Reprinting May 2007 analysis of AKRF report denying the importance of 227 Duffield

 

AKRF’s Attempt to Demolish Abolitionist Homes Reveals Vast Brooklyn Network
of Resistance to Slavery

 

Brooklyn, May 2, 2007— There is a firm called AKRF which has 25 years experience in researching big development projects. They recently undertook their longest venture in historical analysis: Two and a half years devoted to trying to deny the claims that Duffield Street in Downtown Brooklyn was part of the Underground Railroad of the Civil War era. Instead, they suceeded in providing the best documentation that the Duffield Street homes are the most promising area for Underground Railroad research in New York City.

The New York City Council Landmarks Subcommittee held an evidentiary hearing on May 1, 2007, chaired by Leroy Comrie. The day started at 10 am. City Council Member Charles Barron held a press conference before the hearing, and he was the first to denounce the findings, but almost every City Council representative present had harsh questions for the NYC Economic Development Corporation and their hired gun, AKRF.

The hearing, which lasted from 11 am to 3 pm at City Hall, began with AKRF Vice President Linh Do’s extended PowerPoint presentation- basically a shortened version of the Executive Summary of their report found at the EDC’s website. In advance of the meeting, the NY Daily News dutifully reported the AKRF talking points: “There's no proof that seven downtown Brooklyn rowhouses were part of the historic Underground Railroad, city officials are expected to tell lawmakers today.”

Barron, in true form, railed against the methodology and the findings. Though he left the hearing before 1 pm, and it turned out that pretty much all nine of the lawmakers had pointed questions for the EDC and AKRF.

Despite AKRF’s talking points, the document itself provided much evidence of Abolitionist activity. AKRF did its best to show that none of this resistance to slavery could be verifiably linked to Duffield Street, but even their Executive Summary (page S-19) admits:

“It is important to note, however, that while a good faith research effort has been conducted to learn as much as possible about the subject properties and their potential Underground Railroad associations, the nature of this type of research means that more information could be unearthed in the future.”

In other words, AKRF can’t deny the possibility of history at these homes. And the City Council members treated to take this possibility seriously.

AKRF's map of Abolitionist Churches in Downtown Brooklyn

I knew that AKRF was in trouble when Councilmember John Liu asked a surprising question: Why was AKRF’s name left off the report? Do (whose name was mangled by almost everyone) answered that it was an oversight, that the full report did include their name, but the PowerPoint handout did not. Liu is not known as a friend of preservationists, but this was part of a line of questioning that focused on the role of AKRF. AKRF seems to want their words to emanate as if from an omnipotent but invisible force of nature.

Through it all, Do was very much on the hot seat, and she seemed exasperated by the line of questioning. The Council Members asked how much AKRF had been paid; the answer given was $500,000 for 3,000 person-hours of research.

Do’s initial presentation offered no surprises, yet it raised many more questions than it answered. Council Member Letitia James hammered on the question of who exactly wrote the report and the role of the peer reviewers. The AKRF document went to great pains to include the CVs of all the historians hired as peer reviewers. James, who was the only lawmaker who seemed to have read the entire 700-page document, tore into Do because many of the peer reviewers completely disagreed with the conclusion that there was no historical proof for Underground Railroad activity on Duffield Street. Their comments were buried in Appendix C of the published report.

James added some color when she said that there’s a Nigerian saying that “don’t let the lions tell the giraffe’s story,” referring to the developers trying to tell the story of those who resisted the legal institution of slavery. But colorful language was not necessary, because nobody besides AKRF and the EDC seemed in favor of the demolition of these homes. Councilmember Rosie Mendez summed it up this way when speaking to Do: “I hear you saying ‘we believe’ and ‘we think,’ but after a half million dollars, I’d want better proof. It sounds like you’re trying to avoid a lawsuit.”

AKRF certainly tries to defend its credibility. A journal called Village Views describes AKRF’s contentious record this way (Volume X, #1 p.5):

According to the Brooklyn Papers, at the City Council subcommittee hearing on the adoption of the Downtown Brooklyn Plan, June 14, 2004, an Economic Development Corporation executive claimed that “a dozen agencies” including the Schomburg Center for Research on Black Culture of the New York Public Library had been consulted by AKRF when they made these determinations.

