« Friday Links Wide Price Per Square Foot Range at OPP »
October 27, 2006
Goldstein et al. File Suit Over AY Eminent Domain
Three homeowners, along with six renters and the owner of Freddy's Bar, sued Governor Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg and Bruce Ratner in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn yesterday over the "misuse of government's power to take property by eminent domain." “The Atlantic Yards proposal is premised on the abuse of eminent domain,” said Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer. It would mean “the taking of one citizen’s property to benefit a powerful and influential private citizen,” he said. The suit also claims that the politicians and developer failed to seek adequate community input. According to the NY Post, Mayor Bloomberg laughed when asked about the suit's chances of stopping the project. "The Atlantic Yards project is something that Brooklyn, and this city, really needs," he said. What do you think the suit's impact will be?
Groups Aiming to Block AY Cite Eminent Domain [NY Law Journal]
Suit Against AY Challenges Eminent Domain [NY Times]
Suit Seeks to Dunk Arena [NY Post]
AY Project Abuses Eminent Domain, Suit Says [NY Sun]
Legal Shot Fired in Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards Fight [Curbed]
Photo by threecee
Comments
Don't think it has much of a chance, since the Supreme Court said that economic development was a legitimate purpose for using eminent domain to transfer private property into private hands. And remember, it was the court liberals who declared this.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 9:08 AM
I want to due someone too.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 9:15 AM
Sorry 9:08 - the court doesn't have enough 'liberals' to make a majority opinion. And the court has only a couple members that rule based personal politics rather than law(both of them far from liberal).
Would be interested to hear how they are structuring this suit to differentiate itself from Keno ruling.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 9:50 AM
For the folks who are wondering how Kelo factors in, the difference between this case and the New London case can be found in the details of the Supreme Court's opinion.
Justice Kennedy, in his separate, but concurring opinion said:
“A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should [conduct]….‘a careful and extensive inquiry into ‘whether, in fact, the development plan: [1.] is of primary benefit to . . . the developer…, and private businesses which may eventually locate in the plan area…,
[2.] and in that regard, only of incidental benefit to the city…[.]’”
Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion and was careful to point out that in the case of New London:
The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community....
The DDDB case is using the guidance provided by these two Kelo opinions to point out that:
1) There has been no city planning process in this case, and
2) The "public benefits" are "incidental" and "pretextual."
DDDB is using Kelo to their advantage.
For more info, check out yesterday's NY Law Journal article, which includes a quote regarding the DDDB lawsuit by one of the lawyers who tried Kelo.
Posted by: NoLandGrab at October 27, 2006 10:29 AM
Bloomberg laughed? Even more reason that this lawsuit should be filed against the wealthy, corporate arrogance of our "leadership" that is bullying their way through the process, showing no regard for the legal rights OF THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS!
Everyone living in Brooklyn, even those who support AY, should applaud the plaintiffs for fighting the good fight, even if the outcome is predictable. This battle is about future ramifications for the owners of ALL private property in America. This is a war being fought on behalf of everyone's constitutional rights, and the outcome MIGHT just be that FCRC and the City will actually have to suck it up and guarantee X number of affordable units (and I mean "affordable" - reserved for those making less than $40k per year.) Without any loopholes or other escape clauses. With this lawsuit, they just MIGHT be forced to have to throw a bone to the proletariat.
The plaintiffs are heros. Good luck to them...
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 10:29 AM
Previous Anon,
Why do you think the outcome is predictable?
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 10:37 AM
Yeah, sure, the public won't benefit from several thousand new homes built on top of the largest transportation hub in the United States. We're in the midst of the greatest housing shortage in NYC history, yet this new housing will represent "public benefits" that are "incidental" and "pretextual." Ridiculous.
I will be ANYONE here $1,000 this case will be dismissed. Put your money where your mouth is people!
And for all you liberals: you have no right to talk about private property rights. When I can stop working half the year to pay for liberal vote buying schemes, you will have the moral certainty to talk about property rights. You've already enslaved me, at least let me buy a nice condo someday. Thanks.
Posted by: Eryximachus at October 27, 2006 10:44 AM
Eryximachus are you claiming to be 'conservative' yet you support the seizure of private property? you support the state turning over private property to a private, influential developer?
If those homes are 'blighted' then no home is safe from a developer willing to grease a few wheels.
I am conservative but I have come to realize in recent years the 'shrill' left has a point about corporations buying influence.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 10:57 AM
When I can stop working half the year to pay for liberal vote buying schemes,
Eryximachus I am conservative..have you read james bovard, a conservative, about the current republican administration and congress? biggest taxing spenders in history, their excuse is the sham of 'homeland security' (it's almost all pork)
we have to stop name calling and labeling - we have an 'elite' that HATEs us, and I mean that - look at bloomberg's flippant attitude. Look at the smug mis-use of patriotism and homeland security while our borders go unguarded so the wealthy can have cheap nannies...
