The Community Board 3 leadership, most notably David McWater and Dominic Pisciotta insist their SPURA ideas do not constitute a final plan, only the next step in the debate. But they’ve already established a narrative which suggests: 1. City finds developers to take SPURA off its hands, and 2. Developers create a mix of different income-level housing. It’s a hateful narrative to us. We didn’t elect our public officials to sell away our city. Who gave them permission? Where’s the ballot proposal empowering them to sell these lots? We don’t begrudge poor people their desire to have decent homes. But that’s not what SPURA is about at the moment. SPURA is about granting enormous riches to developers. No parks, no libraries, no museums, no theaters, just more housing developments, roughly half of which will be rented out at $6,000 a month, according to City sources. Is there a shred of realism to this plan? Not really, but somehow, somewhere, some developers will end up owning a lot of downtown territory, never mind the details. If that’s the best the City can do at this time, it shouldn't act at all. Where is it written that it must be done during the Bloomberg Administration? Remember, once we accept this new SPURA towers in our midst – they stay. I am opposed to the City’s plan to give away to developers 9 lots in and near the Seward Park Urban Development Area below cost, killing the neighborhood’s aspirations for open spaces, a cultural center and business.