February 8, 2010
Perkins introduces bill to reform eminent domain by redefining blight; had provisions been enacted earlier, AY would have been blocked
Atlantic Yards Report
As previewed (Gotham Gazette, New York Times), State Senator Bill Perkins has introduced a sweeping bill (S. 6971) to redefine eminent domain by redefining blight--currently subsumed under the amorphous terms "substandard and insanitary."
Thus environmental consultants like AKRF inevitably find blight when so requested by agencies like the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC).
The bill, which likely will gain both supporters and critics, is clearly a response to the efforts to use eminent domain in the cases of Atlantic Yards, Columbia University, and Willets Point. The bill's provisions aren't retroactive, but if they were, they almost certainly would've have precluded the use of eminent domain for the AY site.
New York is one of few states--perhaps seven--that failed to enact any reforms regarding eminent domain after the Supreme Court's controversial 2005 Kelo v. New London decision, and the libertarian Institute for Justice, which brought the Kelo case, considers New York "one of the worst" states in the country when it comes to eminent domain abuse.
Underutilization
Notably, the bill eliminates the opportunity for condemning authorities like the ESDC to cite underutilization--as it did in the Atlantic Yards and Columbia cases--as an indicia of blight.
Given that AKRF deemed properties occupying less than 60% of allowable development rights (Floor Area Ratio, or FAR) as blighted, that could potentially doom broad swaths of the city.
Posted by eric at 10:29 AM
A Crystal Eagle Award for me: "a champion of property rights" vs. "a champion of good government"
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder reports on his collection of an award from the Owners' Counsel of America.
I traveled on the OCA's dime to the OCA meeting this past weekend in Scottsdale, AZ, to accept the award and speak about my work. (The amount of time I spent in transit was about the same as the time I spent awake in Scottsdale.)
I had qualms about being described, at least according to some OCA members, as a "champion of property rights."
I responded that I was a "champion of good government" and if that, in the context of examining eminent domain in New York makes me appear to be a "champion of property rights," so be it.
After all, I started looking into Atlantic Yards as a media critic and then expanded into reportage and commentary; eminent domain wasn't on my radar screen.
Posted by eric at 10:08 AM
February 7, 2010
Oops! Where Did That Blight Go? Sidewalk Cracks Are Just Too Damn Easy To Fix!
Noticing New York
This blog post, a sequel to an earlier entry, points out the absurdly low standard used by the Empire State Development Corporation, the tool of developer Bruce Ratner, to allow a declaration of blight. The earlier post contained photographs of sidewalk cracks that could have been sufficient to call a neighborhood blighted.
It turns out that one of the cracks on Montague Street has now actually been repaired, but that wouldn't necessarily keep the ESDC from proclaiming blight, especially if there was a politically-connected developer who had his eye on the property:
The point is that, according to the ESDC, this quick and ready fix isn’t supposed to be the way that city residents deal with the “blight” of sidewalks cracks in their neighborhood. What ESDC believes should happen instead is that all the property on the entire block should be seized from the owners, all the buildings torn down and replaced by a politically-connected developer who will be assisted with extravagant public subsidies for which the developer will not have to bid. No matter, ESDC is still ahead in its determined race to find "blight" where and whenever it wants: Although this property owner on Montague Street quickly effected this repair the owner did not coordinate with the neighbors up and down the street (and on rest of block) to fix some of the other cracks we documented. . . .
. . . So according to ESDC, their property can still be wrested from them and torn down despite their vigilant efforts at maintenance.
Posted by steve at 8:14 AM
February 6, 2010
More blight on Vanderbilt Avenue? Not if you ask Time Out New York
Atlantic Yards Report
I wrote last month about the dubious notion of finding blight adjacent to a thriving shopping strip on Vanderbilt Avenue.
Here's another piece of evidence, from Time Out New York:
Woodwork: Vanderbilt Avenue’s position as one of Brooklyn’s emerging bar strips just got stronger with the addition of this soccer-oriented drinkery. Fans of the other football can catch all the games on three 50-inch flat-screen televisions—including early-morning broadcasts. Those with less of a passion for the sport will find other reasons to visit: Chef-owner Ross Greenberg (Aquavit) has an ambitious food menu, including homemade pickles, five-cheese truffled macaroni and cheese, and various proteins (chicken, beef, fish) cooked en papillote. The drink collection is just as serious, with a focus on small-batch whiskies, organic wines from worldwide soccer regions and hard-to-find international craft beers. 583 Vanderbilt Ave at Dean St, Prospect Heights, Brooklyn (718-857-5777)
The location (formerly Indigo Blu) is catercorner to the shopping strip previously shown and directly across the street from Block 1129 of the Atlantic Yards footprint, slated to contain 1100 surface parking spots.
Posted by steve at 7:11 AM
February 5, 2010
Looking back at the legal battles: the eminent domain cases over nearly three-and-a-half years
Atlantic Yards Report
With news on the Atlantic Yards front slow on a mid-winter Friday, Norman Oder decided to take a look back at the three-and-a-half year legal battle over the project's use of eminent domain.
The legal battles regarding the Atlantic Yards project are epic and, while nearing conclusion, hardly over. Here are some flashbacks to the arguments over eminent domain, first in federal court, later in state court.
I'll write at another time about the other cases, including those challenging the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) environmental review, the revised Metropolitan Transportation Authority deal for the Vanderbilt Yard, and the ESDC's approval of the 2009 Modified General Project Plan.
Legal papers are posted on Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn's web site.
Posted by eric at 1:11 PM
February 4, 2010
Jay-Z Asked To Call Off Nets Attack On Homeless Families AFP Article Highlights Worldwide, Embarassing New York City
MartinLutherKingHomeless
A group calling itself MartinLutherKingHomeless has asked iconic Brooklyn-born-and-bred entertainer and Nets minority investor Jay-Z to add his voice to efforts to reopen the Prospect Heights homeless shelter closed on January 15th to make way for a parking lot.
An article appearing today in hundreds of publications worldwide in several languages about homeless children in New York, NY has prompted community groups in the area of one shelter featured in the article to reach out to New York's most famous entertainer to help them improve New York City's image in the world by re-open[ing] the family homeless shelter closed by his billionaire business partner. Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (F.U.R.E.E.), Friends of 227 Abolitionist Place, Picture the Homeless, Prospect Heights Action Coalition,and neighboring Freddy's Bar have joined in contacting Jay-Z, whose song, Empire State of Mind is at the top of the charts, to ask if there is something he can do to help re-open the shelter. Jay-Z is most likely unaware that the shelter was closed by billionaire Bruce Ratner, a business partner of Jay-Z's. The two are co-owners of the New Jersey Nets basketball team. The Barclays Center stadium, which will house the Nets, if it is ever built (and doubts are high on that) necessitated that the shelter be closed and torn down to make a parking lot.
The Pacific Dean Family Homeless Shelter, at 603 Dean St. was closed at Mr. Ratner's request on January 15, which is Martin Luther King's Birthday. Closing an important shelter serving African-American and Caribbean-American families in the dead of winter and on Dr. King's birthday has outraged the local community.
Posted by eric at 4:45 PM
Marty till the break of dawn!
Brokelyn
Marty Markowitz, property rights advocate?
Yep, Brokelyn was one of the 60 individuals and groups honored by Marty at his State of the Borough address last night, an esteemed bunch that included novelist Amy Sohn; Brooklyn Flea founders Jonathan Butler and Eric Demby and the owners of the new Elvis-inspired Graceland Brooklyn hair salon, Corvette Hunt and Bethany Paul.
...We were also honored to share a stage with Mohamed Salem, Brooklyn’s only known Muslim owner of a kosher deli (salami aleikum!) and Mohammed Hashan, a sandwich-shop employee who refused to return Lindsay Lohan’s lost Blackberry without first demanding to see her ID. “To make sure that something valuable was really in the hands of its rightful owner—that’s Brooklyn values!” Marty proclaimed.
NoLandGrab: 'Cause the last thing we'd want to have happen in Brooklyn is for one person's private property to be taken and transferred to another private party. Right, Mr. Brooklyn values?
Posted by eric at 4:32 PM
Eminent Domain Changes Seek to Limit State's Power to Seize Property
Gotham Gazette
by David King
Gotham Gazette publishes a lengthy piece today on the potential for eminent domain reform in New York State, well worth a read.
When Henry Weinstein bought a commercial building at 752 Pacific St. in Brooklyn 1985 he never expected that 20 years later the government would want to take it away and give to a developer. Weinstein said that he would be shocked if his land was being taken for a hospital, a bridge or a library. But seeing it seized to make way for Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project shakes his faith in the government. "This is the most un-American thing I have ever experienced," he said.
As New York City has reshaped itself over the past decade, the government has given private developers, such as Forest City Ratner, a powerful tool -- an eminent domain law that allows them to seize land from other property owners. Now some politicians believe the law needs change to protect property owners, such as Weinstein.
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has put together a package of legislation that would create a commission to review the state's eminent domain process, give land owners fair compensation for their property and establish an ombudsman who would help land owners whose property is targeted by eminent domain. Later this week Sen. Bill Perkins will unveil legislation that he says would change the state's eminent domain laws to better protect property owners. The situation in the legislature, along with a recent appellate court ruling that found the process the state used to take land for a Columbia University satellite campus in upper Manhattan was unconstitutional, could result in the first major changes to New York's eminent domain laws in more than 30 years.
The possibility that the state might finally redo its eminent domain laws -- laws that have remained the same as other states updated theirs -- has caught the interest of civil rights lawyers, property owners and advocates. But developers, real estate interests and some politicians fear changes could make it more difficult for the state to improve blighted neighborhoods in desperate need of investment, infrastructure and jobs.
NoLandGrab: Thank goodness for those altruistic developers and real estate interests whose huge profits are only an incidental consequence of their selfless improving of "blighted" neighborhoods. Thank you, kind sirs.
Posted by eric at 10:25 AM
February 3, 2010
Children lead way in record New York homelessness
AFP
by Sebastian Smith
Why does it take the French wire service AFP to point out the irony in New York City's eviction of homeless families at the behest of Bruce Ratner while facing a homelessness crisis of epic proportions? We're lookin' at you, New York Times.
Kariana, aged three, has a lonely existence in the New York homeless shelter her parents moved into last year. Lonely, but not alone -- there are nearly 16,000 children just like her.
Homelessness in New York has soared as a result of the damaged US economy and children make up almost half of that growing population.
...New York's homelessness commissioner Robert Hess said record numbers are taking advantage of the city's guarantee to shelter.
"Given this terrible economic downturn we've seen -- the worst in our lifetimes, certainly here in New York -- we're seeing an unprecedented number of families with children coming into the shelter system," he told AFP in an interview.
Figures for January showed a total of 37,487 homeless people in the city, including 8,850 families with children. There were 15,853 children.
"We had 51 percent more applicants this year than two years ago of women with children," Hess said. "We've been adding capacity right and left in order to meet that demand."
By "adding capacity," Hess means "closing a homeless shelter on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday in sub-freezing temperatures so Bruce Ratner can create more facts on the ground before building a huge parking lot that might not be replaced for decades."
But activists paint a less hopeful picture of a city awash in money and run by multi-billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg, yet unable to care for its poor.
Maria Walles, who has been in and out of shelters with her husband and daughter since 2007, joined a handful of other homeless last week to protest outside the offices of Bruce Ratner, a major developer.
He is due to demolish a homeless shelter as part of a glitzy sports arena project in Brooklyn, one of the many works transforming formerly gritty areas of New York. The shelter, which housed some 80 families, was shut on January 15.
"I think it's dead wrong. My heart says, 'wow,'" Walles said. "Why close a shelter now when it's winter? All we asked was for it to be kept open until spring."
The city responds that it is always increasing shelter space, even going as far as renting from landlords of upscale apartment buildings erected in the boom years and left empty by the recession.
NoLand Grab: Are they joking? That program does far more to bail out the real estate speculators who overbuilt during the Bloomberg-fueled condo bubble than it does for homeless families.
Posted by eric at 1:10 PM
Your weekly newsbriefs: Judge studies AY condemnation papers
Courier-Life Publications
State Supreme Court Judge Abraham G. Gerges last week delayed a final approval ruling for the state’s planned seizure of property to make way for the $4-plus billion Atlantic Yards project.
Gerges told lawyers for both property owners and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) that he will look over all the submitted papers and documents and rule “expeditiously.”
Sources closes to the project said the ruling should come within two weeks.
NoLandGrab: Funny, we don't recall seeing a Courier-Life reporter in the court room. Perhaps one of the folks sporting "Jobs, Housing & Hoops" buttons was working as a stringer.
Posted by eric at 10:07 AM
January 30, 2010
DDDB Statement: Condemnation on Hold
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
We were heartened today, but not surprised, that Judge Gerges chose to reserve his decision on the ESDC's petition seeking to condemn private properties to make way for Forest City Ratner's basketball arena and parking lots.
It's clear that Judge Gerges appreciates the gravity of the issues at stake in this case, and that he'll weigh very seriously the arguments put forth today by counsel and in the motion submitted on behalf of the property owners and leaseholders fighting to retain title to their homes and businesses.
We're confident that after he reviews the facts, he will agree with the respondents and dismiss the state's petition, denying the ESDC and Forest City the right to take title to our neighbors' businesses and homes.
Posted by eric at 4:59 PM
A “Kelo” Grows In Brooklyn
Loopholebill's Weblog
This blog entry is an impassioned plea for reform of eminent domain in New York State.
Here’s a quick law-lesson – - – in 2005 the Supremes ruled that Connecticut could grab private homes and businesses for the building of a research place for a drugs company. Now, fast-forward to late 2009 and lo and behold the New York High Court ruled that New York can grab around 20 acres of private Brooklyn land to build a sports arena for ( are you ready??? ) the New Jersey Nets plus, commercial and residential stuff. How the hell??? You ask… Well, after Kelo, many states changed their Constitutions to stop this crap but NY did NOT, so the developers won and the li’l property owners get some money.
NYT 27 Nov 09, p. A.3
Posted by steve at 6:56 AM
January 29, 2010
Condemnation on hold after judge promises prompt review of claims; streets unlikely to close on February 1
Atlantic Yard Report
No, the Atlantic Yards condemnation case was not going to be simple, after all.
After nearly two hours of oft-contentious oral argument before Kings County Supreme Court Judge Abraham Gerges--argument that, according to counsel for the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) went well beyond the proceeding at hand--the judge chose not to rule on the motions and counter-motions filed in the last two days.
"While the court will proceed promptly, the parties are entitled to a review of their claims," Gerges said at the end of the hearing, promising to "proceed expeditiously."
That means, most likely, that streets planned for closure February 1 will not close, even though developer Forest City Ratner seeks the closure of Fifth Avenue between Flatbush and Atlantic avenues for sewer work needed before arena construction will go forward--and has said it wanted that street closed even if the case was delayed.
...Gerges was not unskeptical about the claims raised by attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff, representing several footprint property owners and leaseholders, who argued that changes in the project after the ESDC's 2006 approval of the eminent domain Determination & Findings (D&F) were so significant that a new D&F was required.
Weren't such issues supposed to be dealt with in other cases, the judge asked.
Brinckerhoff pointed out that other courts considering AY-related cases had relied solely on the record as of December 2006. "The fact that they changed the project so much has to be considered by someone," he said.
He suggested, by way of example, a situation in which a D&F had been approved but there was absolutely no financing for a project. In such a case, despite the D&F, he said, a condemnation court would not have transferred title.
He said: "The question is: where on the continuum from nothing changing to everything changing do we get heard?"
Posted by eric at 3:53 PM
January 28, 2010
DDDB MEDIA ALERT — Tomorrow: Atlantic Yards Condemnation Proceeding Oral Argument
Property Owners and Leaseholders facing condemnation for Atlantic Yards project will seek dismissal of New York State's petition to take title of their properties for transfer to Forest City Ratner
Brooklyn, NY- At 9:30 a.m. on January 29, Brooklyn property owners and leaseholders will seek dismissal of the state's petition to condemn their homes and businesses in New York State Supreme Court in Kings County. The state is attempting to gain title to these private properties in order to transfer them to developer Forest City Ratner for its Atlantic Yards project.
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn continues to offer its full support to the property owners and leaseholders in their ongoing legal effort to defend their homes and businesses against Forest City Ratner's ill-conceived, politically corrupt project. Today, their attorney, Matthew Brinckerhoff, returned a motion to dismiss the state's petition, challenging both the substance of the petition and the procedure by which the Empire State Development Corporation is attempting to seize title to their properties, which, unfortunately for Forest City, continue to stand in the way of its taxpayer-subsidized basketball arena and its thousands of parking spaces.
The respondents' Motion to Dismiss and Verified Answer point out, among many defects in the ESDC's papers, that the ESDC seeks to condemn this property to support a plan long ago abandoned by the developer in favor of a much-altered project that the state freely admits - but not in front of a judge - could take 25 years to build. The papers also demand dismissal of the proceeding because the ESDC has failed to set forth the public benefits of the project, although it's expressly required by the law to do so.
DDDB and the property owners and leaseholders continue to hold out faith that the judicial system will finally expose the gross, irreparable flaws in the Atlantic Yards project, and in the governmental abuse of the public trust, and will refuse to grant Forest City Ratner the private property that it covets.
The Motion to Dismiss returned by Mr. Brinckerhoff is available for download at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26006140/Atlantic-Yards-Motion-to-Dismiss-Condemnation
The Verified Answer returned by Mr. Brinckerhoff is available for download at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25998255/Atlantic-Yards-Condemnation-Answer
WHAT:
Condemnation Hearing for Title Transfer of Private Properties Sought by Empire State Development Corporation and Forest City Ratner Companies for Atlantic Yards Project
WHEN:
Friday, January 29, 2010
9:30 a.m.
WHERE:
New York State Supreme Court, Kings County
320 Jay Street
IAS Part 74
Room 17.21
Brooklyn, New York
[Map]
WHO:
Attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, representing
Peter Williams Enterprises, Inc.; Pacific Carlton Development Corp.; Daniel Goldstein; and Chadderton's Bar & Grill, Inc., d/b/a Freddy's Bar & Backroom
Posted by eric at 9:41 PM
As condemnation hearing approaches Friday, plaintiffs organized by DDDB file challenge, aiming to stop process of taking property
Atlantic Yards Report
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) is inviting supporters to Come Out for the Condemnation Hearing Tomorrow, at which the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) will pursue what is usually a simple procedure: taking title to properties in a condemnation case.
Property owners and leaseholders organized by DDDB, as noted below, have filed a challenge to the ESDC's petition.
The hearing will be at 9:30 am before Judge Abraham Gerges in Kings County State Supreme Court, IAS Part 74, 320 Jay Street, Room 17.21, Brooklyn.
Complication and challenges
Though developer Forest City Ratner and others assume that title will pass tomorrow, paving the way for street closings and more, nothing with Atlantic Yards has been simple.
Indeed, the attorney representing some of those facing condemnation will not be there to argue about valuation--usually the main variable at issue--but about fundamentals.
Additional coverage...
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Atlantic Yards Condemnation In Court Friday
When the ESDC takes the land from private businesses and homeowners, it is required to pay them “just compensation” for their land. What “just compensation” equates to in monetary terms must be determined by a court.
Posted by eric at 9:30 PM
2010 Coalition to Preserve Community demonstration
Photo, from a Flickr photo set by Tracy Collins.
 |
Tracy Collins captured the action at today's Coalition to Preserve Community protest outside the Manhattan offices of Governor David Paterson and the Empire State Developerment Corporation. Demonstrators called upon the Governor to place a moratorium on eminent domain takings.
The complete slide show, featuring some familiar Brooklyn faces, is below.
Posted by eric at 8:11 PM
January 27, 2010
COALITION TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY PRESS RELEASE: Protest at Paterson/ESDC Offices Tomorrow, 1/28/10
On Thursday, January 28, 2009, from 11:30 AM until 1:00PM, members of Coalition to Preserve Community (CPC) and its supporters will gather in front of the offices of Governor David Paterson and the Empire State Development Corporation at 633 3rd Ave. (between 41st and 40th Streets) to demand that ESDC reverse its decision to appeal the historic ruling of the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division against the State’s seizure of private property for Columbia University’s expansion of its 116th street campus into West Harlem. Representatives from various neighborhoods facing development plans using eminent domain will join CPC members to call on Governor Paterson to declare a moratorium on eminent domain. Letters supporting both demands will be delivered to his and ESDC’s offices.
On December 3rd the Appellate Division by a 3-2 vote ruled “the exercise of eminent domain power by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (d/b/a ESDC) to benefit a private elite education institution is violative of the Taking Clause of the U.S Constitution, article 1 & 7 of the New York Constitution and the first principles of the social contract.” In a scathing decision, the court detailed a riveting account of Columbia University’s collusion with the State to gain 100% of a 17-acre parcel between 125th St. and 133rd St. and 12th Ave. and Broadway for an expansion projected to cost 6 billion dollars.
Two separate lawsuits challenging the eminent domain determination were filed by property owners in the development footprint, Nick Sprayregen, Parminder Kaur, Amanjit Kaur, and P.G. Singh. Sprayregen was represented by noted civil rights attorney Norman Siegel and attorney Philip Van Buren. Protesters will offer their continued support for property owners whom Columbia is smearing as selfish hold-outs preventing progress rather than owners entitled to decide the future of their own properties. CPC will point out Columbia’s elitist agenda and its manipulation of its political and financial connections.
Siegel and Sprayregen will address the audience. Invited speakers also include State Senator Bill Perkins, who within a day of the court ruling called on Governor Paterson to order a statewide moratorium on the use of eminent domain pending legislative revision of the much-abused New York State condemnation laws. Support will be offered by and for businesses and residents in East Harlem, Queens, Brooklyn and elsewhere who are facing eminent domain abuse as part of huge gentrification developments.
Members of CPC will be picketing to support this historic victory for neighborhoods throughout New York City decimated by eminent domain abuse and to show their vital resistance to oppression by both private and government institutions. We demand NO APPEAL; NO EMINENT DOMAIN; NO DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL TENANTS AND WORKERS; NO BIOHAZARD LEVEL 3 LABS; FULL DISCLOSURE OF PAYMENTS BY COLUMBIA TO ESDC AND RELEASE OF FOIL DOCUMENTS ORDERED BY THE COURT.
Posted by eric at 12:42 PM
January 26, 2010
A Woman Burns
The New York Times
by Roger Cohen
Hypocrisy alert! In a must-read, Times op-ed columnist Roger Cohen decries eminent domain abuse in China, but substitute "Brooklyn" for "Chengdu" and "New York State" for "China," accept that Daniel Goldstein is likely not considering self-immolation, and hope that government thugs won't beat Freddy's patrons chained to the bar, and things don't sound very different at all from the Atlantic Yards and Columbia University projects the paper cheers on its editorial page.
Oh, yeah, there is one difference: the Chinese land grab that Cohen recounts was for the building of a road — a traditional public use — not for a private basketball arena.
We were seated in the courtyard of Tang’s simple home, adjacent to her sister’s house, now reduced to rubble. Chickens strutted about. Tang had just emerged from the hospital. A large reddish scar cut across her forehead. She was nervous. It can be dangerous in China to speak out, to speak truth to power. Tang stood up and raised her shirt to reveal severe bruising all down her left flank.
Tears filled her eyes. She averted them. Her younger sister was called Tang Fuzhen. She’s dead now.
On that day, Nov. 13, as Tang Fuzhen yelled at the demolition brutes to stop the violence against her siblings, as she pleaded with them to leave her house intact, she doused herself three times in gasoline, saying she would set herself on fire, right there on the roof, if the beating of her family continued.
The blows continued to rain down and the self-immolation of Tang Fuzhen, 47, was added to the long list of victims of explosive Chinese development.
The nexus of that growth often comes down to real estate: Who owns it, who gets the sweet deals on it, who gets ousted, and who among Communist Party officials and their developer cronies pockets the big bucks from the infrastructure, business and residential projects that have turned China into a monumental construction site.
...Tang Fuzhen was a successful woman. She and her husband had been in Jinhua for more than a decade, building a clothing wholesale business called Aoshiwei. They had been courted by local party officials to install their company in the area and, according to local press reports, had invested close to $450,000 in a three-story building with a factory on the first two floors and their home on the third. They had a son studying in Britain and a teenage adopted daughter.
Although once touted as model entrepreneurs — profiled in newspapers and on local TV — they had, since 2007, run into a familiar conflict in China stemming from the confluence of murky property rights, soaring real estate prices, land-hungry businessmen and rampant corruption linking party officials with developers.
