The Repurposing of the Armory at Bedford and UNION - Page 4 - Brooklynian

The Repurposing of the Armory at Bedford and UNION

124

Comments

  • @homeowner -

    St John's lists women's swim as happening on Tuesday's at 7:30. 

    https://www.nycgovparks.org/facilities/recreationcenters/B245/schedule#Pool

    ...once it is built, the armory pool might be nicer and -um- more exclusive.

  • Hearing this project may have stalled due the expiration of 421-a. Can anyone confirm or deny?
  • edited July 2016
    I can't confirm or deny 421a's impact on the site.

    However, I will add the this site is subject to ULURP, as a result of being publicly owned and a portion being sold for town homes.

    It is a lengthy process.
  • edited August 2016

    The developers now want nonprofits that would like to use the facility to provide their opinions via a questionarie :

    http://files.ctctcdn.com/3d484e69501/4003cf63-a12a-4555-8ff5-65587d39ecdb.pdf

  • Seems like a lot of moving parts in this project and a lot to manage considering 'Bedford Courts' is a newly established organization and therefore never done something like this.  I hope they get some real savvy for-profit-world business advisors who are experienced so this doesn't turn into chaos.  I wonder why they are seeking to do so much at once as opposed to filling space organically over time and taking it slow in the beginning.

    Surprised the questionnaire is from Bedford Courts and not CAMBA?  CAMBA while experienced doesn't have a reputation for being organized or for being the best managers.

    Much like charter schools community organizations need time to get a strong team together to run the place before they start cranking at full-tilt (or in the case of charter schools opening to every single grade).  Charter schools start with 1 or 2 younger grades and built up.  Seems like the sports facility aspect of this project is a big enough endeavor and then adding the office spaces and non-profits at the same time could be alot to manage.
  • Man, I want that pool...
  • This presumes a couple of things.  

    1.  Non-shady developers exist
    2.  CB9 protest leaders can rationalize and understand complicated economics in play
  • edited August 2016
    Can someone explain to me why contracts would be awarded to people based on gender and skin color as opposed to natural economic forces?  Not so sure I understand the nuance of why women and people of color work for only certain companies?  

    What Lewis is asking for seems like preferential treatment just because?  Just trying to understand here...

    And nevermind the whole Slate issue for the moment...
  • As you may recall, Lewis dropped her objections to Atlantic Yards after receiving a large donation from FCR, and some mandates re: hiring people who live in NYCHA.

    She may be hopeing for a similar outcome here.

    ...money is a lot easier to count than impact. This community is for sale, and she wants to be the seller.
  • After protest against Slate, it sold its interest in the Bedford-Union Armory project to BFC (its co-partner)

  • edited August 2016
    My wife and I engage in similar practices.    Like Slate and BFC, we have different last names.

    When we think her last name will result in better service, we use it.
    Likewise, there are occasions when we feel mine will help us out, and use it.
  • Hmm...That article has a picture of the wrong armory, no? That's the other one at Bedford and Pacific, which is currently a homeless shelter. 
  • edited August 2016
    yup, it may have been written (and edited) by someone who has never been to the area.

  • OMG. I can't wait to hear how this meeting goes.
  • Now that's Slate is gone what's the new bone to pick?
  • edited August 2016
    Well, I think it is safe to say that several of the bidders that were not chosen in favor of Slate are going to want to be selected as the replacement.

    Depending upon how they perceive the audience, each will state how they are more community focused, will hire locally, will use union labor, and/or be able to construct facility that is able to provide services for free to the elderly and under privileged.

    We have only begun...


  • Does BFC even need a replacement for Slate? I mean, is it required that there be two developers?
  • I have no idea whether one is legally required, but will state that BFC is massive enough that it likely does not need the help of an additional developer.    

     Here's a list of their present and past projects:


    BTW, I assume BFC bid on the armory with the assumption that they would be partnered with a developer, and had a defined set of responsibilities.

    ... adjusting such contracts after the fact may be problematic.
  • This makes me sad. I was so looking forward to having a pool in the neighborhood. 
  • Maybe in 2025, as opposed to 2020.
  • Something to look forward to. Like the Barclays Center.
  • Tonight's town hall mtg should be interesting
  • someone live blog!  i was so hoping to go but stuck at work... 
  • Our local DNA reporter, Rachel, might attend.   

