Plain Press

Reader seeks answers from Old Brooklyn Development Corporation

plainpress

To the editor:

   (Plain Press July 2026) There is an extensive ‘commentary’ about the relocation of the Historical Sosiety Of Old Brooklyn museum in the current (Summer 2026) Old Brooklyn News, which is the publication vehicle for the Old Brooklyn Community Development Corporation. This corporation is the owner of the corner where the museum had been until recently, when the coporation evicted them, due to their plans to build something new to replace the historic buildings at this location. This piece in the Old Brooklyn News was written by David Robinson, the new Executive Director of the development corporation. 

LETTER

   He writes that “due to uncertainty regarding federal dollars”, they apparently have decided to proceed without them. Was the funding situation for the project always so “comfortable” that they could afford to proceed without federal funding?

   From there, Mr. Robinson goes on to say that the development corporation is using its money to cover all the museum relocation costs, which otherwise would’ve been furnished to the developer, from a federal fund, to be used for that express purpose. He further says the developer will reimburse these monies to the development corporation out of its own funds.

   If the developer is going to reimburse the development corporation for the relocation expenses, who is going to reimburse the developer??? The developer isn’t going to do such a thing out of “the kindness of his heart”; there has to be something in this for the developer. What is that something? Perhaps that could have been a transfer of the ownership of the property to the developer, but it’s been strongly demonstrated that the development corporation wants to retain ownership of the property. What is left that will satisfy the developer?

   Lynette Filips – a very concerned resident of the Old Brooklyn neighborhood — says that she has requested answers to this question and other related questions from the development corporation, but her requests according to her have been ignored.

   My commentary is not necessarily intended to suggest that something “shady” might be going on. It’s just that a few things might be interpreted that way, particularly since they have yet to be explained by the development corporation.

   It would be truly fantastic if someone from the development corporation would respond to this letter to the editor with their own letter to the editor.

Craig Bobby

, , ,

6 responses to “Reader seeks answers from Old Brooklyn Development Corporation”

  1. David Robinson Avatar
    David Robinson

    Dear Mr. Bobby,

    I was forwarded your questions and wanted to provide some answers directly. I’m David Robinson, the Executive Director of Old Brooklyn CDC. Most of what you’re inquiring about is due to a misunderstanding with the project capital. When a federal loan is part of a real estate project structure, that project has to abide by the Uniform Relocation Act (URA). This is a federal law that requires federally funded projects to provide subsidies to both residential and commercial tenants if they are displaced from that project. There are no federal grants tied to the project that can go to those costs, the developer typically bears that cost. It is not a federal grant program. 

    In this situation, the Development Entity was originally seeking what is called a 221(d)(4) loan. They were never seeking a grant or free to use dollars. It was always a loan, think of it as deciding between a traditional KeyBank mortgage or a KeyBank FHA mortgage. This is a HUD loan no different than a small business taking out an SBA loan. It is not free and clear money and it has to be paid back. Because of staffing changes and the federal shutdown, the backlog for HUD processing is months behind. The Developer had decided to seek different financing instead. That being said, the project was no longer required to follow the Uniform Relocation Act. Which technically meant, no payments needed to be made to the tenants that got displaced (like the Historical Society of Old Brooklyn). 

    I sat down and had a conversation with the Developer and stressed the importance of ensuring these tenants had the runway for a fresh start. They agreed. It was built into the Developer’s project costs already they just didn’t have the cash commitment. Because the new construction financing isn’t in play yet, OBCDC agreed to front the cost and built it into our agreement with the Developer to get paid back when new construction capital is accessible. The Developer would have been the one paying had the 221(d)(4) loan been exercised regardless. 

    As for the “lack of comment”, if you’re involved in any of the Old Brooklyn social media pages, I’m very willing to engage with community members and answer questions myself. I’m not sure why the writer questioned my accessibility, they have my private cell number. Always happy to share what information I can.

    Reply
  2. plainpress Avatar
    plainpress

    To: David Robinson

    The entire last paragraph makes no sense to me.

    What “lack of comment”??  I never said anything about “lack of comment” in my letter.  I am NOT “involved” in “Old Brooklykn social media pages”, so, this is clearly irrelevant.  And who was “the writer that questioned” his “accessibility”??  Again, I certainly said nothing to that effect in my letter.  He also claimed that “they” have his “private cell number”.  Who is this “they”??  Regardless of the answer to that question, I do not have his private cell number.