“Land use is a huge issue because, in the absence of property taxes, local city authorities have to keep selling land and developing land to stay afloat financially,” one Western official told me. “Chengdu gets about 30 percent of its city budget from sales of land owned by the state or the military. The government has to keep monetizing the land through long-term leases, and of course corrupt officials want to make money by getting bribes and other gifts from the buyers.”
...For Tang Fuzhen, who was estranged from her husband, the building local authorities coveted was at once her home and her factory. She derided the offers of compensation, a mere fraction of the market value. Official and market prices often bear no relation to each other in China. But the city, determined to build a road to a new water treatment plant, would hear none of her protests.
The conflict came to a head on that roof. Tang Fuzhen burned for a long time. Wei Jiao, her niece, was in the ambulance with her.
...Her suicide was caught on video by a neighbor and spread across the Internet. An outcry ensued. A local inquiry found the demolition process legal, but deemed the eviction “mismanaged” and a city official was fired. Professors at Beijing University Law School wrote to the People’s Congress, in theory the highest legislative body, suggesting changes to the law to ensure compensation is adequate, that it’s paid before demolition, that violence is never used, and that owners can sue to contest eviction rulings.
These reforms are urgently needed. They would bring development and individual rights into some balance and slow the fast-money corruption machine. But the entrenched interests behind brutal expropriation are enormous.
Across China, I sensed great anger at the raging real estate game in which the party plays such a central role. On a vast half-built development in Chongqing, a dozen banners had been draped from windows: “Try to support our peasant brothers in getting the blood, sweat and tears money owed to them by the developers.”
Here in Chengdu, on entire city blocks marked for demolition, there were banners urging China’s leaders to “reflect the wishes of the people” by reforming the way land is acquired.
NoLandGrab: Just like in New York State, except here, The New York Times is blind to the problem.
Posted by eric at 4:28 PM
January 25, 2010
Grounds Shifting
The Architect's Newspaper
by Matt Chaban
In 2005, when the Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London in favor of the Connecticut town, it had a ripple effect across the country, with some 43 states changing their eminent domain statutes.In New York, the decision seemed to reverberate in a different direction. Instead of reform, a wave of new eminent domain–driven projects sprang up.
One—Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards arena cum condos plan—verges on groundbreaking while another—Columbia’s proposed Manhattanville campus—has just lost a crucial court case, with others—Willets Point, a casino for Niagra Falls—on the horizon. Now, a clutch of Albany pols are preparing to begin changing what some consider the worst eminent domain laws in the country.
Leading the charge is state Senator Bill Perkins, whose district covers much of Harlem. “I think the forces are coming together for change to take place,” Perkins said. “There is, from my observation, growing interest on a grassroots level.” As chair of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, Perkins oversees the main executor of eminent domain in New York, the Empire State Development Corporation.
Among those joining Perkins is fellow senator James Alesi, a republican who represents the rural areas surrounding Rochester. “After many decades, it is time for an overhaul for what has become a double-edged sword of beneficial economic development but also deleterious theft,” said Alesi at a January 5 hearing held on eminent domain reform, the first of many planned in the coming months across the state.
Posted by eric at 9:27 PM
January 22, 2010
Activists Rally Against Closure of Homeless Shelter to Make Way for Barclays Center
The Indypendent
by Ann Schneider
About twenty people gathered to protest the city’s decision to shut down a homeless shelter on Dean Street in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn this past Monday night.
Chanting “Governor Paterson, hear our roars, house the homeless, open the doors,” activists representing Develop, Don’t Destroy Brooklyn and F.U.R.E.E., along with other community members, spoke out against the city’s plan to tear down the Pacific-Dean shelter—which housed 88 families—to make way for a parking lot for the Forest City Ratner sports stadium, otherwise known as the Barclays Center.
Posted by eric at 11:11 AM
January 21, 2010
Eminent Domain is Alive and Well
Real Estate Economy Watch
by Steve Cook
This error-prone article gets one thing right — New York is one messed-up state when it comes to eminent domain abuse.
Much of the attention lately has focused on New York, one of the few states that has not passed legislation in the wake of the Kelo decision and continues to allow condemnations for economic development purposes. In 2002, Columbia University announced plans to expand its campus onto 17 acres in West Harlem, which would displace 400 residents and light industrial businesses employing more than 1,600 people. Last month Columbia University lost an appellate court decision on the grounds that it had failed to make a case for the use of eminent domain.
The New York Nets basketball team, however, won the court’s approval to build a new home for the team in the much-litigated Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, a case that is being appealed to the state supreme court. Hundreds of families live in the project’s 22-acre footprint. In another Brooklyn project, the Barclays Bank Center on Prospect Heights, the denizens of a local bar have vowed cuff themselves to the “Chains of Justice” that manager has conveniently installed on the bar. “Because people like bars and people hate banks,” explained the manager.
Posted by eric at 4:31 PM
Senator Schumer’s Block Is (Super) “Blighted”! (And Back to You, Marty)
Noticing New York
Michael D.D. White finds that the homes of New York's senior Senator and Borough President are both endangered by characteristics of blight.
Visit the sidewalks of Senator Chuck’s Park Slope home we did and, lo and behold, it is pretty seriously blighted. There were sidewalk cracks all over the place. In fact, the problem was not confined to the sidewalks outside the senator’s apartment building: Right across the street there were still more cracks. It seems then that, like Atlantic Yards, tearing down just the senator’s block alone would not suffice: This was a case calling for superblocking! Tear down both blocks together and that way the sidewalks and streets between them could be gifted as extra real estate to the developer allowing it to build more buildings with extra density. After all, isn’t getting rid of all those sidewalks that are so peskily prone to cracks the best way of dispensing with the epidemic crack problem entirely?
As we said, our last post mentioned the report of similar blight at Marty Markowitz’s new home and since it is a quick trip from Senator Schumer’s by bike we thought we would go see for ourselves. Yes, indeed, there are lots more sidewalk cracks to ogle outside of Marty’s new home. The day we were there (the 16th) there was considerable disruption involving gas line work directly outside of Marty’s home but we were able to take in the scene nevertheless.
NoLandGrab: Markowitz, especially, should be careful, since he could trip and fall on one of his own cracks, and have to sue himself.
Posted by eric at 11:18 AM
Atlantic Yards foes protest homeless shelter closing
NYPost.com
by Stephen Witt
Steve Witt rewrites the press release.
A homeless shelter shuttered days before the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday became a cause célèbre among elected officials and opponents of the Atlantic Yards project.
The Pacific Dean Shelter, 603 Dean Street, which housed about 80 families, was closed Jan. 15 to make room for the $4 billion-plus 22-acre project.
About 30 protestors from the neighborhood, along with City Council Member Letitia James, State Sen. Velmanette Montgomery and pop singer Crystal Waters, who sang her hit “Gypsy Woman (She’s Homeless),” protested last week in front of the shelter and down the street from it at Freddy’s Bar (which is also facing condemnation for the project).
This part is Witt's own touch.
Ironically, back in 2002, before the city and developer Bruce Ratner announced the Atlantic Yards project, members of the community protested the shelter coming into the neighborhood.
NoLandGrab: Even more ironically, Witt has been one of those promoting the myth that only newly arrived (white) gentrifiers oppose the Atlantic Yards project, so how could they have even been around to protest the shelter's opening in 2002?
Related coverage...
The Real Deal, Community rallies around Brooklyn shelter closed due to eminent domain
A homeless shelter serving a predominantly African-American population at 603 Dean Street in Downtown Brooklyn, within the planned Atlantic Yards development area, was shut down yesterday, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, through the use of eminent domain, sparking outrage in the community.
India Times, TODAY: Pop Star Crystal Waters comes to Brooklyn this Saturday
Someone on the sub-continent is reading NoLandGrab.
Since Barclays is in England, and has no branches in New York, Crystal Waters (who resides in England) is asking Barclays Bank to have a heart and request that the City keep this shelter open, at least until the spring....
Posted by eric at 10:55 AM
January 20, 2010
In Times article on blight reform, city lawyer recognizes opportunity for "thoughtful change," AKRF relies on Thor's flack
Atlantic Yards Report
A New York Times reporter attended the January 5 public hearing held by state Senator Bill Perkins on eminent domain, and the article, Lesson on Limits of Eminent Domain at Columbia, offers a reasonable overview of the criticism of and support for current eminent domain laws.
(The article appears on the Real Estate page in the Business section, though it more readily could appear on the front page or in the Metro section, given that it's an important public policy issue. Still, it contains an atypically responsible double disclosure: Forest City was The New York Times Company’s partner in the development of its headquarters building on land on Eighth Avenue that was acquired by the state through eminent domain.)
Notably, the Times cites strenuous opposition from the Bloomberg administration as blocking any effort to reform state eminent domain laws in the wake of the Supreme Court's controversial 2005 Kelo v. New London decision--but a Bloomberg official says the city would not oppose “thoughtful change” in the eminent domain laws.
And ubiquitous environmental consultant AKRF, which works simultaneously (Columbia University expansion) or consecutively (Atlantic Yards) with project applicants and the Empire State Development Corporation, is apparently feeling a bit of heat, relying on a public relations consultant to issue a boilerplate statement in its defense.
Posted by eric at 12:33 PM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
The NY Times, Lesson on Limits of Eminent Domain at Columbia
Despite business ties to Forest City Ratner and having benefitted from the use of eminent domain, the Times takes a look at the showdown brewing over the use of eminent domain in New York City.
Noticing New York, U.S. Supreme Court to Get a Doubleheader on NYS Eminent Domain Abuse? Pretext and Lack of Due Process PLUS No “Just Compensation”
We certainly don’t want to see the basketball arena or any portion of the Atlantic Yards mega-monopoly proceed one step further. Politicians and public agencies need to come to their senses and halt it immediately. But if Atlantic Yards did proceed a few more steps we wonder if it could just be possible that, as a result, New York State would be presenting the U.S. Supreme Court with an eminent domain doubleheader, two giant eminent domain cases to be concurrently heard that would jointly define the limits of the Supreme Court’s unpopular 2005 Kelo eminent domain decision.
City Journal, Eminent Domain as Central Planning
Though not yet published on line, the Manhattan Institute's City Journal magazine has an article, by Nicole Gelinas, about eminent domain and megaproject like Atlantic Yards.
From the Coalition to Preserve Community, the group fighting the Columbia University land grab in West Harlem:
St. Mary’s Church, 521 W. 126TH Street.
And join us for a demonstration on Thursday, Jan. 28th @ 11:30am – 1:00pm at the office of the Empire State DevelopmentCorporation (633 3rd. Ave, btw. 41st & 40th Streets) as we tell Governor Patterson and Empire State Development Corporation:
NO APPEAL for eminent domain abuse,
ACCEPT THE COURT RULING
Posted by lumi at 5:39 AM
January 19, 2010
empty beds in an empty room in an empty shelter
Photo by Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.
Pacific-Dean Shelter
603 Dean Street near Carlton Avenue
Prospect Heights
Brooklyn, New YorkThis homeless shelter was recently vacated and would be demolished for Atlantic Yards.
NoLandGrab: The building is being condemned via eminent domain.
Posted by lumi at 7:46 PM
Martin Luther King Weekend Family Shelter Closing Midnight Vigil
Freddy's Brooklyn Roundhouse via YouTube
New York City Councilmember Letitia James speaks at the midnight vigil to see if Governor Paterson will re-open the family homeless shelter the state closed by Eminent Domain on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday. Community groups have been requesting a temporary retroactive moratorium on Eminent Domain to keep the shelter open until Spring.
Posted by eric at 2:17 PM
Taking Atlantic Yards Delayed ‘Til Spring
Another Lawsuit In Court Tuesday
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
by Ryan Thompson
The court proceeding required for the state to take control of the land at Atlantic Yards, which the New York Court of Appeals ruled can be done via the constitutional use of eminent domain, has been postponed, according to the watchdog blog Atlantic Yards Report.
“The Atlantic Yards condemnation case, which was supposed to go to court on January 29, has now been postponed to March 17, with a change in judges from Abraham Gerges to Bert Bunyan,” the blog reports. However, an update on the blog reports that Justice Gerges was never formally assigned. Justice Gerges is a lifelong Brooklyn resident who once served as the administrative judge of the Kings County Supreme Court. He currently presides in the Criminal Term at 320 Jay St.
The Atlantic Yards condemnation case is to be heard in the Kings County Supreme Court Civil Term, 360 Adams St. However, it is not unusual for judges in Brooklyn to preside over both criminal and civil cases, when necessary.
...When the ESDC takes the land from private businesses and homeowners, it is required to pay them “just compensation” for their land. What “just compensation” equates to in monetary terms must be determined by a court.
Related coverage...
Curbed, ANOTHER ATLANTIC YARDS DELAY
Atlantic Yards haters will be able to raise a pint at Freddy's for a couple more months: Norman Oder reports that the court hearing necessary for the state to condemn and seize the land within the megaproject's footprint has been postponed. The hearing was supposed to take place on Jan. 29, but now E.D.-Day (eminent domain, duh) will be March 17. That's enough time to build at least a dozen more beer-can guillotines!
Posted by eric at 2:07 PM
TISH JAMES PRESS RELEASE: CM James, Pop Singer Crystal Waters, Advocates Hold Midnight Vigil To Keep Homeless Family Shelter At Barclays/AY Open
Midnight Vigil held outside of homeless family-shelter closed prematurely by Eminent Domain for the Barclays Center/Atlantic Yards Project - groups fight to keep open till Spring, and to reverse the Eminent Domain taking of the building
Elected officials and homeless advocates vow to lie in front of bulldozers to save shelter - civil disobedience may escalate to stop Eminent Domain takings
(Brooklyn, NY) - After a weekend of protests, at midnight on the MLK holiday a group of 30 angry community members, politicians, and homeless and family group members were outside the Pacific Dean Shelter until midnight last night to see if Governor Paterson would enact an emergency moratorium on Eminent Domain that would re-open the shelter. The Moratorium was requested by New York City Council Member Letitia James, who, along with State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, made the request to Governor Paterson this weekend.
Unbelievably, the shelter, which serves mostly African-American and Caribbean-American families who are without shelter, was closed, in the middle of winter, on Martin Luther King's birthday, sending shockwaves throughout the Prospect Heights and Fort Greene communities. In advance of last night's vigil, protesters held a rally at nearby Freddy's Bar, itself facing eminent domain eviction, on Sat. Jan. 16, in the middle of the MLK weekend, complete with pop singer Crystal Waters, who sang her hit Gypsy Woman (She's Homeless). They want the shelter to remain open until Spring, when the weather will be kinder to homeless couples and their children.
The much-needed shelter was instead condemned by Eminent Domain by Gov. Paterson's Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) at the request of the highly contested Barclays Center/Atlantic Yards project. The project is run by Bruce Ratner, the controversial developer who is currently embroiled in 3 indictment investigations involving alleged bribes to Yonkers City Council Members who subsequently changed their votes against a Ratner project, Ridge Hill, to votes for it. Many believe Ratner's political connections have been delaying his being charged in the ongoing Federal investigation. He is among the top 5 highest lobbying and campaign contribution spenders in New York State. Ratner plans to tear down the shelter for a parking lot for Barclays Center's construction. But community members, including one state senator say no way.
"I will put myself on the ground in front of the bulldozers. I will do anything I can to stop this," said State Senator Velmanette Montgomery at the rally to reverse the Eminent Domain closing of the shelter on Saturday.
It has been a busy Martin Luther King holiday weekend for those fighting to keep the shelter open till Spring, with the closing on Jan 15 - Dr. King's actual birthday, the rally with Crystal Waters on the 16th, calls to the Governor on the 17th, and finally the vigil as the clock counted down to midnight to see if Ratner and the Governor were going to stand by their decision to close the shelter, on this, of all Winter weekends.
The lack of response from the Governor on the Martin Luther King Birthday closing of the shelter has the protesters saying they will escalate their civil disobedience against those who refuse to let the shelter stay open till Spring.
Posted by eric at 2:00 PM
State appeals anti-eminent domain ruling
After a court ruling declared the use of eminent domain illegal for Columbia's Manhattanville campus, the Empire State Development Corporation is formally appealing the decision.
Columbia Spectator
by Kim Kirschenbaum
Those "rabid obstructionists" at the Empire State Development Corporation are using the legal system to try to stop the courts from stopping them from abusing eminent domain.
The Empire State Development Corporation is officially going forward with its appeal in favor of eminent domain in Manhattanville after losing in a surprise court decision in December.
On Jan. 8, ESDC—the state body that approved the use of eminent domain for Columbia’s Manhattanville expansion project in December 2008—formally appealed the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division’s decision last month that ruled that such use is illegal.
The Appellate Division ruling declared eminent domain—the process by which the state can seize private property for “public use” in exchange for market-rate compensation—illegal in the 17-acre expansion zone, dealing a major setback to the University’s campus development plans. The ruling argued that the expansion of an elite private university does not constitute a public use, and condemned alleged “collusion” between Columbia and ESDC in determining blight in the area.
Posted by eric at 1:49 PM
January 18, 2010
A scolding from Norman Siegel about the history of the Urban Development Corporation, founded after Martin Luther King's assassination
Atlantic Yards Report
Thanks to the full video from the January 5 state Senate oversight hearing on eminent domain, it's worth a look at the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) historical explanation for its blight studies, and civil rights attorney Norman Siegel's forceful comment, in which he suggested that the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr.--whose 1968 assassination spurred the establishment of the agency--had been perverted.
...Let me end on a personal note," Siegel said, with emotion. "Sitting here on 125th Street, walking around this building, seeing some of the names and the icons from this community, listening to the people from ESDC speak. On April 4, 1968, when Martin King was assassinated, our governor, Nelson Rockefeller, in the memory and to continue the legacy of Martin, he created the Urban Development Corporation, which is now the Empire State Development Corporation.
"There were great hopes, and great dreams, and visions of what UDC was supposed to be. I remember that. As a young kid in Brooklyn, who went south in the civil rights movement, and met with Dr. King, worked with SCLC many times--today, this agency, in the name of Martin Luther King and Nelson Rockefeller, is doing exactly the opposite of what the UDC was supposed to be set up for. The UDC was supposed to be set up in the memory of Dr. King in order to clear quote slum areas and create affordable housing for poor people and people of color."
Posted by eric at 7:28 AM
homeless shelter emptied
Photo by Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.
Pacific-Dean homeless shelter
603 Dean Street near Carlton Avenue
Prospect Heights
Brooklyn, New YorkThis homeless shelter for almost 90 families at 603 Dean Street was vacated on January 15, 2010. It will be demolished and this entire city block would be used as a "temporary" parking lot for the Barclays Center arena of Atlantic Yards.
A protest against the closure was held at Freddy's Bar on January 16, 2010.
Posted by lumi at 5:24 AM
473 Dean has been served
Photo by Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.
Condemnation notices
473 Dean Street near 6th Avenue
Prospect Heights
Brooklyn, New York473 Dean Street would be demolished for the Barclays Center arena of Atlantic Yards.
To read the notices, click here to view the photo in its original size.
Posted by lumi at 5:06 AM
January 17, 2010
In Concurrence with George Will
2log
The only way to do this justice was to reproduce the entire post.
My pal and occasional 2ommenter Aaron reveals an excerpt of his epic ode against eminent domain:
[from Act II, Battle of the Backroom]
DINGMAN
At Prospect Park the sections are prepared!BEVERIDGE
At Bergen Street they're straining at the leash!VITALE
Students, workers, everyone
There's a river on the run
Like the flowing of the tide
Brooklyn coming to our side!SMITH
The time is near:
So near it's stirring the blood in their veins!
And yet beware
Don't let the beer go to your brains!
For the comp'ny we fight is a dangerous foe
With the men and the money we never can match
It is easy to sit here and swat 'em like flies
But the NBA will be harder to catch.
We need a sign
To rally the people
To call them to arms
To bring them in line!ANGELILLO
Let us pledge ourselves to hold this bar and backroom!
Let them come in their legions
And they will be met
Have faith in yourselves
And don't be afraid
Let's give 'em a screwing
That they'll never forget!HALL
This is where it begins!
And if I should die in the fight to be drunker
Where the fighting is hardest
There will I hunker
Let them come if they dare
We'll be there!BRUCE RATNER [Offstage]
You at the barricade listen to this
No one is coming to help you to fight
You're on your own
You have no friends
Give up your beers - or die!HOLLANDER
Damn their warnings, damn their lies
They will see the people rise!ALL
Damn their warnings, damn their lies
They will see the people rise!
Posted by eric at 1:48 PM
January 16, 2010
Up and Down, "Blight" Is Everywhere: Just Glance Down “At Any Point” and Find “Blight” Smiling Back to You
Noticing New York
Due to lax New York standards, it seems that blight can be found everywhere in Brooklyn
Why is there "blight" everywhere? Because those are the new rules being used by government agencies (as represented by the Empire State Development Corporation- our leading imaginer of “blight”): “Blight” is anywhere where there is a crack in the sidewalk (and property perhaps not yet built to the full percentage of its currently permitted zoning- which is almost everywhere and potentially anywhere.)
Where do ESDC’s crack eminent domain arguments take us? According to pictures published Wednesday in stories that respectively appeared in both the Brooklyn Paper and the New York Times they lead just about anywhere and everywhere one might go in this city.
Posted by steve at 10:18 AM
Robin Hood in Reverse
City Journal
By John K. Ross, Dick Carpenter
This article summarizes a study of eminent domain and that finds that "... eminent-domain abuse in New York disproportionately affects ethnic and racial minorities and those less well-off and less educated." A call is made for the New York legislature to fix eminent domain use in New York.
In November, New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, upheld the use of eminent domain to take homes and small businesses to make way for wealthy developer Bruce Ratner’s so-called “Atlantic Yards” development: 16 mammoth skyscrapers centered around a basketball arena. The court accepted the Empire State Development Corporation’s contention that the area was “blighted”—based on a study that Ratner paid for himself and which wasn’t even initiated until years after the project was announced.
The court didn’t go so far as to embrace the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which allows governments to condemn property for economic-development reasons alone, regardless of whether the property is blighted. And just a few weeks later, a lower court rejected a similar attempt to condemn “blighted” properties in West Harlem on behalf of Columbia University, which was seeking to obtain a 17-acre site for expansion. But this limitation offers little comfort to property owners in New York State, which remains the nation’s worst abuser of eminent domain. Thousands of properties remain at risk for condemnation under the absurdly lax blight standards given a green light by the state’s highest court.
...
Following Kelo, 43 states passed reforms to rein in eminent domain abuse. New York did not. In 2009, legislators in Albany introduced dozens of bills, ranging from strong reforms such as forbidding condemnation for private projects to superficial remedies like requiring another round of hearings, an additional vote on projects, and the creation of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan” prior to condemnation. As in every legislative session since Kelo, bills languished in committee.
The Court of Appeals ruling should be a clarion call to state legislators that they cannot avoid the issue any longer. The court’s deference to blight designations, and the punitive nature of eminent-domain abuse, suggest that mere procedural reforms will not suffice. To protect New York property owners, eminent domain for private development must be brought to an end.
Additional information...
The Institute for Justice's study can be found here.
Here's a summary of the proposed Atlantic Yards project:
In 2003, developer Forest City Ratner announced plans to build a basketball stadium and 16 office towers on 22 acres in Brooklyn. The project will displace some 330 residents, 33 businesses with 235 employees, and a homeless shelter.[17] The plan was approved, despite competing offers from other developers that would not have relied on eminent domain and would not have required an estimated $1 billion in public subsidies.[18] The neighborhood, which consists of warehouses converted into condos, light industrial businesses and a still-operating Prohibition-era bar, has been declared blighted because it sits next to an unused rail yard owned by the state.[19]
Posted by steve at 9:35 AM
January 15, 2010
Blight vs. blight: a battle of the sidewalk cracks
Atlantic Yards Report
Well, aren't those cracks [at Brooklyn Borough Hall] --cracks that are being fixed--worse than the "cracked and uneven" sidewalk (below) cited by blight-seeking consultant AKRF in the Atlantic Yards Blight Study?
 |
 |
Posted by lumi at 5:36 AM
Brooklyn Drinkers Say No to Eminent Domain Abuse
Reason: Hit & Run
By Damon Root
Earlier this week, two of the Brooklyn activists fighting the Atlantic Yards' eminent domain abuse case appeared on Fox News’ Fox & Friends to explain why real estate tycoon Bruce Ratner has no right to seize their beloved neighborhood bar Freddy’s. Check out the clip below for promises of civil disobedience (including patrons chained to the bar!) and for some classic advice from Judge Andrew Napolitano, who says, “I’m not suggesting you break the law, but...
