Via Brownstoner, comes this gem from BushwickBK – proof that the bubble is still inflated.

BBK is right, the developer has serious issues with reality if he is looking to get $725,000 for this “luxury” condo. But I don’t know where BBK gets off saying they did a “decent job” on this project – it looks as though the developer saved money by a) not hiring an architect; and b) shopping the return bins at Home Depot.

BBK says that the project was “previously rickety frame building”. Underneath all that stucco, I suspect that it still is. Caveat emptor.

I haven’t been to Luger’s in a year or two, so I can’t say whether or not there has been a slip in quality. But the idea that a chain steakhouse in downtown Brooklyn is going to cut into their business is pretty funny. Until Morton’s starts drawing crowds from Manhattan, its not a threat to Luger’s. (The corollary being that if Luger’s is losing business, it is to Manhattan steak houses.) Besides, as Bruni says, “no other steakhouse serves a porterhouse so breathtaking”.

This is old news by now, but there was closure to the Fortunato murder-for-hire trial a couple of weeks back. One defendant – Carmine Polito – was acquitted in a jury trial on the 14th of December. The following day, Mario Fortunato (of the bakery family) was convicted by the trial judge. Turns out Fortunato had waived his right to trial by jury, and put his fate in the judge’s hands. With the jury verdict in favor of his co-defendant, it would appear that Fortunato (or more accurately his attorney), chose poorly. Is that in itself grounds for a new trial on the basis of incompetent counsel?

Once upon a time, there were only three bars in all of the Northside (Greenpoint Tavern, Turkey Nest and Mugg’s (or before that, Ship’s Mast)). OK, five if you count Kokie’s, but no one went there for a drink or to socialize. Back then, Mona’s and Sophie’s were akin to a local. I haven’t been to either in years, but its still sad to know they won’t be there.

Not to mention the fact that Sophie’s spawned Sweetwater Tavern (at the time, the fourth bar in the nabe).

This past weekend, the Times posted an op-ed by Alexander Garvin and Nick Peterson titled The High Price of Parking, on the pitfalls of providing mandatory parking in most rehabs and all new developments. The argument really boils down to this: if you build it, they will park. And in the process, they will add more cars to the city. Those cars eventually wind up on the streets (even if they are parked at night), and add to congestion and pollution.

Recently, this was an issue at CB 1’s land use committee. Developers of 55 Hope Street, a turn-of-the-century loft building being converted to apartments, want to waive most of the required parking. Their argument is that it would require a significant expenditure to adapt this 100-year-old building to provide the 46 parking spots required by zoning (essentially, it would require rebuilding the structural system of the basement and part of the first floor to eliminate about half of the structural columns). They are able to provide 11 spots on vacant land on the development site. In addition to the expense required in retrofitting the building for parking, the creation of a parking garage at the raised basement would have a significant impact on this historic building (it has been deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places).

Most importantly (and not part of the applicant’s argument for a special permit), the provision of this much parking flies in the face of smart development. As Garvin and Peterson point out, the parking requirements in the zoning resolution are more than 50 years old, and date to a time when the powers that be thought that the car was the future of New York City.

The argument put forth by those who oppose the special permit at 55 Hope is that its already hard enough to find parking on the street. But the provision of off-street parking actually has very little effect on the demand for on-street parking. Look in Manhattan, where there are many off-street garages – all of the on-street parking spaces are still taken. The availability of off-street parking simply increases the overall supply of parking – encouraging more people to have cars – and does nothing to offset the supply of (free) on-street parking. So long as on-street parking is plentiful and free, people will have cars. When free parking becomes difficult, people will start to make rational decisions on the relative merit of owning a car. (In many Brooklyn developments – high end ones at that – provided parking is sitting vacant.)

The real solution is to rethink the parking requirements in the zoning resolution, as Garvin and Peterson argue. I would add that the solution to some of our local parking woes would be to institute resident-only parking during certain hours. But for 55 Hope, a project that is 6 blocks or less from 3 subway stations (on two different lines), it simply doesn’t make sense to require parking that doesn’t work for the building, and won’t significantly impact the number of cars parked on the street (but will impact the number of cars driving on the street).

NYS has released its own list of failing schools, and there is some disagreement between what the State deems a failure and what the City deems a failure. Unfortunately, for PS 84 (Jose de Diego), it appears that there is a consensus: things are not good. 84 is the only school in 14 to be added to the list of failing schools, er, I mean “in need of improvement”.

Meanwhile, all six local Junior High Schools are either “restructuring” or “requiring academic progress” on the state list. Likewise, PS 19 (Roberto Clemente) is also “restructuring”. If I’m reading my euphemisms correctly, that means that all of those schools are on the failed list. The disagreement is evident in PS 19 (which the City graded as “B”) and JHS 50 (John Wells, which the City graded as “A”). A number of schools that the city gave low grades to did not appear on the state’s list of failing schools.

From the Times, we learn that the Health Department is just now figuring out that when the cat’s away, the mice will play.

Years ago, I worked in a bar in Manhattan (one that did not serve food). The Health Department cited us for having a cat – multiple times. So rather than keep racking up fines, we got rid of the cat (he wound up living a comfortable life in North Carolina).

Within a month, we had rats. Big rats. The kind of rats that would think nothing of running across a crowded barroom floor. We hired an exterminator, who did manage to kill some rats. Unfortunately, the rats crawled into the ceilings and other nooks to die. And decompose. And smell.

So eventually, we got another cat. Two kittens, in fact. Together, they were about half the size of our average rat, but within a matter of days, the rats were gone. Basically, on smell alone, the rats vacated.

So, yeah, I can pretty much back this up: “[the Health Department] did concede that some studies have shown that the smell of cats will keep mice away.”

(Side note – someone actually stole one of our kittens.)

If 311 isn’t getting results, your building is moving and cracks are developing, it might be wise to call 911. You might want to get your possessions in order first, though, as its quite possible that when the DOB engineers finally do show up, you’ll have about 5 minutes to vacate.

Yes, this is seriously f-d up. As, it seems, is everything that involves 311 and DOB these days.