Hakeem's Inclinations

Where does Hakeem Jeffries stand on "Atlantic Yards?"

The simple answer is: when push comes to shove, Hakeem stands in support of the project.

He has said as much in the most in-depth mainstream news article to date on the race. See Atlantic Yards, Still but a Plan, Shapes Politics in Brooklyn , by Nicholas Confessore, from the July 3rd New York Times :

"I spent six hours at two meetings with him," said Daniel Goldstein, the spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, an umbrella organization for community groups opposed to Atlantic Yards. "After six hours, it was unclear to us where he stood on the project."

In late May, Mr. Jeffries took out an advertisement in The Brooklyn Downtown Star (which the Atlantic Yards Report had troupble parsing), a local newspaper, in order to "make sure there was a clear position on where we stood," he said in an interview.

"Essentially, yes to affordable housing, no to eminent domain abuse, no to commercial skyscrapers, and yes to an open process," Mr. Jeffries said.

Now Daniel Goldstein, of course, has his own clear position against the project. But you don’t need to believe him. As the article continues on, his description is played out in Jeffries' tortured circling around until he finally comes to his truth:

His critics found the explanation unilluminating, since the project as currently designed would involve both eminent domain and soaring commercial skyscrapers. Pressed on whether he would support or oppose the project as it stands, Mr. Jeffries first said it was "an interesting question." After some prodding, he said he would "be more inclined to support it than not," in large part because the project includes a large component of below-market housing.

As we said from the start of this post, push has come to shove, and we take Hakeem’s word for it, he supports the project.

If he’d like to contact us or anyone else and clearly state his position we’d be happy to post it, but we believe that we are at the point where middle ground doesn’t seem to exist and for or against are the only positions the public takes seriously. A politician or candidate who can’t come out clearly on the project at this point or suggests unrealistic modifications or conditions for which they will not go to the mat, to our mind, is a supporter of the project.

But let's look at that again:

After some prodding, he said he would "be more inclined to support it than not," in large part because the project includes a large component of below-market housing.

With the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) released, and its identification of numerous unmitigable adverse impacts, is a relatively small amount of truly affordable housing worth it all, or is there a better way to achieve the goal of affordable housing? Blogger/architect Jonathan Cohn suggests the calculation comes out short for the developer. For Hakeem as well.

How much eminent domain would Hakeem accept (he says he’s against it but stops short of opposing the project on that issue)? How much of an undemocratic process does Hakeem accept? How much public financing without political oversight and community input does Hakeem accept? How much environmental degradation does Hakeem accept? How much corruption does Hakeem accept?

Sure, Hakeem has 32 days to change his mind or clarify his view, and we would applaud that. But with three years to think about this project his view shouldn’t be a mystery to anyone, he’d “be more inclined to support it than not.”

What would change his mind at this late date?