Posted by lumi at 5:12 AM
January 14, 2010
Brooklyn Borough Hall Is Blighted and Needs To Be Condemned By Eminent Domain
Sidewalk cracks were cited as evidence of blight in developer Bruce Ratner's EIS, therefore, the plaza in front of Atlantic Yards' Cheerleader in Chief's office must be blighted, too.
From Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn:
Everyone knows what that means: It is blighted and needs to be seized by eminent domain and demolished, post haste.
The Brooklyn Paper reports:
A salt on Borough Hall
By Andy CampbellWalk safely, Marty! The plaza around your Borough Hall office is now an obstacle course of disaster!
The salt-covered sidewalk outside looks like it’s been through a Moscow winter, what with wide cracks and chunks of slate sidewalk breaking away on the north side of the building near Court Street.
Posted by lumi at 6:50 AM
Pop Star Crystal Waters comes to Brooklyn this Saturday to help City Council Member Letitia James convince the City to keep a homeless family-shelter, scheduled to be closed by the City on Martin Luther King's Birthday, open until Spring
The shelter is slated to be demolished for a parking lot for Barclays Bank's Barclays Center sports stadium construction vehicle parking. Crystal Waters’ hit, She's Homeless, will be performed in protest of the shelter closing and this massive development project
(Brooklyn, NY) - Crystal Waters, whose 1990s hit song “Gypsy Woman” is about a homeless woman that sings for her supper (“la da dee laa da da”), is coming to the Barclays Center/Atlantic Yards project site this Saturday to help homeless families in Brooklyn by fighting to keep a crucial family-shelter open, which is located in the footprint of the proposed Barclays Center/Atlantic Yards project.
“I don't know which is colder, Brooklyn in January through March, or what the Barclays Center/Atlantic Yards project and the City and State of New York are doing to the homeless families on January 15. Keep this shelter open till it's warm out,” said Council Member James.
The shelter has beds for 88 families, ranging from couples to families with small children. It is scheduled to be shut down by the City of New York, and condemned by eminent domain at the request of Barclays Bank's Barclays Center (a basketball arena), and its developer Bruce Ratner on January 15. Since Barclays is in England, and has no branches in New York, Crystal Waters (who resides in England) is asking Barclays Bank to have a heart and request that the City keep this shelter open, at least until the spring - so that families who become homeless in New York’s cold winter will have access to an indoor place to sleep. During these hard economic times, let’s consider all homeless individuals, especially the many families and children who are struggling.
The City claims that families currently residing at the Pacific Avenue and Dean Street homeless shelter will be relocated. Even if the claim is to be believed, this is not the point. New York’s shelter system will still lose beds and facilities for homeless children and their parents who will need shelter from the cold, specifically during the harsh New York winter. The Barclays Center, (whose owners have decided a parking lot for its construction vehicles is more important than Brooklyn’s homeless families) is slated to be used as an arena for the New Jersey Nets, (some think the Nets is the worst team in the NBA; the team was purchased in 2009 by Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov). And, even the City’s Independent Budget Office has found that this publicly subsidized arena would be a net financial loser for New York City if built.
“Owners of the Barclays Center/Atlantic Yards project are forcing the City to close this critical family-shelter, and allowing the state to take it by eminent domain in the dead of winter, and on the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday weekend. This is absolutely wrong and unnecessary. The community believes that nothing at all will be built in place of this homeless shelter - possibly for years and decades…if ever. Taking away beds for our City’s most vulnerable residents is simply unconscionable,” said Council Member James.
Ms. Waters will perform her song, Gypsy Woman (She's Homeless), with local homeless people to raise awareness of what owners of the Barclays Center are doing, and to encourage Barclays Bank to ask the City and State to keep the shelter open until Spring, when the weather warms up. The press conference and performance will be at Freddy's Bar, which is itself fighting eviction because of the Barclays Center/Atlantic Yards project.
What:
Pop Star Crystal Waters in Brooklyn to support City Council Member Letitia James and homeless families. Her hit, She's Homeless, will be performed 2pm.
Who:
Singer Crystal Waters, Council Member Letitia James, public officials, residents, and homeless advocates
Where:
Freddy's Bar, 485 Dean Street in Prospect Heights - Corner of 6th Avenue - (718) 622-7035 - (2or 3 to Bergen St. Station)
When:
Saturday, January 16, at 2pm
Crystal Waters Gypsy Woman (she's homeless)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KztNIg4cvE
Picture of the shelter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tracy_collins/4158273109/in/pool-atlanticyards
Picture the Homeless
http://picturethehomeless.org
Posted by lumi at 6:22 AM
January 12, 2010
NFT: Zagat Rated, NoBarclays Center
Photo, by Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.
 |
Freddy's Bar & Backroom
Toast to George Will &
Barclays Bank Boycott Launch
January 10, 2010
Posted by lumi at 4:08 AM
Atlantic Yards project was not properly presented
The Washington Post, Op-Ed By Charles Ratner
LOL — now the bully feels misunderstood. The eminent domain-abusing subsidy-swilling CEO of Forest City Enterprises is whining about columnist George Will's scathing piece on Atlantic Yards:
Yet he concluded that a "politically connected developer" is the recipient of largesse because the state agency leading the development can use eminent domain to obtain the remaining properties of individuals who refuse to sell. And he failed to note that my company controls 85 percent of the 22-acre site.
NoLandGrab: Ratner "failed to note that" his company acquired the private property it owns in the footprint UNDER THREAT OF EMINENT DOMAIN.
Posted by lumi at 3:47 AM
January 11, 2010
Bitter Battle Brewing at New York bar
Fox News
Donald O'Finn and Steve de Seve visited Fox & Friends this morning to tell the story of Freddy's Eminent Domain Revolt.
Posted by eric at 3:12 PM
January 8, 2010
At Senate hearing on eminent domain reform, forceful criticism of the status quo and the ESDC's answers, but reform won't happen overnight
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder offers another in-depth report on Tuesday's State Senate hearing on eminent domain.
They should have stuck around.
Though three representatives of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), answering questions about contracting with AKRF and the operation of the Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation (BALDC), faced persistent (if not all too lengthy) scrutiny from state Senator Bill Perkins during the first hour of an oversight hearing Tuesday, they left before hearing others offer forceful criticism of both the agency's performance and the state's notoriously condemnor-friendly eminent domain laws.
After all, the ESDC representatives who spoke--Executive VP Darren Bloch and General Counsel Anita Laremont--not only admitted no qualms about hiring AKRF but were unwilling to suggest any ideas for reforms.
(The third representative, Executive Director Peter Davidson, was silent. He's their boss, but didn't join the ESDC until September.)
Assessing the ESDC
That left Perkins highly critical of their performance.
Asked about the ESDC's responsiveness, he said, "The word does not apply. Clearly, intellectually, they cannot be telling the truth that they think it's OK for AKRF, paid by Columbia for a blight study, can be the best choice for a similar kind of study by the agency. I can't believe that they believe it's no glaring conflict."
What about their openness to legislative reform?
"Upon being asked, do you have any ideas about how to do this better, to have more respect and credibility in the community... they were silent, evasive, and I thought irresponsible because, after all, they have an opportunity to be a part of change, in terms of trying to do this better," Perkins said. "So I don't think we're going to get what we're looking for from them that way… They like the status quo."
Posted by eric at 11:14 AM
Atlantic Yards Drives Freddy's Mad
Curbed.com
Freddy's Bar, the Dean Street dive in the Atlantic Yards footprint soon to be seized by the power of eminent domain despite the bar's attempts to decapitate it, is feeling emboldened by a pair of recent events: the scathing anti-Atlantic Yards column written by George Will, and the connection of developer Forest City Ratner to a White Planes bribery scandal. Though none of this is enough to derail the project, it didn't stop Freddy's from issuing the most epic e-mail in the history of the Atlantic Yards Resistance.
The email starts:
Freddy's Bar is in a State of Revolt against New York State's Eminent Domain Law.
Click here to read the rest.
Posted by lumi at 5:19 AM
January 7, 2010
Brooklyn Shelter To Close For Atlantic Yards Development
WNYC Radio
by Matthew Schuerman
The Pacific Dean shelter lies on the eastern end of the Atlantic Yards footprint. It was long expected to close, although the property won't be developed into apartment towers for several years. In the short term, developer Forest City Ratner will use the land to store the construction vehicles that will build a basketball arena. That's expected to start later this year. As many as 80 families with children stay in the shelter. The Department of Homeless Services says it's already placed most of them in permanent housing and will move the remaining 20 to 25 families into other comparable shelters. Homeless advocates say the closure comes at an inopportune time, given that record numbers of poor families need living spaces.
NoLandGrab: The building that houses the shelter is being taken by eminent domain — the owner hadn't wanted to sell — so the city is obligingly evicting the residents.
The Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council has established a fund to assist in the relocation of shelter residents. For more info and to make a donation, click here.
Posted by eric at 10:45 AM
At hearing, ESDC representatives defend use of consultant AKRF; Perkins slams "egregious conflict of interest" given simultaneous work for developers
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder presents much of the back and forth between State Senator Bill Perkins and the Empire State Development Corporation at Tuesday's hearing. Here's the set-up.
The ubiquitous environmental consultant AKRF came in for a drubbing Tuesday at the public hearing on eminent domain called by state Senator Bill Perkins on reform of eminent domain laws and, particularly, the recent Appellate Division decision blocking the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) use of eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion.
In response to Perkins's persistent questions, ESDC officials acknowledged that AKRF always produces studies that allow the agency to find blight and that they choose AKRF through sole-source contracts despite any concern about the consultant's integrity, such as working for the developer at the same time.
(That occurred in the Columbia case; with Atlantic Yards, AKRF's work for Forest City Ratner and the ESDC was merely consecutive.).
Though they acknowledged there was no checklist to determine blight, the ESDC officials claimed that AKRF's reports were objective, factual reports on neighborhood conditions, allowing laypeople--the ESDC board--to use their "general expertise" determine blight.
And they wouldn't acknowledge any problem with their procedures nor suggest any reforms, saying that was an issue for the legislature. They described a Catch-22 situation in which they expressed an interest in hiring consultants other than AKRF but were forced to rely on AKRF because it was more capable of providing studies that would stand up in court.
That left Perkins incredulous, criticizing the ESDC board's "rubber stamp" actions and proposing that Gov. David Paterson, who in 2005 joined him in 2005 in calling for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain, intervene, "particularly the egregious conflict of interest of using the consultants that the developers are using."
Posted by eric at 10:05 AM
At Senate hearing, ESDC general counsel defends BALDC, but isn't even sure she's on the board; Perkins skeptical of PACB avoidance
Atlantic Yards Report
The state Senate hearing Tuesday chaired by Senator Bill Perkins mainly concerned eminent domain reform, blight, and the curious case of ubiquitous environmental consultant AKRF.
But some significant questions also were raised about the murky Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation (BALDC), which issued $511 million in tax-exempt bonds for the arena.
Notably, a BALDC board member--Anita Laremont, the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) general counsel--seemed unsure she was on the board, and offered questionable explanations about why the BALDC was created and why review by the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) was not required.
And while the BALDC was described as "lessening the burdens of government," it also appears to be a way to avoid some governmental responsibilities, given that all the board members are governmental officials. "We know that the effort was to avoid PACB and to avoid scrutiny or accountability," Perkins said after the hearing.
Columbia Spectator, Perkins kicks off hearings on eminent domain reform
Posted by lumi at 6:58 AM
Noticing New York Testimony at Senator Perkins’ Hearing on New York State Patterns of Eminent Domain Abuse
Noticing New York
Michael D.D. White publishes the testimony he delivered yesterday at the eminent domain hearing held by State Senator Bill Perkins, and relates Perkins's opening remarks:
Here is some of what [Perkins] said in his opening statement to the effect that something is seriously amiss in this state when it comes to the conduct of our public officials:
The Appellate Division’s Kaur decision only affirms the need for reform. The decision noted a pattern of bad faith.
* * *
In fact, conservative columnist George Will recently published an article titled, “Avaricious Developers and Governments Twist the Meaning of "Blight.”. In it he addressed what he called the, “life-shattering power of eminent domain.” He talked about ESDC.s actions in this case and also in the Atlantic Yards case. He concluded that these are examples of “pre-textual takings” where government uses “trumped-up accusations of blight to concoct a spurious “public use. for a preconceived project.” In fact, the Kaur decision notes that the property in question was not considered blighted until Columbia decided it wanted to own it. As Mr. Will puts it, “liberty is under assault…this time by overbearing American governments.”
I could not have put it better myself. When you get someone who skews to the left as much I do, an upstate Republican like Senator Alesi, and a conservative icon like George Will to agree on public policy…you have certainly created strange bedfellows. Clearly, something is amiss. Property rights are not safe. If you own property in an area targeted by the government and you do not want to sell, you are now a hostage. You are being mugged. It’s like you have no future. It makes no sense to improve your property. You can’t sell it on the open market. It’s hard to find tenants. Everybody, including you, knows that your property is marked for destruction. That is a problem.
Posted by eric at 12:04 AM
January 6, 2010
Who Has the Right to Say What's Blight? Bill Perkins vs. ESDC Darling
NY Observer
by Eliot Brown
Blight is in the eye of the beholder — especially if that beholder is AKRF.
State Senator Bill Perkins is apparently not happy about the state's choice of consultants.
One consultant, specifically: AKRF, the New York-based firm that has established itself as the unchallenged king of environmental review in the city and state, dominating the field of government contracts.
The source of angst for Mr. Perkins is Columbia University's proposed 17-acre expansion into West Harlem and the state development agency's selection of AKRF to do a blight study. The blight study is a necessary step for eminent domain in the project, though the state's selection of AKRF has taken significant heat from the courts, which recently dealt the school a tremendous blow by blocking the use of eminent domain for the expansion. Among other factors, the use of AKRF was cited as a concern given that Columbia also used the firm to do its environmental review (the state intends to appeal the ruling).
...The dual use of AKRF for environmental review and blight studies has happened before, notably in the Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn, though it was criticized repeatedly by the courts in the case of Columbia, which said AKRF's objectivity could be compromised.
Posted by eric at 4:10 PM
Resolve to be a better person this year — with our list!
The Brooklyn Paper
[R]esolutions don’t need to be difficult. That’s why we’ve prepared this list of 10 cultural promises that you can definitely keep in the new year, easy ways to suck the marrow out of Brooklyn without feeling guilty in the morning.
...
3. Go to Freddy’s Bar
You never fully appreciate something until it’s gone — so don’t make that mistake with Freddy’s Bar and Backroom, as good a saloon as you get in Brooklyn nowadays. Slated to be torn down to make room for Bruce Ratner’s basketball arena (whatsamatta, Bruce, you don’t think people want a bar outside an arena?), this Prohibition-era speakeasy offers a classic worn bar and booths that hail from the days when Americans were small. But manager Donald O’Finn brings just enough modern touches (like an endless loop of film montages on one of the TVs, and a steady stream of great musicians coming through) so that the place doesn’t feel like a nostalgia act. Go to this bar now before it’s too late.
Freddy’s Bar [485 Dean St. at Sixth Avenue in Prospect Heights, (718) 622-7035].
Posted by lumi at 6:22 AM
January 5, 2010
Jan 5. Senator Perkins' Hearing on Eminent Domain and Reforming New York State's Heinous Laws
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: NEW YORK STATE SENATE
Senate Standing Committee
Corporations, Authorities and Commissions
Senator Bill Perkins, ChairUnconstitutional: What the Appellate Division’s Eminent Domain Ruling Means for the Columbia Expansion
Location – Adam Clayton Powell State Office Building
163 W. 125th Street, 2nd Floor Art Gallery
New York, New York 10027Tuesday, January 5, 2010 – 4 P.M. to 7 P.M.
Posted by eric at 2:19 PM
Atlantic Yards holdout Daniel Goldstein says he has a backup plan in case state takes condo
NY Daily News reporter Ellen Durkin reports that Daniel Goldstein has started to think about Plan B, should he and his family get the boot.
Goldstein said he's sticking with the fight to stop developer Bruce Ratner's project - but he has begun to think about a "backup plan" if the state takes his condo by eminent domain to make way for a new Nets arena.
...
If he does get the boot, Goldstein wants to stay in Brooklyn - but not near Atlantic Yards. "We definitely do not want to be anywhere near this project, whatever form it takes," he said.
Posted by lumi at 5:33 AM
ESDC representatives will testify at state Senate hearing on Columbia, eminent domain; four AY questions suggested
Atlantic Yards Report
Today's state Senate oversight hearing, "Unconstitutional: What the Appellate Division’s Eminent Domain Ruling Means for the Columbia Expansion," might get interesting: three representatives of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) the state agency pursuing eminent domain in both the Columbia and Atlantic Yards cases, are scheduled to appear as witnesses.
(The hearing will be held from 4-7 pm at the State Office Building in Harlem. Here's coverage of a September 2008 hearing.)
Whether the ESDC reps will answer specific questions is another question, given that the Appellate Division ruling against the ESDC in the Columbia case will be appealed, and the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Atlantic Yards case are trying to get the Court of Appeals to reopen the case in light of the Columbia appeal.
Posted by lumi at 5:30 AM
January 2, 2010
Syndicated columnist George Will calls for Court of Appeals to reconsider Atlantic Yards eminent domain case
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder gives a critique of George Will's column on the use of "blight" to allow eminent domain abuse and also supplies some background on Will's position on this issue.
Syndicated columnist George Will, a conservative who played a key role in bringing the controversial Kelo v. New London eminent domain case to national attention, has weighed in on Atlantic Yards, but his timing is different: he wrote about Kelo in September 2004, before the U.S. Supreme Court had even decided to take the case.
By contrast, the challenge to eminent domain for Atlantic Yards has been dismissed in both federal court and state court, except for a longshot effort to reopen the latter case in light of a seemingly contradictory lower court ruling on eminent domain regarding the Columbia University expansion.
...
Will writes:
To seize the acres for Ratner's use, government must claim that the area -- which is desirable because it is vibrant -- is "blighted." The cognitive dissonance would embarrass Ratner and his collaborating politicians, had their cupidity not extinguished their sense of the absurd.
The condo of Daniel Goldstein, his wife and year-old daughter, which cost Goldstein $590,000 in 2003, is on part of the land where Ratner's $4.9 billion project would be built -- with the assistance of more than $1 billion in corporate welfare from the state and city governments, which are drowning in red ink. The Goldsteins' building would not seem blighted to anyone not paid to see blight for the convenience of the payers. Which is of constitutional significance.
Indeed, the area is desirable--Forest City Enterprises CEO Chuck Ratner famously called it a "great piece of real estate." However, the Goldsteins' building was not deemed blighted; rather, judges are reluctant to interfere with the decision by condemnors to include non-blighted properties.
More importantly, the renovated building (Block 1127, Lot 27) is counter-evidence to the charge that the adjacent railyard, part of the blighted Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (ATURA), had a blighting effect on adjacent blocks, as Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn's response (article, PDF) to the Empire State Development Corporation's Blight Study pointed out.
...
Will points to the need for blight to be found so the state could deliver the properties Bruce Ratner sought. And while the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals, an intermediate court found "mere sophistry" in the Columbia case, with a Blight Study written by the same firm used in Brooklyn.
Will concludes:
The Atlantic Yards nonsense was compounded when Ratner, to bolster his balance sheet after the real estate collapse, sold the Nets to a Russian billionaire, who stands to benefit from Ratner's government-subsidized seizure of other people's property. Those people can only hope that New York's highest court will grant their appeal for reconsideration on the grounds that Ratner's argument is about as good as the Nets are. Through Friday, their record was 3-29.
That's a longshot, but the issues are important. Can "underutilization" really be used as a "blight characteristic," given that applies to enormous sections of the city?
Perhaps the Court of Appeals will take a closer look. And we'll see what comes out of public hearings and new legislation promised by state Senator Bill Perkins.
...
Will's September 2004 column, headlined Despotism in New London, began:
The question is: Does the Constitution empower governments to seize a person's most precious property -- a home, a business -- and give it to more wealthy interests so that the government can reap, in taxes, ancillary benefits of that wealth? Connecticut's court says yes, which turns the Fifth Amendment from a protection of the individual against overbearing government into a license for government to coerce indi- viduals on behalf of society's strongest interests. Henceforth, what home or business will be safe from grasping governments pursuing their own convenience?
Will acknowledged that the Supreme Court had expanded the notion of "public use" to mean "public purpose," notably in a case clearing slum conditions in Washington, DC. He wrote:
But the Fort Trumbull neighborhood -- what remains of it; many residents have been bullied into moving -- is middle class. That is the "problem": Residents are not rich enough to pay the sort of taxes that can be extracted from the wealthy interests to which New London's government wants to give other people's property.
Posted by steve at 9:20 AM
George Will: A blight grows in Brooklyn
Merced Sun-Star
Nationally-syndicated columnist George Will takes aim at the absurd "blight" designation used to justify eminent domain abuse in Prospect Heights.
To seize the acres for Ratner's use, government must claim that the area -- which is desirable because it is vibrant -- is "blighted." The cognitive dissonance would embarrass Ratner and his collaborating politicians, had their cupidity not extinguished their sense of the absurd.
The condo of Daniel Goldstein, his wife and year-old daughter, which cost Goldstein $590,000 in 2003, is on part of the land where Ratner's $4.9 billion project would be built -- with the assistance of more than $1 billion in corporate welfare from the state and city governments, which are drowning in red ink. The Goldsteins' building would not seem blighted to anyone not paid to see blight for the convenience of the payers. Which is of constitutional significance.
The Constitution says government may not take private property other than for a "public use." By "public," the Framers, who did not scatter adjectives carelessly, meant uses -- roads, bridges, parks, public buildings -- directly owned or primarily used by the general public. In 1954, however, in a case concerning a crime- and infectious disease-ridden section of Washington, D.C., the court expanded the notion of "public use" to include removing "blight."
Since then, that term, untethered from serious social dangers, has become elastic in the service of avarice. In 2005, the court held, 5-4, that New London, Conn., could take the property of a middle-class neighborhood and transfer it to a corporate developer who would pay more taxes to the city government than the evicted homeowners had paid. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissenting, warned that the consequences of the decision would "not be random." The beneficiaries would be people "with disproportionate influence and power in the political process."
Enter Ratner, with plans to build a huge complex of high-rise residences, commercial properties and a basketball arena for the NBA's New Jersey Nets, which he bought. The city and state governments salivated at the thought of new revenues -- perhaps chimerical -- to waste. The problem was, and is, that people live and work where Ratner wants to build.
So blight had to be discovered. It duly was, by a firm that specializes in such discoveries. New York's highest court ratified that finding, 6-1.
But a week later, Columbia University, which has plans for a $6.3 billion expansion in Manhattan, was stymied in its attempt to wield the life-shattering power of eminent domain against several local businesses that do not want to be shattered. A state court held, 3-2, that condemnation proceedings had been unconstitutional. The court said the blight designation was "mere sophistry": "Even a cursory examination of the study reveals the idiocy of considering things like unpainted block walls or loose awning supports as evidence of a blighted neighborhood."
The idiocy was written on Columbia's behalf by the same firm the Empire State Development Corporation hired to find blight at the Brooklyn site.
The Atlantic Yards nonsense was compounded when Ratner, to bolster his balance sheet after the real estate collapse, sold the Nets to a Russian billionaire, who stands to benefit from Ratner's government-subsidized seizure of other people's property. Those people can only hope that New York's highest court will grant their appeal for reconsideration on the grounds that Ratner's argument is about as good as the Nets are. Through Friday, their record was 3-29.
Posted by steve at 9:03 AM
Columbia Gets a Lesson in Property Rights
The Wall Street Journal
By Julia Vitullo-Martin
This editorial reviews the ruling this past December against Columbia University's use of eminent domain in its expansion into West Harlem. Questions about what might come next:
- How will the State Court of Appeals rule on the appeal and will it reopen Goldstein et al. v. Urban Development Corporation in light of contradictory rulings?
- Will New York State legislators revise eminent domain law?
- Will Governor Paterson declare where he stands on eminent domain?
Judge Catterson also wrote that "the blight designation in the instant case is mere sophistry. It was utilized by ESDC years after the scheme was hatched to justify the employment of eminent domain but this project has always primarily concerned a massive capital project for Columbia."
Judge Catterson's decision sets up a conflict that will likely shape how eminent domain is used in the future. Just a week before he issued his ruling, New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, decided in Goldstein et al. v. Urban Development Corporation that ESDC could seize private property in Brooklyn and hand it over to Forest City Ratner, a private developer.
That case was a big setback for private property advocates, who had spent years trying to curtail the use of eminent domain and who got a bump in public support after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. the City of New London (2005) that states could seize private land as part of private development projects.
