The following is the second part of a discussion begun yesterday in regards to context and how information flows through the world in the age of blogs.

We have been shooting our film for 6 years now, focusing mainly on an individual who refused to sell his home to make way for the arena project because he felt that it was wrong for the government to use its power to sieze his home in order to transfer it to another private owner. He was also deeply upset by the process by which the area would be developed, with virtually no local input. While the subject of the Atlantic Yards has been discussed a great deal in the local media, the context of these discussions has primarily been driven by press releases about the process of the project, rather than the larger context of the story. There has been almost no in-depth coverage in the main stream media. As such, from the very beginning of our project we found that when we talked to other people they had almost no understanding of the situation. We also found that there was a sense of inevitability, and as such, people almost seemed reticent to learn about it because they had a sense that it was all beyond their control. In fact the vast majority of people in Brooklyn thought that it was simply an arena project and they were shocked when renderings were released nearly 2 years later showing massive skyscrapers.

When we started shooting the film, blogs were not a major part of our national culture like they are now. In some ways the development of these web communication/journalism tools have had a major impact on our story. The “legitimate” media has done an awful job of covering this complex story. In fact, we came to be interested because the NY Times story about the projects announcement read like a press release and it piqued our interest. We wanted to find out what was really going on. Since then, almost every story about the project has been led by the developer’s release of information. However, there are a couple of blogs that have had a major impact on the public and media understanding of the situation. Nolandgrab.org is basically a clearing house of every story that appears on the web, in print, and on TV. Including limited commentary that helps to contextualize the coverage from an anti-project point of view, this blog has done a powerful job of distilling the story as it moves through the media landscape. By compiling all of these stories in one place it’s easy to see how the information moves through the factory, so to speak. The other major force is a website called Atlantic Yards Report. This blog was started by a journalist named Norman Oder who lives near the project area. A little over a year after the project was announced, he too became increasingly frustrated by the NY Times coverage. He wrote a long critique of the Grey Lady’s coverage, and this morphed into one of the only sources of original reporting on the subject. As an editor at Library Journal, Mr. Oder has feet firmly planted in the august world of journalism. However, because his writing appeared on a blog, it took a very long time for the mainstream media to take his work seriously. Now anyone assigned to cover the story knows that they need to do some serious reading at AY Report so that they can catch up to speed. The stories that he covers are often not that “sexy,” but they deal with the real issues that are often hidden behind the massive PR machine that is pushing this story forward. In addition, the main opposition group Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn has a site that also compiles news, breaks stories, and has detailed information about the project and the opposition.

From our perspective, Norman Oder is a “journalist,” and we are not. We don’t read through the documents, we actually never took a journalism class, and we don’t think about these stories from the perspective of a reporter. We’re more like William Hurt in Broadcast News than Albert Brooks or Holly Hunter.

On Wed Oct 14th, when 40 members of the community fighting the project gathered together to take a bus to Albany to witness a court hearing about the use of eminent domain for this project, it was important for our camera to be on the bus as we needed to capture the community as it gathered together. Today I was thinking a lot about the idea of community in light of last week’s hearing. At this point, 6 years into our story, much of the physical community of the project site has been decimated. Buildings have been torn down and hundreds of residents have been moved away. Yet the crowd that gathered to ride that bus is probably more connected now than before this fight began. These people constitute a very real and physical community despite the fact that they don’t all live in apartments and houses next door to each other. They are connected by the powerful belief that the government, like the medical profession, should do no harm. They are bound by their opposition to this project- they see each other at functions related to that opposition and they connect daily through email, blogs, and phone.

As stated above, we don’t consider ourselves activist filmmakers, setting out to make a film that argues for a specific point of view. We absolutely did not start this film project with a preconceived notion of what we would capture. However, after only a few days of following characters, and interviewing the major supporters of the project, it became pretty clear to us that the film would follow those fighting the project rather than those working to make it happen.

We are filmmakers, following a character passionately fighting for what he believes. If the film didn’t reflect his point of view, then it would be a very bad film. However, this film will not always show the main character in a positive light. He is human, and like all humans, he makes mistakes. Like any good character in a movie, he will be seen under extreme pressure, and it’s seeing how people act under pressure that make movies great and heroes heroic.