But Christopher Moore, exhibition coordinator for the Schomburg Center, testified that nobody from the city had ever contacted his organization regarding  Duffield Street. “I have never spoken to any representative of your firm about the possibility or probability of Underground Railroad activity on or near Duffield Street,” said Moore, who is also a city Landmarks Preservation Commissioner. “Had any representative of your firm actually spoke to me, I would have informed them, without hesitation, that the entire length of Duffield Street is one of the city’s most promising areas for the study of Underground Railroad activity.”

But at the hearing, Do stated that they never mischaracterized Moore and that he had written a letter saying this was all a misunderstanding. But this was typical of AKRF’s plausible deniability. Do didn’t state that Moore proclaimed Duffield Street’s importance. And Do also failed to convince anyone, since several people at the hearing had heard Moore’s 2004 testimony, and those who knew Moore doubted the implication that he was just some forgetful fellow.

The Council Members reacted with disbelief when the EDC said that they didn’t hire archeologists to examine the site because that would require demolishing the buildings. When asked if they had hired any archeologists, the EDC responded that they had hired an architectural historian. When asked again by both Barron and Liu why they didn’t hire an archeologist, the EDC again responded that they had hired an architectural historian. This line of questioning continued, and eventually the EDC defended their actions by stating that hiring an archeologist would require the demolition of the buildings being studied. This brought incredulous reactions from all of the council members.  (Much later in the hearing, the council members were very curious about one of the peer reviewers who had brought nine (9) archeologists to examine the site. Nobody seemed to mention that 229 Duffield is an empty lot, and archeological  work would be easy there without demolishing anything.)

Do began to wilt under the heavy questioning. But the EDC continued to claim that the destruction of these properties was essential to the redevelopment of Brooklyn.  Liu tried to get a straight answer of how important for the redevelopment plan it would be to build a parking lot including the Duffield Street houses.

The EDC (sorry, I didn’t catch the representative’s name) claimed that the “City does recognize Abolitionist activity in the neighborhood and wants to memorialize it,” but that the parking and open space that would be build on what is now the Duffield Street homes was a “major resource” of their plan. If was saved from demolition, “It would have a major impact on the plan. Without this space, it will be difficult to create office space.”

Liu was incredulous. He asked, “what if AKRF said there was a significant amount of linkage [to the Underground Railroad], would the entire Brooklyn plan be thrown out?” The EDC had difficulty answering.

Eventually, Do and the EDC representatives left. Unfortunately, as one might hope for a company charged with researching this sensitive site, they did not bother to stick around to hear the additional two hours of testimony by historians, residents, ministers, and assorted Brooklynites.

The most damning testimony came from the peer reviewers hired by AKRF. They gave a sense of how the AKRF document was created. It should be noted, that these eminent historians were hired as peer reviewers, not as researchers who wrote the document. The actual authors remained behind a dark veil of anonymity. The consensus of the historians who worked on the project was that “the AKRF researchers displayed a remarkable ignorance.” They chided AKRF for having “no research plan and no basic methodology.”

Bob Furman, a noted Brooklyn historian and preservationist who was not one of the peer reviewers, gave one example of the AKRF researchers’ lack of basic Abolitionist knowledge. At one point, AKRF wrote that the Brooklyn Eagle was founded by Lewis Tappan. The reason that this is an embarrassing mistake is the paper’s original name was “Brooklyn Eagle and Kings County Democrat”- it was a partisan Democratic Party publication, and the Democrats essentially supported slavery while Tappan was one of the most influential abolitionists in Antebellum America. A first year history student would have caught that mistake.

One of the three peer reviewers Dr. Cheryl LaRoche was happy with the research conducted by AKRF. She thought it was a promising beginning for research into the area. For a consulting firm like AKRF, working 2 1/2 years on a research project is an eternity. For a serious historian like LaRoche, this is just the warm up. Many historical research projects take 10 or even 20 years. While AKRF tried to spin their findings as showing lack of significant proof on Underground Railroad activity, LaRoche came to the opposite conclusion. She has studied Underground Railroad history all around the country, and regarding Duffield she said “You do have an Underground Railroad site here. This is a phenomenal site.”