Now, in the wake of Judge Catterson's ruling, the state's Court of Appeals will likely have to take the issue up again if the case is appealed. Perhaps this time it will impose strict limits on when the power of eminent domain can be used.
State Sen. Bill Perkins, a Harlem Democrat and chairman of the committee on corporations, authorities and commissions, doesn't want to leave it to the courts. He held one public meeting on Judge Catterson's ruling before Christmas and is planning a second this coming week. He also fired off a letter to Democratic Gov. David A. Paterson asking him not to appeal Judge Catterson's ruling, and to impose a "statewide moratorium on the use of eminent domain" until the state legislature can pass legislation that specifies how the power can be used.
The governor hasn't decided what to do, but he doesn't have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines forever. With two conflicting court decisions and a brewing controversy, the legislature will almost certainly pass something that will force him to choose sides.
Posted by steve at 8:31 AM
January 1, 2010
As China pursues development, "nail houses" are common, as property owners seek fair compensation
Atlantic Yards Report
If you think the Atlantic Yards condemnation battle is bitter, consider the situation in China, as the New York Times reports, in an article headlined Chinese Businesses Resist Eviction by Developers:
Chinese newspapers are filled with stories of battles involving so-called nail houses, the properties whose owners and occupants are like deeply embedded spikes that refuse to give way to redevelopment juggernauts. As an unceasing real-estate boom has swept the nation, much of it orchestrated by the local governments that benefit from soaring land values, property owners and occupants often protest unfair compensation.
A standoff ensues. Shady men are dispatched. Goliath rarely loses.
In the case chronicled by the Times, David did win--a restaurant was evicted, but its owners got the full payment they sought.
Posted by eric at 10:51 AM
December 31, 2009
Here’s What Eminent Domain Looks Like, Atlantic Yards Version
NY Observer
by Eliot Brown
As of last Wednesday, the state has officially filed in court to acquire the property in the footprint of the Atlantic Yards mega-development in Brooklyn, home-to-be of the Nets.
The acquisitions are for much of the 22-acre site, as the state's development agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, is seeking to take title to the private property in the footprint and the city streets that currently run through it (they are slated to be shut down to create "superblocks," making way for the housing and arena).
The filing is a major step in the acquisition process, and now that the lawsuits challenging the use of eminent domain have been dismissed, the state needs a judge to grant it the title to the properties in the footprint. (The state would then turn over the properties to the developer, Forest City Ratner, which is reimbursing the state for the property it acquires, though it is also receiving significant subsidies for acquisitions and other purposes.)
There are a handful of holdouts left in the footprint who are refusing to leave, including Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn spokesman Daniel Goldstein, who told me Wednesday afternoon he would continue to fight (i.e., litigate).
"There's going to be numerous challenges to that filing," he said.
Click thru, or here, to see the filing for condemnation.
Posted by eric at 10:15 AM
ESDC files, shares condemnation petition, but condemnees will resist; will January 29 be the day it's resolved?
Atlantic Yards Report
While it's difficult to challenge a condemnation petition--"It has to be limited to procedural defects, and that’s rare," attorney Michael Rikon told me--the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) legal filing to take private (and public) property within the Atlantic Yards footprint won't be a walkover. (The petition is at bottom.)
"We will challenge the petition. It is defective in many respects," stated attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff, who is representing condo owner and Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn spokesman Daniel Goldstein (and perhaps others). "The details will be laid out in our opposition to the petition, which we are working on."
Brinckerhoff was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the unsuccessful constitutional challenge to the ESDC's use of eminent domain; he has asked the Court of Appeals to reopen the case in light of seemingly contradictory decision by a lower court in the case challenging the ESDC's use of eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion.
Henry Weinstein, who owns more than an acre of property in the southeast segment of the AY footprint, a block slated to become an interim surface parking lot, told me he would "fight tooth and nail."
George Locker, who represents several rent-stabilized tenants, stated, "The New York Court of Appeals has held that the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, and not the New York State Supreme Court, has 'original and exclusive jurisdiction' over the eviction of Rent Stabilized tenants and the demolition of Rent Stabilized housing.... Given the clear and controlling law on this question, ESDC will be unable to remove my clients from their homes. Instead, Ratner, like all other landlords, will be compelled to make an application to NYS DHCR after the current leases expire, including one in 2011."
Posted by lumi at 5:14 AM
December 30, 2009
Ready for Freddy's
The media can't get enough of Sunday's theatrical beheading of "eminent domain theft" — it's even responsible for the Atlantic Yards fight's first-ever appearance in the beverage trade press.
DRAFT News, Brooklyn bar fights for its right (to stay open)
Our first Brooklyn drinking experience took place at Freddy’s Backroom in Prospect Heights. The quirky neighborhood bar known for having a shark decorating the entryway and its diaorama club is a wonderful place to grab a beer, meet some folks, and hear tales about the old days.
It’s also an endangered locale. The Atlantic Yards project threatens to use eminent domain to close down the venue in the name of progress. In protest, patrons of Freddy’s built a nine-foot tall guillotine from Pabst Blue Ribbon cans and symbolically executed the plan.
Brownstoner, Closing Bell: Freddy's Bar - Heads Roll in Survival Fight
Complete with costumed Executioner and Death, the event culminated with the decapitation of “Poor eminent domain, born of a noble purpose of building hospitals and roads... being used to take Americans from their homes, not just for a British bank but also for Russia”. The event apparently drew more media than some of the more important legal and governmental meetings for AY.
Posted by eric at 8:45 AM
Perkins sets hearing January 5 on Columbia University eminent domain case, need for reforms
Atlantic Yards Report
The Senate Standing Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, chaired by Senator Bill Perkins, will hold a hearing 4-7 pm on Tuesday, January 5, titled "Unconstitutional: What the Appellate Division’s Eminent Domain Ruling Means for the Columbia Expansion."
While the hearing seems focused on the recent decision stopping--for now--the Empire State Development Corporation's pursuit of eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion, some of the broader questions invoke the Atlantic Yards example and situation:
How should the process be reformed? What are the benefits of a moratorium on eminent domain takings pending legislative action?Note that oral testimony is open to the public, with a three-minute limit, and written testimony is also accepted. It's unclear who's been invited.
Perkins is the most prominent legislative supporter of eminent domain reforms, while Gov. David Paterson backs an appeal by the ESDC to the Court of Appeals.
The court ruled in the other direction in the AY eminent domain case, saying that administrative agencies have significant discretion, so it will be a tough but not impossible challenge for the plaintiffs in the Columbia case.
Click through for the hearing notice.
Posted by eric at 7:43 AM
December 29, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
The Brooklyn Paper, Judge puts breaks on Broadway Triangle
by Andy Campbell
A Manhattan Supreme Court justice halted all further operations in the “Broadway Triangle” last week, only one day after City Council voted in favor of rezoning the mostly commercial land into residential space.
Justice Emily Goodman granted a restraining order last Tuesday after opponents filed a second lawsuit against the city rezoning, claiming that city officials steered the land to two politically connected groups in a back room deal.
The stay is effective until the lawsuit gets its first hearing in March, buying a bit of hope for the Broadway Triangle Community Coalition.
“The justice’s decision shows that there’s merit to the lawsuit,” said Marty Needleman, the coalition’s attorney. “It’s really gonna raise the ante for Bloomberg.”
...Councilwoman Diana Reyna (D–Bushwick), who was once Lopez’s protege, has opposed the Broadway Triangle plans, calling the proposal a flat-out lie. She held her head in her hands and sobbed when vote tallies were announced last week.
NoLandGrab: While some will argue that the city's Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP) is far preferable to an Altantic Yards-style state override of local zoning and control, the Broadway Triangle situation proves that when powerful interests want your land, it doesn't much matter. One difference, though — at least this judge appears capable of spotting a rigged bidding process when she sees one.
Posted by eric at 11:33 AM
Bars vs. Banks - Revolt is Declared! Barclay's Bank and ACORN Can Go To Hell.
Brownstoner, Closing Bell: Freddy's Bar - Heads Roll in Survival Fight
Nets Daily, Arena Critics Turn Their Aim Towards Prokhorov, Russia
Posted by lumi at 6:21 AM
December 28, 2009
Atlantic Yards Bar Going Down in a Blade of Glory
Curbed
 |
Following up its Chains of Justice stunt, Dean Street's Freddy's Bar—the Prospect Heights dive that find itself in the unfortunate position of being located within the Atlantic Yards footprint o' death—unveiled a nine-foot-tall PBR guillotine and decapitated a bogeyman named Eminent Domain over the weekend. We'll assume Freddy's didn't make it onto Bruce Ratner's Christmas card list this year. With the eminent domain clock ticking, the next move has to be arming themselves with peanut slingshots, right?
link
Also...
Gothamist, Freddy's Bar Sharpens Guillotine to Protest Atlantic Yards
Last week staffers and tipplers handcuffed themselves to the bar to protest the establishment's increasingly likely demise, and this weekend they kicked it up a notch by building a nine-foot-tall guillotine made from PBR cans and executing an effigy representing "eminent domain theft." (One yank on a Blue Point beer tap brought the blade down.)
Posted by eric at 3:26 PM
Bar builds guillotine out of beer cans to protest Atlantic Yards
NY Daily News
by Mike McLaughlin and Erin Durkin
Aux barricades!
It's an open revolt at one Brooklyn watering hole that faces the wrecking ball to make way for the controversial Atlantic Yards project.
Staff and regulars at Freddy's Bar & Backroom built a 9-foot guillotine out of beer cans - and then executed an effigy that represented the state's power of eminent domain.
"You cannot take property from one person and just give it to someone else," said Donald O'Finn, manager of the bar on Dean St. in Prospect Heights.
"So far we have worked within the law, but ...the law has become so corrupt by money and greed that we cannot obey it," he said. "We are declaring revolt."
Posted by eric at 11:14 AM
December 27, 2009
Off with his head! Freddy’s Bar unveils guillotine to slay ‘Eminent Domain’
The Brooklyn Paper
by Gersh Kuntzman
Brooklyn Paper editor Gersh Kuntzman's video camera captured the highlights today as "eminent domain" met its timely and deserved fate outside Freddy's Bar & Backroom, the venerable Prospect Heights watering hole that doubles as ground zero in the fight to stop Atlantic Yards.
Fans of Freddy’s Bar in Prospect Heights beheaded an effigy of eminent domain on Sunday, using a guillotine fashioned from cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon. The bar is facing condemnation to make room for Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards basketball arena.
Click through for the video.
Posted by eric at 11:05 PM
At another Freddy's media event, a makeshift guillotine is used to execute an eminent domain effigy
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder has the play-by-play from today's Freddy's event, complete with video, plus NoLandGrab photos by Amy Greer.
Last week the staffers and regulars at Freddy's Bar & Backroom, slated to be demolished for the Atlantic Yards arena, installed "chains of justice" so resisters can handcuff themselves to the bar to protest the anticipated eviction.
This week came another media event, the guillotine, a creative structure made out of Pabst beer cans, used to execute an effigy representing "eminent domain theft."
And yes, the media came out--far more than at some of the important legal arguments or governmental meetings. Everybody loves a good metaphor.
Bar manager Donald O'Finn read from a scroll, declaring a revolt against eminent domain law and criticizing the role of ACORN, the British bank Barclays, which bought the arena naming rights that the state gave away, and Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, slated to become majority owner of the Nets.
"It's just like a foreclosure, except they're foreclosing on a neighborhood, and we're not even behind on the mortgage," O'Finn declared.
Click here to "cut" to a slide show.
Posted by eric at 6:19 PM
December 26, 2009
Use eminent domain to build public works, not help developers
Courier Life
This letter to the Flushing News points to the need to revise New York's eminent domain law.
An adverse court ruling in the Willets Point matter should not deter efforts at seeking to preserve the livelihood and families of the hundreds of workers who will be displaced by this outrageous give-away of private property for the benefit of private real estate interests (“Willets Point owners lose suit,” Flushing Times, Dec. 3).
If a student in any class from the sixth-grade through college was asked about eminent domain, I am sure there would be a uniform response that government has the right — indeed, the duty — to take private property for just compensation to accomplish a public purpose. Pressed to define “public purpose,” reference would be made to public works, like a government building, a roadway, public transportation facilities, bridges, etc.
When asked if it included taking private property to be turned over to a private, for-profit real estate developer, the answer would be no way. I am sure the general public would respond the same way.
Recently, the state Court of Appeals, in a 6-1 decision, supported the use of eminent domain in Bruce Ratner’s New Jersey Nets arena project in Brooklyn on the same dubious economic claim. A good deal of the project will be subsidized directly and indirectly by taxpayers. Many homeowners will be forced out of their homes, all for the benefit of a private real estate developer.
As a result of the Kelo case, 35 states enacted legislation upholding the public’s traditional understanding of eminent domain and prohibiting the taking of private property and turning it over to a private real estate developer. New York state was not one of those 35 states — not surprisingly, given the fact that the Brennan Center for Justice, a public interest center at the New York University School of Law, rated New York’s state Legislature the worst state Legislature in the nation.
I think the Willets Point people would be best served by a concerted grassroots effort at engaging all members of the state Legislature and exacting an agreement to enact legislation that will prohibit the kind of result that occurred in the Kelo and Ratner matters, under pain of which legislators will be opposed in any election in which they seek office.
Since the taking of private property is political and not economic, it should be opposed on a political basis. I have no doubt the public will embrace and support such action.
Benjamin M. Haber Flushing
Posted by steve at 7:00 AM
December 23, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
Courier-Life Publications, Broadway Triangle a Council 'hit'
By Aaron Short
On the last day of the 2009 session, the City Council passed the Broadway Triangle rezoning plan by an overwhelming margin, 36 voting yes, 10 no, with 4 abstensions, ending months of political wrangling and demonstrations.
...
In likely his final act as a Council member, David Yassky (D-Williamsburg) urged his colleagues to support the Broadway Triangle rezoning, which they largely did,“This is not an Atlantic Yards situation where ULURP was circumvented. It went through full ULURP process and had dozens of public and semi-public meetings in the decade leading up to this. Anybody who wanted to put up an alternative proposal for this site has had their plan heard and not necessarily adopted.”
NoLandGrab: Um David, just like Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, Broadway Triangle is using the threat of eminent domain to take property from business owners, which is not even mentioned in the article.
Posted by lumi at 5:35 AM
December 22, 2009
Eminent Domain Abuse: The Gifts That Keep On Giving and the Gifts That Don’t
Noticing New York
Michael White examines the case of Kelo v. City of New London for lessons learned. One lesson is that gifts given to a party that haven't been worked for are often not particularly valued. This seems to be the case in Kelo where Pfizer was the recipient of much government largesse.
We are making a point of two things here: How far the societal norms were bent out of shape in order to pile benefit on Pfizer and the fact Pfizer is taking a walk nevertheless. At first blush the principal relationship between those two things may seems to be its sadness, but probably isn’t. More likely the most important relationship between these two things is that the heedless piling on of benefits to Pfizer may actually be regarded as a cause of Pfizer’s departure. That, by analogy brings us back to Sam’s rule: What you don’t charge for is likely to wind up being undervalued.
Development, like psychoanalysis, should not involve an investment of commitment or effort on only one side. What is sad is that what was bulldozed for the unappreciative Pfizer’s benefit was just the opposite: It was people like Susette Kelo and her neighbors who, having invested in their property without subsidy and fully paying their taxes, were not going to leave. The lawsuit brought by Ms. Kelo and her neighbors, in fact, reflected their tenacious fight and commitment to stay. Had they been allowed they would be there still, still paying taxes.
This blog entry also points to how so many of those pushing for eminent domain in the Kelo case have all moved on, as it becoming more and more the case with the proposed Atlantic Yards project.
Finally, there is a suggestion for gift-giving for those who oppose eminent domain abuse in general and the proposed Atlantic Yards project in particular.
The perfect holiday gift? Make a donation to Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the lead opponents against Atlantic Yards. Or you might want to consider purchasing lots of these very handsome and convenient Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn tote bags which will support the cause. (See: Gift Idea: Develop Don't Destroy Bag.) Give the gift that keeps giving to fight he gifts that keep taking. One way in which none of us would like the Atlantic Yards epilogue to sound like the Pfizer epilogue is for it to end with a blight-delivering loss.
Posted by steve at 6:53 AM
December 21, 2009
Eminent Domain
The New York Times, Letters
To the Editor:
Re “Eminent Domain in New York” (editorial, Dec. 14): New York’s eminent domain laws are in need of reform. The Empire State Development Corporation’s attempted taking of private property on behalf of Columbia University illustrates how the current process lacks accountability, transparency or meaningful public participation.
The corporation cited “blight” to justify property condemnation. But the current definition of “blight” is vague. Absurd criteria, like the cracked sidewalks and loose awnings cited in Columbia’s decision, could be used to identify any neighborhood as blighted.
Furthermore, weak disclosure laws allowed Columbia to ignore Freedom of Information Law requests from property owners.
The appellate court wrote that “many commentators have noted that ‘few policies have done more to destroy community and opportunity for minorities than eminent domain.’ ” Current laws are a holdover from the so-called urban renewal schemes that decimated low-income and minority neighborhoods.
I am preparing legislation to address the flaws in existing law, and have requested Gov. David A. Paterson to impose a statewide moratorium on condemnation actions.
Since 2005, 43 states have changed their eminent domain laws to better protect home and business owners. It is now time for New York to do the same.
(Senator) Bill Perkins
Albany, Dec. 14, 2009
The writer is chairman of the New York State Senate Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee.
Posted by eric at 4:52 PM
Perkins Will Lead Statewide Crusade for Eminent Domain Reform
NY Observer
by Jimmy Vielkind
As far as Bill Perkins is concerned, the issue of eminent domain has got legs.
"It's really a corruption of our notion of democracy," said Perkins, a Democratic state senator who represents Harlem. He was speaking Saturday at a Pentecostal church on 125th Street. The room was one-third filled by people who are concerned about the issue and active in fighting its application around the city: at the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, in Willets Point in Queens and just down the road in Manhattanville, where Columbia wants to build a new campus.
Perkins was prompted to action two weeks ago, when an appellate court ruled that the Empire State Development Corporation acted improperly by declaring parts of Manhattanville blighted ahead of condemnation for Columbia's campus. Columbia first asked ESDC to look into eminent domain in 2004.
Perkins on Saturday reiterated his call that ESDC not appeal this decision, and called for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain for private development until a commission can be formed and recommend revisions to the eminent domain procedure law.
"This is a very, very important movement," Perkins said, announcing a formal hearing in Harlem on January 5. "We're going to be going around the state to develop a case for reform."
He said the current law is a "corruption of our democracy." He's also said it's like "a gun to the community's head."
Posted by eric at 4:06 PM
As Perkins pushes for reform of eminent domain laws, Paterson stands ground, backs ESDC's appeal in Columbia case
Atlantic Yards Report
How things have changed. A little more four years ago, state Senator David Paterson and Council Member Bill Perkins were of the same mind on eminent domain, especially concerned about Columbia University's planned expansion in West Harlem, an area in their districts.
They called for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial 5-4 Kelo vs. New London decision upholding eminent domain for economic development.
Now Perkins is in the state Senate, the leader of a somewhat lonely legislative effort to reform the state's eminent domain laws, much criticized by not only the libertarian Institute for Justice but also civil rights lawyers like the diehard liberal Norman Siegel. And now Paterson is governor, with a much larger constituency and having inherited some projects--like Atlantic Yards and Columbia--that depend on eminent domain.
And, in separate appearances Saturday just a few blocks (and a few hours) away, Perkins highlighted the need for change, and Paterson stood his ground.
Posted by eric at 10:33 AM
December 20, 2009
At Freddy's the "chains of justice" are installed
Atlantic Yards Report
Today was the installation of the "chains of justice" at Freddy's Bar & Backroom, so regulars can, in protest, chain themselves to the bar if condemnation proceeds.
I couldn't make it but photographer Tracy Collins shot a set of photos, including the response of the fire department to a fire down the block at one of the few remaining occupied buildings.
Additional coverage...
AP via WCIX.com, Fans chained to NY bar in eminent domain protest
On Sunday, supporters bolted a chain to the establishment's bar, and some patrons hundcuffed themselves to it for about an hour while sipping on pints of beer. They say they'll do it again when authorities try to seize the property.
Posted by eric at 11:51 PM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: Atlanta-Area Florist Ratchets Up Battle Over Eminent Domain
This news advisory announces an unusual move: Mark and Regina Meeks are looking to
"add thousands of new owners to their land deed, thus making it forever impossible for the land to be taken through the controversial process of eminent domain."
Land Battle Watched by the World Gains New Weapon
ATLANTA-AREA FLORIST RATCHETS UP BATTLE OVER EMINENT DOMAIN - ANNOUNCES NEVER-BEFORE SALE OF LAND TO STAVE OFF GOVERNMENT LAND SEIZURE
STOCKBRIDGE, Ga., December 16, 2009 - At a news conference and flanked by anti-eminent domain abuse demonstrators, owners of Stockbridge Florist & Gifts unveiled their newest weapon in their high-stakes battle over control and ownership of their property - the public. In a first-ever, history-making land offering, Mark and Regina Meeks are selling land at the site of their flower shop to ANYONE and EVERYONE. In a never attempted land deed modification, the Meeks will seek to add thousands of new owners to their land deed, thus making it forever impossible for the land to be taken through the controversial process of eminent domain. "While a last resort, we believe selling our land to the public is our only way of keeping what's ours, preserving our livelihood, and recouping at least a fraction of our losses," flower shop owner Mark Meeks said. Details can be found at www.stockbridgefloristfund.com.
[Read the rest of the press advisory after the jump.]
Mark and Regina Meeks have lived under constant and imminent threat of eminent domain since 2005 when elected officials in Stockbridge, Ga. began condemning the Meeks' land through eminent domain. Despite winning an appeal in April of 2006, the Meeks fear the City of Stockbridge will make another attempt at condemnation due to conclusions in the Court's order which "do not prevent the Condemnor from filing another petition." Supporters of Stockbridge Florist & Gifts include numerous national organizations, activists and both state and local chapters of the NAACP.
"I stand with them," said Edward Dubose, the President of Georgia's NAACP from his south Ga. home. "This is also happening in our community. When the government has unchecked, unlimited reach to take property, entire communities of ours could be devastated. We've seen it happen."
"We have been working on this idea for over a year and feel that we have no other alternative," Meeks said. The land offering should attract landowner-partners who, for as little as $25.00, will purchase a piece of history, stave off eminent domain condemnation, and help the Meeks recover some of more than $300,000 in legal expenses. "The burden of five court cases and associated legal fees has us on the brink of financial disaster. And we've endured the emotional suffering that comes with uncertainty and injustice."
Monies generated will also help to fund the Private Property Project, a non-profit organization aimed at preserving property rights and serving as a future resource center for property owners in the U.S.
Georgia State Rep. Steve Davis, R-Henry Co., also speaking at the news conference, explained why legislation to reform eminent domain standards and procedures throughout Georgia is paramount on his agenda during the 2010 legislative session which begins in early January. "I don't believe government should be in the business of land development or sales. However, when there is a need for the use of an individual's or company's property for a legitimate public purpose, then we must ensure that all other options have been attempted and that property owners are justly compensated without the need to defend themselves from their government," Davis said.
Stockbridge Florist & Gifts has been owned and operated by Mark and Regina Meeks for 26 years. Their story has, in the past, been featured on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, WSB-TV, WGCL-TV, WXIA-TV, WAGA-TV and has appeared in major U.S. newspapers.
Posted by steve at 7:44 AM
December 18, 2009
Senator Perkins hosts public meeting on eminent domain Saturday, schedules public hearing for January 5
Atlantic Yards Report
Tomorrow, state Senator Bill Perkins will hold a Community Meeting on Eminent Domain at Manhattan Pentecostal Church, 541 W. 145th Street (between Broadway and Amsterdam; map), from 9:30 am to 12 noon.
He will discuss the recent Appellate Division ruling which blocked the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) from using eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion--a decision that will be appealed.
...Also, Perkins, who held a public hearing in September 2008 on eminent domain, will announce plans to initiate legislation regarding eminent domain.
Posted by eric at 4:57 PM
WPU earns the support of State Senator Bill Perkins
Willets Point United
This morning, WPU members Jake Bono, Jerry Antonacci and Len Scarola and WPU's attorney Mike Rikon, attended a meeting with Senator Bill Perkins who is leading the charge against Eminent Domain abuse in New York State. He expressed his support for our group's cause. More importantly, he will eventually push for legislation that would overhaul eminent domain law in NY State. He is the only elected official that has put his/her name to the possibility of such a reform.