In our nearly 6 years of working on a film about the Atlantic Yards project we have taken great pains to avoid using our work to influence the situation. While we are not activist filmmakers we are also not journalists and it has has not been our goal to cover the story from a “news” perspective. Instead we see ourselves as working in the tradition of the verite documentary filmmakers like the Maysles Brothers or Fredrick Wiseman.

However, we have been covering a politically charged story and have often struggled to hold our tounges, and our footage, as major news stories have come and gone. With the recent brouhaha over ACORN exploding into the press, and bleeding over into the issue of the Atlantic Yards we thought it was relevant to post a scene from our upcoming film that sheds some light on the relationship between, ACORN, the developer, and the community surrounding the Atlantic Yards project.

This scene comes about 40 minutes into the film. By this point the audience has witnessed the announcement of the project as well as growing community opposition to it. In addition, the vast majority of condo owners in the footprint of the proposed project have sold their apartments to the developer in order to avoid having them seized via eminent domain. The main character of the film, Daniel Goldstein, has refused to sell and has become one of the main organizers trying to stop it.

In this scene, Daniel attends a press conference announcing an agreement reached between Acorn and Forest City Ratner - in which the developer has agreed to make half of the units in the proposed project “affordable”. Further, it is agreed that Acorn will be involved in monitoring the project as well as marketing the “affordable” units. For this work they will be paid.

At the press conference on May 19th, 2005 Bertha Lewis, the head of NY ACORN (currently the head of the national organization), declares that ACORN is working with the current tenants to make sure that they are not pushed out and treated fairly by the developer. Answering a question she further states that there will be apartments set aside for those displaced by the project.

After the event, Daniel Goldstein confronts her with the fact that tenants are already being pushed out. She admits that ACORN hasn’t actually talked to any of the tenants yet. She then argues that the developer has nothing to do with greedy landlords forcing out tenants before they buy the property.

This is not a gotcha moment, but instead a small part of a complex tale. We feel that it is relevant to follow up on published reports that call into question the relationship between the developer and ACORN. At issue is the fact that the developer gave a $500,000 grant and $1,000,000 low interest loan to ACORN in the midst of a previous scandal when many long time donors refused to continue supporting them. The financial relationship between the developer and the community group calls into question this arrangement.

This morning as i sat down to work on a different post I noticed that a blog about marriage issues linked to the donor 67 blog without comment. I took a quick look and noticed that the driving sentiment behind the site was the idea of protecting the sanctity of marriage.

While i have become increasing “conservative” as i have aged and sired… and I clearly have issues with the way in which the IVF industry operates, i also would love to see my gay neighbors protected by the same laws that i am protected by. Two of the best parents that I can think of are a lesbian couple that live around the corner from us. They have a child with some developmental issues. In order to best meet his needs, one of them went back to school to get a degree in dealing with special needs children. She advocates on his behalf tirelessly and works with him in a loving way. It’s kind of incredible to see how far he’s come with her love and care. The idea that her marriage and her parenting skills and devotion are somehow lesser because she is in a loving relationship with a woman rather than a man is hard to fathom. In addition, my discussion about anonymity isn’t about aimed at shutting down the Ivf industry but instead, increasing reasonable discussion about complex issues. What’s most frustrating to me is the idea that by discussing these issues I might be somehow perceived as attacking the rights of others.

In addition to working on this film about donor conception issues I am working on a film about a development project in Brooklyn (that involves and arena for a pro sports team, housing, and office towers) and the people who are trying to stop this project. One of the issues being fought over is the use of eminent domain. Eminent domain is a hot button issue with conservatives and libertarians. In this case the right to use it is clearly being abused. Many politicians and citizens are loathe to fight it on these grounds because they believe that the benefits of the project outweigh the consequences of allowing this abuse. Others feel that as a society we need to be able to wield the power of eminent domain with few strings attached in order to further the greater good. In the name of the larger population they feel that we should be able to sacrifice the rights of the few. One of the common refrains at a recent hearing on the project was that the “few’ were standing in the way of the needs of the many.