    ...but I'm not spending my time there unless someone pays me.
  • edited September 2016
    I want to follow the drama.  Also as a community member I have a horse in this race!  
  • image1
     Also why is it a "requirement" that BFC has experience building housing for the homeless in order to do this project?  That's the beef really?

    If it's mandated that there will be affordable housing, there will be affordable housing.  Experience doing so has nothing to do with the end product.  There's no technique for making affordable units vs regular ones.  
  • The homeless are regularly "championed" by opponents of projects.   By stating the housing is not being built for them, one grabs the moral high ground. 

    ...while being so out of touch with economics, that you do not having to worry about the consequences of having your goal actually being achieved.

    yawn
  • Any reports from the meeting?
  • edited September 2016
    A close friendship is being formed between Crown Heights' largest and most "activist" church (First Baptist) and The Black Institute.

    This prevents them from being dismissed as outside agitators by EDC and other government entities.

    image
  • whynot_31 said:

    And, here is what is known as "the money shot".   It allows EDC to state that the politicians bless the project, much like parents bless the wedding of their daughter.


    Screen Shot 2015-12-17 at 7.21.21 PM




    One will note that some of the same politicians that previously endorsed the project, are now promoting events held by the project's detractor.
    bi
  • The meeting was bananas.  Richard Hurley sure does like stirring the pot.  Some factions seemed to preach 'don't kill the deal' while others touted a rec center and just affordable housing.  It seems these some people don't know that mixed incomes in one area is better for everyone over time.  It's science actually.  Then again some people don't believe in evolution.

    On a side note Laurie Cumbo actually seemed to be promoting aspects of the deal but hesitant to throw all her weight in.  She touted her work getting Medgar Evans to be a anchor tenant, etc. The crowd, as usual, was very vocal, letting the various (AND MANY) speakers know when they approved - which is probably why she didn't want to be 100% in.  Everyone had a bone to pick - and different ones making the whole thing seem distant.

    Really sad because as some said at the meeting nothing is more important for the youth of the neighborhood than having a huge rec center like this.  As a very close neighbor to the space I really really hope the rec center aspect (and housing at various levels) makes it through this seemingly endless struggle. 

    They did say that the next 6 months were crucial in "letting your voice be heard."  I'd love to have my voice be heard to these people - but really how in a way that matters?
  • Ms. Cumbo is in a tough spot.  Bertha Lewis is regularly making appearances in the area, and demonstrating that power does not have to emanate from public office.

  • why do they need to add housing to this project?  If it was just a rec center, it would probably be better imo.
  • The housing will be used to subsidize the rec center.

    A stand alone rec center would require a subsidy, and no entity like NYC Parks Department has expressed an interest.
  • Also -- you may have heard that there was a citywide housing crisis...
  • Over the next few months, the project is/was supposed to go thru ULURP to obtain permission to sell the land the condos will be on (a slice along President St.)

    It isn't clear to me this process will be pursued now that some of sponsors have dropped out.

    Previously, I was confident the politicians would be willing to stack the committee in favor of a smooth passage. Now, they might not be willing to endure the costs of doing so.
  • If they changed condos into Mitchell-Lama-style co-ops...they might have a better show. But that would likely require way more massing to make as profitable as some fancy duplex townhouses with little yards and roof decks.
  • edited September 2016
    If EDC wants to pursue the present plan, its best move is to stall: The condos (and, um, their residents) will be less out of place in the area in the future than they are now.

    On the other hand, Bertha's power will weaken over time. She needs to demand that the developer favored by The First Baptist Church of Crown Heights is appointed as soon as possible.
  • The housing needs to be at varying levels to pay for itself. As I mentioned in a previous comment - this is just good economics and urban planning.

    The problem seems (well one of the problems) seems to be that 'affordable' isn't affordable. That the cutoff to be eligible for X apt is something like 100k for a family of 4 (to make math simple). This eligibility would entitle you to rent an apt at 4000/month. If you adhered to the 1/4 if your monthly income for rent (which like no one does in ny anyway) this would be irresponsible. Also the 100k number is before taxes so the rent numbers are very outta whack. So until this equation (and sorry for I butchered the exact numbers/ratios here correct me please cuz I'm still fuzzy on details) is rejiggered - the affordable housing crisis will still be a crisis no matter how many affordable units are built.