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 10:59 AM
Why does this suit have merit? And why should the courts take this very seriously? Here are two great reasons, courtesy of the NY Law Journal article above:
1. "It was conceived by a developer, Bruce Ratner of Forest City Ratner Companies, not by officials with the public interest in mind."
2. "The project did not involve a competitive bidding process or a means of gathering public opinion before it was conceived."
Has everyone forgotten that the MTA sold their crucial railyard parcels to Ratner for nada? With no bidding? Wake up! That was OUR money, ladies and gentleman. We all got screwed! Rich and poor, black, white, yellow, brown, brand new immigrant, 5th generation brooklynites, we've all been had, and they did it right in front of us and basically we've all acted like medicated zombies, unwilling to believe that there could be any non-altruistic notions on the part of our elected "officials."
Let's all hail our fearless leader: Michael Bloomberg, rich guy with a bad case of "grand egocentric posthumous legacies on the brain." He's already lost the Jets stadium and Olympics, so you'd better believe he's been busy sharpening his knives with any and all AY opponents.
Oh, by the way, I'm pro-AY on a small scale, and pro-Brooklyn Nets. But I tend to favor business conducted with transparency and a sense of ethics.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 11:04 AM
Eryximachus - dude or dudette if you think you will be able to afford THE LUXURY housing that Ratner wants to build, then you live in a world I wish I could find!
There is NO SHORTAGE OF LUXURY Housing, and that is all this ugly project is. So sick of you suckers!
Been to Astor place lately? 22 MILLION DOLLAR Apts. that is what Ratner is building. Affordable to who???????
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 11:06 AM
Of course extra housing is a benefit- but not if the cost is greater than the benefit, and the benefit goes only to one group- the wealthy- and it overburdens the infrastructure, endangering everyone. Please don't quote me the deal for low-income housing promised by Ratner. None of it is in phase one and by the time they get to phase 2 how many people will still remember or bother?
Eryximachus- in this day and age no one in this country is enslaved, especially by liberals. If you feel you are, you've been a willing participant. If you can't afford to buy a nice condo perhaps you should reconsider how you've directed your efforts.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at October 27, 2006 11:08 AM
Eryximachus - dude or dudette if you think you will be able to afford THE LUXURY housing that Ratner wants to build, then you live in a world I wish I could find!
There is NO SHORTAGE OF LUXURY Housing, and that is all this ugly project is. So sick of you suckers!
Been to Astor place lately? 22 MILLION DOLLAR Apts. that is what Ratner is building. Affordable to who???????
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 11:12 AM
Dear Eryximachus ,
Love it or Leave it. Find tax burden too high in USA - go to some banana republic.
Most of your taxes go to support infrastructure and war machine of international corps. anyway. Just us working americans get stuck paying for all these right-wing capitalist ventures.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 11:13 AM
Many thanks to Goldstein and the other plaintiffs for standing up to the FCR/Bloomberg/Pataki machine. If you can, give to Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn so they can continue their work on behalf of all of us Brooklynites.
And thanks to conservatives who recognize the abuse of power then they see it.
I am also pro-arena and pro-development on Prospect Heights. However, I want a project built according to good urban planning principles. Atlantic Yards as currently constituted is extremely ill-conceived.
Posted by: lyofbrooklyn at October 27, 2006 11:20 AM
the suit has a very good chance, and it will do what forest city has been trying to avoid like the plague- expose this project and its financing to legal review.
if this project is so good, why has Forest CIty taken so many steps to avoid revealing the truth to the public? Why do they send fliers to residents that make it look like a small scale housing project and public park? Why have they NEVER in any of their fliers, shown the scale?
This isn't about housing or an arena - its a corrupt land grab and huge boondoogle. It will cost taxpayers BILLIONS if it goes through with little or no benefit - like he did with metrotech (a complete failure) twenty years before. Ratner and STuckey are low life scumbags.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 11:27 AM
I am also pro-arena and pro-development on Prospect Heights. However, I want a project built according to good urban planning principles. Atlantic Yards as currently constituted is extremely ill-conceived.