WPU will be attending Senator Perkins' town hall meeting regarding the Columbia University development project THIS SATURDAY MORNING from 9:30 am - 11:30am. He stated that this type of local meeting is the beginning phase of his plan that will influence a climate of change with respect to eminent domain law and is CRITICAL to the eventual passing of any legislation in support of property rights. He plans on holding a meeting for each major current eminent domain case; Columbia U, Atlantic Yards & possibly Willets Point. He even expressed interest in holding a meeting on Didden vs. The Town of Port Chester. The purpose is to expose all the corruption involved with these cases. (A Willets Point hearing would require several days.)
Saturday, December 19th
Community Meeting on Eminent Domain
Manhattan Pentecostal Church
547 West 125th St
New York, NY 10027
9:30 AM - 11:30 AM
NoLandGrab: Bill Perkins is one of the few examples of what's right in Albany.
Posted by eric at 10:35 AM
December 17, 2009
Willets Wonderings
The Architect's Newspaper Blog
by Matt Chaban
The A|N Blog's Chaban continues to do good reporting on Atlantic Yards and other controversial NYC development projects.
 |
It appears the city’s plan to trifurcate development out at Willets Point has been a smashing success, as the Economic Development Corporation announced on Friday that 29 developers from across the country have expressed interest in the first phase of the project, an 18-acre swath of land on the western section of the 62-acre Iron Triangle that contains the densest mix of uses. “The quantity and quality of these responses are strong indicators that the development community has confidence in the successful redevelopment of Willets Point despite current economic conditions,” Seth Pinsky, president of EDC, said in a release. An RFP is expected sometime in 2010 for a selection of those 29 respondents. After that, the next hurdle is finishing land acquisition, which stands at 75 percent of the phase one area controlled by the city. If need be, the city has not ruled out acquiring what’s left through eminent domain, a specter that has cast a long shadow over the area’s redevelopment, though one that could be sunsetting.
29 companies interested in developing Willets Point "despite current economic conditions," yet in 2005, when everything was rosy, only Bruce Ratner (and Extell) was interested in developing the Vanderbilt Yard? Something's fishy.
Following a court ruling that the state could not seize land in the Manhattanville section of Harlem so that Columbia could build a new campus there, Atlantic Yards opponents are hustling to have their ultimately unsuccessful case reheard, a last-ditch effort to impede the sale of Forest City Ratner’s bonds. Whether or not they succeed, all this eminent domain tumult—combined with the recent collapse of plans for the Mother of Them All in New London, Connecticut—could nudge New York over the edge, taking it off the list of a handful of states that have yet to enact eminent domain reform since the Kelo decision four years ago. State Senator Bill Perkins certainly thinks so, calling for the governor to live up to his previous promises of a moratorium on eminent domain in the state.
Willets Point is one of the most egregious examples of eminent domain abuse, since the city, for years and years, denied the many productive businesses there the most basic services, like paved streets and sewer connections.
How could this all pay out in Flushing, Queens? David Lombino, a spokesperson for EDC, emphasized the agency’s strong track record on reaching deals with business owners in the area, despite the continued intransigence of some. “The response from the private sector is encouraging,” he said. Should it come down to eminent domain, but eminent domain is no longer there? EDC, while proffering hypothetical projects, does not respond to hypothetical questions.
Posted by eric at 12:30 AM
December 16, 2009
Community Update: Report on the Columbia University Development Project
PLEASE NOTE: The correct address is 541 West 125th Street
Posted by eric at 11:40 PM
Still more EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
inversecondemnation.com, NY Times Editorial On Eminent Domain: Columbia Case "Completely Out Of Step With Eminent Domain Law" And Is "Weakly Reasoned." Really?
It should not be a huge surprise that the Times ends up cheerleading for the wrong team in both of these cases. As you may recall, the paper was the private beneficiary of a similar eminent domain action (as noted here), so at least it cannot be accused of being inconsistent. But let's give the editorial board the benefit of the doubt and assume that its opinion wasn't driven by crass self-interest, but by a genuine belief that the Kaur decision "conflicts with the relevant law."
It is still wrong.
...When the Times castigates the Kaur opinion as "weakly reasoned," you have to wonder whether the editors read the same decision we did, since all Kaur did was look at the facts. Unlike Goldstein, the Kaur court did not ignore Kelo's baseline and refuse to even look at the facts in the record. Goldstein washed its hands of the inquiry, holding that courts must accept an agency's determination that a parcel is in fact blighted. How Goldstein's interpretation of the New York Constitution's public use clause is above Kelo's Fifth Amendment baseline was never explained by the court.
...Thus, the Times editorial is 180 degrees off the mark: it is the Court of Appeals' abdication of the rule of law in Goldstein -- and not the Appellate Division's opinion in Kaur -- which "conflicts with the relevant law," and which is is "completely out of step with eminent domain law."
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS, Empire State of Mind
These cases highlight just how much of a mess eminent domain proceedings are in the wake of 2005’s U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London. Supreme Court decisions are no stranger to controversy, but the outrage surrounding Kelo transcended party or ideology, and led to forty-three states adopting restrictions on their own eminent domain powers.
New York, of course, is one of the seven "holdouts."
In the Brooklyn case, the issue is identical to Kelo. Bruce Ratner wants to tear down a significant portion of a vibrant neighborhood, and replace it with private economic developments including office towers, a shopping complex, and a basketball arena, which will likely be financed with a significant public subsidy.
...The majority’s reliance on the ESDC study is quite controversial, because it’s quite possible that the ESDC has significant conflicts of interest, if not outright corruption. These problems came to light in the Columbia University case.
Amsterdam News via The Black Urban Times, Judge gives Columbia University red light
Once in a while in the big bad city, the little guy wins.
Last Friday, an appeals court blocked New York State from seizing private property in order to further the planned $6.3 billion expansion of Columbia University. The 3–2 ruling by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan backed charges against the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), saying that by allowing the use of eminent domain, ESDC was giving the Ivy League school an unfair advantage over commercial property owners of the land.
Posted by eric at 9:55 AM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
The NY Observer, Top Court Rules for Warehouse Owner Over State in Columbia Records Suit
On Dec. 3, the owner of a set of warehouses in the footprint of Columbia University's planned West Harlem expansion, with his lawyer, Norman Siegel, were handed a highly unexpected victory in a suit that challenged the use of eminent domain for the project.
And now the state's top court has ruled in his favor on a different matter: open records.
The New York Court of Appeals on Tuesday unanimously ruled that the state's economic development agency, which administers eminent domain, must turn a set of records over that Mr. Sprayregen had requested through the Freedom of Information Law. The agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, had provided numerous documents but withheld a set related to a 2004 agreement between the agency and Columbia. Mr. Sprayregen appealed the agency's denial of his FOIL request, and was denied again. He then sued in state Supreme Court and won, though ESDC did not provide all the documents, preferring to appeal. He won again at the appellate level; ESDC appealed again; and now the agency has exhausted its appeals.
Atlantic Yards Report, Court of Appeals smacks down ESDC in FOIL case related to Columbia expansion
Norman Oder explains the state's high court's decision:
The West Harlem Business Group (WHBG) then went to court, arguing that ESDC failed to articulate a particularized and specific justification for withholding the requested documents. ESDC said it not only had fully complied with its obligations under FOIL but also asserted that the documents were exempt either as intra- or inter-agency material or privileged attorney-client communications.
The Supreme Court tried to examine all documents in-camera, but, according to the ruling, ESDC failed to identify which documents fell within each particular exemption, asserting only that the documents were either non-responsive, exempt intra- or inter-agency office records, or had been previously disclosed.
At issue were five documents; the Appellate Division agreed they should be disclosed, and that was appealed.
The Court of Appeals said that "this litigation could have been avoided, or significantly limited, had ESDC in the first instance complied with the dictates of FOIL."
Posted by lumi at 4:35 AM
December 14, 2009
First Person: Standing Up to Eminent Theft
The Indypendent
by Daniel Goldstein
The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) must commence a number of legal procedures to take title to the properties and revoke leases. The plaintiffs and DDDB will litigate these procedures every step of the way to thwart the theft of homes and businesses.
Only nine days after the Atlantic Yards decision, the Manhattan Appellate Division ruled in favor of plaintiffs in West Harlem in their challenge to Columbia University’s eminent domain abuse. This case also involves the ESDC as the condemning authority.
While a great victory for New Yorkers and the fight against eminent domain abuse, that court’s ruling contradicts the higher court’s ruling. So, the Atlantic Yards plaintiffs will ask the Court of Appeals to reconsider their case when they hear the Columbia appeal.
...Politically there is an effort to get Gov. Paterson to follow through on a promise he made on Dec. 1 to convene an “objective” review of the project. What he should be reviewing is the labyrinthine financing structure for the project, which is a great risk to New York and its future credit rating. Should there be a default on the tax-exempt arena bond, New York State will be on the hook.
With a state debt of $57 billion, this is a risk Paterson should not take.
Posted by eric at 10:45 AM
Times editorial on eminent domain: ESDC's determination of blight in Columbia case "thoroughly defensible"
Atlantic Yards Report
The key thing to understand about today's New York Times editorial, Eminent Domain in New York, is that, as editorial writer Carolyn Curiel has stated, "We are reasoned, in how we come to opinion. But no, it's not a democracy; it's reflective of the spirit of the Times."
So "the spirit of the Times" means that the newspaper--without acknowledging its parent company's business relationship with Forest City Ratner (in building the Times Tower) and without acknowledging how eminent domain was crucial to the construction of that building--endorses, without question, the Empire State Development Corporation's highly questionable assessments of eminent domain in the cases of Atlantic Yards and the Columbia University expansion.
...Blight defensible?
Here's the key line:
The Empire State Development Corporation also made a thoroughly defensible decision that eminent domain was appropriate given the blighted condition of the land at issue, between 125th and 133rd Streets near the Hudson River.
That's it? No recognition of the three blight studies? The use of underutilization? The lower court's conclusion that the blight designation in the instant case is mere sophistry?
This conclusion?
ESDC failed to demonstrate any significant health or safety issues other than minor code violations that exist throughout the city, but more particularly in the buildings controlled by Columbia.
Posted by eric at 10:30 AM
Eminent Domain in New York
The NY Times
Editorial
A New York State appellate court has misguidedly put a roadblock in the way of Columbia University’s expansion plans, ruling that the state misused eminent domain to help Columbia assemble the land it needs. This decision conflicts with the relevant law and will make it much harder for the university to move ahead with a project that would benefit the surrounding neighborhood and the entire city.
...
The decision is completely out of step with eminent domain law, including a recent 6-to-1 decision from the New York State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. That court ruled that Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards, a commercial development, can use eminent domain to secure land to build new housing and a basketball arena for the Nets. That was the right decision, and the case for Columbia is even stronger.
NoLandGrab: We'd hardly expect a newspaper whose new headquarters was built on land acquired by eminent domain to think otherwise; however, there was no mention that their building was developed and co-owned by Forest City Ratner, the developer of the "Brooklyn Atlantic Yards" project, for which the paper supports the use of eminent domain. Hmmm...
Additional...
DDDB.net, The House Organ of the Eminent Domain Abusers Opens Its Mouth Wide
Ignoring extremley damning details of the opinion against the Empire State Development Corporation's use of eminent domain for Columbia University (such as acting in bad faith, subverting due process, the production of a blight study described as "idiocy" and "sophistry"), the New York Times editorial board has produced this piece of editorial drivel below.
Never mind that New York State is not just the biggest abuser of eminent domain, but it also clearly has the worst and most developer friendly process of stealing people's properties in the entire country.
blogs.columbiaspectator.com, The New York Times criticizes recent court ruling
Posted by lumi at 4:57 AM
December 13, 2009
Law should be eminently clear - The public benefit issue especially needs rethinking
Crain's
This editorial notes conflicting eminent domain rulings and calls on the New York State Court of Appeals to resolve the conflict - in favor of eminent domain.
Last month, the state's highest court ruled that eminent domain was eminently justified to remove the holdouts at the controversial Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. The following week, an appeals court in Manhattan ruled against the use of that doctrine in Harlem, where Columbia University is about to build a major new campus.
These two rulings are completely at odds on appropriate use of eminent domain. The Court of Appeals should take up the Columbia ruling expeditiously to clarify the law and prevent this vital project from being harmed by months of uncertainty.
Consider the two decisions, both of which center on whether eminent domain can be used to aid private developments, how the public benefit of such a project should be evaluated, and how the courts should consider disputes about whether an area is blighted, which is the legal standard in New York when someone's property is to be forcibly purchased.
This analysis of the Court of Appeals decision allowing the use of eminent domain for the proposed Atlantic Yards project leaves out the court opinion that states, that, for eminent domain: "It may be that the bar has now been set too low..."
In the Atlantic Yards case, the Court of Appeals ruled that long-established precedents allowed the use of eminent domain to aid a private development, that the public benefit required of such a project should be regarded in a broad way, and, most important, that the courts should not second-guess a state agency's decision to declare an area blighted, except in the most extreme cases.
The majority in the Manhattan appellate court seemed to ignore the direction of the state's highest court. The majority in the 3-2 decision disparaged the public benefit of the Columbia project and clearly second-guessed the blight finding in a way that would seem to directly contravene the instructions of the higher court.
Here is the kind of argument heard often from those favoring eminent domain abuse. Columbia University's need for eminent domain is supported in general, but the specific public benefits for doing so are somehow not mentioned.
The public benefit issue especially needs rethinking. Higher education represents one of the sectors that can diversify the city's economy and produce the middle-class jobs politicians are constantly saying the city needs. It now employs as many people as manufacturing. Columbia can't compete with its rivals, because it needs more space. A vibrant Columbia is crucial to the city's future.
Posted by steve at 6:16 AM
December 12, 2009
Atlantic Yards Takes the Court
The Indypendent
By Steven Wishnia
This article begins with a review of the ruling by the New York State Court of Appeals on the eminent domain case brought against the Empire State Development Corporation, tool of developer Bruce Ratner.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, writing the majority opinion, rejected both of those claims. “It is indisputable that the removal of urban blight is a proper, and, indeed, constitutionally sanctioned, predicate for the exercise of the power of eminent domain,” he held.
The suit also questioned the Empire State Development Corporation’s designation of the area as blighted, “substandard and insanitary” — a prerequisite for its redevelopment to be considered a public purpose.
Judge Lippman had somewhat more sympathy for that claim. “It may be that the bar has now been set too low — that what will now pass as ‘blight,’ as that expression has come to be understood and used by political appointees to public corporations relying upon studies paid for by developers, should not be permitted to constitute a predicate for the invasion of property rights and the razing of homes and businesses,” he wrote.
But ultimately, he concluded, economic underdevelopment and stagnation could legitimately qualify as “blight.” Whether that could justify the use of eminent domain, he ruled, “is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts.”
In dissent, Judge Robert S. Smith wrote that building offices and apartments for a private developer to rent was not a public purpose, and that “blight” meant a danger to public health and safety, not that “property may be condemned and turned over to a private developer every time a state agency thinks that doing so would improve the neighborhood.”
The article then mentions a contradictory eminent domain ruling as well as moves to begin selling bonds for the proposed Nets arena.
The eminent domain issue may still be unresolved. On Dec. 3, the state’s mid-level court, the Appellate Division in Manhattan, ruled that Columbia University could not use eminent domain to claim property in West Harlem for its Manhattanville development. The court said the neighborhood was wrongly defined as blighted.
Forest City Ratner still has to sell bonds to finance the project by end of the year in order to keep its tax exemption for them. On Dec. 1, the two major credit-rating services listed $500 million in tax-exempt bonds for the proposed arena as “investment grade” — but just barely. Moody’s Investor Services rated them as Baa3 and Standard and Poor’s as BBB -. Both ratings — the same given to bonds for the new Yankee Stadium and the Mets’ Citi Field — are the lowest a bond can get without being considered junk.
Posted by steve at 6:25 AM
December 11, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA
Columbia Spectator, The illusion of competing interests
In an opinion piece, two members of Columbia University's Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification argue that even by NY State's high court's narrow standard upholding the findings of blight in the Atlantic Yards case, the recent decision, finding for the property owners in West Harlem, should still stand, due to corruption on behalf of the university.
AntonNews.com, Eye on the Island
An opinion piece gets something right and something wrong:
Should the NBA’s New Jersey Nets relocate to Brooklyn, history will record their first victory of the 2009-2010 season came in a courtroom, rather than on a court.
...
The property-owning holdouts within a two-plus block area that is narrowly defined within the Court’s decision will now be required to sell their land to the ESDC, at rates reflecting current market value.
NoLandGrab: It's been widely reported that property owners have been offered wa-a-ay less than market rate.
Posted by lumi at 6:12 AM
December 10, 2009
Plaintiffs in Atlantic Yards eminent domain lawsuit ask Court of Appeals to reopen case given appeal in similar Columbia case
Atlantic Yards Report
Like a kindly teacher who gives a failing student an opportunity to re-take a test, the plaintiffs in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case are willing to give the New York State Court of Appeals a second chance to get things right.
In an unusual, long-shot effort to reopen a case seemingly closed, attorneys for the plaintiffs--nine residential and commercial property owners and tenants--in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain litigation are asking the Court of Appeals to take a second look.
Why? A lower court's ruling against the use of eminent domain case for the Columbia University expansion will force the Court of Appeals to revisit the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) application of allegedly arbitrary blight standards.
"We do not bring this motion for reargument lightly," said attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff in a press release from Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, which has organized and funded the lawsuit. "But this is an extraordinary situation. It's not every day that a court rules that the ESDC has conspired with an influential private party to violate the constitutional right to property."
"Given the Columbia and Atlantic Yards rulings, no one knows whether their property is now vulnerable to the ESDC engaging in the same pattern," he said. "We need clarity concerning the ESDC's fraudulent abuse of the ‘blight' issue. The ESDC has been unmasked as a serial eminent domain abuser. We've reached a tipping point where that agency's actions regarding condemnation have lost all legitimacy."
...Potential results
1) The motion could simply be rejected.
2) It could be accepted, and the 3-2 decision in the Columbia case--known as Kaur--could be overturned, based on the decision in the Atlantic Yards case, which gave seemingly unlimited authority to the ESDC to decide on blight. (That's what Greg David of Crain's thinks.)
3) It could be accepted, and the Columbia case could be upheld, but on narrow grounds, such as bad faith--the ESDC's use of three separate blight studies--not available on the AY case. That would leave the ESDC to proceed with condemnation.
4) Or it could be accepted, and the Court of Appeals could uphold the Columbia case on broad grounds, declaring the blight standard to be vague and its application improper. That's what the Atlantic Yards plaintiffs are hoping for.
article
Additional coverage...
NY Observer, After Columbia Decision, An Atlantic Yards Appeal to Top Court, Again
As promised, opponents of Bruce Ratner's planned $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project are litigating once again.
Following a surprise court decision last week that ruled as unconstitutional the use of eminent domain for Columbia University's West Harlem expansion, opponents of the giant Brooklyn development today appealed again to the state's top court.
Click through to see the motion.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Eminent Domain Issue Not Dead?
Posted by eric at 9:09 PM
Eminent Domain: The Taking of Private Property for Public Use – An Examination of Recent New York State Decisions in Light of Kelo v. City of New London
Stroock.com
by Ross F. Moskowitz and Joon H. Kim
In the last month, New York courts have issued two important decisions regarding the use of eminent domain/condemnation powers. The first was the November 24, 2009 decision by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York in In the Matter of Daniel Goldstein v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp., in which the court upheld the exercise of eminent domain powers in the Atlantic Yards area of Brooklyn, New York to acquire private property for future development by a private developer. In the second, In re Parminder Kaur v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp., the First Department held on December 3, 2009 that the taking of private property in the Manhattanville area of West Harlem, New York for use by Columbia University was improper.
This Stroock Real Estate Practice Group Special Bulletin looks at these two decisions in light of Kelo v. City of New London, a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the taking of private property to effectuate an economic development plan.
...Perhaps the most significant difference is that in In re Parminder Kaur, the finding of blight was made after the selection of the private party receiving majority of the benefit of the condemnation, whereas in both Kelo and In the Matter of Daniel Goldstein, the finding that the area was blighted and in need of economic redevelopment was made before the private developer was selected.
NoLandGrab: That analysis of the differences in the cases is just plain wrong. No part of the Atlantic Yards footprint south of the railyard was ever declared blighted prior to Ratner's ID'ing the land he wanted, and blight was never put forth as a justification for the Atlantic Yards project until after the Kelo verdict was rendered. The problem is that Ratner's arena wouldn't fit in the portion of the site that was previously designated part of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area.
And as far as ATURA is concerned, the fact that nearly four decades elapsed between its designation and the hatching of Ratner's Atlantic Yards scheme should just maybe call the whole thing into question, no?
Posted by eric at 6:37 PM
Questioning Manhattanville
The Eye [Columbia Spectator]
by Amanda Cormier
Columbia Real Estate Law Professor Michael Heller weighs in Columbia eminent domain vs. Atlantic Yards eminent domain.
How will the recent Atlantic Yards decision affect the appeal?
The Atlantic Yards decision was by this higher court. It came out just recently and was essentially the same issue, and it went the other way, in a 6-1 vote. What that suggests to me—the intermediate decision going the other way, although it has very similar facts and very similar legal issues—is that it doesn’t have the deepest legal grounding. It seems to run against New York law, which is the Atlantic Yards decision, and federal law, which is the Kilo [sic] case of a few years ago.
What are the odds the Supreme Court would rule on this case?
You can never know the odds of the outcome of a particular case. If you look at the Atlantic Yards decision, it suggests that the highest New York court reads New York law consistent with federal law in this area, which would tend toward allowing use of eminent domain in this very ordinary example of it. But that said, you never know if they’ll want to change their understanding of the law. All eminent-domain cases are very fact-specific.
NoLandGrab: Except sometimes those facts are made up, as in the "facts" put forth by the Empire State Development Corporation.
Posted by eric at 5:37 PM
DDDB PRESS RELEASE: Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Plaintiffs Request Reargument in Court of Appeals
Ask Court to Hold Decision on Request Until It Decides Columbia Case
Eminent Domain Ruling Against ESDC/Columbia Gives New Life to Brooklyn Owners and Tenants Fighting to Save Their Homes and Businesses
BROOKLYN, NY — The Atlantic Yards eminent domain issue will not go away. The legal fight against the Empire State Development Corporation's use of eminent domain to seize Brooklyn homes and businesses so developer Forest City Ratner can build a private arena and luxury condominiums continues.
Today plaintiffs in the Atlantic Yards case (Goldstein et al v. NY Urban Development Corp.) are asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider its November 24 decision, and specifically requesting that the Court hold any final decision on today's motion and appeal until the Court rules on the Columbia eminent domain case, which it will hear early next year.
The Appellate Division, First Department's, December 3rd ruling (Kaur v. NY Urban Development Corp.) in favor of property owners found that the Empire State Development Corporation engaged in a scheme to seize their properties by eminent domain for Columbia University's expansion plan. The ruling is the first to date that has exposed the ESDC's illegal activity and it has created confusion in New York's courts regarding eminent domain and "blight."
"We do not bring this motion for reargument lightly. But this is an extraordinary situation. It's not every day that a court rules that the ESDC has conspired with an influential private party to violate the constitutional right to property" said Matthew Brinckerhoff, an attorney representing the Brooklyn plaintiffs. "Given the Columbia and Atlantic Yards rulings, no one knows whether their property is now vulnerable to the ESDC engaging in the same pattern. We need clarity concerning the ESDC's fraudulent abuse of the ‘blight' issue. . The ESDC has been unmasked as a serial eminent domain abuser. We've reached a tipping point where that agency's actions regarding condemnation have lost all legitimacy."
The Columbia ruling, in stark contrast to the Atlantic Yards ruling only nine days prior, presents an extraordinary and compelling situation warranting reargument in the State's high Court. The ESDC's blight determination in the Columbia case was thrown out in a 3-2 decision that deemed it to be nothing more than "sophistry" and "idiocy." The post-hoc justification of blight to allow for what is an impermissible private taking of private property by ESDC, is the same in both cases. There is no common understanding or standard criteria used by ESDC and its blight consultant AKRF—in each case paid by the developers—to determine what "blight" is.
The ESDC in furtherance of Columbia's scheme and Forest City Ratner's scheme, found so-called "blight" precisely where the university and Ratner asked them to, and found it years after each had introduced their plans to remove neighborhoods for their benefit.
The situation now is that "blight" means whatever the agency and its consultant, on behalf of private developers, says it means.
The motion papers can be found at: http://www.dddb.net/eminentdomain
They will be posted in the early afternoon.
