Did the City really “abdicate its role” during the Atlantic Yards approval process, as Speaker Quinn stated last week?

Yes.

Because of legislation passed in the 1960’s, the state has the power to override the city’s zoning laws and land-use approval process (known as ULURP), which is far more rigorous than the state’s own process, requiring votes by the local community boards, the borough president and ultimately the City Council.

But in practice, the state can only do so when the city permits it.

And even though the City was “officially” on the sidelines in the decision-making for Atlantic Yards, it was actually deeply involved. It pledged $100M towards the costs of the project (a contribution that was later doubled), and City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden reportedly negotiated with the developer over some of the urban design aspects of the project, lobbying them successfully for ground-floor retail around the Arena and other changes.

But any conversations between the City and the developer took place behind closed doors. This culminated in an awkward episode last September when the City Planning Commission “recommended” changes to the project that were instantly “accepted” by Forest City Ratner. The changes were the outcome of months of negotiations, but the city portrayed itself as issuing a set of recommendations rather than outlining an agreed upon deal.

What’s troubling is that by exercising its power behind the scenes, the City became complicit in the State’s exclusion of the public from the decision-making process for the project. Typically, the City Planning Commission is required to hold public hearings before taking votes on major projects, and these hearings allow the public to influence the Commission’s votes. By choosing to operate unofficially, the city was representing the public without the public’s input, and essentially endorsing the state’s troubling land-use approval process. In doing so the City was, as Quinn noted, abdicating its role.

So what should the City have done instead? It should have insisted on a formal review by the community boards, borough president and City Council – or simply that the project go through ULURP.

At a minimum, the administration should have solicited public input before sitting down at the negotiating table with the State and Forest City Ratner. Arguably, the project’s flaws all stem from the developer-driven planning process. If the City’s negotiating position had been based on public testimony, they would have pushed harder for changes to the project that were in the public interest: an urban design that didn’t revolve around superblocks and enormously scaled buildings, a real transportation plan, and many other improvements to the plan that have been suggested by community and civic groups. If the city had involved the public in forming its position and negotiated openly, Atlantic Yards would now be a much better project.

But they could also have gone much further than this. The City could have insisted that the State use Forest City Ratner’s interest in developing over the rail yards as a catalyst for a developing a public plan for the site, much as what happened at Ground Zero. The City and State could then have issued an RFP for the rail yards, having first established the best plan for the public. The MTA ultimately did this – but the process went backwards, with the state having first chosen a developer and then issuing an RFP with the fix already in.

But it’s not too late for the city to assume its responsibilities. Although preparation work on the Atlantic Yards site has begun, actual construction is probably still months or years away from beginning. Even then, most of the project won’t be built for much longer and almost certainly won’t be built as currently proposed, if the experience of other large-scale projects like Battery Park City or Queens West is a guide. So there’s still time for the City – and Speaker Quinn - to insist that the project is redesigned with input from local elected officials and other stakeholders, and still time for the City to spearhead the development of a comprehensive transportation plan, instead of the piece-meal, anti-pedestrian approach they have pursued so far.

Most importantly, there’s also still time for the City and the State to improve the governance for the project. For example, they could establish an ESDC subsidiary to oversee the project that includes board members appointed by the city and local elected officials - as numerous other state projects including Queens West and Hudson River Park have. This would go a long way towards ensuring accountability, transparency and an open decision-making process for the project that includes local stakeholders. Atlantic Yards is going to take decades to construct and its design will continue to evolve. It would be tragic if the project remains a public-private partnership in which the public has no real representation or role.