Seriously… to paraphrase the Unity guys: what kind of a project has “community benefits” so vague and dubious that you have to get it in writing that there will actually be some kind of benefit to the community?
From WNYC: “Under the Community Benefits Agreement, Ratner pledged half of the 45-hundred apartments he plans to build for middle and low income residents, and promised to set aside 45 percent of the project’s construction jobs for minorities and women.”
And this is different, how? Brooklyn is a city of minorities. Don’t most of the construction crews you see on the streets of Brooklyn have at least 45% minority representation? Seriously, I’m asking here.
[Seriously, DeeDee is answering here: “the agreement will mean set-asides for minority- and women-OWNED contractors to do the work. This is a very important distinction…”]
And while we’re at it… “affordable housing” sounds suspiciously like one of those terms designed to make you think the exact opposite of what they really mean. Affordable to who? Does the “CBA” define price points for “affordable”? Can obscenely rich people like Mike Bloomberg actually have a realistic concept what “affordable” means?
PHOTO: Billionaire Mike Bloomberg vouches for Bruce Ratner, Real Estate Developer with a net worth exceeding $400 million: “You have Bruce Ratner’s word, and that should be enough for you and for everybody else in this community.” [New York One]