Posted by eric at 12:33 PM
ESDC responds to Perkins letter on eminent domain: Appellate Division was wrong on Columbia, appeal will continue, AY not impacted
Atlantic Yards Report
Governor David Paterson's office says that it defers to the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to respond to state Senator Bill Perkins' call for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain, and the ESDC says its response remains the same as last week:
ESDC believes the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department in the matter of the Columbia University Manhattanville Campus to be wrong and inconsistent with established law, as consistently articulated by the New York State Court of Appeals, most recently with respect to ESDC's Atlantic Yards project.
ESDC continues to fully support this project. The expansion of one of New York’s oldest educational institutions will enhance the vitality of both the University and its neighboring West Harlem community, while meeting the long-term needs of its residents.
This recent ruling does not impact Atlantic Yards, and ESDC intends to appeal the decision.
Posted by eric at 11:02 AM
December 9, 2009
Pol says Columbia case should halt Atlantic Yards
The Brooklyn Blog [NY Post]
by Rich Calder
Is this the last hope for Atlantic Yards opponents?
State Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Manhattan) is asking Gov. Paterson not to appeal a recent court ruling blocking the use of eminent domain for Columbia University’s expansion and to order "a statewide moratorium" on the use of the controversial land-grabbing procedure.
Such a move would obviously affect developer Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, which the Paterson-controlled Empire State Development Corp. is expected to begin seizing private land for through eminent domain in the coming weeks.
But the ESDC isn’t caving in. A spokeswoman said the ESDC plans to appeal the Columbia ruling, which it believes "doesn’t impact" Atlantic Yards.
Additional coverage...
Atlantic Yards Report, Perkins asks Paterson for moratorium on eminent domain, not to appeal Columbia case
State Senator Bill Perkins, who represents West Harlem and in September 2008 held a hearing on reform of emiment domain, has asked Governor David Paterson "to forego an appeal" of the Appellate Division decision blocking the use of eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion, "and to order a statewide moratorium on the use of eminent domain within the State of New York pending legislative action."
That would include eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards project.
...It would be more difficult for Paterson to reverse course on Atlantic Yards; for example, the MTA, which he controls, argues that the Atlantic Yards deal was too far along to consider seeking another bidder for the Vanderbilt Yard.
Perkins' letter draws significantly on the decision in the Columbia case, known in shorthand as Kaur. It says little about the Court of Appeals' decision in the Atlantic Yards case, but does make a fundamental point: For one, no one knows what 'blight' is—the crucial and fundamental issue in both the Columbia and Atlantic Yards cases.
NY Observer, Perkins to Paterson: Don’t Appeal Columbia Decision, Reform Eminent Domain
In a letter to the governor dated Tuesday, Mr. Perkins called for "a statewide moratorium on the use of eminent domain," and said he was preparing "a bill to reform how eminent domain is exercised."
He also tries to invoke the issue on a more personal level with the governor, bringing up a 2005 rally the two of them attended, protesting the use of eminent domain:
You may recall that back in 2005 you and I stood on the steps of City Hall together with several members of the City Council to protest the United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London which affirmed the use of eminent domain for private development that entails a so-called "public use." That decision contained language encouraging states to review their own eminent domain statutes. Some states have done just that. It is now New York's turn.
Mr. Perkins has established himself as one of few loud voices in the Legislature to protest eminent domain.
Posted by eric at 8:38 PM
Big Blighters
Townhall.com
by Jacob Sullum
After Kelo v. City of New London, the 2005 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court approved the forcible transfer of property from one private owner to another in the name of "economic development," 43 states passed reforms that were supposed to curb eminent domain abuses. But most states still allow condemnation of property deemed to be "blighted," and many of them define that condition so broadly that it has become a synonym for "coveted," as illustrated by two recent New York cases.
In 1954, when the Supreme Court declared that eliminating blight counts as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment and that property may be transferred to other private owners for that purpose, the case involved a Washington, D.C., neighborhood where two-thirds of the dwellings were considered "beyond repair"; most lacked central heating, indoor toilets and bathrooms; and some were located in alleys. As part of "a comprehensive plan" aimed at alleviating these "miserable and disreputable housing conditions," the Court ruled, it was acceptable to condemn a department store that was itself in good condition.
...Last week a lower appeals court reached the same conclusion in a case involving Columbia University's expansion into the Manhattanville section of Harlem. As in the Atlantic Yards case, the Empire State Development Corp., the authority empowered to use eminent domain, went looking for "characteristics that demonstrate blight conditions" so it could reach a predetermined conclusion that condemnation was justified.
The result, said the court, was "a preposterous summary of building and sidewalk defects" that could be found in "virtually every neighborhood in the five boroughs."
Posted by eric at 11:05 AM
December 7, 2009
When can't New York take your land
NY Post
by Steven Malanga
A New York appellate court last week harshly rejected the state's effort to take property from businesses in upper Manhattan and give it to Columbia University for its campus expansion, calling it a "scheme" hatched by the university and the state and labeling their arguments in favor of invoking eminent domain, the government power to seize private property, as "mere sophistry."
Yet for decades the state has confiscated private property on the slimmest of pretexts, often vastly underpaying, and in the process ruined businesses and lives. The Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va.-based, public-interest group, recently called New York one of the worst eminent-domain abusers in the country.
Only the state Legislature can fix this problem with a new law to rein in these abuses.
...Little has changed, especially in the case of businesses that don't own their own locations. For them, eminent domain is often a death knell because the state pays little in takings cases. To take one recent example, many of the estimated 55 businesses the city displaced to make way for the New York Times tower on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets either never reopened or relocated and have since succumbed.
...New York's is one of the few legislatures that hasn't acted, but the need is clear. Reform would include:
- A stricter definition of "blight" land so that officials can't declare even a thriving neighborhood to be devastated just so they can seize property in it.
- A ban on government taking property from one private citizen to transfer to another private citizen for redevelopment merely to enhance the value of the land.
We should all shudder at the notion that state or local officials could one day seize our property simply because they think someone else could make it more valuable.
Related coverage...
Atlantic Yards Report, Manhattan Institute's Malanga: two basic reforms needed in state eminent domain laws
Let me add some details, since Malanga barely mentioned Atlantic Yards.
Surely the designation of cracked sidewalks as blight (right, in Brooklyn) by consultants for the Empire State Development Corporation in both the Columbia and Atlantic Yards cases deserves a rethink.
And a lawyer for the Empire State Development Corporation was asked in the Atlantic Yards oral argument October 14, “is it the law of New York that if I own a house in an area that the government thinks could be improved, a perfectly nice house, it’s a clean house, nothing particularly wrong with the area, but it could be better, more vibrant, more dynamic businesses, is that enough for the government to [condemn and seize] the house?”
His response: “Under New York State constitutional law, yes, it is."
The Manhattan Institute, which has a libertarian bent, is alarmed. So are others of a different philosophical bent, like state Senator Bill Perkins. The issue won't go away.
Posted by eric at 9:55 PM
Willets Point United's fight against eminent domain again causes its lobbyist to gyrate
Atlantic Yards Report
From a press release from Willets Point United:
Willets Point United, Inc. – a group of more than 20 property owners in Queens, NY, fighting to keep their land despite the city’s desire to condemn it and turn it over to a yet-to-be-named private developer – believes the NYC Economic Development Corporation’s (EDC) approach to improving Willets Point is inappropriate, and we will oppose it in every way. Today we have notified the EDC via letter of the very disturbing track records of certain developer firms likely to respond to the EDC’s Request for Qualifications (RFQ) by today’s deadline and asks that these firms be disqualified from future consideration for receipt of a Request for Proposals (RFP).
(Emphasis added)
One contact on the press release was lobbyist Richard Lipsky, the same guy who declared Atlantic Yards opponents should get "a well-deserved delay of game penalty" and sneered "Enough already! It's high time that the DDDers, took their settlement monies, and went back to their lattes."
Lipsky is having to gyrate on eminent domain. He supports eminent domain for his client, Forest City Ratner, but opposes it for his client, Willets Point United, as well as for his client Nick Sprayregen of Tuck-It-Away, who has so far successfully challenged eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion.
Commenter Daniel Goldstein writes:
Wouldn't Lipsky help his Queens and Manhattan clients more if he dropped ranks with his Cleveland-based client and joined ranks with the eminent domain plaintiffs in Brooklyn who are fighting the same exact thing he and his clients are fighting in Queens and Manhattan?
Wouldn't he sleep better at night? A few thousand bucks really can't be worth all the agita from that much cognitive dissonance.
Posted by eric at 9:44 PM
Which court ruling is better for NYC: Atlantic Yards or Columbia?
Crain's NY Business
A New York state appeals court ruled Thursday that the state cannot use eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University to condemn land the school wants for its $6 billion expansion plan. It called the use of eminent domain unconstitutional and questioned the state and university's claims that the West Harlem area is blighted. The decision comes less than a month after another court ruled in favor of developer Forest City Ratner using eminent domain to complete its $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project. That Brooklyn project includes a 22-acre residential development and a basketball arena.
Which ruling was better for New York City?
→ Columbia. The university and state failed to prove that the area in question is blighted, a requirement for eminent domain.
→ Atlantic Yards. The Brooklyn project will boost the local economy.
→ Neither. Until it becomes more transparent, the eminent domain process is bad for the city, no matter what project it affects.
Click here to cast your vote.
Posted by eric at 10:47 AM
Total condemnation: State botched eminent domain for new Columbia campus
NY Daily News, Editorial
What, no vitriol about a "small band" of "selfish holdouts?" Errol Louis must be on vacation.
New York State's supposed economic development geniuses have only themselves to blame for the scathing court ruling that barred the use of eminent domain to spur Columbia University's $6.3 billion expansion plan.
The Manhattan Appellate Division cited persuasive evidence in declaring that the Empire State Development Corp. essentially concocted a determination that the neighborhood where Columbia wants to build was blighted.
...The ruling was stunning. While it may slow construction of Columbia's hugely important campus in West Harlem, the decision was nonetheless welcome for putting public authorities on notice that they must meet minimal standards before trying to seize private property.
NoLandGrab: Of course, those "minimal standards" haven't been met with Atlantic Yards, either, but neither the News, nor the Appellate Division, seem to have made that connection.
Related coverage...
Atlantic Yards Report, Daily News editorial endorses court decision in Columbia case, doesn't grapple with AY similarities
While the editorial noted that the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the state two weeks ago in the AY case--subject of a wrongheaded Daily News editorial--it fails to acknowledge that the dissent in the Columbia case cited the AY case, while the court opinion ignored it.
Yes, there are some differences in the underlying facts of the Columbia and AY cases. And the state's highest court might in fact uphold the challenge to the state's use of eminent domain for Columbia on narrow grounds, without revisiting the Atlantic Yards case.
But the court should confront the essential similarities between the two decisions: the use of underutilization to determine blight and the Empire State Development Corporation's vague blight standards.
Moreover, the majority opinion in the Columbia case pointed to the evidence of pretext--that blight was not identified as a justification until after the project was announced. In his dissent in the Atlantic Yards case, Judge Robert Smith cited similar evidence in the Atlantic Yards case, but the majority ignored it.
Posted by eric at 5:47 AM
Families in homeless shelter in AY footprint told they'll have to leave by January 15
Atlantic Yards Report
Forest City Ratner and the Empire State Development Corporation would have you believe that property condemnations for Atlantic Yards are only going to affect rich yuppie condo owners, who'll get even richer thanks to generous buyouts. Wrong.
Residents in a two-building shelter for homeless families in the Atlantic Yards footprint just got some not-so-sunny holiday greetings, as the facility is slated to be closed by January 15.
A mandatory meeting at Pacific Dean will be held tonight "to provide details and help you through the transition," according to a message distributed to residents.
The buildings typically house more than 90 families. Some will be moved to permanent housing, others to another shelter.
...The shelter has not been sold, at least according to city property records for 603 Dean Street and the adjacent 768 Pacific Street, which are Block 1129, Lots 76 and 21, but they are subject to eminent domain. I don't know if any transaction is in process.
The block, at the southeastern section of the Atlantic Yards footprint between Dean and Pacific streets and Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues, is slated to become a massive interim surface parking lot, with 1044 spaces.
NoLandGrab: Suffice it to say, Bruce Ratner is not offering these families "generous relocation packages."
Posted by eric at 5:30 AM
December 6, 2009
Definition of public good
Crain's NY Business, Letters
Crain's is wrong on key points in its Nov. 30 editorial, “Affirming Atlantic Yards.” As Norman Oder puts it in his thorough, in-depth blog, Atlantic Yards Report: “The Court of Appeals did not endorse the public good. It chose not to substitute its judgment for the Empire State Development Corp.'s questionable—but still "rational'—determination of the public good. Nor have "elected officials' implemented development plans.”
This deal is backdoor in so many ways, and that is why this “holdout” is joining 4,700 others in supporting Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn in its legal fight.
—Carol Wierzbicki
link [Subscription/trial registration required]
Posted by eric at 7:59 PM
Eminent Domain: Let the Public Beware!
NBC New York
By Gabe Pressman
New York City broadcast television news outlets have shown little interest in the eminent domain battles going on in their area. Late in the game, we have this item.
The Appellate Division of State Supreme court ruled that the condemnation procedure, in which Columbia tried to take Manhattanville property for the expansion project, was unconstitutional.
The appeals court spoke out angrily, referring to how the "scheme was hatched," calling the effort “sophistry” and “idiocy.”
The ruling denounced the state for declaring the neighborhood involved blighted. The university controls most of the land needed for its planned $6.3 billion expansion --and says it will appeal the decision.
But, at least for now, it’s a great victory for the owner of several self-storage warehouses and other possessors of properties who have refused to sell to Columbia. The court even charged that the Empire State Development Corporation tried to stack the deck in Columbia’s favor.
The idea of stacking the deck should offend taxpayers, and make us thankful we have courts standing in the way of plundering landlords -- even if they say they’re acting in the cause of higher education
It’s likely that Columbia will appeal now to the highest court in the state, the Court of Appeals. That body recently ruled in favor of the Atlantic Yards project, in which a new Brooklyn home is being built for the New Jersey Nets.
Eminent domain -- when government takes over private property allegedly to promote the "public good" -- is a most controversial procedure. In recent years, government has used it more and more.
In the Columbia case, Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the owners who held out against the university, says the decision “sets forth a road map for how private property owners can fight back when government tries to seize your property in the name of eminent domain.”
But a spokesman for the state said the court decision was “wrong and inconsistent with established law.”
...
So, in plain language, can eminent domain be used, not to promote the public good, but to cause public harm? Most assuredly, yes. This concept can be manipulated to hurt people, in the name of helping them!
That’s why the courts must act as a brake on arrogant government officials. As one writer noted in the NYTimes Magazine; “One man’s urban improvement is another man’s urban debacle.”
Posted by steve at 7:53 AM
December 5, 2009
Court Nixes University’s Harlem Expansion
Globe Street
By Daniel Wise
This article on this week's decision by the Apellate Court against Columbia University's use of eminent domain connects with the ongoing Atlantic Yards fight.
On the subject of Atlantic Yards, lead counsel Matthew Brickerhoff of the group Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn issued a statement following Thursday’s Columbia decision saying that, "The timing of the ruling is certainly propitious. In the next few days, we will file a motion asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling in our case, based on this new indictment of the agency’s standard operating procedure. We know that the Court of Appeals will now review the Columbia University ruling, and we are optimistic that the abuse of power detailed in Justice Catterson’s powerful opinion, combined with the agency’s similar conduct in the Atlantic Yards case will cause a few of the judges who already expressed skepticism to reconsider their decision."
Posted by steve at 9:05 AM
Property Rights Are No Slam-Dunk
Investor's Business Daily
Eminent Domain: Four years after the Supreme Court told a Connecticut homeowner that no one's house is safe from developers, Brooklyn homeowners may lose their homes to a pro basketball team.
...
The latest victims of the Kelo decision may well be the residents of an area of Brooklyn known as Atlantic Yards, dominated by a rail yard and with homes and businesses that the state of New York, if not the residents, considers blighted.
Many states after Kelo took legislative action to protect private property and homeowners from seizure without a legitimate public use, but not New York. Its plans for the 22-acre site include an 18,000-seat basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets. That will certainly produce more tax revenue than small businesses and homeowners who don't want to move.
NoLandGrab: Missed entirely here is that, according to the New York City Independent Budget Office a Nets arena would be a money loser for New York City.
Posted by steve at 8:28 AM
Perkins Percolates on Eminent Domain
The Neighborhood Retail Alliance
Bruce Ratner lobbyist, Richard Lipsky, continues to condemn eminent domain in general, but not for Atlantic Yards in particular. He concludes this blog entry where he opines on the recent Kaur decision where Columbia University's use of eminent domain has been turned back:
All of which makes the case for legislative remedies all that much more compelling. But, as we have pointed out, the Willets Point situation is fraught with any number of extra-legal difficulties-cost traffic mitigation and feasibility leading the way. Still, the courts just may, hopefully, be moving towards a different view on the use of eminent domain for "public benefit," and not public use.
Unfortunately, Lipsky's financial arrangements keep him squarely behind Atlantic Yards, the eminent domain abuse poster child.
Posted by steve at 7:54 AM
Which court ruling is better for NYC: Atlantic Yards or Columbia?
Crain's
Crain's offers an on-line poll.
A New York state appeals court ruled Thursday that the state cannot use eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University to condemn land the school wants for its $6 billion expansion plan. It called the use of eminent domain unconstitutional and questioned the state and university's claims that the West Harlem area is blighted. The decision comes less than a month after another court ruled in favor of developer Forest City Ratner using eminent domain to complete its $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project. That Brooklyn project includes a 22-acre residential development and a basketball arena.
Which ruling was better for New York City?
- Columbia. The university and state failed to prove that the area in question is blighted, a requirement for eminent domain.
- Atlantic Yards. The Brooklyn project will boost the local economy.
- Neither. Until it becomes more transparent, the eminent domain process is bad for the city, no matter what project it affects.
Posted by steve at 7:48 AM
December 4, 2009
Lawyer who won Columbia case "cautiously optimistic" about surviving appeal, says creation of record key to win
Atlantic Yards Report
So, can yesterday's surprising 3-2 Appellate Division decision blocking the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) pursuit of eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion plan be upheld at the Court of Appeals?
"I'm cautiously optimistic," plaintiffs' attorney Norman Siegel said in an interview last night, mindful that Justice James Catterson's opinion ignored the Court of Appeals decision last week upholding the ESDC's use of eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards case. "We really have to change the law of New York, and Catterson's decision could be a catalyst."
"We have huge challenges facing us," he acknowledged, given that the Court of Appeals would have to essentially change course. "I'm aware, as a litigator, that this is a win for December 3, and we have to go to Albany, but I know how to get to Albany."
He argued just a few weeks ago at the Court of Appeals on an ancillary case regarding the ESDC's appeal of a ruling regarding the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
The appeal in this case could be heard as early as March, with a decision coming six weeks later.
"Significant win"
"This is a significant win for property owners and community activists who oppose eminent domain," Siegel said. "The road map is that no longer can we allow just the government to do the Blight Study, we need to find the resources and find the experts who can work with us and put our own study in."
(I pointed out similarities and differences between the Columbia and AY cases, while the attorney in the AY case cited fundamental similarities. Siegel, who represented Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn after its formation, agreed that, in both cases, blight was used as a pretext, given that the projects were announced well before blight was cited as a justification for eminent domain.)
NoLandGrab: And New Yorkers didn't elect Siegel Public Advocate why?
Posted by eric at 11:23 AM
Can decision in Columbia eminent domain case reopen AY case? DDDB is trying, but there are both similarities and contrasts (and also precedent)
Atlantic Yards Report
Based on the surprising 3-2 Appellate Division decision yesterday blocking the the Empire State Development Corporation's use of eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, organizer and funder of the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case, hopes that it can succeed in the rare step of reopening the latter.
It's not easy. First, the Court of Appeals has to agree to such a rare step.
Then the plaintiffs have to win. And that wouldn't be easy, either, because the decision in the Columbia case was in significant tension with the Court of Appeals' decision just last week in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case.
And even if the Columbia decision is not overturned, it is possible--depending on which frame the court uses--to make a distinction between the Columbia case and the Atlantic Yards case. Then again, there are some fundamental similarities.
Fundamental flaw
The fundamental flaw in Justice James Catterson's opinion yesterday is that he completely ignored the Court of Appeals decision in the Atlantic Yards case, an opinion cited in Justice Peter Tom's Columbia dissent as compelling the Court of Appeals to defer to the ESDC's designation of blight.
...Reopening the case
Brinckerhoff told me that, in most circumstances, a motion for reconsideration is futile. He said he was "cautiously hopeful" that the Court of Appeals, recognizing that the two rulings appear inconsistent, would accept the motion.
Then it could, at minimum, hold the case in abeyance until the appeal in the Columbia case is decided. That appeal could be heard in March, with a decision coming within six weeks after that.
..."If I was involved in the bond sale, I would be looking at this decision and it would concern me, in a way that is very unexpected," Brinckerhoff said. The case is going to go to the Court of Appeals, he noted, "and judges ruled one way that seems rather inconsistent, in an opinion that doesn't cite [the AY case]."
Posted by eric at 10:54 AM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: Columbia University Edition
NY Daily News, No eminent domain for Columbia University expansion: court
In a blistering ruling, an appeals court Thursday blocked the state from seizing private properties for the $6.3 billion expansion of Columbia University.
The Appellate Division's 3-to-2 ruling upheld charges by several commercial property owners that the Empire State Development Corp. stacked the deck in favor of Columbia University in allowing the use of eminent domain.
"The process employed by ESDC predetermined the unconstitutional outcome," the judges ruled.
The appeals court said the ESDC's finding that the Manhattanville neighborhood was blighted and underused "was bereft of facts."
...The narrow Columbia decision is bound to be appealed to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.
Recently, the top court ruled in favor of eminent domain in the much-litigated Atlantic Yards project to build a new home for the Nets in Brooklyn.
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Eminent Domain Month Continues: Kelo No Help For Columbia’s Plans
The last few weeks have been hot and heavy on the Eminent Domain front. We had news about the fallout from the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision; a big ruling for private developers in the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards case; and arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court over whether Florida’s beach renourishment program constitutes a “taking.”
But wait, there’s more. Earlier today, the appellate division of the New York state Supreme Court found Columbia University’s expansion plans, which propose condemnation of parts of a 17-acre lot in West Harlem, unconstitutional.
The New York Times, Court Bars New York’s Takeover of Land for Columbia Campus
The majority opinion was scathing in its appraisal of how the “scheme was hatched,” using terms like “sophistry” and “idiocy” in describing how the state went about declaring the neighborhood blighted, the main prerequisite for eminent domain.
The $6.3 billion expansion plan is not dead; an appeal has been promised, and Columbia still controls most of the land. But at a time when the government’s use of eminent domain on behalf of private interests has become increasingly controversial, the ruling was a boon for opponents.
“I feel unbelievable,” said Nicholas Sprayregen, the owner of several self-storage warehouses in the Manhattanville expansion area and one of two property owners who have refused to sell to the university. “I was always cautiously optimistic. But I was aware we were going against 50 years of unfair cases against property owners.”
...The court’s decision, if it is upheld, is not fatal to the plan. Columbia already owns or controls 61 of 67 buildings in the 17-acre project area. Presumably, it can build around the holdout owners, or come to agreement with them. But the state and the university have sought the entire site.
Which begs the question: why not just build around them in the first place?
AKRF, the firm that did the Environmental Impact study for the project, as well as the Atlantic Yards EIS, and just about every other EIS in New York State, and which seems to have never found an impact it didn't like, defended itself after being admonished by the court for a lack of objectivity:
A spokesman for the firm said in response to the court’s ruling: “As a firm of planners and analysts, AKRF’s responsibility is the collection and assessment of data in an objective and thorough manner. Our analyses help inform a public decision-making process. They are not advocacy documents.”
NoLandGrab: Yeah, right — it's just coincidence that every damned one of them ends up reaching the conclusions that the state and the developers want them to reach.
The Volokh Conspiracy, New York Intermediate Appellate Court Invalidates Taking of “Blighted” Property for Transfer to Columbia University, but Contradicts Recent State Supreme Court in the Process
There is, however, one major problem with the Kaur decision: it seems to contradict the New York Court of Appeals’ (the state supreme court) recent decision in the Atlantic Yards case, Goldstein v. New York Urban Development Corporation, which specifically ruled that a property can be declared blighted and condemned if there was “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” in the area. As I explained in this post, Goldstein allows state officials to designate almost any area as blighted and then condemn property within it. As an intermediate appellate court, the Kaur court is required to follow state supreme court rulings. Unfortunately, the Kaur majority barely even mentions Goldstein, except for noting that the same private consultant conducted the study allegedly proving the existence of “blight” in both cases. Perhaps this neglect is explained by the fact that the Atlantic Yards opinion was only issued last week. If so, the Kaur court should have taken more time to fully consider it. The contradiction with Goldstein is in fact noted by the Kaur dissenters, who point out that the state supreme court ruling requires broad deference to administrative blight determinations, even if there is considerable evidence that the determination was flawed.