As a filmmaker deeply involved with the story I have to say that I think that the abuse of this power is extremely troubling. One of the issues involved is the trojan horses of affordable housing and jobs. The project was sold to the public (and by sold i mean a multi million dollar pr campaign) with the slogan, “jobs, housing, hoops”. In reality, the public dollars being used to create the affordable housing could be put to much more effective use in other projects, and the job creation would be very limited.

During the 50’s and 60’s great swaths of urban America were bulldozed in the name of urban renewal. “Substandard, blighted areas” were knocked down to make way for new housing complexes in a great “liberal” experiment. Unfortunately, that experiment failed miserably. Vast communities were decimated, and according to the research of noted psychiatrist Mindy Fullilove, the urban epidemics of drug abuse, obesity, and diabetes were born. If anyone doubts her ideas, a quick read (that was a joke- it’s a 1000 plus page book) of Robert Caro’s “The Power Broker” should shed lay a good foundation for understanding where she’s coming from.

I use the word liberal, liberally above. The people who supported this work were clearly well meaning but the methodology and results have left ravaged neighborhoods that are only just beginning to recover 50-60 years later. Given what we know now about all of these issues it’s really almost unfathomable that this type of planning would be still used with such abandon.

The irony here is that in general, the liberal/progressive establishment still stands behind many of these polices in the zero sum cold war game of liberal/conservative politics. This zero sum game makes it nearly impossible for people to take a hard look at awful situations.

In the fight that we are chronicling, the issue has created several odd alliances. The “progressive” denizens of the neighborhood, fighting to save their homes and what they like about their community are painted as obstructionists fighting jobs and progress and in general they fall on the side of the libertarians on this issue. These locals are then attacked by “progressives” not directly affected for being in league with their zero sum enemies. In addition all of the politicians who directly represent the districts affected on a local level are against it. However, those who are more intertwined with the levers of power, like the governor and the mayor, support the project. The “progressive” housing rights group ACORN is a major supporter (and majorly hated by conservatives). The “progressive” senator Charles Schumer is a supporter because he is excited about the jobs and the pride that a professional basketball team will bring. As such, the “liberal” reader of the news who skims the stories on the subject might be inclined to think that they too should support it. However, the truth is always much more complex than the headlines. This deeper truth behind the headlines is one thing that compels me to make documentaries.

As i have become older, with more responsibilities and ever more complex choices to make, I’m increasingly troubled at the realities that exist behind the various debates we engage in. As a human being that cares about my family and my community I often feel shackled by outdated ideas concerning the most advantageous way for us to move forward. Until we can truly access the best possible information and have the freedom to debate issues in an open way we will find it nearly impossible to move forward as a society that truly protects the rights of everyone.

This morning while biking my daughter to camp I passed an old friend who is a writer. He now works at a NY magazine that I used to subscribe to. It’s a weekly that’s filled with all kinds of fun things to do in the city. Instead of doing any of these things I ended up feeling bad that I was missing them all- and that was before having kids…. Since it was a thick weekly and I tend to not throw things out, they piled up everywhere. I also used to get the NY Times delivered. In addition to it piling up, I couldn’t keep myself from reading it cover to cover so I never had any time. He was a bit down on the job because it’s less writing than editing. At least he’s got a job….

Now I just get the New Yorker and The Sun. The Sun is a weird animal. It takes no ads, and is filled with vaguely uncomfortable writing that’s just a little too personal. I like it. One of my favorite writers, Sparrow, regularly publishes pieces in the Sun. They also run a lot of interesting photos, and in the past they ran some of mine. We’re both from Chapel Hill so i feel some kinship with it as well. I just thumbed through an over-thumbed bathroom copy and came across an article about the role of positive energy in our lives. Like a lot of articles in the Sun it helped me to do a little perspective taking.

For the past 5 and a half years we have been working on a documentary about a controversial development project in Brooklyn. So far we have kept a very low profile with this film, largely because we didn’t want the film to become part of the story itself. However, it seems that our process is wrapping up, so I feel a bit more comfortable talking about it.