By the end of the hearing, at 3 pm, the only City Council representatives left were Comrie, Yassky, and James. Not one person spoke in favor of demolishing the Duffield  Street homes.

LaRoche’s words seemed to give the end of the hearing a sense of victory. Through AKRF’s attempt to whitewash the Abolitionist history, they had clearly proven to everyone present that Duffield Street is probably THE most important site for Underground Railroad activity in New York City. AKRF’s strongest claim is that there is no documentable proof that these properties were part of the Underground Railroad, but for those who stayed, we were left with the clear impression that these are probably the best documented sites that we have. As a few council members pointed out, many buildings have been landmarked with much less documentation.

I left the hearing tired, but optimistic. We WILL save this history. I clearly see the day that the Duffield Street homes will be part of a vibrant Downtown Brooklyn, and destination for those who want to discover the proud history of our Abolitionist history.

Stay tuned for more updates. The hearing on eminent domain will probably happen later this month.

 

Kyle Rittenhouse and African American Suffragists

What would have the African American suffragists of the 1890s thought about the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict? They certainly would not have been surprised, but I’ve been thinking about them because I think we can learn from their inspiring determination and dedication to fighting white supremacy. 

Back in the 1890s, many people would have called themselves white supremacists. That must have been infuriating here in Brooklyn, where slavery was abolished in 1827 and we had already defeated the slavers in the Civil War. But the Reconstructionist efforts were dead and lynching was on the rise. 

On a superficial level, these African American women merely looked like social climbers. They dressed in poofy dresses, played classical music, and organized literary societies. But how they reacted to Ida B. Wells is really what’s important. 

In 1892, Ida B. Wells’ press was burnt down by an angry white supremacist mob. She had to leave Memphis because the crowd wanted to lynch her as well. Wells wrote about lynching methodically and used facts as a weapon. But what really enraged the white press was the idea that maybe some white women were attracted to Black men. Lynching had wide support among the white community because of the supposed debased character of African Americans. Newspapers like the Brooklyn Eagle justified lynching because the judicial system was too slow to punish African Americans. 

But the Black church women of Brooklyn and New York were the first to support Ida B. Wells. They raised money for her, and supported her emotionally, intellectually, and organizationally. That’s a big reason why Ida B. Wells moved to Gold Street near Flatbush in Brooklyn in 1892. 

These women, like Maritcha Lyons, would have been very familiar with people like Kyle Rittenhouse who went to a protest looking for violence and then found it, leaving two people dead at his hands. They would have been very familiar with a legal system that acquitted him of all crimes, since lynchers were almost never prosecuted. 

What they might have been shocked at is the support that political leaders give to Rittenshouse. Even back in the 1890s, the openly white supremacist newspaper Brooklyn Eagle was critical of lynching. The white leaders recognized that mob rule was bad. Nowadays, so-called political leaders are glad to follow the leadership of gun-toting killers with a depraved disregard for human life.

I’m writing this today because I want to emphasize that we’re not any smarter or better organized than these women and their fancy art shows. We think our ideas nowadays are new. Supporting mental health initiatives, fighting for better education for minority children, mutual aid groups… all this pales in comparison to what they did. 

It wasn’t until 1920 that women got (almost) universal suffrage. It took decades of organizing to expand voting rights that had been limited by gender. 

Some of the institutions these women founded are still with us. Dr. Susan Smith McKinney played organ at Bridge Street Church for 28 years, and it’s still here. Maritcha Lyons was an educator for 48 years, and her school that was formerly known as Colored School #2 is now PS243 The Weeksville School. 

For me, these women give me hope. They saw worse things than we did. Some witness the Draft Riots of 1863, and then proceeded to fight for education and suffrage for another 50 years. We have heroes here in Brooklyn that deserve to be celebrated. Let’s live up to their legacy. 

