Opening Date Set for Barclays Center
The Brooklyn Paper and Patch report that Atlantic Yards’ Barclays Center will open on September 28th of next year. Nets CEO Brett Yormark says the official opening will be preceded by public tours and events at the arena. Work on the facade is expected to begin in June; at present, 70 percent of foundation work…
The Brooklyn Paper and Patch report that Atlantic Yards’ Barclays Center will open on September 28th of next year. Nets CEO Brett Yormark says the official opening will be preceded by public tours and events at the arena. Work on the facade is expected to begin in June; at present, 70 percent of foundation work is complete and 30 percent of the structure’s steel is in place, according to Patch.
Barclays Center to open on Sept. 28, 2012 [BK Paper]
Barclays Center Will Open Sept. 28, 2012 [PH Patch]
bxgrl, NY’s interpretations are hugely broad, and have been since at least the great Lower East Side clearings of the late 40s and 50s, where most of the land went to private developers and residential co-ops.
I feel those decisions were bad for the city then and now.
I do wish that politicians were willing to take on the broad topic of ED, and not just jump on the bandwagon for or against specific projects.
So my disagreeing with many aspects of both the project and current eminent domain law, but still thinking it applies in this case equals no nuance and means I have no moral compass.
Fuck You!
People like you are the reason that opponents of this project are laughed at.
Actually, FSRG, the states have varying interpretations of ED- as I understand it, NY’s has become quite broad over the years.That said, perhaps the Arena has a “public benefit” in a Roman circus kind of way, but that doesn’t hold a candle to the public benefit of good roads, schools and public transportation. Add to the, the IBO projects it to lose money- so we are going to get nothing in return for allowing ED or the taxpayer’s money that was given to Ratner. Anyone see a check yet for the railyard rights? And he got those super cheap.
Yes, I was right, you don’t have a moral or ethical compass…10-4. I prefer to have discussions with some nuance in them, not ‘that’s the way it and get over it’.
I am not a lawyer, but I spent an early part of my career working closely on a project that used a lot of eminent domain.
I was working for a natural gas pipeline company, and we ended up acquiring dozens of parcels via eminent domain.
I have also kept up with large construction projects in the various cities where I have lived. While I am not expert, I certainly have a basic understanding of what goes into putting together projects like this.
If you think the laws and the constitutional precedent are wrong, then work to change them.
cmu – this is the discussion:
“An arena is the sort of use of eminent domain that almost all legal and urban planning experts agree is totally appropriate.
BS. Cite if you can.”
So then people go ahead and cite numerous court precedents, and historical examples that bolster this position….and yours (and others) response is to 1. say well ‘public benefit’ is subject to interpretation.2 . question the legitimacy of SCt decisions (which define public benefit far broader than a public arena) – which taken together is wholly irrelevant to the discussion
Of course “public benefit” is subject to interpretation…and for 200 hundred f’ing years the term has been interpreted by our courts (the branch tasked with doing the interpreting) to define ‘public benefit’ in the broadest possible terms. It doesnt matter the cost of the tickets, it doesnt matter who owns it, if there is a legitimately conceived public benefit – ED is ok WITH JUST COMPENSATION. And your personal interpretation of the law,or the justices and precedents that determine the meaning of that law count for exactly $hit.(noting personal – its just the way it is)
You may not like it, you may think it is B.S., you may have 10,000 reasons why it shouldnt be so; BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE LAW ON YOUR SIDE. You want to change the law, great. You want to change the interpreters of the law, awesome, you want to change the entire system – go for it….BUT until you do one of these daunting tasks; please STFU about the LAW cause you dont have a single leg to stand on regarding the use of ED to build Barclays Arena.
bhs, are you a lawyer? it matters less what the legal precedent is, if it’s wrong, one should question it. Else how would we ever get rid of bad laws? As I said before, it’s a moral & ethical, not a legal issue.
“public benefit” may be open to interpretation, but in every case I know of there is near unanimous consent that large sporting and entertainment venues count.
Who owns the facility has nothing to do with the determination of public benefit.
There is well over 100 years of case law (possibly 200) of property seized by eminent domain being used for private enterprises.
I fully understand that people do not like the arena for various reasons, but the legality of the project is clear and well supported by previous cases at the local, state and federal levels.
Kelo vs New London was precisely the case that has energized anti-ED-ers to try & change the underlying law.
What bxgrl says. In the past, it’s the city which was the driving force…as you say, slum clearance, bridges, schools, libraries, all arguably what most would concede is an advantage to the public.
I think there’s quite a difference between subways and an office-building/arena complex in terms of the ‘public good’ they cause.
And in AY, ED was used to condemn good property and turn it over to a private developer for privately owned development (in your other citations, it was still city controlled.)