Even the ESDC said the best place for an arena was coney island. Putting a glass and steel arena on top of the a busy transportation hub AND major intersection is a ridiculously irresponsible plan from a traffic, environmental and security standpoint (one truck bomb turns that glass into the world's largest hand grenade) - that the ESDC didn't even think about this is beyond simple incompetence and borders on criminal negligence
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 11:31 AM
1st Concurring opinions are strictly academic - they have no binding authority
2nd Whether you like the definition of affordable, think Ratner will renege or whatever - it is a fact that 50% of the housing slated to be built will be affordable as defined by various state and federal formula's - that is undoubtably a public benefit.
3rd - An arena is a public benefit = economic activity, jobs and entertainment venue - [So you dont think an arena is a public benefit? - well if a resort hotel and conference facility was viewed as a public benefit in Kelo, your going to have a hard time making that view prevail]
4th - The removal of a open railyard in the middle of a city is a public benefit
5th - Office space is a public benefit - = jobs and economic opportunity
Finally all this "conservative" "liberal" stuff is just a red-herring. Condemnation of private property is WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION, all that is required is just compensation.
Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 11:38 AM
"Finally all this "conservative" "liberal" stuff is just a red-herring. Condemnation of private property is WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION, all that is required is just compensation."
By your definition david, a private developer can use the state to condemn a church - which doesn't pay property taxes and build a casino. Is that the sort of country we want to live in?
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 11:42 AM
11:31Am said "ESDC said the best place for an arena was coney island."
Really - care to point out where you read that???
Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 11:42 AM
Annon at 11:42 - no; which is why no ELECTED official would propose such a condemnation b/c they'd be voted out of office....But it would be "legal".
Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 11:46 AM
Really - care to point out where you read that???
"However, as a study (Report on Three Decades of Locational Analysis for a Brooklyn Arena) from urban planner Simon Bertrang on behalf of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn shows, the ESDC's failure is much worse. The agency, wile relying on a 1974 study that seems to point to Prospect Heights as the only remaining arena site, omits any mention of later studies, in 1984 and 1994, both of which preferred sites in Coney Island."
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/10/arena-in-coney-deis-ignores-most.html
just shows how ill-iformed you are about this project. Do you know how much public subsidies are involved? Are you aware Ratner pulled this whole dog and pony show with metrotech, which has done nothing but cost taxpayers money and make us pay for infrastructure while big companies receive tax breaks.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 11:49 AM
Regarding David's comment above - I understand that the key is that it is developer driven - the city did not propose the project and then have a competition, ask for bids, review different proposals. They just took what Ratner gave them and Ratner has never revealed how much money he will make from this. That is why there may be a favorable court ruling (against the project)
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:01 PM
Hey David 11:38,
You wrote: "Condemnation of private property is WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION, all that is required is just compensation."
I don't think the framers were imagining the use of eminent domain as it is being considered in this context. That's why we have a court of law which will make this determination.
But I am curious as to your beliefs regarding AY:
1. Do you support the view of the City that certain areas of prospect heights are "blighted?" thereby opening the door for eminent domain, even though an argument can easily be made that many of the areas in question are far from what a reasonable person would describe as blight?
2. Do you feel that the MTA did the right thing for taxpayers by selling the yards to ratner for a low amount, without opening up the door to competitve bidding?
3. Do you think it's cool and/or OK and a boon for the greater brooklyn community that a PRIVATE developer can come up with an idea like this and GET THE POWER FROM THE LOCAL & STATE GOVERNMENT to invoke eminent domain, even though he stands to make profits that are simply unimaginable and kinda over-the-top to 99.999% of all humans on the planet? This argument could get interesting in court...
4. Do you support the tactics that FCRC are currently using to bully the holdout owners?
5. Do you feel that FCRC has conducted their business in an ethical manner with the best interest of the public in mind?
Can't wait to hear your thoughts...
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:03 PM
"That is why there may be a favorable court ruling (against the project)""
Same with the blighted definitions - it's a joke- it's whatever ratner wants or needs for the project.
The suit will also probably bring much more of the internal workings of the ESDC into public light - believe me that's the last thing they want.
Ratner is a complete scumbag - he ought to be thrown in jail for what he's doing, and i hope he is.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:03 PM
Well put, David!
Why do people fail to see that this development would clearly benefit everyone (except maybe Goldberg and Co)? This certainly includes working folks - that's why unions are supporting the project.
What's so "ill-concieved" about this project, its size? Not everything big is necessarily bad if it provides housing and generates business.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:04 PM
Actually Anon@11:49 it is you who is ill informed or maybe is deliberatly lying.
Neither the 1984 (22 yrs ago) or the 1994 (12 years ago) studies were prepared by the ESDC, nor did the ESDC ever state that Coney Island was a better place for a professional sports arena than AY.
In fact the 1984 report was prepared by Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development and the 1994 report was prepared by TAMS Consultants and the 1994 study wasnt even a comparison of sites but rather an evaluation of Steeplechase park as a site for "Sportsplex".