    What I've heard of people doing is fudging the applications to get a family of 3 to a family of 4, etc.
  • The housing that was planned is designed to not only pay for itself, but also to subsidize the rec center.

    Stand alone "affordable" rec centers require a greater subsidy than stand alone housing would.

    ...but this the armory will likely have to sit vacant a few more years while people reach that conclusion on their own.
  • seems a certain sect of the community should start the "say no" campaign similar to the "know nothings" of yesteryear.  when a new proposal or idea comes to the surface, the retort: "nope" and everyone puts on a song and dance meeting led by Richard Hurley gladhanding people and calling all but especially white anti-change/progress folks "his super stars."  

    Then those with a rudimentary sense of economics could propose completely asinine measures in hopes that their "no way" retorts will actually result in something that's good for the community as opposed to leaving in the the dust.  
  • Because this site has only been seen as a "potential" asset, there is not a large political cost to delaying the project.

    Every local politician is now laying the ground work for coming out against EDC attempts to revive this project.

    image

  • Local politician Jesse Hamilton writes:

    Tenant & Housing Committee

    100% Affordable

    A joint letter from Senator Jesse Hamilton, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, Assemblyman Walter T. Mosley and Assemblywoman Diana Richardson to the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC) lays out concerns about the impending development of the Bedford Union Armory in Crown Heights. First among the concerns is making the proposed development 100% affordable housing.

    NYS Senator Jesse Hamilton said, “Public land means public accountability. Joining with colleagues, I want to make clear that development, especially development on public land, is accountable to the community. They must meet neighborhood needs like offering truly affordable housing and stronger STEM education offerings. That is the only path I see for this project to move forward.”

    The elected officials express their priorities:

    We must use every single public resource to provide affordable housing at all income levels. The Bedford Union Armory is a rare public site where the City has the opportunity to build 100% affordable housing, working with the not-for-profit development community. These income levels should include 50% of AMI and below and up to 130% of AMI, in order to contribute to solving the housing crisis and meet local needs. In order to accommodate this 100% affordable building, the EDC should use NYC affordable housing program subsidies at the proposed development sites.

    Increase the Community Board 9 community preference from 50% to 80% of the affordable housing units – though we recognize pending litigation may have significant bearing on community preferences and the latitude for their imposition.

    Decrease the percentage of one bedroom and studio apartments to no more than 40% of the total rental units developed on site, with the remaining units equally divided between two and three bedroom apartments

    Incorporate the community’s architecture to better blend the housing units to fit into the larger community aesthetics.

    Use a Community Area Median Income instead of a regional AMI for income qualifications for affordable units; related, ensure that obstacles do not hinder one’s ability to apply for affordable housing (e.g. using credit scores).

    Require more education and science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) programs for the facility operator in the community and education space so that a larger number of community residents can take advantage of the community, education and recreational space.
    Placing on the record the advantages of union labor, particularly union apprenticeship programs and laudable safety records – we remain concerned as to whether union labor will be used in this project.
    -20th Senate District Tenant & Housing Committee


    Bedford Armory Update

    Dear Community Members,

    Thank you for attending our Tenant & Housing Committee Meeting on Thursday, September 29, 2016 at our office at 1669 Bedford Avenue. Please be advised that a Special Meeting/Bedford Armory Update will be scheduled for Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 6:00 PM. We hope to see you there!
  • edited October 2016
    the saga continues.  i'm tired of a loud, hateful though well-organized minority dominating the conversation about this. 
  • edited October 2016
    If they are unable to obtain a subsidy from an outside funding source, the armory and its garage will remain dormant.

    Perhaps they will define this as "victory"?
  • edited October 2016
    Can't the developer just seek a larger loan?  Seeing that he's the only guy on the bill he stands to profit alot.  
  • edited October 2016
    The developer is BFC partners, which is constrained by EDC.

    EDC is not going to sign off on any deal that it believes will need a bail out in the future.

    Meanwhile, the local politicians will pursue local interests, and look like they fought the good fight.
  • There's a meeting tmrw about this at Jesse Hamilton's office 6pm.  Last one I went to with him he literally said that the reason Crown Heights was gentrifying so rapidly was because black landlords needed to exclusively rent to black people and this wasn't happening... 