In December 2003, I read an article in the NY Times about a major development that would bring the NJ Nets to Brooklyn. As I read the article, I immediately felt like it was more of a press release than a news piece. A few years earlier, we had been inspired to make a film about an underground publisher as he attempted to re-publish a biography of GW Bush. That book, “Fortunate Son,” had been pulled from the shelves when the author was revealed to be a convicted felon. We first read about the book being pulled in a short article in the International Herald Tribune(the link here is from the longer version from the NY Times). Both my film-making partner and I were a bit freaked out about how little information we could find about the story at the time. When we heard that someone else was going to re-publish the book we jumped at the opportunity to film and follow the story.

A similar process happened this time. Over then next couple of days after first reading about the Atlantic Yards, I brought up the project with my neighbors. No one seemed to know much about it, or really care. To all of them it seemed like a done deal and there wasn’t too much to be gained from wasting energy thinking about it. After about a week, I saw a flier that screamed, “Stop the Atlantic Yards Project!!!!” There was a number on the flier so I called to get more information.

Patti Hagan, from the Prospect Heights Action Coalition, picked up the phone and started talking my ear off. She had all of the information that I had been looking for and she sounded like a great person to follow the story through. I put down the phone, grabbed my camera, and headed over to Patti’s. Over the course of the next week I spent almost all day, every day, following Patti as she worked the streets like a modern day chicken little.

Patti confirmed my suspicions about the original articles about the project. I had read about a basketball arena and new neighborhood that would be built over rail yards. It turned out that the rail yards only made up about half of the project site. In all fairness if I were to go back and put in a great deal of effort to understand the details I would probably find a lot of them in there. However, I’m very interested in now we as a culture consume media. People come away from articles and news pieces with less facts than impressions. The impression created by the early articles was that an arena and a basketball team would be coming to downtown brooklyn. The reality of the situation was startlingly more complex. One of the things that we are struggling with as filmmakers is how to balance complexity with clarity while telling this story.

At the time I found out that the rest of the land needed for the project would be taken from the owners using eminent domain. Patti explained, to anyone that would listen, that according to the Bill of Rights, eminent domain is only to be used for a public use or purpose. For at least 150 years that was seen as a highway, hospital, library, or public building. While I only had a cursory knowledge of eminent domain at the time, this was what I assumed to be true as well. However, at some point public use started to mean public “benefit.” In this case, the government was stating that the area - actually gentrifying organically - was blighted, and it wouldn’t improve without direct government action. They further were arguing that a privately controlled arena would be a benefit to the public.

In the area directly affected by the project, there was a lot of confusion and fear. Patti spent days on the streets talking to rent-controlled tenants, business owners, journalists, and new condo owners. No one really knew what was going on. Directly across the street from and within the proposed site, several industrial buildings had been recently converted to condos. One building, 636 Pacific St, had only opened to residents 6 months before the announcement of the project.. Patti had her doubts about the new condos. In some ways these owners had the most to lose financially, and they had the shallowest roots in the community. However, she told me that there was one owner who she thought had some fight in him. His name was Daniel Goldstein.

She was right, and it turned out that he was an old friend of mine. I called up Dan and came by with my camera. He was flabbergasted by the situation. Having looked for a home for 5 years he had finally found the perfect place. He couldn’t believe that the government would take it from him to give to a private developer. As the shock of the situation began to wear off, he started to actively fight the project and we followed him with our cameras.

Over the course of these five years the world has changed a great deal and the project is now in serious doubt. Dan is still fighting.

We have put together a trailer that gives a sense of what the film will feel like. As I mentioned earlier, there is no way that a single 90-120 minute film could do justice to the complex issues that have been raised by this project and this story. We’ll leave that task to Norman Oder and his blog, The Atlantic Yards Report.

Instead of working on an all encompassing journalist tour de force- we have narrowed our focus to a few of the characters who are fighting the project, and how it has affected them personally. At the same time we are trying to create a story that does deal with some of these complex issues in more than a cursory way. So far we have already been editing for over a year. As time goes on we will likely post different versions of the trailer as well as selected scenes. In addition I will continue to write about the process of shooting this film and turning mountains of footage into a story that can be watched in one sitting.

