Shrill Of The Week: Weeds

This week, I have two thematically related entries in the exciting struggle that is Shill vs. Shrill.

---

Killing Weeds
No Land Grab quotes Ratner consultant Richard Lipsky, who has this to say about the neighborhood groups who oppose FCR's Atlantic Yards proposal:

  One man's grass roots is another man's weeds.

Last week I embraced the "shrill" label. This week I proudly embrace the "weed" label as well, because:

• Weeds are notoriously difficult to kill. Like the mythical hydra, when you strike one down, three more will take its place. Does FCR have enough PR pesticide to permanently neutralize these dispersed sources of inconvenient facts and messages? The job is even more difficult when you consider that weeds can grow in environments that, on the surface, seem completely inhospitable.
• Many of us affluent naysayers used to wait tables at some point in our privileged careers. We know that the term "in the weeds" means that the difficulties are mounting and you just can't keep up. In light of that, Lipsky's characterization of the opposition as weeds could be a subconscious admission that the project promoters are feeling a bit overwhelmed.
• Many so-called "weeds" are actually wildflowers. Some of them enjoy protection as endangered species. Hopefully our next mayor will recognize that the empowered citizen is faced with extinction in Brooklyn because its habitat is threatened by blooming idiots. An overabundance of fertilizer could be the root cause.
  

---

Smoking Weed
Speaking of weed, what was Borough President Marty Markowitz smoking when he wrote this letter to the editors of New York Magazine in response to Chris Smith's must-read article, which concluded the project must be opposed:

"Ultimately, our city must confront the reality that more residents are flocking to Brooklyn ¹, as Smith himself did. And it is the responsibility of public officials like myself to plan for that growth² today through projects like Atlantic Yards. You can call me a “booster,” but what I’m really advocating is a long-term vision that enables Brooklyn and New York City to preserve the income and ethnic diversity that define us.³"
 

So what do these statements imply?

¹"More residents are flocking to Brooklyn." OK. So what? Is that good or bad? Do you even know why so many people are choosing to make Brooklyn their home? How should this knowledge inform your growth strategy?

²"Plan for that growth" A growth plan? That's a splendid idea. Where can I download a copy? What are the growth targets for the next five years? What development principles have been defined to ensure alignment and integration of big development projects with the ultimate vision? What is the process by which Brooklyn's citizens drive and oversee achievement of the targets? When is the next major RFP?

Or is this growth plan merely a weed induced hallucination?

³"Advocating ... a long-term vision that enables Brooklyn ... to preserve the income and ethnic diversity that define us." Another splendid idea. Now, what are the metrics? How will you know that ethnic and income diversity have been preserved? Is the target to be applied evenly throughout each neighborhood in the borough, or will a borough-wide average suffice? If the former, we'll need to go in and re-engineer the neighborhoods that don't meet the minimum threshold. I nominate Brooklyn Heights to be the test case.

Also, if the Atlantic Yards proposal is an income and diversity preservation mechanism (a clearly absurd proposition), then that leads to some astonishing conclusions:

• Reducing the number of landlords in Brooklyn will increase diversity.
• Having a single architect design ALL of the buildings in the densest neighborhood in the city will increase diversity.
• Eliminating local representation from input, approval or oversight of the project will increase diversity.
• Reducing the number of decision makers to three men in Albany will increase diversity.
• Bringing a bunch of NEW condos, all built for the same project, 80% of which could not be afforded by low income residents, will increase diversity.
• Taking property from individual homeowners and giving it to a large corporation to redistribute in accordance with their financial targets is good for diversity.

Wow. Pass that stuff around Marty.

Comments

[CAFKIA]

There is effectively no such thing as a weed. Note: The word has no definite application to any particular
plant, or species of plants. Whatever plants grow among
corn or grass, in hedges, or elsewhere, and are useless
to man, injurious to crops, or unsightly or out of
place, are denominated weeds.
1913 Webster

If one does the research or has the knowledge, plants commonly referred to as weeds will be revealed to have medicinal properties or be offensive to undesirable fauna or perhaps facillitate the acquisition of attractive women by undeserving males. As is the case with so many things, the use of the term "weed(s)" is more indicative of the ignorance of the user than anything else.

Now goforth. Be fruitful. Multiply like weeds. Be shriller.

CAFKIA