    If this letter-response is supposed to go into the next issue of the Plain Press, as is, then I want you to consider what I just wrote above as at least part of my response, to hopefully also be published in the Plain Press.

    Craig Bobby

    Reply
  3. David Robinson Avatar
    David Robinson

    Hello again,

    I was referring to your comment about Lynette Filips seeking comment from OBCDC and getting ignored. She has my cell number and I had not heard from her. I reached out to her directly to let her know I’m always willing to answer questions and we plan to talk after the holiday.
    I wasn’t looking to get published in the Plain Press. Just simply answering your questions with a direct comment on your posting. I hope my previous answers helped clear up the tenant subsidies. If you have any additional questions, feel free to reach out at davidr@oldbrooklyn.com.

    Reply
  4. plainpress Avatar
    plainpress

    To: David Robinson

    I e-mailed you yesterday at that e-mail address. I have as of yet to receive a response. Might this suggest there is some credibility to Ms. Filips’ claims that your organization ignores certain inquiries? I am certainly not going to e-mail you a second time if this going to be the ultimate outcome.

    As for the better part of your somewhat large message from yesterday, I can guarantee you that, even if some other person reading it would consider that what you wrote answered my questions, I do not.  From my perspective, what you wrote — and please excuse the expression — was only a lot of ‘mumbo-jumbo’. I didn’t comprehend a single sentence. You obviously got a very specialized formal education in Economics. I did not. It would seem that you are now no longer capable of talking in “plain English”. Or, are you simply unwilling to do so? What is the point of communicating if you are not understood?

    Craig Bobby

    Reply
    1. David Robinson Avatar
      David Robinson

      Hello again, Mr. Bobby,

      I don’t have an email from you. I checked my spam filter as well. Also, I posted my email address roughly 10 hours ago. To insinuate that I am not replying to your email fast enough — on a federal holiday — seems like a standard I cannot reach. Again, I checked my inbox and my junk folder, no email.
      I’ll do my best to explain again. The federal funding referenced was never a grant that would pay relocation costs. The developer was pursuing a HUD-insured loan, which, because of federal law, would have required the developer to pay relocation benefits as part of the project’s budget. When the financing changed, that legal requirement no longer applied.

      Even so, Old Brooklyn CDC believed those commitments should be honored. We advanced the relocation costs so tenants would not be delayed, and the developer will reimburse OBCDC when permanent construction financing closes. No one reimburses the developer. These relocation costs have always been a project expense borne by the developer, just like demolition, engineering, or construction.

      Have a great holiday weekend.

      Reply
  5. plainpress Avatar
    plainpress

    Hello, again, to you, too, Mr. Robinson —

    The e-mail that I sent is in my Sent Folder. I know that sending an e-mail doesn’t guarantee that it is received, but I think it is extremely rare when it isn’t.  Nevertheless, you say you didn’t receive it and, for the moment, I will take your word for it. Likewise, I am hoping that you will take my word for it that I sent one.

    And, by the way, I was not “insinuating” that you were not replying to an e-mail “fast enough”. I was “insinuating” that you had not replied at least during the amount of time that had passed between when I sent the e-mail and the time I wrote my next comment/response to you. I also added that this was making me think of Ms. Filips’ claims about the development corporation not responding to her e-mails. Considering how much you have responded in the last day or so within the context of the Plain Press blog, I think you’re presently doing a fantastic job of responding at least in that venue.

    If the particular funding that would have required that the developer pay the relocation costs ‘fell through’, then it seems to me that that should mean there is nothing compelling the developer to do so. This makes me think that the developer will not ‘reimburse’ your organization for fronting the relocation costs. If so, there will be no need to reimburse the developer. As you can see, I still do not understand your comments regarding this. 

    You still have not answered my other question, which read, “Was the funding situation for the project always so “comfortable” that it could afford to proceed without federal funding?”

    What would your position be on the idea of transferring this conversation from the Plain Press blog to e-mail? If you approve, my e-mail address is: secemp@hotmail.com

    I wish for you to have a great holiday weekend, as well.

    — Craig B.

    Reply

Leave a comment