It might still be possible to invalidate the Manhattanville takings in a way consistent with Goldstein. For example, the Kaur majority based its ruling in part on the fact that the government failed to follow some of the procedural requirements of New York’s blight statute.
However, the central holding of Kaur - that “underutilization” isn’t enough to prove blight — is in clear tension with the Atlantic Yards decision. The fact that the same consultant conducted both blight studies and used similar arguments to justify his findings only accentuates the tension. Indeed, “underutilization” was the main evidence for the existence of blight in the Atlantic Yards project area, as well as in the part of Manhattanville condemned for transfer to Columbia.
NY1, Court Decision Halts Columbia Expansion
In a statement, the agency said, "ESDC believes the decision to be wrong and inconsistent with established law, as consistently articulated by the New York State Court of Appeals, most recently with respect to ESDC's Atlantic Yards project."
Curbed, State's Land Seizure for Columbia Expansion Ruled Unconstitutional!
The ESDC plans to appeal the surprising decision. Why surprising? Because eminent domain decisions, like at Atlantic Yards recently, have a way of going the government's way.
Click here to download a PDF of the court's 65-page decision.
Posted by eric at 8:55 AM
From Kelo to Columbia: What Eminent Domain means now
The Capitol Pressroom
Bad news for Columbia.
The University had plans to expand its campus into west Harlem with the use of newly broadened eminent domain rules, but those plans were thwarted yesterday by the Appellate Division of the NYS Supreme Court which ruled AGAINST Columbia.
This flies in the face of expectations, which were strengthened by a ruling LAST week from a different court which gave Ratner, the private company developing Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, its stamp of approval on eminent domain. That ruling no doubt angered people who live in the Brooklyn neighborhood that Bruce Ratner & the City of NY are “taking” by ED.
Not only is this being watched by constitutional scholars all over the country – it is opening up a huge can of worms for business interests here in New York State: Not only for private companies that want to take over public land for expansion, but for the Empire State Development Corporation, Industrial Development Agencies, and City planners.
One of the foremost experts on eminent domain, Patricia Salkin will be joining us to figure it all out, plus I am working on getting reaction from the Empire State Development Corporation....
Listen live this morning at 11 a.m.
Posted by eric at 8:28 AM
December 3, 2009
PRESS RELEASE, DEVELOP DON'T DESTROY BROOKLYN: Not So Fast, It’s Not Over
Court’s Decision in Columbia Case Breaths New Life Into Case Against Eminent Domain for Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Project
Victory Against Eminent Domain Abuse Looks Like Tipping Point In Statewide Fight
BROOKLYN, NY — The Atlantic Yards project suffers a blow.
In an important decision with far-reaching ramifications, New York’s Supreme Court Appellate Division (First Department) http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_08976.htmruled today that the Empire State Development Corporation cannot seize private properties by eminent domain to give to Columbia University.
The property owners and tenants in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case, http://www.dddb.net/eminentdomainGoldstein et al. v NY Urban Development Corp., were thrown a lifeline today by a Manhattan state appellate court. In a 3-2 decision the Appellate Division ruled that the state agency violated the Constitution when it found that the Manhattanville area near Columbia University was blighted and thus subject to seizure and transfer to the private university.
“The timing of the ruling is certainly propitious,” said Matthew Brinckerhoff, lead counsel for the home and business owners who just nine days ago had lost the first stage of their legal challenge to the confiscation of their properties. “As Justice Catterson rightly observed the Empire State Development Corporation’s abusive practices are the height of ‘idiocy.’ In the next few days, we will file a motion asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling in our case, based on this new indictment of the agency’s standard operating procedure. We know that the Court of Appeals will now review the Columbia University ruling, and we are optimistic that the abuse of power detailed in Justice Catterson’s powerful opinion, combined with the agency’s similar conduct in the Atlantic Yards case will cause a few of the Judges who already expressed skepticism to reconsider their decision. This will give us a rare second bite at the apple. We will not waste it.”
“My co-plaintiffs and I will fight every way possible to keep our homes and businesses from being seized. It is clear to me that the Catterson opinion speaks directly to the very same abuses perpetrated by the ESDC in its attempts to push Ratner’s project forward. Today's Columbia ruling gives us good reason for hope that our rights to enjoy our properties will be restored by the Court,” said Daniel Goldstein lead plaintiff on the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case.
Posted by lumi at 9:02 PM
Appellate Division overturns ESDC's use of eminent domain for Columbia expansion; how different is it from AY?
Atlantic Yards Report
A big development in New York City eminent domain news — the Appellate Division has ruled against the ESDC's planned use of eminent domain for Columbia University's Manhattanville land grab.
From the majority opinion in the Appellate Division's 3-2 overturning of the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) planned use of eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion:
It is recognized that Kelo, as described below, did not concern an area characterized as "blighted." However, the blight designation in the instant case is mere sophistry. It was utilized by ESDC years after the scheme was hatched to justify the employment of eminent domain but this project has always primarily concerned a massive capital project for Columbia. Indeed, it is nothing more than economic redevelopment wearing a different face.
So too did the Atlantic Yards petitioners argue that blight was a pretext because it wasn't mentioned as a justification for the project for more than a year after it was announced--an issue ignored by the majority in the Court of Appeals decision last week.
Underutilization
Wrote Justice James Catterson (who also filed a fiery concurrence in the case challenging the AY environmental review):
The most egregious conclusion offered in support of the finding of blight is that of underutilization. AKRF and Earth Tech allege the existence of blight from, inter alia, the degree of utilization, or percentage of maximum permitted floor area ratio ("FAR") to which lots are built. The theoretical justification for using the degree of utilization of development rights as an indicator of blight is the inference that it reflects owners' inability to make profitable use of full development rights due to lack of demand. Lack of demand can only be determined in relation to the FAR when combined with the zoning for the area in question. Manhattanville, for the relevant period, was zoned to allow maximum FAR of two, leaving owners essentially with a choice between a one or two-story structure. No rationale was presented by the respondents for the wholly arbitrary standard of counting any lot built to 60% or less of maximum FAR as constituting a blighted condition.
This is the exact same ratio used in the Atlantic Yards Blight Study.
Norman Oder has more details on the other side of the link.
NoLandGrab: This is great news for the business owners who steadfastly refused to cave in under the threat of eminent domain, but it does leave Atlantic Yards opponents scratching their heads and asking, "how is Columbia U. so different from Bruce Ratner?"
Posted by eric at 3:18 PM
December 2, 2009
Tish James and Dana Berliner on WBAI, Thursday, 5 p.m.
Prospect Heights City Council member Letitia James and Institute for Justice litigator Dana Berliner will join Behind the News host Doug Henwood tomorrow (Thursday, December 3rd) to discuss the Atlantic Yards project.
The program will air live on WBAI between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m., at 99.5 FM in New York City. Archived shows are available at www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html or at WBAI.org.
Posted by eric at 4:53 PM
Eminent domain approval in Brooklyn revives questions about Manhattanville
University officials see the Atlantic Yards ruling as a possible bellwether for the Manhattanville cases, while plaintiffs disagree.
Columbia Spectator
by Maggie Astor
A recent New York State Court of Appeals ruling upholding the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn has sparked renewed interest in two similar cases concerning Columbia’s planned Manhattanville campus.
But the plaintiffs who challenge the use of eminent domain in Manhattanville say their cases are different, and do not see the pro-eminent domain decision as indicative of their chances.
Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen and gas station owners Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur filed lawsuits in January with the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, one level below the Court of Appeals. Both suits challenge the Empire State Development Corporation’s December 2008 approval of the state’s invocation of eminent domain for Manhattanville.
ESDC would seize private properties in the 17-acre expansion zone and transfer ownership to the University, which would pay the current owners market-rate value. Columbia controls over 90 percent of land in the area, and Sprayregen and the Singhs are the only landowners who refuse to sell.
NoLandGrab: While Sprayregen and his attorney, Norman Siegel, profess confidence (and we hope they're right), the State Court of Appeals appears to have rendered "private" a very tenuous adjective when it comes to property in New York.
Posted by eric at 2:28 PM
December 1, 2009
Andrea Peyser Versus Property Rights
Future of Capitali$m
In the New York Post, columnist Andrea Peyser takes aim at those property owners who sued to try to stop their homes from being seized to build a new Nets arena and an associated development known as Atlantic Yards.
...The project's opponents seem to have exhausted their legal appeals, and Ms. Peyser calls them "selfish." Some of the area around Atlantic Yards is blighted, but some of it, including some of the property that the government wants to seize, is not blighted at all. To the extent that it is blighted, it is because of government ownership of the rail yards and because of Mr. Ratner's poorly designed shopping mall that already exists nearby. The announcement that Mr. Ratner is going to spend 10 years on a huge construction project that is 50% "affordable" housing served to freeze improvements that were already under way on their own organically in the surrounding blocks. If Mr. Ratner and the city and state government were to announce plans tomorrow to kick the New York Post's owner, Rupert Murdoch, out of his $44 million Fifth Avenue triplex and use the space for "affordable housing" and a basketball arena, would Mr. Murdoch be "selfish" to resist? Of course not.
NoLandGrab: We almost feel sorry for the venom-spitting Peyser; it can't be easy waking up angry every morning — and being consistently wrong about almost everything.
Posted by eric at 1:45 PM
Governor Paterson's New London
Senator Paterson Opposed Eminent Domain Abuse. Does Governor Paterson?
The Huffington Post
by Daniel Goldstein
Does Governor David Paterson want Prospect Heights, Brooklyn to be his New London, Connecticut?
It's up to him.
After last week's ruling by New York's high court—that the state could seize homes and businesses for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards development proposal because there was a “reasonable” enough argument from unelected bureaucrats at the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) that the neighborhood Ratner coveted was plagued by what the majority called “mild blight”—Governor Paterson has some decisions he must make.
...For a project that has indeed been rammed down the public's throat by executive fiat, it is clearly within the rights and the powers of Governor Paterson to demand that eminent domain not be exercised despite the Court's controversial ruling.
That's what Senator Paterson said he would have done.
Posted by eric at 11:53 AM
B'klyn Family Battles New York Over Eminent Domain
Last Family Remaining In Apartment Building On Site Of Atlantic Yards Says They Won't Budge
WCBS TV News
Lou Young reporting
The fight over property rights is getting ugly in Brooklyn. Homeowners living in the way of a new stadium projects say they'll go on fighting despite losing a major court battle. CBS 2 met the central figure in the battle who has seen almost all of his neighbors move away.
..."This'll be the largest project in the history of Brooklyn. It'll be larger than the footprint of the World Trade Center," said Dan Goldstein, a condo owner on the site. "They're stealing my property. My property is not for sale, but they're going to make me sell it to them if we lose this next round of litigation."
Six years ago all the apartments in Goldstein's building were all occupied. There were 31 units in the building, but that was before Atlantic Yards was announced and everybody wound up moving out over the course of 18 months.
Related coverage...
Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter, the story on cbs news tonight
Here's a tv news story about the project that aired on CBS tonite. They were gracious enough to allow us to film as they put it together. We like to film as media covers a story because it allows us to both convey important information- and give viewers a sense of how these events affect the characters lives.
Posted by eric at 11:47 AM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: Goldstein v. ESDC fallout continues
Barstow Desert Dispatch, No good news on property rights
For a while now I have been concerned with the issue of whether any argument advanced in support of violating private property rights might have something going for it. Some argue, for example, that since one’s private property isn’t always the result of one’s own work and often even stems from plain old luck — as when the price on one’s home rises because of market conditions one had no hand in — one’s property rights cannot be inviolate, let alone inalienable. Others claim that when majorities decide, after widespread public consideration and discussion that someone’s resources or wealth should be taken from them for some important project, this suffices to limit or even void the right to private property.
The second argument underlies the recent ruling of New York State’s Court of Appeals in support of the decision of the Empire State Development Corporation to condemn privately owned homes and small businesses so as to replace these with Bruce Ratner’s ”Atlantic Yards” project of 16 huge skyscrapers. The court didn’t rule exactly as did the U.S. Supreme Court back in July 2005, in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., which opened the door to take property simply to develop it better than how it is being used. The New York case backed the taking of private property because it is considered to be blighted. This is the “reasoning” of the lynch mob. And it is ominous because the very point of basic rights to one’s life, liberty, property (or whatever is involved in governing one’s own affairs — in other words, one’s sovereignty) is to bar others from being intruders, no matter what.
NewsReal, Poor People Will Soon Be Homeless — Thanks to ACORN
New York State’s highest court has cleared the way for an ambitious $5 billion taxpayer-funded development to be built in Brooklyn.
On his TV show yesterday Glenn Beck pointed out that a group that claims to protect the interests of poor people, ACORN, helped make possible the deal that will make current inhabitants of the Atlantic Yards project footprint homeless. ACORN has long prided itself on fighting the so-called gentrification of neighborhoods as rising property values force the poor to move.
But not anymore. ACORN sold out in exchange for a bailout.
CoStar Group, NY Court: $5 Bil. Atlantic Yards Project Can Proceed
According to the 6-1 ruling by the state's highest court, a finding by the Empire State Development Corp., which oversees economic development in New York, that the 22-acre area met the legal definition of blighted was sufficient to take the land. Opponents, including residents and landowners, argued that the state can legally only take land for public use, and the Atlantic Yards seizure is unconstitutional because it benefits private interests.
Posted by eric at 11:26 AM
November 30, 2009
Lipsky's gyrations on eminent domain: OK for AY, but not for Willets Point
Atlantic Yards Report
...Richard Lipsky's Olympic-style gyrations, in which the AY lobbyist says the Court of Appeals decision on AY eminent domain was fine, but the fallout from the Kelo case in New London means that the courts should back property owners (whom he represents) in Willets Point.
I'll just add that the plaintiffs in the Willets Point case, via attorney Michael Rikon, filed an amicus brief in the AY case supporting the AY plaintiffs.
Posted by eric at 1:23 PM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: Goldstein v. ESDC
inversecondemnation.com, Unfrozen Caveman Judges "Frightened And Confused" By Blight
Remember Phil Hartman's classic Saturday Night Live routine, "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" --
One hundred thousand years ago, a caveman was out hunting on the frozen wastes when he slipped and fell into a crevasse. In 1988, he was discovered by some scientists and thawed out. He then went to law school and became... Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.
We can't summarize the skit any better than wikipedia:
The running gag was that [Hartman] would speak in a highly articulate and smoothly self-assured manner to a jury or an audience about how things in the modern world supposedly "frighten and confuse" him. He would then list several things that confounded him about modern life or the natural world, such as: "When I see a solar eclipse, like the one I went to last year in Hawaii, I think 'Oh no! Is the moon eating the sun?' I don't know. Because I'm a caveman -- that's the way I think." This pronouncement would seem ironic, coming from someone who had, for example, just ended a brisk cell phone conversation, or indeed attended law school.
According to a 6-1 majority of the New York Court of Appeals in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 178 (Nov. 24, 2009), New York judges are similarly so "frightened and confused" about the meaning of the term "substandard and insanitary" in the state constitution that they are incapable of reviewing takings which purportedly remedy blight.
The Daily Record, Editorial, Call this ruling a flagrant foul
An appeals court in Albany ruled last week that the state can forcefully evict homeowners and businesses who have the misfortune of occupying the section of Brooklyn where an arena for the Nets is proposed to be built. In short, they are in the way.
The locale makes no difference; this is a total abuse of power by the state. Let the state buy the property without holding the hammer of condemnation. If there are unwilling sellers, offer them more money or make other plans.
...Eminent domain should be used to build highways and schools, not arenas for pro basketball teams.
The Lonely Conservative, So much for property rights in New York
Basically, the powers-that-be in New York can now label whatever property they want as blighted and hand it over to private developers. So much for property rights in New York.
Librarian's Muse, The 2009-2010 edition of the United States Government Manual
Almost every Brooklynite you talk to has a fairly strong opinion about the Atlantic Yards project. Many shudder to think about the traffic and congestion that might beset downtown Brooklyn after the mammoth project that includes an arena is up and running—and the Nets are over there, possibly losing games by the dozens (not to mention the displacement of many local residents). Others like the thought of the borough reclaiming its place as major-league in its own right, separate and apart from its flashier brother just to the west. In any event, the New York state Court of Appeals handed down its long-awaited ruling on the project November 24, holding it lawful for a state economic development agency to seize private land to build an arena.
New York Zoning and Municipal Law Blog, New York Court Of Appeals Upholds "Atlantic Yards" Condemnation
In a major decision, the New York Court of Appeals put a new gloss on the New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) allowing the condemnation by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) of the so called "Atlantic Yards" area of Brooklyn to proceed.
New Jersey Condemnation Law, NY Court of Appeals Deals Blow to Property Owners In Atlantic Yards Case
The Court also refused to interfere with what qualifies as blight, even though it recognized that the bar may now be set too low as to what constitutes “blight.” However, the Court held that any such limitation upon the sovereign power of eminent domain as it has come to be defined in the urban renewal context is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts. The Court identified the only situation where it could interfere with a legislative blight determination – where the physical conditions of an area are such that it would be “irrational and baseless” to call it substandard or insanitary, but held that those conditions did not exist in Atlantic Yards.
Posted by eric at 11:51 AM
The atrocity that is Empire State Plaza
Althouse
Is it any wonder that politicians and judges in Albany just don't get it? Check this out:
You're walking in a neighborhood of 19th century townhouses...
... and you run smack into this:
New York spent $2 billion to demolish 98 acres of 19th century buildings, displacing 9,000 human beings, in order to build a sickeningly ugly collection of government buildings. Is there a worse architectural crime in the history of the world? I'm sure there must be, but...
Commenter From Inwood cites Atlantic Yards in the following:
Michael Hasenstab said at 8:59...
Governments do the sorts of horrible things to neighborhoods that they would never allow a private developer to do.
Alas, not so when the private developer is a friend & contributor.
Posted by eric at 10:05 AM
N.Y., learn from New London: It offers a critical cautionary tale on the use of eminent domain
NY Daily News
by Richard Lipsky
Ah, the irony — pro-Atlantic Yards lobbyist Richard Lipsky op-editorializing in the Daily News about New York needing to exercise restraint in its use of eminent domain. "Brutally weird," to borrow Norman Oder's favorite phrase.
While he shilled for Ratner, Lipsky has been on the right side of eminent domain fights at Willets Point and Columbia University, representing property owners. Which would seem to indicate that Mr. Lipsky's point of view adheres closely to the sources of his paychecks.
There were two major developments in the use of eminent domain this month. Now the question is which of the two will be more influential in determining the future use of this controversial power in New York.
The first landmark was the shocking decision that the Pfizer drug company was abandoning New London, Conn., taking 1,400 jobs with it. This came just over five years after the pharmaceutical giant was being hailed as the linchpin of a new economic development project that would revitalize the financially strapped town. In that effort, Pfizer and New London were aided and abetted by the use of eminent domain to force evictions of home owners and small businesses, including one named "Kelo," who unsuccessfully fought them all the way up to the Supreme Court.
As a result of the deal's collapse this month, the city is now not only stuck with a huge vacant parcel, but a $78 million bill for all of its wasted efforts.
The second development was last week's 6-to-1 ruling by New York State's highest court throwing out a lawsuit against the Atlantic Yards development and strengthening the state's hand to condemn swaths of land as blight and initiate eminent domain proceedings here. This will likely pave the way for the start of that long delayed mega-project - and more broadly, city and state officials will no doubt be emboldened, taking the court decision as their cue to employ the power ever more aggressively.
Rather than running with their court-blessed authority to condemn and take property, Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. Paterson should instead be looking to the Pfizer-Kelo mess. It offers a much more relevant real-world warning on the dangers of zealous use of the eminent domain authority.
Related coverage...
The Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Willets Point: Empty Lots of Questions
...wherein Richard Lipsky, property rights crusader, explains why eminent domain is okay when it's used for his client, but not when it might be used against his client.
Now, we have always been cautious in our position on eminent domain-and have supported the Atlantic Yards development for a number of clearly stated reasons while, at the same time, representing Forest City Ratner, the project's developer. We believe that, in certain cases, it can be a legitimate tool for development. The case of Willets Point is not one of those times where ED makes either fiscal or public policy sense. It is too large, too costly, and way too speculative-particularly in these very scary economic times; as New London could tell you.
Posted by eric at 9:36 AM
November 29, 2009
Woodbridge eyes financially troubled Colonia Country Club
The Star-Ledger
by Brent Johnson
Who! Who ever heard of a municipality using eminent domain to stop developers from building something where open space now lies?
Woodbridge officials are looking to buy the financially troubled Colonia Country Club and turn it into a public golf course — an effort to ward off private developers from building on the 104-acre site.
Mayor John McCormac said today the town would even go as far as using eminent domain to acquire the 110-year-old club, which he called one of the last sizeable open space tracts in the state’s sixth-largest municipality. Golf courses are considered open space in New Jersey.
“We don’t want anything to do with development there,” McCormac said.
NoLandGrab: New Jersey is rapidly building a much better record on eminent domain issues than its neighbor across the Hudson, where condemnation appears to be okay for just about anything.
Posted by eric at 1:50 PM
Kelly: Nets, 1, residents of Atlantic Yards, 0
The Record
By Mike Kelly
You might expect that coverage of the Atlantic Yards fight from New Jersey would focus only on the possibility of the Nets leaving New Jersey. This piece shows understanding, largely lacking in New York media, that this subterfuge would have on Brooklyn.
The Nets saga is one of those stories that we all need to pay attention to. This is not just about a sports team looking for a place to settle down. This is what happens when political schemes are blended with pie-in-the-sky development deals.
Six years ago, the Nets were actually a winning basketball team. Then, New York developer Bruce Ratner slapped together a deal to buy the Nets. As part of his plan, he would move the team to Brooklyn – to a brand new arena, designed by a famous architect.
...
But that was not all. This new arena would be the centerpiece of a 20-acre development of offices and homes – homes for firefighters, teachers and other middle class residents. And one more thing: a neighborhood, known as Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards, would be cleansed of decay. Urban renewal, by a private developer, for profit. How nice.
When people looked closer, they discovered a few things had to be moved in Brooklyn. The first was a railroad yard. The second: people’s homes.
Ratner liked to routinely refer to Atlantic Yards as “blighted.” But it turns out that people lived there – and they did not see their neighborhood the way
...
In a 6-1 ruling, New York’s Court of Appeals essentially said that a government does not have to announce that it needs private property to widen a highway or to expand a school. A government can now give its blessing to a private developer like Ratner and his plans to throw people out of their homes so he can build something that will earn him a profit.
...
Now the Nets play in the Meadowlands Izod Center with far too many empty seats. And outside the Izod Center sits that empty hulk of a failed project known as Xanadu, yet another blending of political dreams with developer schemes.
There is a lesson here, of course – to keep developers far from politics. But it will take a while for that lesson to sink in.
Meanwhile, the Nets are losing. And in Brooklyn, people may lose their homes. This is supposed to be progress.
Posted by steve at 9:05 AM
It came from the Blogosphere...
Below are some examples of the outrage generated by last Tuesday's ruling by the New York State Appellate Court.
Tracy Walters Blog, Another blow to private property rights
Yes, you read that right. Ratner will be partially financing the private venture on government-seized land with a tax-exempt bond issue, placing the basketball arena on equal cost of capital footing with public road projects, school construction, public utility projects and ...well you get the picture.
The 60-page decision, which can be read here, hinged on the determination that the Atlanta Yards real estate in question was blighted. The Atlantic Yards Report blog uses a quote by libertarian law professor Ilya Somin to expose the shaky foundation of this decision:
To get around this problem, the Court held that “blight” alleviation is not limited to “‘slums’ as that term was formerly applied, and that, among other things, economic underdevelopment and stagnation are also threats to the public sufficient to make their removal cognizable as a public purpose” (pp. 15–16, quoting a 1975 decision).
Obviously, virtually any area occasionally suffers from “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” and therefore could potentially be condemned under this rationale. Moreover, even under this expansive definition of blight, the decision states that courts can only strike down a condemnation if “there is no room for reasonable difference of opinion as to whether an area is blighted.” With respect to any neighborhood, there is nearly always “room for reasonable difference of opinion” as to whether the area is “underdeveloped” relative to some possible alternative uses of the land in question. Defining blight this broadly and then deferring to the government’s determination of whether such “blight” actually exists effectively reads the public use restriction out of the state constitution. (emphasis mine)
The public use restriction of the New York eminent domain statute is easily circumvented by the determination that the real estate in question is "blighted" and therefore presents a hazard or nuisance to the public.
