Mediaboss Marketing

Just before the pandemic, I moved to the part of Brooklyn where Carroll Gardens meets Gowanus. Although Smith Street closer to Atlantic Avenue is a restaurant haven, near where I live the street is dead, housing big empty lots. Past those lies the Gowanus Canal. Unlike the canals of Venice or Amsterdam, the Gowanus is mostly a hostile environment, with little building frontage, several bridges that bikers and pedestrians must share with large trucks, walled-off lots with heavy machinery, and a big Whole Foods parking lot.

An ongoing rezoning promises to create a better neighborhood around the canal, providing housing, much of it affordable, to thousands of new neighbors. Ground-level retail, new streets some of them pedestrian only, new parks and plazas, and direct access to the canal will make it walkable and enjoyable. The neighborhoods proximity to several subway stops (Carroll Street, Smith-Ninth, Fourth-Ninth) and bus routes would make it a true transit-oriented community.

With climate change breathing down our necks and housing prices soaring, wrapping up the rezoning quickly and getting to building should be a priority. But many of my neighbors disagree and the oppositions true concerns are not entirely clear.

The strong, increasingly organized, opposition to the Gowanus rezoning, Voice of Gowanus, has thrown everything at the wall to see what sticks. According to its literature, the sewage system will collapse; the transit lines are already at capacity; jobs will be lost; luxury housing will displace residents in a distressed, low-income neighborhood; the community engagement happened over Zoom and therefore was unlawful.

Most of this isnt true and, quite frankly, those probably are not the real reasons why people are putting so much time and effort into opposing the rezoning.

As is often the case with development in Gowanus and elsewhere different folks dislike it for different reasons: Some may feel that too much affordable housing will bring low-income people to the community, lowering homeowners property values (there are offensive whispers that crime will spike as a result). Others may worry that new luxury housing might make amenities and surrounding housing too costly, causing displacement. Others fear that development might simply change the status quo which can seem scary.

One argument, however, tends to reflect genuine fears and recurs during every rezoning: New development will mean less parking. Many New Yorkers especially those in a higher income bracket own cars and are accustomed to parking them on the street for free. Many view free on-street car storage as an inalienable right, so every new neighbor means potentially one less opportunity to park for free.

This is the so-called tragedy of the commons: Everyone wants access to the curb. Each new car means more competition for finite curb space. As is typical of this economics phenomenon, people act selfishly when they think their access is threatened.

Even if parking loss is not the oppositions main concern, it certainly serves them well to stoke these parking fears in order to gain support. I recently tweeted a photo of a hyperbolic flyer being handed out by Voice of Gowanus, warning neighbors that if they support the rezoning, they will permanently lose free car storage.

If you dont pay attention to the rezoning and whats going on in the neighborhood, it sounds scary! It can be hard to think about the overall benefits of the rezoning on the housing supply, climate change, and neighborhood liveliness when faced with a threat to the way you have chosen to live your life. Privilege is very hard to give up. Very few people do it willingly.

In fact, the rezoning does come with some new if minimal off-street parking for the new residents because of minimum-parking requirements in the citys zoning code. These requirements exist precisely because communities worry about losing their on-street parking. Yet new off-street parking lots make it easier for people to own cars and drive, triggering more traffic congestion. Minneapolis, Buffalo, and San Francisco, among others,recently successfully dropped such requirements.

A recent article in The Atlantic described how developers pass the cost of minimum-parking requirements onto tenants. Parking may or may not be the true reason that Voice of Gowanus is trying to stop the rezoning. If, as the group says on its website, it is concerned that the majority of the apartments will be super expensive, well, members should be agitating for less off-street parking, and accept a slightly longer search for on-street parking.

The NIMBYism manifested by Voice of Gowanus, and which is seen in basically all rezonings, is contradictory and baffling especially when it comes from self-identified progressives. The District 39 City Council candidates mostly opposed the rezoning, and the more progressive they are, the more opposed. Yet, they missed some fundamental points. Citywide, high housing prices stem from lack of supply. Raise the supply to meet demand across the city, and housing price hikes will slow and eventually stop. Upzoning neighborhoods is an important start.

Meanwhile, progressive housing advocates often support upzoning in wealthy neighborhoods in order to provide low- and middle-income housing that will enable more people from a mix of incomes to live there even if prices rise locally in the short term. The Gowanus Rezoning does precisely that. More city housing also tends to lessen demand for suburban housing which is important when it comes to climate change.

If progressives truly cared about our dual emergencies of climate change and skyrocketing housing prices, they would usher through as many rezonings as possible in as short a time as possible not sue to stop them all.

