particularly black women who’ve come from developing countries. They’ve seen the ravages of globalization run amok and they see Ratner’s plan in the same light.
As far as free marketeers, this project has nothing at all to do with a free market.
What I’ve found, mainly is that support or opposition cuts across race, ethnicity and economic status. support and opposition, in my opinion, cannot be pigeonholed.
And next time, when throwing epithets and garbage around a message board, name names and name your own name.
“Other opponents: those in the footprint, who fight out of property value-centered self-interest, a misguided sense of historic preservation, or some perverse lack of anything better to do with their life”
It’s pathetic, Jack, that despite your know it all attitude about all things that tick, your mind is really a sloppy goo of hate and generalizations.
I can’t imagine you standing up for any principles or for your constitutional rights such as Daniel Goldstein has.