    1669 Bedford Ave. 6pm
  • edited October 2016
    In the current economy, asking a landlord to forego their self interests in favor of "neighborhood preservation" is fanciful. If white landlords were openly being encouraged to do so to keep blacks out, the dynamics would be even more intense...
  • Interesting article about one of the many demands holding up the project: request that the developer be a local MWBE


      
  • Most developers that are large enough to take on a project of this scale do not have identities that are tied to race or gender.


    EDC (and BFC) is not going to be forced into awarding the contract to an entity without a track record of accomplishing such a project.   
  • Bedford Courts has now published a newsletter, stating the dates of past community listening sessions....

    http://files.constantcontact.com/3d484e69501/9acba002-bbef-4b43-adcc-d517e1ab3736.pdf
  • Meanwhile the affordable housing activists are looking for someone (anyone!?) with money to change the existing economic realities.

    image
  • There's a meeting tmrw about this at Jesse Hamilton's office 6pm.  Last one I went to with him he literally said that the reason Crown Heights was gentrifying so rapidly was because black landlords needed to exclusively rent to black people and this wasn't happening... 

    1669 Bedford Ave. 6pm
    wow, what the fuck. that's totally illegal and he would obviously know it

    isn't the simpler argument that black native crown heighsters need to stop cashing out on their houses and selling to developers/investors/etc? ...but it's a free country and you can sell to whoever you want for whatever you want. undoubtedly the people who have sold for a huge profit wouldn't spare this cause a backwards glance

  • Spofford is being re-developed by developers from outside of "it's community" as well.

  • It seems interesting to conflate race and social class as if keeping a neighborhood black/latino/hasidic/other ethnic minority etc prevents gentrification. 

    I understand the shorthand that in this case what Sen. Hamilton might have been saying was that black=working class, but for every landlord that's cashed in by renting a two bed to a single white male, there's another who might be renting to a group of POC recent grads, each paying $1000 each for a room like in Bushwick. 

    The real answer seems to be not to strive to keep a neighborhood exclusively black, since that doesn't address the intersecting issue of class and the desire of landlords to make as much cash as possible, but instead to impose greater regulation on rents, close the loopholes in the system, and hold landlords to a higher level of accountability. 
  • edited October 2016
    If I believed that activism and obstruction had a chance of raising some cash from an outside source to subsidize this project, I would support them.

    However, I do not.

    ...I believe that now is the best time to build, and that this project has to be self sustaining.
  • It seems interesting to conflate race and social class as if keeping a neighborhood black/latino/hasidic/other ethnic minority etc prevents gentrification. 


    I understand the shorthand that in this case what Sen. Hamilton might have been saying was that black=working class, but for every landlord that's cashed in by renting a two bed to a single white male, there's another who might be renting to a group of POC recent grads, each paying $1000 each for a room like in Bushwick. 

    The real answer seems to be not to strive to keep a neighborhood exclusively black, since that doesn't address the intersecting issue of class and the desire of landlords to make as much cash as possible, but instead to impose greater regulation on rents, close the loopholes in the system, and hold landlords to a higher level of accountability. 
    Not sure I see how more regulation helps the cause. Adding more limits to the already limited available housing only makes it more expensive. Additionally, you then need to hire more government workers to oversee said regulation which raises taxes. At some point, these workers might form a union which then works hard to raise taxes/increase their share of taxes indefinitely without a care or concern for the community around them.

    I understand the discomfort in not being able to stay where you currently live or not being able to move back to where you grew up, but why can't that just part of life?
  • We lived in Park Slope for a several years (I'm from Brooklyn originally as well). We could not afford to buy a home there. We were "pushed out" further by the ripple effect that has beset New York (and esp Brooklyn) real estate for the last 10 years. Should we be complaining, marching, protesting, etc. because we didn't get to stay in the neighborhood we liked most? 
  • If you would like do, you certainly can.

    However, others do not have to come to your aid.
  • edited October 2016
    Preach @Jong very similar scenario here!  Very tired of the local moaning and entitlement
  • edited October 2016
    Should we guess how long it will be before Scott Stringer makes an appearance in front of the armory, stating it is a lost opportunity to hire a MWBE contractor?


  • I place my bet on whatever you say, @whynot_31
  • There is a lot to unpack here. I will be back.
  • edited November 2016
    Cumbo is trying to keep some version of the present deal alive:  http://www.kingscountypolitics.com/cumbo-calls-meeting-minds-bedford-union-armory/

    While Richardson is calling for it to be killed:

    However, readers may recall that this site is under control of the city, not the state.
    So, while Richardson may be vocally opposed her voice does not carry a lot of weight because she is a state rep, whereas Cumbo is a city one...
     