It is even more baffling when you realize that the opposition is made up of urbanites. What is living in a city if not being close to many people? The plans and renderings Ive seen so far seem like an urbanists dream.

If the opposition took a second, it might actually find that they enjoy the vision of a rezoned Gowanus. Rather than fight to keep our walled-off fields filled with tumbleweeds and toxins, we should all be fighting to make the city realize the urban dreamscapes it is presenting. We should be fighting for less off-street parking to make the housing more affordable, more frequent transit, and many other asks of the Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition for Justice, a racially and economically diverse group seeking to influence local planning, so long as the costs dont break the budget. Maybe try to get a new bike/ped-only bridge thrown in the mix. We should be looking for common cause to make this the best project it can be.

Then we should move on to the next rezoning.

Annie Weinstock (@Annie_Weinstock) is the director of programs of People Oriented Cities and, with Walter Hook, helms itsReorientations blog.

Go here to see the original:
OPINION: Progressives Should Support the Gowanus Rezoning Streetsblog New York City - Streetsblog New York

Earlier this month comedian Bill Maher delivered a biting commentary on self-styled progressives, mocking the recurrent theme on the far left that things have never been worse. On privileged university campuses, Maher noted, progressive students cant see that (their) dorm in 2021 is better than the South before the Civil War. Among progressive elites, woe unto the brave soul who points out that there are progressive talking points that simply do not withstand serious scrutiny. In such quarters, Maher says, what you say doesnt have to make sense, or jibe with the facts, or ever be challenged.

Mahers point was illustrated by the most recent deluge of thousands of Hamas rockets fired from Gaza at Israeli civilian centers. As always, Hamas attacks on Israel produce the confident if bizarre progressive orthodoxy that rocket attacks blanketing Israeli communities are somewhere between no big deal and perfectly fine, whereas Israels efforts to protect its civilians by stopping them constitute war crimes.

With the 2022 midterm elections already in view, some Democrats willing to risk eternal damnation as Not Sufficiently Progressive worry that slavishly following the Partys left may result in losing control of Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024. It isnt hard to see why. Republicans have the wind at their back, with historical precedent strongly suggesting that they will pick up seats in both houses of Congress. They need only a small handful of pick-ups in the House of Representatives to seize control there, and a net gain of only a single seat to regain control of the Senate. As for 2024, the bravado about Bidens 7.1 million popular vote margin obscures this reality: had only 6,000 Biden voters in Arizona, 6,000 in Georgia and 11,000 in Wisconsin voted instead for Donald Trump, he would be five months into his second term.

A recent analysis of the 2020 election by three Democratic groups contained some serious warnings for Democrats. One was that the Republican line that Democrats were socialists and favored eliminating law enforcement may drive Rachel Maddow-watchers berserk, but they resonated, including among core Democratic constituencies. Republican attempts to brand Democrats as radicals worked, the authors concluded. The data firm Catalist calculated that Bidens percentage share of Latino voters decreased by 8% relative to Hillary Clintons 2016 share, his share of Black voters fell 3% and his share of Asian American Pacific Islander voters slipped 1%. In many key Congressional districts, Democratic candidates trailed Biden. Some districts where law and order or socialism was a drumbeat also a saw a higher share of Latino/AAPI/Black supporters who supported the GOP, the Democratic groups report found.

These warnings may be dismissed by some Democrats who delude themselves that Cambridge, Mass., is representative of the country, and that the nation is just waiting to embrace the Democratic Socialists of America.

To be sure, the Republican Party is a hot mess, dominated by insurrectionists, charlatans and phonies. A new Economist/YouGov poll published on the very day President Biden was meeting with Russias Poisoner-in-Chief reported that the Russian president is more popular among Republicans than the American president. Thirty percent of Republicans believe that it is likely that Trump will be reinstated as president within six months, and 70% of them believe the whacked-out hogwash that Trump won the 2020 election. Simply put, the GOP is barking mad, and the left believes that that ought to be enough to keep control of Congress and the presidency.

It wont be. Over-the-top rhetoric and the disconnected, even haughty assumptions by progressive Democrats that Americans believe what they believe run the risk of leaving them, and Democrats generally, sorely disappointed two Novembers from now.

Jeff Robbins is a Boston lawyer and former U.S. delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

Read more:
Robbins: Progressives bet the farm that America sees things their way - Boston Herald

NEW YORK CITY A new wave of progressives seem to be on the verge of taking charge in the city.

Although results are just preliminary, especially considering ranked choice voting in the case of municipal elections, their elections could represent change coming to New York City.