But I am sure if you and the rest of your NIMBY brigade keep throwing up enough lies and misrepresentations some will eventually stick.
Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 12:08 PM
"NIMBY brigade "
I am curious David, what is your background? are you a developer?
do you support the massive public subsidies?
the use of eminent domain?
the ignoring of zoning laws?
an unelected unaccountable offical
Call me a "NIMBY" you're damn right i don't want that crap going in my backyard, you scumbag.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:16 PM
10:37, it's 10:39 here.
You asked "Why do you think the outcome is predictable?"
because this whole thing reeks of collusion, which in this case is a very hard train to stop.
I do hope the plaintiffs prevail. In a fair world they would prevail.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:21 PM
"Actually Anon@11:49 it is you who is ill informed or maybe is deliberatly lying.
Neither the 1984 (22 yrs ago) or the 1994 (12 years ago) studies were prepared by the ESDC, nor did the ESDC ever state that Coney Island was a better place for a professional sports arena than AY.
They are relying on 1974 studies to justify the vanderbilt yards site and ignoring later studies. (
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:22 PM
To answer your questions:
1. I think the area of AY is blighted within any reasonable definition - the majority of the site is either a hole in the ground or empty lots. Certainly not every building is "blighted", but as a whole yes. Further it isnt what a "reasonable person" who call blighted, (although who defines "reasonable" anyway -for example - I am sure every "reasonable" suburbanite would say it is blighted) "blight" as it is applied here is a legal determination and based on precedent, AY clearly fits (certainly more so than Kelo)
2.Yes and No - While a competitive bidding process is great in theory, in sites such as this the MTA has much more to consider than simply the "highest" price. Further we saw how Cablevision was able to abuse an 'open' bidding process on the West-side to help prevent a competitor from being built. So while I wish the MTA to get the highest price possible, I recongnize that the considerations for "open" bidding aren't so straight forward.
3. Ratner's potential profits are totally irrellevant. Every development in this country is done by PRIVATE companies (even schools, roads and Govt buildings). Those private companies usually make profits and the owners of those builders are generally wealthier than 99% of the rest of the human population; so what - I fail to see what difference it would make if NY State "owned the site" and built housing, offices, retail and an arena. I promise you that whatever savings there would be in terms of "no capital gains for Ratner" would be lost to waste, fraud and the general inefficiency of all Govt projects.
4. While I am not on site, I havent heard of any "tactics" used by FCR to "bully" existing residents, except to offer them far more than their properties would be otherwise worth and to directly state that if they dont leave that the state would be using the ED process which could result in far less compensation (which is true)
5. I have no idea (nor probably do you) if FCR conducts its buisness "ethically" and I am sure they are not (nor should they be) acting in the "best interest of the public" - however sometimes private (profit) interests and public interests are aligned and IMO that seems to be the case currently w/ AY- further it is up to elected officials to act in the publics benefit. Based on the recent success of pro-AY politicians clearly the public does not feel SO taken advantage of as to demand change.
Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 12:30 PM
"But I am sure if you and the rest of your NIMBY brigade keep throwing up enough lies and misrepresentations some will eventually stick."
Yeah David it's "Nimby's" who've been doing the lying. Forest City and the ESDC have been angels.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:30 PM
I think the area of AY is blighted within any reasonable definition - the majority of the site is either a hole in the ground or empty lots. Certainly not every building is "blighted", but as a whole yes.
David, what makes you think this? Ratner CREATED the blight and is using this justify taking people's homes.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:41 PM
I am so flattered that you all care about my opinion so much - so as to perpetuate this ego stroking - Anon @12:16
I am not a developer, I am both an employee of a Multinational corporation and a small buisness owner.
I support public subsidies where appropriate (especially in ways that will reduce sprawl and continued dependence on private automobile traffic )
Eminent Domain is a necessary tool to balance private property interests vs public/sociatal benefits and development - it should be used with due consideration and result in fair compensation.
Zoning laws should be designed to reduce sprawl and create sustainable and successful development considering local ,regional and national factors.
I beleive in holding elected officals accountable through voting (not lawsuits) - and I beleive we just had an election where virtually all pro-AY officials were (re-) elected handily.
Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 12:42 PM
Ratner didnt "create the blight" - the AY site has been mostly a hole in the ground and empty lots for decades - long before Ratner owned 1 inch of property there.
Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 12:44 PM
I think the area of AY is blighted within any reasonable definition - the majority of the site is either a hole in the ground or empty lots."
umm no they are functional railyards.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:46 PM
Regarding blight - every empty lot in PH and the surrounding neighborhoods has been bought up and developed and now developers are resorting to tearing down buildings to build new. Don't you think that the AY (private) property could be sold and developed individually? What about Newswalk and the other condos on the site?