    Note:  I include this screen shot to show the she seems to actually like and support this article, as opposed to it being something that does not represent her views.

    Screen Shot 2016-11-02 at 9.01.58 PM
  • Not sure I see how more regulation helps the cause. Adding more limits to the already limited available housing only makes it more expensive. Additionally, you then need to hire more government workers to oversee said regulation which raises taxes. At some point, these workers might form a union which then works hard to raise taxes/increase their share of taxes indefinitely without a care or concern for the community around them. 

    Taxes are likely to go up anyway. Having someone to administer such a program (because they shouldn’t be working for free) shouldn’t be a deterrent.

    You're talking about unions like they are the enemy. Forming a union to protect the rights of municipal workers shouldn’t be a deterrent either. 

  • It seems interesting to conflate race and social class as if keeping a neighborhood black/latino/hasidic/other ethnic minority etc prevents gentrification. 

    I understand the shorthand that in this case what Sen. Hamilton might have been saying was that black=working class, but for every landlord that's cashed in by renting a two bed to a single white male, there's another who might be renting to a group of POC recent grads, each paying $1000 each for a room like in Bushwick. 

    The real answer seems to be not to strive to keep a neighborhood exclusively black, since that doesn't address the intersecting issue of class and the desire of landlords to make as much cash as possible, but instead to impose greater regulation on rents, close the loopholes in the system, and hold landlords to a higher level of accountability. 
    While race and class tend to get conflated, it can get tricky to detangle them from one another and look at them separately, especially when a generation ago, the aspect of race was emphasized regardless of social class (e.g. redlining). 
  • I proposed to city officials that the space be turned into a rec center mangaged and operated by YMCA, or a city fitness company. We need to fight adult and childhood obesity. There is plenty of space in other parts of the city to provide housing of all kinds for people.
  • edited November 2016
    I proposed to city officials that the space be turned into a rec center mangaged and operated by YMCA, or a city fitness company. We need to fight adult and childhood obesity. There is plenty of space in other parts of the city to provide housing of all kinds for people.
    The nearest NYC Parks rec center is at 1251 Prospect Place, Brooklyn, NY 11213. That's all the way on the other side of the neighborhood. 
  • edited November 2016
    Having a stand alone rec center isn't an option unless you can find an entity to subsidize it. The Parks Department, Police Athletic League, and YMCA don't seem to have a budget line that says "open new rec center and operate at a loss". The prices would have to be on par with (or more than) a for profit gym. (Labor, not rent, are the primary costs of such facilities)
  • I called Councilwoman Cumbos office and had a nice chat.  We must tell her that 100% affordable does not make sense, will kill the deal, and the plus the argument that it'll be for the neighborhood and needs to match the neighborhood's AMI (40k per year) is null and void when the lottery will pull (50% anyway) from OUTSIDE this area.  

    The pro 100% affordable people are killing the deal and are a small but LOUD minority.  

    Please join me in calling her office to rep the other side: 718-260-9191
  • Not sure I see how more regulation helps the cause. Adding more limits to the already limited available housing only makes it more expensive. Additionally, you then need to hire more government workers to oversee said regulation which raises taxes. At some point, these workers might form a union which then works hard to raise taxes/increase their share of taxes indefinitely without a care or concern for the community around them. 

    Taxes are likely to go up anyway. Having someone to administer such a program (because they shouldn’t be working for free) shouldn’t be a deterrent.

    You're talking about unions like they are the enemy. Forming a union to protect the rights of municipal workers shouldn’t be a deterrent either. 

    I do believe that unions are the enemy once they evolve into lobbying groups with selfish causes. See: Alternate side parking.
  • Marco555 said:
    Not sure I see how more regulation helps the cause. Adding more limits to the already limited available housing only makes it more expensive. Additionally, you then need to hire more government workers to oversee said regulation which raises taxes. At some point, these workers might form a union which then works hard to raise taxes/increase their share of taxes indefinitely without a care or concern for the community around them. 

    Taxes are likely to go up anyway. Having someone to administer such a program (because they shouldn’t be working for free) shouldn’t be a deterrent.

    You're talking about unions like they are the enemy. Forming a union to protect the rights of municipal workers shouldn’t be a deterrent either. 

