...they want Columbia to build on property it owns and obtained without coercion or eminent domain, to develop an anti-displacement program for residents in their district, to preserve historic buildings and to design eco-friendly facilities...

The fallout from this non-binding, advisory vote is that Columbia and its supporters have clearly been told (and understand) that they must negotiate these conditions if they want community support; and they've been told this as part of a political process.

With Atlantic Yards, the ULURP bypass meant that Community Boards 2,6, and 8 could issue well-reasoned positions, criticisms, concerns, and mitigation ideas and those statements would mean nothing beyond any press splash they'd make. And beyond the Brooklyn Downtown Star and The Brooklyn Paper the positions of the Community Boards were not reported. But what was absolutely clear was that as long as the CBs were operating outside of a political process, nobody in Albany, City Hall or at the ESDC was listening, and therefore there was never any room for good-faith negotiations. Instead Forest City Ratner used the sidelined Community Boards for its own devious "Community" "Benefits" PR campaign.

What did the Community Boards actually have to say about Atlantic Yards? Community Boards 2 and 8 didn't pass any motions one way or the other on the project, but both submittted blisteringly critical comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Community Board 2 submitted a long (and ignored) list of recommendations, as follows:

• Necessary government permit parking should be limited to garage spaces or authorized limited on street parking and strictly enforced (with towing) with a no permit zone around the arena and the surrounding neighborhoods.
  
• The open space should be easily accessible physically and visually to the rest of the
  
community

• Sufficient public schools should be on the site.
  
• Sufficient resources should be available to handle garbage and sewer.
  
• The open space above the Arena should be available to the public in some form.
  
• Steps to maintain and improve traffic and pedestrian circulation should be done (building skyways: separate traffic, pedestrians and cyclists)
  
• Renewable and environmental sustainable energy should be provided on site (i.e wind and solar energy) for the development and immediate area.
  
• Adequate fire and police protection should be provided.
  
• A wind effects study should be done on any planned construction to prevent unnecessary localized problems.
  
• Signage should respect the surrounding communities in character, quality of life and color (It shouldn’t be Times Square.) and not cast light on to the surrounding area. The major illuminated signage should be turned off by 11 PM.
  
• Buildings should not be vacated and demolished until replacement design and financing are in place.
  

Our first resolution, adopted by a vote of 35 in support, 4 against, with no abstentions, disapproves of the project as proposed in the July 18, 2006 GPP and DEIS because it will cause irreparable damage to the quality of life in the borough of Brooklyn.

Our second resolution, adopted by a vote of 37 in support, 2 against, with no abstentions, was to include the following procedural objections as part of our disapproval of the project as currently proposed:
a) Failure to involve the Community Board and the community in a meaningful way; misleading and overstating the involvement of the public in the process.
b) Failure to provide adequate or sufficient time for the public to review the GPP and DEIS.
c) Failure to provide resources to the Community Board to assist in their review of the project.
d) Failure to subject any aspect of the project review to the City’s uniform land use review procedures (ULURP).

Our third resolution, adopted by a vote of 37 in support, 2 against, with no abstentions, was to include the following general proposal-related objections as part of our disapproval of the project as currently proposed:
a) The project is out-of-scale with the surrounding community.
b) Several material project impacts have been identified as being unmitigable.
c) Portions of the data in the DEIS are insufficient, inadequate or questionable.
d) The scope of the DEIS is insufficient.
e) There has been insufficient modeling.

Our final resolution, adopted by a vote of 23 in support, 4 against, with no abstentions, was to include the following specific points that must be addressed as part of our disapproval of the project as currently. (see full letter for the complete list)