We put out a vision for Manhattan of marrying safety and fairness based on my lived experience of confronting public safety challenges and police accountability challenges, and my work experience of doing both, said Alvin Bragg; hes poised for become the next Manhattan District Attorney.

PIX11 caught up with Bragg in Harlem, where he was born and raised and has been stopped and frisked at gunpoint by police.

He has deep reservations of about Eric Adams pledge to increase the careful use of stop, question and frisk to combat the recent surge in gun violence should he become mayor.

I hope we can have a dialogue on that, Bragg said. Its not just my lived experience, but when I was at the Attorney Generals office and leadership, we studied this issue. We looked at four years of data that showed only 0.1% of stops resulted in a conviction for a gun offense.

Other progressives who are leading in their races take things a step further.

Current City Councilman Antonio Reynoso, ahead currently in the race for Brooklyn Borough President, said previous NYPD reform efforts nibble around the edges.

The messaging Im pushing as some thing people might consider radical, Reynoso said. But I think its only a matter of time before communities that have been underrepresented and marginalized, realize the way of dealing with these issues and the ill of society, is by dealing with the root cause, which is poverty.

Some of that language is echoed by Councilman Brad Lander, who often campaigned with Reynoso, and may be poised to become the next comptroller.

Lander so far is outperforming the leading progressive in the race for Mayor Maya Wiley.

What we wanted to show is that on the other side of this pandemic we can build a more just and equal city and honor those essential workers we clapped for with better pay and protections, Lander said. Lets make sure federal rescue funds get to all neighborhoods to protect tenants and small businesses and expand childcare.

See original here:
Meet a new wave of progressive leaders in NYC - WPIX 11 New York

The For The People Act, Democrats' sweeping election and voter reform bill, is expected to collapse in the Senate on Tuesday much to progressives' chagrin, Politico writes.

The left is reportedly "steaming" that President Biden neglected to employ his "bully pulpit" to encourage a deal within Congress or further the bill's progress. Democrats want to know, Politico reports, how leaders can say "in one breath that democracy is in jeopardy and in the next let [the For The People Act] crash and burn."

Progressive activist Ezra Levin criticized Biden's lack of activism surrounding the bill, highlighting how former President Barack Obama debated "with House GOP on the [Affordable Care Act]" or how former President Bill Clinton "gave 18 speeches on NAFTA" because that is "what legislatively successful presidents do!" As protestors mobilize and state legislators call on Congress to pass the bill, Levin simply wants to know, "Where is the president?"

Added Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), if Congress fails to "meet the moment": "We are going to lose the opportunity to basically enact legislation for the people for a decade, or decades, to come." It's, as he puts it, "very, very, very bleak." Read more at Politico.

7 scathingly funny cartoons about Democrats' Joe Manchin problem

Bernie Sanders wants to know if cannabis reporter is 'stoned' right now

'No one will be spared': Georgia election workers have reportedly received a 'torrent' of threats from Trump supporters

Originally posted here:
'Where is the president?': Progressives lament Biden's approach to the likely doomed For The People Act - Yahoo News

The California flag waves in the breeze in Huntington Beach on May 23, 2020. (Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: The common theme in the responses to your "Reimagine California" series is that we, individually or corporately, are not making choices that will create a more "equitable" society, and that more government action is needed.

While the "reimagine" exercise can yield insightful options, reimagine does not mean "do-over." Whatever is proposed will have to navigate or modify existing structures.

Will the resulting government and economic structures be capable of producing the technical, scientific, cultural and economic achievements equal to those produced by the previous model? There is little evidence to support an affirmative response.

The pursuit of a more "equitable" society will only enable and benefit the government class. Everyone else will be disappointed.

Scott Perley, Irvine

..

To the editor: Thank you for the "Reimagine California" letters. They were diverse, reflective and at times moving. The letters reminded me that unless we embrace our shadow sides the pain, suffering and trauma around the pandemic and the election hope and renewal are illusory.

For me, the shadow sides are not about the other, but about that trauma and pain that I carry within me, bound up together with others. So it was with great sorrow that I witnessed the Trump administration's self-destructive attacks on science, public health and expertise.

Similarly, there's a deep shadow side as well to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. It's terrible to lose and to be a loser. That said, I hope that we can turn away from the self-destructive and dangerous lies about the election.

I pray that we Americans can open our hearts to this trauma of losing and realize that the protections of our voting process remain totally nonpartisan. Let our hearts and minds become open so we reject the Big Lie that our election was flawed and corrupt.

Stanford Searl, Culver City

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

See more here:
Letters to the Editor: Progressives want to 'reimagine California.' What about the rest of us? - Yahoo News