Originally posted by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn@ “A Land Grab
Wrapped in the Olympic Rings”
“A Land Grab Wrapped in the Olympic Rings”
Top 10 Ways to Tell That the Olympics Are NYC2012’s #2 Priority
1. The $12 billion price tag
At a time when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is stressing
economy, and hoping to persuade developing nations that they, too, can
afford to host the Games, this price tag invites disqualification. [See “Why
the $12 Billion Price Tag Dooms New York’s Olympic Chances,” page 14.]
2. Gratuitous construction
The Olympics plan will “help us expedite recreational and infrastructure
projects citywide,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg told The Brooklyn Paper’s
Deborah Kolben on 8/7/04.
But why? Without the Nets Arena Complex currently proposed for Prospect
Heights, Brooklyn, New York City already has three major arenas. Our
competitors -- Paris, London and Madrid -- each propose just one.
So does New York really need this new venue to qualify for the Olympics? Or
does Bloomberg need the Olympics to get new development expedited?
3. Permanent versus temporary construction
The notion (most recently advanced by Mayor Bloomberg) that constructing
new, permanent venues is key to our Olympic success, is preposterous.
NYC2012 could propose using more existing venues, and building temporary
ones. Paris, for example, needs 18 new venues: 11 of these will be
temporary—and the IOC has praised Paris for having a plan with “good
legacy.”
4. Lack of back-up positions
Host cities that truly want the Olympics take great pains to convince the IOC
that they have back-up plans. NYC2012 has taken the opposite
tack—claiming that its bid can only succeed if the proposed West Side
Stadium and Nets Arena are built. This argument is not intended for the
IOC. It is intended to manipulate the public at home.
In fact, "There are many facilities [besides a new Nets arena] that could host
gymnastics," a City Hall staffer who did not wish to be identified told the
Brooklyn Star’s Nik Kovac on 8/12/04. But don’t expect either Bloomberg or
Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff to admit that to a public that opposes building
that arena.
5. Quick, beat the controversy!
Bloomberg and Doctoroff claim that our Olympics bid is doomed unless the
Jets Stadium and Nets Arena are rushed through now. But no host city has
ever broken ground on new construction for a proposed Olympic stadium
before being awarded the Olympics, and no troubled venue has put a "shovel
in the ground" just before the IOC’s vote.
Why, knowing all of this, would a bid committee that truly wanted the
Olympics as their first priority insist on fast-tracking two new venues in
neighborhoods that bitterly oppose them? The IOC does not want this kind
of controversy, to put it mildly—ergo, the choice of where to put these two
new venues was not made with the IOC in mind.
6. Other development boondoggles
NYC2012 must think the word “Olympics” translates into “open season for
developers,” because the Jets stadium and Nets arena aren’t the only
obvious boondoggles included. Why, for instance, chop down part of a
proposed wilderness green belt to build a new equestrian venue in Staten
Island when the U.S. equestrian team’s world-class headquarters is located
in nearby Gladstone, New Jersey?
7. Queens? Where is Queens?
Flushing Meadows could be the centerpiece of an economical and practical
Olympic plan. What would have been lost by fully utilizing the open space,
easy access and history or hosting large events that Queens provides?
Nothing, except the chance to push through unneeded development in
Manhattan and Brooklyn, which is clearly NYC2012’s top priority.
8. “X” marks the spot
Although it sounds clever, NYC2012’s much-vaunted “Olympic X” actually
marks the sites of a cumbersome, potentially nightmarish logistical and
traffic plan. The “X” would treat athletes horribly, forcing them to repeatedly
transfer between buses, ferries and trains, and walk long distances. The IOC
heavily criticized this plan in their recent report, yet NYC2012 clings to the
“X.”
9. End run around the Host City
With the appointment of the Empire State Development Corporation
(formerly the Urban Development Corporation) as lead agency for the Jets
Stadium and Nets Arena, New York City’s environmental and land use review
procedures would be completely circumvented.
The clear message is that NYC2012 doesn't believe that New York’s City
Council backs their plans for using the proposed Jets Stadium and Nets Arena
as Olympic venues. From the IOC perspective, this is a devastating
development. It is hard to think of another instance where major venues
have been built without the approval of a host city, and it is completely
contrary to the Olympic Charter to do such an end run around New York
City’s government, since it is the city itself which would be awarded the
Olympics, and not a secret authority like the ESDC.
10. Public? What public?
NYC2012 acts as if it has a popular mandate to spend billions of dollars and
reconfigure New York City in ways which will impact civic life (and our tax
burden) for generation to come. In fact, nothing could be further from the
truth. Venues were selected in a secret process, with zero public
involvement, and no public debate has been held on the details of this plan,
large or small. NYC2012 speaks to the public only when it wants to sell us
on their decisions.
As Mike Vaccaro wrote in the New York Post on August 16, “Dan Doctoroff
told the world yesterday he was presenting this bid ‘on behalf of 8 million
New Yorkers.’
“Is he really?”
Bookmarks