    I do believe that unions are the enemy once they evolve into lobbying groups with selfish causes. See: Alternate side parking.
    What's the problem with alternate side parking? 

    It's natural to come together to lobby for a cause that is in someone's self-interest.
  • I called Councilwoman Cumbos office and had a nice chat.  We must tell her that 100% affordable does not make sense, will kill the deal, and the plus the argument that it'll be for the neighborhood and needs to match the neighborhood's AMI (40k per year) is null and void when the lottery will pull (50% anyway) from OUTSIDE this area.  

    The pro 100% affordable people are killing the deal and are a small but LOUD minority.  


    How small of a minority is "small"?
  • @mugofmead111 hard to say but when you're angry and feel entitled you tend to get louder and seem bigger than you are...
  • edited November 2016
    For the sake of argument, I am willing to state that a majority of local residents would like to get more benefit from the armory than the plan will provide.

    However, this is not a democratic process and merely having lots of people in favor won't get anything built.

    It will be built according to a plan that has money attached, and EDC approval.

    At present, the "make it all affordable" plan has neither.
  • @mugofmead111 hard to say but when you're angry and feel entitled you tend to get louder and seem bigger than you are...
    Do you mean like MTOPP? 
  • As a result of thinking of the revitalized armory as being "neighborhood infrastructure", I think this article fits here.

    http://www.brickunderground.com/live/why-infrastructure-cant-keep-up-with-gentrification
  • whynot_31 said:
    As a result of thinking of the revitalized armory as being "neighborhood infrastructure", I think this article fits here. http://www.brickunderground.com/live/why-infrastructure-cant-keep-up-with-gentrification
    Points in this article would also be as relevant in the Trader Joe's thread.
  • Several relatively upscale supermarkets have arrived or are in the works.

    So, I tend not to see a big void there.
  • edited November 2016
    whynot_31 said:
    Several relatively upscale supermarkets have arrived or are in the works. So, I tend not to see a big void there.
    Not south of Eastern Parkway though.

    Whatever is reported to go in at 626 Flatbush and on Lincoln Road are independent stores, no? Not TJ's.

    TJ's isn't really that upscale either.
  • A Costco or a Sam's Club could fill the armory and pay the bills.

    Neither is upscale.

  • The building certainly has the space for a Sam's Club or Costco but the neighborhood doesn't. Things have to be taken into account like parking spaces and how trucks are going to deliver groceries and I'm afraid this part of Crown Heights is just too dense for something like that. 

    There's a reason why most warehouse chains are is areas that aren't densely populated or are part of larger shopping complexes.
  • edited November 2016
    I'm not for the armory being re-used in this manner, and suspect the covenant that transferred control of the armory from NYS to NYC actually prohibits it.

    ...but (sans those restrictions) one could built a multi-story garage where the apartment building is to be constructed.

    And, then either put a Sam's Club or mall in the armory.
  • whynot_31 said:
    A Costco or a Sam's Club could fill the armory and pay the bills. Neither is upscale.
    If they want to be in the neighborhood it'd be easier to move to Empire or buy out Western Beef.   

    I hope the doesn't happen though.  I don't think this neighborhood, or any residential area for that matter, should have big box stores.   With more access to credit and internet these bulk consumer goods stores "should" decline with consumers opting to buy in bulk online with free shipping.
  • As a result thinking that Empire will be rezoned, I don't think Sam's Club or Costco would be the highest bidder for the Western Beef site.

    So, I do not see them opening a new location near us.

    As a result of the national election, NYC and NYS tax dollars are likely to become more scarce, as they will be forced to make up for a loss in federal funding.

    The armory has to break even and be self sustaining.
  • Well 421 a is back in effect pretty similar to how it was before expiring.


    Also some ideas for the Armory on here:  http://www.chsa20.com/

    What do you guys think?  I happen to like aspects of it for example the commercial "cooking school," grocery store, cafe parts as well as the balancing of the rec center/housing parts.  


  • edited November 2016
    I don't think the residential component is large enough to create the subsidy needed.


    I also do not think the area grocery stores and cafes are going to be in favor of competition that gets to occupy the armory space.

    Bedford and Rogers Avenues each have businesses and landlords that do not want their interests hurt.  ...and they are friends with the politicians who "want something else" 
Sign In or Register to comment.