The PDC Wants to Turn Off the Light of Ida B. Wells

 The PDC Wants to Turn Off the Light of Ida B. Wells

It’s not surprising that there is an anti-CRT anti-Ida B. Wells movement in this country. Ida B. Wells writing was uncomfortable since she gave the specifics of gruesome lynchings. She shone the light on terror in this country, and people who think racism has been solved openly oppose CRT for ideological reasons. 

Don’t have time to read? Ready for action? Write this email!!

Example:

To: KButler@cityhall.nyc.gov; snielsen@mnlandscape.com

Subject: Testimony at Public Design Commission

Dear Public Design Commission,

I would like to offer testimony on item 27861 re: Abolitionist Place Park. Please place it on the public agenda.

And please read, sign and share the Sisters In Freedom petition. 

The anti-Ida B. Wells tendency of the Public Design Commission is devoid of this ideology, but the impact is the same. On the street where Ida B. Wells lived, on the street where Black suffragists met, on the street where Abolitionists and all sorts of activists worked to name the names of injustice, the PDC thinks there should be no discussion. 

Back in 2007, the NYC Economic Development Corporation spent $500,000 to deny the historical importance of Duffield Street, which has since been renamed Abolitionist Place. In a huge victory for Brooklyn, in February 2021, Landmarks Preservation Commission finally decided to give landmark designation to 227 Abolitionist Place because of its connection to the Underground Railroad. What people don’t remember is that back in 2008, NYC tried to avoid the embarrassment of their attempt an Abolitionist home by signing a contract for $1 million to build a monument to Abolitionist History at Abolitionist Place Park (formerly Willoughby Square Park and sometimes called “Abolitionist Place).

The publicly revealed proposal has zero reference to either “Brooklyn” or “Abolitionism.” Apparently, the proposal has been revised, but in an act of bureaucratic obfuscation, the EDC has not revealed what revisions they have made. 

What they have revealed is disgust at Underground Railroad history. Am I being too harsh? I don’t think so. The current plan puts a dog run right next to 227 Abolitionist Place, right on top of the tunnels that used to connect it to 223 and 225 Duffield, which were demolished by the EDC. At the exact site of where African-Americans might have found freedom, the EDC plans to let dogs urinate and defecate. If that isn’t disgust, I don’t know what is. 

The EDC does not show its disdain for history by yelling at school board meetings, like the anti-CRT crowd. They use the tools of the powerful. Monday’s meeting is an example of that. We have gotten letters of support from every relevant elected official, from school kids, from scholars and from family members of the Ida B. Wells and other suffragists. None of that matters. They will put their proposal before the Public Design Commission on the “consent agenda.” This assumes that their proposal is so uncontroversial that it’s not worth it to put on the public agenda. It’s not worth debating because everyone agrees, while in fact we have a stunning alliance of people who support Sisters In Freedom. 

The EDC publishes corporate happy-talk press releases about how they love history. But their proposal is completely vague, has no reference to the actual people who made Downtown Brooklyn so important, and fails to educate visitors. 

It’s time to change the narrative. Downtown Brooklyn is as important as the Harlem Renaissance. It was the center of African-American cultural, intellectual, business, religious and political life during the late 19th Century. It was the birthplace of the NAACP, of the women’s club movement, of Black Suffrage, as well as Abolitionism. We have a chance to celebrate that with Sisters In Freedom. We have a chance to throw it all away, as well. Inaction will mean we will fail to honor the great Civil Rights leaders that walked on Duffield Street. Please contact the Public Design Commission TODAY. 

Atlantic Yards Report blows away Reuter on Brooklyn reporting

While Reuters is reprinting press releases, Atlantic Yards Report provides verified reporting. It's not even close.

Judge for yourself at:
Downtown Brooklyn hailed for growth in jobs, income; rezoning lost to history; Barclays Center seen as opportunity; DBP portrays itself as nonpartisan.

Reuters: Economic growth in NY's Brooklyn holds lessons for cities

Reuter just published an article, "Economic growth in NY's Brooklyn holds lessons for cities." It praises the economic growth of Downtown Brooklyn. Of course, there is no mention of the businesses and residents that were displaced or destroyed to create this economic miracle.