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:53 PM
Mr. Stuckey (sorry, I mean David...)
Well done!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:56 PM
Yes the non-railyard property could probably be sold and developed individually but that is irrelevant from the question of blight as is the fact that at the bottom of the hole there is a working railyard.
Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 12:58 PM
Ratner didnt "create the blight" - the AY site has been mostly a hole in the ground and empty lots for decades - long before Ratner owned 1 inch of property there.
Huh? The justification is that the buildings are abandoned, Ranter bought out the tenants and let them get run down.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 12:59 PM
"Yes the non-railyard property could probably be sold and developed individually but that is irrelevant from the question of blight as is the fact that at the bottom of the hole there is a working railyard."
david you're not making any sense - the area that is being called blighted is the non railyard property - Ratner doesn't need eminent domain to get the railyard - that's already been handed to him for 100 million under its value.
I honestly don't see how anyone can justify eminent domain in this case -
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 1:04 PM
David: that area has been on the upswing for over 20 years- its been improving on its own. COndos sell there for 700K .
look what he declares - oops the state - declares blighted
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3667/1536/1600/BlightPrecinctBoundaries.0.jpg
look a little fishy? Its because ratner cut a deal with the developer of newswalk to not have that buildign declared blighted - the blight is defined by Ratner's needs - which is ass backwards.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 1:10 PM
I disagree.
While the project hasn't gone through the ULURP project, which I think was a big mistake, it did go in front of the City Planning Office. Although this doesn't meet the usual NYC standards, what do you think happened in New London? Not much more than this. The negotiations, whatever you think of them, with the BP will also be held to be part of a public process.
As for whether there isn't a public benefit, I don't think that Kelo requires strict scrutiny on that question. If the developers and state agenices can show a public benefit, then that's it, they don't have to weigh benefit against costs, because once they show benefit, the standard has been satisfied.
Really, this is about as weak a case as you get, and that's not to disparage the lawyers or the residents, because the reason this case will be dismissed has everything to do with the law as it currently exists.
Posted by: Anon at October 27, 2006 1:53 PM
Anon@ 1:04 - I am making perfect sense - ED doesnt have to be applied to each sq inch of the property individually, nor does the fact that the propery 'could' be sold off and developed individually matter.
The fact that most of the site is a hole and/or empty land is very relevant to the determination of blight.
Here of some photos of the homeowners in New London standing in front of their homes -( http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/ )- in case you hadnt heard, this area was declared blighted, ED was used and all appeals based on the EXACT same arguments that DDDB is using - failed.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 1:54 PM
Sorry 1:54pm post was mine
Posted by: David at October 27, 2006 1:55 PM
I think Goldberg tries to distinguish Kelo arguing that the project wasn't initiated by the city and no bidding process took place. Doesn't sound like it will get them very far...
Kelo only requires proper process which was probably followed, there's no specific requirement of the project being initiated by the city.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 2:16 PM
Regarding blight - every empty lot in PH and the surrounding neighborhoods has been bought up and developed and now developers are resorting to tearing down buildings to build new. Don't you think that the AY (private) property could be sold and developed individually? What about Newswalk and the other condos on the site?
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 2:47 PM
I looked at those pictures- if you think that is a blighted area I can sell you a bridge. The Kelo case had- if anyone has bothered to read earlier posts- a concurring opinion that provides the possibility of a check on this type of situation. whether or not it will work here, i don't know. But the idea that someone can come in and basically tell you they are going to use eminent domain if you don't sell them your property is more like blackmail than a fair offer.
Beyond that, there is literally no reason for the AY project to have proceeded as it has, nor be designed as it is except, imo, Ratner is one of those people who loves to engage in pissing contests.
Nor should the financially strapped MTA have sold him the air rights for so little money. Between that and the financial subsidies, seems to me we have lost a substantial amount of "public benefit", seeing as the taxpayers are paying for it. The benefit is to Ratner, the construction industry, Gehry and the people earning over 100,000 a year who are still going to be entitled to subsidized housing.Oh- and did I mention that the money to build or maintain old and inadequate infrastructure, as well as closing off a big part of a major street? To whose benefit? Not mine or yours.
I might also point out that if you read the Constitution- which was written as a protective document for all- this was never the intention of eminent domain, nor has it ever been changed. All that's happened is that people have interpreted the Constitution so as to benefit themselves, their pals (think Halliburton) and their finances. No- I don't think any of the justices took bribes- but I think they operate in an atmosphere (as many on this blog seem to) that money takes precedence over everything.
