Comments on: Brooklyn Nets: A Reality Check

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 02:44:09 +0000

They’re beating the knicks tonight.

By: brillit

brillit — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:05:16 +0000

basketball has no importance when the most powerful people in state government are governing corruptly. does it?

By: pher

pher — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:10:38 +0000

When you talk about “political allies who matter,” keep in mind that is a group of two people: NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor David Paterson. The two of them move this project forward, taking political refuge behind the opaque Empire State Development Corporation. Neither Bloomberg nor Paterson want to step out in front and defend what was supposed to be a project to remove blight by building affordable housing and open space, but has now become a project that will itself blight Brooklyn with the largest surface parking lot in the borough. The affordable housing promises are empty. But the Mayor and the Governor are solidly behind big real estate interests, and are willing to gift public and private property to a private developer at a time when the State is nearly bankrupt.

Although the writer may not think they “matter,” all of the local legislators from the districts surrounding the project asked the ESDC to defer approving the renegotiated project plan until its environmental impact could be studied. The ESDC (effectively Paterson) told them to get lost.

The reality is that in New York City today, a politically-connected developer can appropriate entire city blocks in your neighborhood, remove public streets, condemn private property, and create a construction wasteland lasting decades. And neither you nor the elected officials that represent you have any say whatsoever. Even if you love the idea of having the Nets play in Brooklyn, the politics should be unacceptable.

By: dee

dee — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 08:59:48 +0000

what difference does it make where they play, they are still gonna be the worst team in the league, and still not gonna have a fan base. they are better off moving to an area where there is no team like kansas city or san diego.

By: Jaime

Jaime — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:26:39 +0000

It does seem a bit strange that this Brooklyn Nets might actually happen in our lifetimes. Anyone who has lived in New York in a long time knows how difficult it is to place any new team in the city.

First, you need facilities to play in, which assumes that a tenant in an existing facility would not object to allowing a new team to play inside the same building. As we all know, big egos and financial interests do not allow for such co-habitation. So it’s a search for a new facility, which may require building new. That has to take into consideration the cost of real estate, labor, legal and administrative fees, potential legal challenges from nearby residents, etc.. Then there’s location. Where do you want to place it where it’s most convenient for people to come watch you? What are you willing to charge? How would you pay for the players?

Once you factor all that in, you would see why it is cost-prohibitive for everyone but the biggest hitters in business, finance and real estate to put a new professional team of any stripe in this city. Ratner believed in this project because he convinced himself that he would make a killing on a real estate deal. I have my doubts about that. Then again, it’s not my money (except for the part of the subsidies that will go into this project) to lose.

However, don’t get your hopes up that we would see a plethora of superstars coming to the borough. Even the Knicks can’t attract every big name to play at Madison Square Garden. What makes you think that it would be different in Brooklyn? The most likely scenario is that by 2016 the Nets would have just ordinary players on the roster. They should be much better than this year by then but nothing like the dollar signs envisioned by boosters.

Well, that’s my opinion.