From its inception, the Atlantic Yards megaproject was shrouded in controversy between developers and residents. Some residents are pleased with the inclusion of affordable housing in the project’s 22 acres of redevelopment. However, the government’s continued emphasis on central planning has caused many to raise concerns.

To begin, I found it surprising that the Atlantic Yards project even catered to housing and environmental needs in the surrounding communities. The 22 acre redevelopment project is centered around the Barclay’s Center. However, some land has also been set aside for residential use. About 4,500 units of rental housing will be provided, half of which will serve low, moderate, and middle income families. In addition, the demolition and construction of the new site was planned with the environment in mind. About 75% of materials will be recycled and efforts have been made to reduce noise and air pollution during the process. Altogether, it seems that the residents were given enough reason not to oppose the project.

Furthermore, the Atlantic Yards developer, FCRC (Forest City Ratner Companies), signed a community benefits agreement that seemed to appease many parties. The agreement promised that contractors would hire part of their workforce from people in the community, with an emphasis on minority and women workers.  In addition, affordable housing for seniors, the development of a health center, and the provision of other amenities were signed into contract. It seemed unthinkable that developers would even agree to such terms. However, after more research, it became clear that FCRC used the agreement as a means of stifling opposition towards the project. Community activist groups such as ACORN were used to fighting losing battles for the sake of their residents. Consequently, when the Atlantic Yards project came along, they were swayed by the written agreement that considered low-income residents in the neighborhood. Hence, despite the existing issues of repossessing land, bypassing of Brooklyn officials, and excessive government planning, community groups were satisfied with the promises made in the CBA.

The concerns regarding land repossession and continued central planning are of most importance to residents who still adamantly oppose the Atlantic Yards project. To begin, the government can exercise its 5^th amendment right to take property for public use if the land is considered “blighted.” The problem with this classification is that there is no standard for what is considered blighted land. According to Nicole Gelinas, in the 1930s “blighted” was equated to “families and children dying from rampant fires and pestilence.” Today the term is used in a much looser sense, typically signifying cracked sidewalks, graffiti, and underutilization. Hence, government can deem practically any good piece of land blighted if they desire to repossess it for development. Furthermore, by refusing to put in place proper infrastructure, they can also expedite the process of property becoming “blighted.” As a result, many citizens believe that the hand of government should be removed from projects like Atlantic Yards and allow private markets to dictate conditions for redevelopment.

On the surface, the Atlantic Yards project appears to provide a supreme benefit to the low-income residents of its surrounding neighborhoods by offering job development, affordable housing, business contracting, and community amenities. However, when researched further, it becomes clear that the megaproject was actually a product of overt government influence and planning. Although there is reason to celebrate the inclusion of some residents, it is important to acknowledge that surrounding communities were only given consideration as a means of gaining approval of the Atlantic Yards project and not for the overall benefit of the people.