This isn't capitalism. This is the "free market" (what's free market about how ratner pushed the AY project through?). It's cronyism at its worst, at greed at its fullest.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at October 27, 2006 4:12 PM
Right on, Bx2Bklyn, totally agree with every point you just made.
And the previous poster who mentioned that this is exactly what FCRC didn't want to happen is also right on. The more fuss that these owners make the better for all of us, in the long run. FCRC does not want the facts exposed to public scrutiny. They are masters of spin and propaganda, masters of capitalism at its ugliest.
I now think there's a chance. Hope the lawyers are as good as ratner's. and hope the judges won't be bought.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 4:37 PM
To the poster above who questioned the description of AY as ill-conceived:
The development as currently designed would attract 10s of thousands of new car trips to the single busiest intersection in Brooklyn. There are many things that could be done to mitigate traffic, but the development plan does not include any of them.
The development as currently designed will result in a net LOSS of open space to the neighborhood. Morover, the so-called park that will be built is not really a park at all -- it is a highrise backyard that will not be inviting to the surrounding community. If Brooklyn is to get a development that will be even bigger than Battery Park City, don't we deserve the same level of public park amenities that Battery Park received?
The development as currently designed will be twice as dense as the densest housing tract in the United States. This degree of density is severely out of scale with the community and is the root of many of the other problems with the project.
The development as currently designed will severely overcrowd schools. There is no plan to build a new school.
The development as currently designed will not result in the development of affordable housing until 2016, and even then, the affordable component is dependent on the profits from luxury condos and might not be built at all.
The development as currently designed involves significant public subsidy but a complete lack of transparency as to what the public benefits will actually be. For example, the amount of subsidy per affordable apartment planned is unknown.
Posted by: lyofbrooklyn at October 27, 2006 4:43 PM
Sorry guys, but in the early 80s the Supreme Court upheld an eminent domain decision by Hawaiin government to redistribute land, from large owners to smaller owners, both private. The type of oversight that the US Supreme Court has taken in these cases has been very light, or at least much lighter than most that are posting here seem to think.
Posted by: Anon at October 27, 2006 4:43 PM
"This isn't capitalism. This is the "free market" (what's free market about how ratner pushed the AY project through?). It's cronyism at its worst, at greed at its fullest."
Exactly...when Stuckey was on a radio show and goldstien asked him about how much profit he wouldn't answer...but said 'hey this is america, we are going to make a profit'
yeah stuckey, its america, were allegedly people have basic property rights....
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 4:46 PM
Again, the issue isn't whether public benefit (jobs, housing, etc) outways public cost, at least for the sake of this court case of course, but whether there is a public benefit. Opponents are going to lose but quick if they're arguing that there is no public benefit. There clearly is.
As for the process, the standard isn't too high, and if you look at what has passed for blight, and what agencies like EDC have to do to sustain that standard, it doesn't bode well for AY opponents.
Posted by: Anon at October 27, 2006 4:49 PM
I can't believe what I'm hearing - clearly, you all work for DDDB.
Minions!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 5:03 PM
What is also funny to me is that if this was a public use, even a bad one, even a very bad one like the Cross Bronx Expressway, most of the arguments here wouldn't add up to much of anything. Eminent domain is, and has been a strong government tool, and the great majority of abuse has been by and for public projects, not something like AY.
So, if we were talking about widening the roads in this area, or creating a tunnel to go under here, but needing this area to be seized to do it, then...no argument.
Do you all think that you can win a legal case by arguing that there is no public benefit here? Its not even close. There is clearly a public benefit. More traffic, reduced services, sewage problems, lack of schools and other institutions for the new tenants. Granted. The court will not consider this. All they will ask is if there is a public benefit. How many people do you think they will take testimony from that will speak to this issue? Alot. Then again, this case may not even get that far. All you have to do is to look at most eminent domain cases, say when the city is using it to give it to a third party to build subsidized housing, to see how low the standard is. The standard may need to change, but this lawsuit won't do it.
Politically, the problem with this lawsuit is that once the anti-AY folks lose, alot of people will look at this and say, well, the Court thought it was ok, so it must be. That is the risk you take by taking anti-development movements like this to the courts.
Posted by: Anon at October 27, 2006 5:06 PM
If you look at the money the government must put up and what it will receive in return it is a massive net loss - the city could doubtless subsidize the small amount of really affordable public housing at a fraction of the cost in lost taxes, concessions. This doesn'tsound like a benefit.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 5:40 PM
Yeah, but the issue isn't whether this is the best use of public money, or even whether there is merely a better use. Courts don't examine issues like that. They will look to see if there is a public benefit, see one, and then they will move on.