Moore’s law states that computer power basically doubles every two years, and it pretty much has held up for 50 years. The fact that if we build more roads, we will get more cars should be referred to as Moses’ law. Robert Moses loved roads, and he liked the freedom of cars. When the roads he built got too crowded he just built more roads- without ever stopping to think about Moses’ law. In some ways Moses’ law is just one subset of the law of unintended consequences.
There are those however who do look backwards before walking into a wall, and some of those bright ladies and gentleman took note of Moses’ law when they pushed to massively increase the number of bike lanes in NYC. Naysayers complained that there weren’t enough bikers to justify the lanes. Elementary!!! This morning on Bergen and 3rd Ave in Brooklyn I was surrounded by at least 15 other bikers as we all waited for the light. It was like a bike superhighway. Over the last few years as i have commuted my kids around brooklyn I have seen a huge uptick in the number of bikers on the roads.
20 years ago i was a bike messenger and i don’t recall seeing any bike lanes to speak of. I wasn’t a crazy reckless biker, but it was pretty dangerous nonetheless and i had my share of lucky breaks- a couple of door opening incidents that almost did serious damage and one taxi incident that i can still recall in slow motion. On 47 near 5th a cab screeched to a halt in the middle of traffic flow- and incidentally right in front of me. i braked so hard and hit the cab while holding on to the handlebars with a death grip that as I sommersaulted over the bike I flipped the bike over me- and it cushioned my fall. Somehow I ended up on my ass in the middle of the street shaken but not stirred. A UPS driver jumped out his truck and hauled the cab driver out his seat- and told the person getting in the cab to find another one. He then helped me to my feet and made the driver apologize. i was pretty out of it but otherwise ok. We all went on our way.
Now i bike with two kids, and while I take a lot of streets without bike lanes I’m super grateful for the ones that i have to use. As i biked along with so many other bikers this morning i thought a lot about how we humans often get overwhelmed by too much of a good thing. If i was a food manufacturer (which i’m not) and someone came to me with a product that would make my food much more appealing to the average person and not really cost me much more at all I would likely jump at it. If this product was sweet cheap corn syrup that didn’t appear too have any bad side effects when added in small amounts I would laugh at my good fortune all the way to the bank.
Now say I make something that normally isn’t really sweet, like… say… bread. I add just a little bit of that magic stuff, my bread doesn’t taste “sweet” like candy, but the people who try it prefer it over the bread that doesn’t have that corn syrup. Soon i’m selling bread by the boatload and my competitors find out- so they add a little bit more than me. Well the juice company realizes what’s going on and they figure out that they can put 90% less juice - add a bit of the magic stuff- and use a bunch of water- and charge the same amount despite spending so much less on ingredients. Who could blame em. Now each one of these things in themselves probably wouldn’t have much of an effect on anyone’s health….. but when everything people eat has the magic stuff- the magic stuff turns to tragic stuff.
The unintended consequence of this process is an explosion of obesity, diabetes, death, and out of whack governement shennaningans involving money, politicians, more money, subsidies, corn that doesn’t taste like corn, corporations, and pain. As a parent the worst part is having to chose whether or not to bring my child to the supermarket because i get tired of having to fight and show her that corn syrup is one of the largest ingredients in everything she wants me to buy.
Which brings me to blogging. I have been blogging for all of two weeks now, and having put forth that road I am packing it with cars. Soon i will learn to choose my subjects more wisely, and I will shape them more skillfully, but for the time being I am just opening the floodgates because for the first time in a long time my thoughts have somewhere to go.
I don’t know that the bike lanes will significantly decrease traffic but I know they have benefited me from a health perspective. When I bike instead of drive my kids I get my exercise without having to think about it. Soon the bike lanes may be too crowded and we’ll have to eminent domain some sidewalks…. or parking lanes to make more room for the bikes (actually this recently happened on Dekalb Ave near me.) One of the unintended consequences may be a healthier city.