Better Local Editorials, Please

The editorial board of the Brooklyn Paper is just making sense, darnit:

Now we all know that Coney Island can’t support three hotels, least of all the “time-share” inn that Sitt just added to the plan. That’s why pretty much everyone in the neighborhood believes that Sitt will eventually convert at least one of those hotels into the condos he wanted in the first place.
....
So why not let him build those apartments now?

My thoughts, your thoughts, no; the nation's thoughts, exactly. If a developer has already made a disingenuous offer to slightly de-shite his plans because of public outcry, then why not just give him whatever he wants?

Coney Island businesspeople object to the condos because they believe that new tenants will move to the neighborhood for the excitement, but then complain about the noise, trash, late-night theatrics and their tattoo-covered freak-show neighbors.

But we give Sitt’s would-be tenants a bit more credit than that. If they choose to live in Sitt’s vibrant, 24-hour, all-year entertainment attraction, they will know what they’re getting into. Like the thousands of people who have moved into condos along the hardly quiet Las Vegas Strip, we think Sitt could easily find people who want to buy an apartment where the action is — and then won’t complain when that action is loud and in their faces.

Since they make the comparison, I think it's worth noting that today's Vegas is, strictly speaking, the place where healthy souls go to asphyxiate. (Twas not always thus: you cannot decline into a sad stripe-sweatered NSFW version of yourself unless you actually did at one time have Dean Martin-grade street cred.)

If you're biggest problem with your local mall is the fact that it doesn't have rooms for rent, phony "luxury" brands for sale, or hookers on speed-dial, than Vegas is the place for you. But before the Brooklyn Papers starts calling its freshman year roommate and yelling "Vegas, Baby" at him, it might want to ask itself if Vegas would ever let an old local lady appear in one of those super-sexy Vegas events. Would Hawaiian Tropic or whatever other insanely stupid theme-restaurant be down with that?

The rest of us should just keep in mind that true love actually is the soul's recognition of its counterpoint in another, and that's why Celine Dion just adores Vegas audiences.

But the larger issue is that the city needs to let the market — not some amusement area “leaders” who have been powerless to check Coney’s steady decline — decide what is best for the amusement area.

What that means, I don't know. The developer in question already owns Astroland. If he decides to bulldoze the whole place and building the world's largest mountain of burning tires there, I guess the editorial board would consider that letting the market decide.

The thing I keep coming back to: What is wrong with Coney Island, exactly? Is there a vocal minority out there mourning our country's steeplechase gap?

I'll grant that there is probably more alcohol being consumed there now than when the first ride went up in the 19th century. And there are some harmless, leathery, boardwalk drunks, but that's about it. We're a long way from Requiem for a Dream. So why even act like there's an argument other than dollars?