Posted by: Anon at October 27, 2006 5:47 PM
5:06, Who cares what people think after it's over? The risk you take? File under W for whatever...Why would anyone NOT fight it because of what the public might think after the fact?
The arguments are simple and clear: it was the developers idea, not the ideas of our electeds, and there has been no transparency. It's so obviously a conflict of interest and the area has been rapidly developing itself with no need for government intervention.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 5:55 PM
D-O-N-E-D-E-A-L!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 6:21 PM
I think the law suit servers another, important purpose, which is to bring the light of publicity to the back room dealing of the ESDC and all the shady and sleazy things that Ratner has done. Just as Iraq and the war eventually caught up to the current administration I think that public opinion is solidifying against this project and its many faults and that the court case will expose them, making it impossible for the politicians to simply rubber stamp it.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 7:45 PM
N-O-D-E-A-L-Y-E-T!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 8:28 PM
Goldstein not goldberg antisemite!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 8:52 PM
Its interesting that the pro-Ratner posters used to try to argue on the merits of the project, but now just post things like 'done deal' because the overwhelming evidence is against the project on many, many grounds. So they are left with meaningless phrases like 'done deal'.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2006 10:36 PM
here's a question for the board: If the area around the yards is so blighted then why can't Ratner eminant domain his own atlantic center and atlantic mall sites? These two eyesores have been a blight on the neighborhood since they were built! Ratner is a chucky cheese boy from out of town and is totally out of touch with Brooklyn's urban fabric and visual language. For all you pro AY, your neighborhood is going to look like an ghastly mashup of metrotech with madison square garden. Look at Ratner's track record! He wants Brooklyn to look like a mall in Cleveland. Why a guy with so much money would want to keep foistering ugliness and ill conceived projects on the world is beyond me. Look at the beauty and ingenuity that small scale development has achieved throughout the city. Mega projects always end up cutting corners - I wouldn't be suprised if Ratner replaces Ghery with a cheaper alternative.
Posted by: noel at October 28, 2006 1:59 AM
Agreed Chuckies and Marshall's may not really capture the fabric of the borough but in all fairness the site is ugly. Sorry homeowners who bought there. The only people I feel sory for are the poor who rented in the area. As once I wrote , do they get money? Is it just Goldberg? It is ugly and it only has the chance of looking better (we hope). Nothing about it now looks good. Get a grip. dddB or DDDb is basically similar to civil liberties groups who end up wanting to dictate on to the rest of us under the guise of "our rights". They always are white, middle class and in some way privilidged. I challenge you Mr. Goldberg to give your proceeds to the poor once you get paid. Put the money where your mouths are.
Posted by: anon at October 28, 2006 11:01 AM
I think they are civil liberties groups who want to keep their property and not have the government seize it to give it to a private individual for profit and I have a hard time disagreeing with that. If Ratner wants to build a stadium let him buy property from people willing to sell. Let him use his own mall and office building. Don't try to steal other people's property.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2006 11:52 AM
For all of those who despise the regular everyday brooklyn resident taxpayers who are actually invoking their right and duty to question the legality (and ethics) of the actions of Pataki, Bloomberg, Doctoroff, etc....(ya know, the people whom you and I actually pay and entrust to make decisions in the best interest of the public.) Let us now repeat the essentials of the Goldstein vs. AY case:
*Private developers cannot invoke or collude with others in government to invoke eminent domain to force unwilling owners to sell. (It was ratner's idea, never the idea of any elected official.)
*The project has not been proven to be necessary, nor proven to be of benefit for the immediate area. (the area is already revitalizing itself through the private sector.) In fact, it can easily be argued that the project will have a negative financial impact on those who already own property near the site, for many different reasons.
*Another government agency that you and I pay for, The MTA, acted in bad faith (um, collusion perhaps?) when it undersold the air rights above the yards without competitive bidding. A sizable amount of taxpayer's money was left on the table (or in ratner's pocket, take your pick.)
*There has been no meaningful public review of the environmental impact of the project, nor on infrastructure, traffic, security risks, schools, etc.
*There is no guarantee that any affordable units will ever be built, and if they are, it might be many years from the time the project starts.
*The City's definition or criteria to be eligible for the "affordable housing" component is a joke. (Mostly rich people will live there, accelerating the negative aspects of gentrification.)
*The City's definition of "blighted" is a joke.
The real beneficiaries of the project, at taxpayer's expense, will be Ratner, FCRC, The Architect, The General Contractor, The Sub-Contractors, and the Corporate businesses who will move into the project when complete.