City to Downtown Brooklyn residents: Get out of Brooklyn

The Brooklyn Paper reports about how the NYC Economic Development agency is destroying the homes of longtime Brooklyn residents to build an underground parking lot and micro-park. The residents will be forced by the City to move to far flung neighborhoods. For more, please read
Downtown evictees: The city is booting us from Brooklyn.

A list of slave birth in Brooklyn 1799-1801

Want to do your own research on people born into slavery in Brooklyn? The Brooklyn Public Library can help:

these are the lists of slave births in Flatbush. They begin with the names of all slaveholders in Flatbush, and with the numbers of slaves owned--page after page with a businesslike formality that masks the human impact of the events.

For more see Slave births 1799-1801

NYT: Albee Square West Residents Endure Deplorable Conditions While Awaiting Relocation

The NY Times reports on the difficult situation of residents in property owned by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

“The residents are entitled to relocation benefits which may include Section 8 subsidies and a preference in city-assisted affordable housing,” Mr. Bederman said in an e-mail. “We have already helped move families into NYCHA properties. Additionally, all HPD and HDC affordable housing lottery announcements are being shared with the tenants in an effort to make them aware of other affordable housing opportunities for which they may be eligible.”

Mr. Shapiro of FUREE said a shortage of affordable housing has made relocation difficult. He also said that during FUREE’s meetings this past summer, the then 20 tenants of Albee Square West completed surveys about their relocation experience. The results revealed that none of them had been offered housing that was comparable in price to what they were paying at Albee Square.

For more, click here.

Aloft: Serving cocktails & getting positive press

Here are two positive articles about the opening of Aloft, a new hotel across from the Abolitionist homes on Duffield Street.

From The Brooklyn Eagle article Aloft Hotel Celebrates Opening in Downtown Brooklyn and 100% Occupancy:

This writer was certainly the oldest person in attendance at an opening reception for the media and other visitors on Tuesday on the hotel’s second floor outdoor patio.

Passport Magazine, a gay-themed travel publication, writes:

Trendy and comfortable furniture awaits weary travelers. The basis for the hotel’s advertised “style at a steal” is evident. The w xyz bar, re:fuel 24 hour grab-and-go gourmet eatery, and social area (complete with pool table) keep glasses full and guests entertained.

Observer: The New Aloft Brooklyn: Your Freshman Dorm on Steroids

The NY Observer does not recommend that your grandmother should stay at Duffield Street's newest hotel. In The New Aloft Brooklyn: Your Freshman Dorm on Steroids they write:

Trendy twenty-something travelers who are still hanging on to their college days will love the new, so-edgy-it’s-almost-painful Aloft hotel at 216 Duffield Street in downtown Brooklyn, which had its official opening last night.

Pod chairs, bright colors, crazy patterns, brushed steel—they really have all the bases covered. The lobby’s circular front desk features an explosion of bright pink, blue and yellow flowers; the bar is outfitted with steel cafeteria-style chairs; and the desks in the guest rooms come with “plug and play” stations that charge electronics and hook up to the 42-inch televisions (because if you’re going to be hip, you need to appeal to the techies).

Read the full article here.

Protest of Unmet Promises of Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reports about the latest protest against the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning by FUREE:

According to FUREE, the thousands of new residents in the downtown and nearby Fort Greene areas in the past five years were promised good schools and a supermarket in a bid to get them to move into recently built condominiums. Some were also told that adjacent public housing developments would be torn down. What low-income and working class residents are experiencing is nothing short of “economic segregation,” they say, and they are still waiting for the affordable housing and good-paying jobs that were supposed to come under the city’s Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning Plan.

To read more, click here.

FUREE: OPEN LETTER to New Luxury Tower Residents, Area Developers, City/State Agencies, Local Elected Officials and the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership

Atlantic Yards is hardly the only example of abuse of eminent domain or of outrageous backroom deals benefiting private developers at the expense of the public. The most vocal and thorough critic of the Downtown Brooklyn Rezoning is FUREE, and they just published an OPEN LETTER to New Luxury Tower Residents, Area Developers, City/State Agencies, Local Elected Officials and the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership.