Plaintiffs have a great case, and the defendants know it.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2006 3:22 PM
Finally the liberals are seeing first hand that there beloved NYT is a propaganda machine which reports half truths. The mainstream media brainwashes the oh so intellectual know it all's. They are doing it with respect to AY and it goes all the way down the line with respect to there other news reporting. Now the liberals are hoping the conservative Supreme justices will side with them since there liberal justices sent them up the river with there Kelo ruling. For all you liberal, secular non-believer know it all's, start praying to the almighty that the US Supreme Court gets this case on there desk. That way Bush appointed justices and Thomas and Scalia assist you in your cause. Oh I savor that day liberals beg and plead for the conservatives to help them in there cause.
Posted by: John Smith at October 28, 2006 3:49 PM
Huh?
Posted by: Anonymous at October 28, 2006 4:40 PM
It's hard to take some of these nutballs seriously about anything when they can't use simple grammer correctly. Even my humble public school education taught me the difference between "there" - a place, and "their" - a possessive. "Know it all's" should know when to use a posessive apostrophe. This is not one of those times. John Smith, get back to the classroom.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 29, 2006 9:00 AM
"Plaintiffs have a great case, and the defendants know it."
yes, opponents have had a great case from the beginning - its matter of how ethical the judge is, at this point.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 29, 2006 10:43 AM
This project did not originate with Ratner. Marty Markowitz came up with the idea and hounded Ratner to make it a reality, so there goes the argument that Ratner originated this.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 29, 2006 11:06 AM
"This project did not originate with Ratner. Marty Markowitz came up with the idea and hounded Ratner to make it a reality, so there goes the argument that Ratner originated this." Anon, how do you know this, what is your source? Most people see Marty as Bruce's puppet. Do you have any evidence of this.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 29, 2006 11:53 AM
It was mentioned in a profile of Marty Markowitz in an April 2005 issue of The New Yorker.
(NOTE: I have no doubt that someone will follow this post with a hysterical, preachy contention that the New Yorker is incorrect, that Marty is a sham, that this is false, etc.)
Posted by: Anonymous at October 29, 2006 12:46 PM
DDDB and Goldstein are getting so desperate. Get off of this blogsite and find something better to do with your free time. I'm sick and tired of hearing about AY! Over 70 posts and over 50 are written by anti-development whackos, primarily DG himself! So pathetic! Every poll indicates that the city and the borough of brooklyn supports this project. If you don't want to live next to AY move to Queens. This is indeed a Done Deal and the majority of us are tired of hearing about it. Goldstein will eventually sell out and become a very rich man in the process. I'm not losing sleep over this project because in the end it will be a win win for Brooklyn. At the same time I'm not going to work myself into a frenzy to stop a moving train simply so Goldstien can obtain a bigger pay day. Give me a f'ing break!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 29, 2006 3:29 PM
again, I ask: why can't Ratner demolish his own malls to make way for the arena instead of taking other people's homes away? That would take away the ugly spectacle of eminent domain and make the development a lot more palatable to fair minded Brooklynites. Also why are you pro AY boosters so eager to see this project fly? What is in it for you? Does turning the Atlantic/Flatbush intersection into Times Square good for anyone living in the area? It is obviously good for some land holders but who else benefits? The yards should be developed but there are much more sustainable and balanced approaches that would provide work and housing for Brooklyn but wouldn't create the the massive strain on infrastructure and would be more in harmony with the surrounding area.
Posted by: noel at October 29, 2006 9:47 PM
Hey, genius, Anonymous at October 29, 2006 9:00 AM maybe you should learn how to spell. LOL, if that's not the funniest thing I have seen in awhile. Someone reprimanding someone for grammar and making spelling errors themselves. Guess the truth hurt's which caused you to have a spelling spasm.
Posted by: John Smith at October 30, 2006 2:45 PM
Yes, John, the truth hurt is. Makes tons of sense to me. One spelling error = probably a typo. A repetitive confusion of "their" and "there," combined with misplaced apostrophes = ignorance. So yes, for the know-it-all-is the truth hurt is!
Posted by: babs at October 30, 2006 5:57 PM
Wow, no shrieking over the article that mentions Marty kickstarted this process. I'm shocked!
Posted by: Anonymous at October 30, 2006 6:57 PM
Babs there was more then one spelling error. I can give the individual a break on possessive but not grammar. E is not next A on the key board. And your attacking someone for being ignorant but what are you trying to articulate with your post. Wow, the self prescribed intellects are not as smart as they think.
Posted by: John Smith at October 30, 2006 7:49 PM
Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...
Posted by: Kenny Petersen at December 13, 2006 10:26 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.