Here are excerpts of their priorities and shared principles for accountable development, focusing on issues most closely related to this blog:

• PUBLIC HOUSING: Real estate brokers must stop making false statements to prospective condo buyers claiming that nearby public housing will be torn down. The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) must also clearly reject all policies to privatize public housing and must swiftly open up the hundreds of currently vacant public housing apartments in Fort Greene to families in need.
• ALBEE SQUARE FAMILIES: It is a travesty that the only affordable housing development in Downtown Brooklyn is slated for demolition. Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) owes the low-income, immigrant families living in the Albee Square houses who are being forced out through eminent domain, genuine relocation assistance to new affordable apartments and decent living conditions.
• ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACE: The proposed new Willoughby Square Park (and massive underground parking lot) must not become a pseudo-public space that caters mostly to the surrounding new hotels and luxury tower residents. There must be genuine public input from all stakeholders, including the low-income community members, as the planning process proceeds. Other supposedly public spaces, such as Metrotech Plaza, must not discriminate against or harass low-income area residents and youth of color.

Read more here.

Hotel 718 in the press, with some amnesia

A couple news outlets have reprinted the V3's press release about the Hotel 718, the soon-to-be opened hotel on 231 Abolitionist Place, also known as Duffield Street. Here is a sample of how Downtown Brooklyn is now being marketed—this was published in American Banking and Marketing News, SunHerald.com, HospitalityNet and (with slight variation) CityBiz:

The property is within walking distance of MetroTech Center, court buildings and both the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges, offering easy access to Brooklyn’s rich cultural amenities. These include the world-renowned Brooklyn Academy of Music, Brooklyn Museum of Art, Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, Frederick Law Olmsted’s masterfully-designed Prospect Park, and countless vibrant and diverse cultural and entertainment attractions day and night.

The biggest irony in these articles is this statement:

The 19-story, $25 million hotel is set to open in November 2011 and will celebrate the heritage and culture of Brooklyn, New York.

For those who aren't aware of the important historical significance of Abolitionist Place, it was the home of several important abolitionists, and is likely a stop on the Underground Railroad in a city that was violently anti-Abolitionist. The home at 231 Duffield/Abolitionist Place was built around 1850, and while it was not as famous at 227 Duffield, it was potentially even more important. The new hotel "celebrated" this history by demolishing the previous building without giving anyone a chance to study the unusual architectural features.

At least Curbed gives a much more insightful and snarky coverage. The photo here is from their article.

V3 Hotel now called "Hotel 718"

Brownstoner reports on the new name of the V3 hotel at 229-231 Duffield Street:

A press release brings new info about the V3 hotel rising at 231 Duffield in Downtown: It's going to be dubbed "Hotel 718" and is scheduled to open in November. The release also says the 128-room property will have a 75-seat bar and restaurant, and amenities will include "spa services, a fitness center and cardio room, and 24-hour Brooklyn-centric concierge services."

Abolitionist-deniers lose funding

The Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, one of the great cheerleaders for demolishing the Abolitionist and Underground Railroad history on Duffield Street, are losing some of their generous taxpayer support. While schools and firehouses are facing massive cuts, Borough President Marty Markowitz came to the defense of the highly-capitalized partnership:

Markowitz indicated the city should continue to help defray the cost of running the DBP.

“I applaud Downtown Brooklyn Partnership’s work, and it is absolutely critical that the City continue to support our vibrant downtown — New York City’s third largest business district — and emphasize economic development here as new hotels, Class A office space, residential developments and retail businesses come on line,” said Markowitz.

But City Council member Lew Fidler feels that DBP salaries are too high, with several members getting fairly high six-figure salaries, including President Joe Chan, who makes $220,000.

“There are other ways of planning for and promoting downtown Brooklyn other than an organization funded with public money,” said Fidler. “There’s already a lot of big developers and BID (Business Improvement Districts) that can contribute.”

Read more at BoroPolitics.