If this flimsy justification for government seizure of private property becomes the uncontested law of the land, we can certainly expect exponential increases in such seizures during times of economic recession, high residential and commercial foreclosure rates, and high unemployment. Like we have now.
Viewpoints of a Sagittarian, New York State Rules in Favor of Bloomberg/ACORN Buddy on Atlantic Rail Yards Project – Eminent Domain – Brooklynites to Lose Their Homes, Businesses and Jobs
Bloomberg from day one supported Ratner, his real estate buddy, in his quest to evict tens of thousands of Brooklynites from their homes and businesses in order to make way for a new development that would include a stadium for the New Jersey Nets.
During the past several years, Brooklynites in an effort to keep their homes, jobs and businesses were at odds with the government, Bloomberg, Ratner and anyone else who supported this development. Some businesses and homeowners took the deals offered while others chose to stay put.
...
Furthermore, this ruling and project is another example that the government is disconnected. Earlier this week, sold out by its government, Americans lost a major battle to corporate interests and big money.
The Proud Profiteer, Imminent Domain
If you truly think there are property rights left in America, you sure must have your head firmly in ground or up your a**. Here is the most recent example of the government taking property from the little guy to give it to their rich buddies. Oh yeah, and these just so happen to be liberals, who claim the love the poor and the down trodden.
...
Not only does the government take your property whenever it feels like, for whatever reason it feels like, try to not pay your property taxes and see if you really own your property. Property taxes have turned us all into renters. You have to pay the local government your yearly rental fee, which they raise periodically just like all landlords. If you don’t pay, they evict you and take back the property. Then they sell the property to some one else who is under the illusion that they own the property.
So, basically you only have “rights” to the property until the government decides you no longer have the right. You can fool yourself all you want, but really eminent domain has turned into imminent domain.
Posted by steve at 8:45 AM
November 28, 2009
Property Owners Get Dunked On - Another victory for the powerful over property rights.
The Wall Street Journal
Supporters of the proposed Atlantic Yards project have tried to justify this land grab by Bruce Ratner by trumpeting the developer's claims for public benefits to come. This opinion piece shows an understanding of just who the real beneficiary of the development would be.
Such unabashed takings have an unfortunate history in New York state, where the political class has a habit of using its powers on behalf of well-connected private interests. Caught under the wheels are average citizens whose only recourse is to try to defend their property rights in court.
So much for that. In allowing the property seizure, the Court of Appeals dodged some of the central challenges to the condemnation, including whether the Empire State Development Corporation's designation of blight in the Atlantic Yards area was applied after the stadium project had already been planned, making it a "pretext." Nor did the court take on the question—at the heart of eminent domain law since Kelo—whether economic development may be considered a public use under the New York Constitution.
Instead, the majority argued that because the state had designated the area as blighted, the takings were therefore a "public use," and it was not the place of the court to interfere. Nevermind that the determination of blight was based largely on a study funded by . . . the aspiring developer.
Courts in New York have been famously hostile to eminent domain challenges, but 43 states have adjusted their laws since Kelo to provide stronger protections for property owners. The New York ruling vindicates Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's prediction in dissent in Kelo that "the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Q.E.D.
Posted by steve at 6:08 AM
Atlantic Yards Decision Blow To Private Property Rights In New York
Islandlaw Constitutional Rights Pages
The definition of blight, according to the Merriam Webster online dictionary, is “Something that frustrates plans or hopes, …or something that impairs and destroys.” Both of these definitions could be used to describe the impact of this week’s Court of Appeals decision upon private property rights in New York State. Chief Judge Lippman wrote a detailed,12 page decision in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation that can be summed up in one sentence: Blight means anything the New York State Development Corporation says it means.
With this decision, New York has given the green light to private developers to try to take private property from its citizens, so long as enough money is funneled into local politician’s hands to get approvals. That’s because the Court has decided that these takings are legal if the municipal entity determines that the property is in an area that suffers from economic “blight.” Mr. Goldstein’s condo is worth about half a million bucks, a veritable slum in the eyes of the New York Court of Appeals.
...
It is especially troubling to me that the Court rubber stamped a decision made by the New York State Urban Development Corporation. This corporation is a subsidiary of the Empire State Development Corporation, a public authority of the State of New York. Its powers are practically limitless, and include the power to issue bonds, grant tax abatements, ignore zoning laws, and, of course, condemn land and seize property. What makes this more scary is that The Empire State Development Corporation doesn’t have a great track record in overseeing its subsidiaries.
If the State’s highest court refuses to check the power of this Leviathan, who will?
NoLandGrab: Stay tuned to see how pending and new legal challenges will affect the proposed Atlantic Yards project.
Posted by steve at 6:02 AM
On the Beat - Move to Brooklyn a Step Closer for Nets
Basketball Proespectus
by John Perrotto
This item noting this week's Court of Appeals ruling notable as it quotes developer Bruce Ratner stating his committment to the proposed Atlantic Yards project even as he unloads the New Jersey Nets.
The Nets’ proposed move from New Jersey to Brooklyn took a big step forward earlier this week when the New York State Court of Appeals voted 6-1 to uphold the state’s right to use eminent domain to remove residents and businesses that held out and tried to remain at the Atlantic Yards site. The project involves an arena for the Nets, which officials are hoping opens in time for the start of the 2011-12 season.
“Once again the courts have made it clear that this project represents a significant public benefit for the people of Brooklyn and the entire city,” said Nets owner Bruce Ratner, who is in the process of selling a controlling interest in the team to Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov. “Our commitment to the entire project is as strong today as when we started six years ago.”
Posted by steve at 5:55 AM
November 27, 2009
A Net gain for Brooklyn: High court did right by the city in Atlantic Yards lawsuit
NY Daily News, Editorial
Here's a surprise — a Daily News editorial full of untruths and half-truths in the wake of a pro-Atlantic Yards court decision.
The state's highest court has given a crucial go-ahead to plans to build a pro basketball arena and a major housing development at one of Brooklyn's great crossroads. Good for the judges. Good for New York.
There is much to like in the Court of Appeals decision regarding the Atlantic Yards project, starting with new hopes that the Nets will have a home in the city for the 2011 season and that thousands of apartments will rise on land that has been fallow for more than four decades.
By a 6-to-1 vote, the court dealt a small band of opponents a 26th straight defeat in their legal war of attrition against a project that grew only more critical as a jobs producer with the economic downturn. Hats off to developer Bruce Ratner for persevering through six years worth of regulatory approvals and lawsuits.
"Small band of opponents?" Hardly. Opposition to the Atlantic Yards project runs wide and deep. Small band of plaintiffs would be more accurate, since most of the hundreds of footprint occupants had been scared off long ago by the threat of eminent domain, bought off with taxpayer-subsidized payments that were actually below market value when the state zoning override is factored in.
It is to New York's shame that moving even the worthiest projects off the drawing boards is so difficult in a town that prides itself on getting big things done. All you need are some chanting pickets and a stack of summonses.
A worthy project wouldn't have drawn protests or lawsuits. What's worthy about building a heavily subsidized and unneeded arena while sucking scarce housing funding away from more cost-effective projects, and diverting hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in city and state funds from more important uses?
On the upside, the court rendered expeditious judgment, positioning Ratner to meet a year-end deadline for financing the start of construction and - even more important - established a wise standard for the use of eminent domain in New York State.
"Wise?" ROTFLOAO.
Lawyers for a handful of property owners - among the few who have not sold to Ratner at handsome prices - had asked the court for nothing less than a radical reinterpretation of the state Constitution. Many feared the panel would take an aggressively activist approach in keeping with a recent tendency to flex its judicial muscle.
Actually, the property owners were asking the court to rein in the radical expansion, over several decades, in the interpretation of what's fair game for eminent domain, from "public use" to "public benefit" to whatever the hell developers and politicians want.
Didn't happen. The panel declined to repudiate the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Kelo decision, upholding the taking of a Connecticut home to make way for a now-abandoned commercial development.
Instead, the majority threaded a fine needle. It affirmed that New York may take property by eminent domain only for public use - except when an area has been deemed to be blighted. The court also established that it would not second-guess a blight finding that was reasonable.
"A fine needle" through which Bruce Ratner could drive a truck. Blight is apparently whatever the Empire State Development Corporation wants it to be. The court's decision makes just about any property in New York State vulnerable to condemnation.
The Atlantic Yards zone, at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Aves., fit the blight definition well beyond reason.
With the small exception of a slice occupied by the complaining property owners, the tract has been a designated urban renewal area since 1968 and has stood vacant for all that time. Much of it is occupied by a below-grade cut for the Long Island Rail Road.
Bullshit. Only the railyard portion of the site, which constitutes little more than a third of the footprint, was part of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area. While it may not be attractive, it's a working railyard, crucial to the metropolitan area's public transit system. And if it is shoddy looking, it's only because the state itself failed to maintain it properly. The "slice" occupied by living, breathing, productive taxpaying citizens is actually the majority of the site. And if by "vacant" the Daily News means occupied by a critical piece of public infrastructure and homes and businesses undergoing organic redevelopment, then they're absolutely right. If that's not what they mean, they're lying.
Now, if New York is lucky, Ratner will get to work on the arena, perhaps to be home court for Lebron James (we can dream), followed by 6,000 residential units - a third of them affordable - and 8 acres of open space. The public interest has been served.
It'll take a lot more than luck for any of that to happen. And the fact is, the public interest has been screwed.
NoLandGrab: Once again, we have to ask — if the Atlantic Yards project is so great, why not just tell the truth about it?
Posted by eric at 1:06 PM
Atlantic Yards site "blighted"? Some "reasonable difference of opinion"
Atlantic Yards Report
Last week's high court ruling has just set the bar impossibly high for New York homeowners and businesses to defend their property rights against eminent domain.
Libertarian law professor Ilya Somin calls the Atlantic Yards eminent domain decision "the first major state supreme court defeat for property rights on a public use issue since" the controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decision (2005) in Kelo v. New London, in which state courts and legislatures were invited to draw on local conditions to narrow the use of eminent domain.
Somin wasn't surprised, given New York's history of court deference to agencies such as the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the successful defendant in this case. He writes:
To get around this problem, the Court held that “blight” alleviation is not limited to “‘slums’ as that term was formerly applied, and that, among other things, economic underdevelopment and stagnation are also threats to the public sufficient to make their removal cognizable as a public purpose” (pp. 15–16, quoting a 1975 decision).
Obviously, virtually any area occasionally suffers from “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” and therefore could potentially be condemned under this rationale. Moreover, even under this expansive definition of blight, the decision states that courts can only strike down a condemnation if “there is no room for reasonable difference of opinion as to whether an area is blighted.” With respect to any neighborhood, there is nearly always “room for reasonable difference of opinion” as to whether the area is “underdeveloped” relative to some possible alternative uses of the land in question. Defining blight this broadly and then deferring to the government’s determination of whether such “blight” actually exists effectively reads the public use restriction out of the state constitution.
That's essentially what Judge Robert Smith said in his dissent, as well.
Posted by lumi at 5:18 AM
November 26, 2009
Did Atlantic Yards Ruling Pass the Buck on 'Blight'?
Runnin' Scared
by Elizabeth Dwoskin
Tuesday's Atlantic Yards decision, in which New York's highest court upheld the right of the state to seize private property on behalf of a mega-developer, will doubtlessly impact the lives of thousands of Brooklyn residents and be discussed for years to come.
But the court backed off from a central question: Whether the site in downtown Brooklyn is truly "blighted."
In many ways, the entire case boils down to that loosely-defined word.
...In order to make the case that the project would have a legitimate public use -- a necessary criterion for granting eminent domain -- Ratner and ESDC had to convince the court that the area was blighted. (The local residents who brought the lawsuit argued that, while much of the area is underutilized, their section of it is actually a very pleasant place to live.)
Blight studies have been disputed in other New York eminent domain cases -- like the lawsuit brought over Columbia University's contentious Manhattanville expansion project -- on the grounds that they have been financed by developers with a stake in their results.
Since the Atlantic Yards case hinged on the blight question, one would expect the Court of Appeals to have debated the questions of whether the area was actually in decay. But the majority decision, at least, brushed it off.
...The lone dissenter in the case, Judge Smith, took on the blight issue directly, and claimed his colleagues were sidestepping the issue.
Posted by eric at 11:32 AM
Atlantic Yards Freedom-Fighters Dealt Blow In Court
Ground Report
By Richard Cooper
A local Libertarian gives his take on this week's high court ruling and calls for a statewide revolution.
The Court used a very sweeping definition of blight to include virtually anything. "Economic underdevelopment and stagnation" are highly ambiguous.
I cannot say that I am suprised by this unwelcome development favoring corporate welfare and eminent domain. New York's eminent domain statute is virtually capital punishment for property owners.
Fox News, Still Think a Man's Home Is His Castle?
According to Glenn Beck, this Thanksgiving, Brooklyn is the new New London.
The homeowners don't want to sell and the Transit Authority has a rail yard there that they don't want to move. So what does the well-connected real estate tycoon do? He goes to the government. And voila: New York's Court of Appeals upheld the state's use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.
Let me tell you about the last time this happened. You may remember the name Suzette Kelo. She was a homeowner in New London, Connecticut.
NoLandGrab: Actually, the railyard IS temporarily being moved, to another section of the MTA's property. According to the justices' ruling, the "mild conditions of urban blight" were "principally attributable" to the State-owned railyard, which justifies the State's use of eminent domain.
CoStar Group, NY Court: $5 Bil. Atlantic Yards Project Can Proceed
Of course, if you're a developer, yesterday's decision marks the forwards march of progress:
"We're gratified that today's ruling has once again affirmed the significant public benefit of the Atlantic Yards project," said Forest City Enterprises Inc. President and Chief Executive Officer Charles A. Ratner in a statement. "Brooklyn and the entire City of New York will benefit from the substantial job creation, tax revenues and revitalization that this project will generate.
"This is an important day for Atlantic Yards," Ratner added. "While the economic outlook remains challenging and there are still hurdles to overcome, we are moving ahead with confidence and are fully committed to this great project."
Posted by lumi at 8:25 AM
November 25, 2009
New York Court of Appeals Upholds Atlantic Yards Condemnations
The Volokh Conspiracy
by Ilya Somin
This outcome is not surprising. As I explained in this post, where I predicted the result, New York courts are among the most hostile to property rights of any in the country. New York is also one of only seven states that hasn’t enacted eminent domain reform of any kind since the federal Supreme Court’s controversial 2005 decision upholding “economic development” condemnations in Kelo v. City of New London.
Significantly the Court concluded that the property in question could be condemned because it is “blighted” and blight alleviation is a “public use” recognized by the New York Constitution, thanks to a constitutional amendment allowing the condemnation of slum areas. This despite the fact that it is very far from being a slum of any kind, and much of it is actually middle or lower middle class housing. Indeed, the opinion itself notes (pg. 14) that the Atlantic Yards area “do[e]s not begin to approach in severity the dire circumstances of urban slum dwelling” that led to the enactment of the blight amendment. To get around this problem, the Court held that “blight” alleviation is not limited to “‘slums’ as that term was formerly applied, and that, among other things, economic underdevelopment and stagnation are also threats to the public sufficient to make their removal cognizable as a public purpose” (pp. 15–16, quoting a 1975 decision).
Obviously, virtually any area occasionally suffers from “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” and therefore could potentially be condemned under this rationale. Moreover, even under this expansive definition of blight, the decision states that courts can only strike down a condemnation if “there is no room for reasonable difference of opinion as to whether an area is blighted.” With respect to any neighborhood, there is nearly always “room for reasonable difference of opinion” as to whether the area is “underdeveloped” relative to some possible alternative uses of the land in question. Defining blight this broadly and then deferring to the government’s determination of whether such “blight” actually exists effectively reads the public use restriction out of the state constitution. I highly doubt that New York state constitutional amendment allowing condemnation of “substandard and insanitary areas” (Article XVIII, Section 1 here) would have passed had it been understood to mean that virtually any area could be declared blighted and condemned. As with most other blight condemnation laws, the amendment was sold to the public as a tool for eliminating “slums” (a point the majority concedes).
Allowing government agencies to declare virtually any area “blighted” and then condemn it at will is an abdication of judicial responsibility to protect constitutional property rights.
Posted by eric at 6:52 PM
Statement by NYS Senator Velmanette Montgomery on Eminent Domain Ruling
Via Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
Today’s Court of Appeals decision is a defeat for every property owner in the great State of New York. In finding against the plaintiffs in this landmark case, where citizens bravely persevered in the face of a state agency determined to seize their land for a misbegotten private development—the Atlantic Yards—the Court of Appeals has refused to allow New York State to join the overwhelming number of States which have clarified their eminent domain requirements in the wake of the controversial Kelo decision. New York State will continue to enable the land grab dreams of private developers. Eminent domain will not be limited to a sane, common sense definition of “public benefit” and “public use;” schools, roads, hospitals; it will instead mean whatever serves the developer of the moment, including luxury housing and a sports facility.
I thank the Court of Appeals for their considered deliberations, but I mourn their decision, and I thank my constituents for bringing this suit and fighting for all of us. I share their disappointment, but also their determination that this abuse will continue to be challenged in the courts until sanity and justice are achieved. The fight against Atlantic Yards goes on!
Posted by eric at 6:47 PM
Brooklyn couple wants Gov. Paterson to stop Ratner's eminent domain win
NY Daily News
by Juan Gonzalez
For the past six years, a perfectly habitable eight-story condo building has stood virtually empty on Pacific St. in Brooklyn's Prospect Heights.
Only one of the building's 31 apartments has been occupied in that time - this in a city with thousands of homeless people and tens of thousands of families doubled up in overcrowded housing.
That lone unit is the home of Dan Goldstein, a thin, 40-year-old graphic designer who has become a hero of this country's property rights movement.
Ever since 2003, Goldstein has doggedly resisted efforts by City Hall, the state government and one of the biggest real estate developers in New York, Bruce Ratner, to seize his home through eminent domain for a huge private development project.
...They spoke only hours after the Court of Appeals rejected a suit to halt the project. Some rushed to claim the fight is over, that Ratner has won. Goldstein said he was disappointed, but not about to give up.
Several suits remain, and officials have to go through hearings before they can get a court order to seize properties.
"When Gov. Paterson was a state senator, he called for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain," Goldstein said yesterday. "We're calling on the governor now to stand by his words."
Related coverage...
Atlantic Yards Report, In column on Goldstein's fight, Daily News's Gonzalez suggests "a slew of politicians" has joined DDDB
From Juan Gonzalez's column in today's New York Daily News about Daniel Goldstein (lead Atlantic Yards plaintiff and Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn spokesman) and his family, headlined Brooklyn couple wants Gov. Paterson to stop Ratner's eminent domain win:
But Goldstein is still in his condo, living in that dust-filled building.
Only, Goldstein is no longer alone. Thousands of neighborhood residents and a slew of local politicians have joined the nonprofit group he launched to fight Atlantic Yards. The group, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, has become one of the most effective grass-roots efforts this town has seen in a long time.
It's true that DDDB has become an exemplary grass-roots effort, in significant part to Goldstein and his willingness to organize a media strategy.
Local politicians?
But "a slew of local politicians"? Nah. The only local elected officials that have consistently stood with DDDB are City Council Member Letitia James and State Senator Velmanette Montgomery.
Other politicians, including Assemblymen Jim Brennan and Hakeem Jeffries, yesterday expressed dismay and opposition to the eminent domain ruling. But they haven't steadily joined DDDB but instead have often kept a wary distance.
Posted by eric at 1:09 PM
Appeals Court Affirms Eminent Domain for Proposed Brooklyn Stadium
Democracy Now!
And in New York, state officials and developers behind a massive stadium project have won a key legal victory to seize private property from Brooklyn residents. On Tuesday, the court of appeals said the state can use eminent domain to seize land planned for the $4.9 billion dollar Atlantic Yards project. Opponents of eminent domain have argued its unconstitutional and lawmakers have faced calls to curb its use. The group Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn says it plans to continue its campaign against the proposed stadium.
[Coverage begins at the 8:22 mark]
Posted by eric at 12:14 PM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: Morning after news roundup
El Diario La Prenza NY, Luz verde a Nets y Atlantic Yards
La máxima corte de Nueva York falló ayer que el estado puede usar la expropiación forzosa contra los propietarios de viviendas y negocios para dar paso a un proyecto de desarrollo masivo en Brooklyn que incluye una nueva cancha de juego para los New Jersey Nets.
The Wall St. Journal, Builders Net Win in N.Y. Case
The decision is a blow to private-property owners who have argued that they are defenseless in protecting their ownership rights once a government deems their land necessary for eminent domain, or the "public good." But it boosts developers and government entities in New York that have sought to boost local economies by offering incentives for private developers.
The court's decision echoes one handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, when the justices found it was constitutional for a New London, Conn., economic-development corporation to seize private homes and businesses to build a research campus for Pfizer Inc. That decision, Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., set off a firestorm of protest, prompting many lawmakers around the country to amend laws to prevent governments from seizing private land in some cases. New York, however, didn't change its constitution.
The article includes a video interview with Stephen Moore from the Wall Street Journal editorial board, explaining why this decision is "an abuse of what the eminent domain process was supposed to be about."
The Star-Ledger, Politi: Court ruling only beginning of what could be very long goodbye to NJ Nets
If you thought this latest court ruling meant New Jersey could say goodbye to the Nets, once and for all, a few words of advice:
Don’t start waving just yet, unless you really want to strengthen those wrist muscles.
This is going to be a looong goodbye — assuming, of course, this is really the end.
The Bergen Record, O'Connor: Ratner a winner in court, a loser on one
[W]hile he pours a bottle of champagne over his own head and throws himself a ticker-tape parade from the New York State Court of Appeals to the dormant cranes lurking outside Izod Center, [Bruce] Ratner should know something about this endless journey he took to his Brooklyn Shangri-La.
He paid a heavy price. Ratner will be remembered as a dreadful sports owner, a legacy he won’t be able to wipe out through the sobering powers of eminent domain.
Metro NY, Nets arena jumps legal hurdle
HoopsWorld, Ratner Can Move Forward
Posted by lumi at 5:51 AM
Atlantic Yards ruling: A blow to Sprayregen?
The Columbia Spectator
By Maggie Astor
NY City is rife with eminent domain abuse. Yesterday's NY State high court eminent domain ruling has implications for other cases, including Columbia University's neighborhood-devouring expansion plan, for which, though it is a "City" project, the State has been brought in to do the dirty deed of condemning private property from owners who refuse to be coerced into selling.
From a legal standpoint, it is substantially similar to the Manhattanville issue, with opponents making many of the same arguments to challenge the legitimacy of eminent domain. Opponents of the Manhattanville project claim it does not constitute “public use” as required under eminent domain law, because Columbia is a private institution; they also dispute the state’s designation of the area as “blighted”—in a condition of economic disrepair beyond the potential for relief by natural market forces—which is another requirement for the invocation of eminent domain. Similarly, opponents of the Atlantic Yards project point to the fact that Ratner is a private developer and question the state’s determination of blight. Columbia officials and Ratner counter that while they are private developers, the projects will provide substantial public benefits.
NoLandGrab: The West Harlem case has a leg up on the Brooklyn case, because the plaintiffs have had access to some documents that may back up their view that the project was not motivated by public use. However, the high court in the Brooklyn case ignored many of the petitioners' finer points, which may undermine any legal efforts by NY property owners trying to hold on to their homes and businesses.
Posted by lumi at 5:29 AM
PRESS RELEASE: New York High Court Upholds Eminent Domain for Private Gain
From the Institute for Justice
Arlington, Va.—The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, today announced that it would uphold the decision of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to condemn privately owned homes and small businesses to make way for wealthy developer Bruce Ratner’s so-called “Atlantic Yards” development of 16 mammoth skyscrapers centered around a basketball arena.
“Today’s decision puts homes and businesses throughout New York at risk of condemnation,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice (IJ), which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. “Courts have a duty to look carefully at the government’s claim that it has the right to take someone’s home or business, and the Court of Appeals has simply refused to do that.”
While upholding the taking, the New York court did not go so far as to embrace the United States Supreme Court’s much-maligned reasoning in the 2005 Kelo v. City of New London case, which held that the U.S. Constitution allows governments to condemn property for economic development alone. Instead, the Court found the takings were for a “public use” because of the ESDC’s determination that the area to be condemned was “blighted”—a determination that was based on a study paid for by the would-be developer and not even initiated until years after the Atlantic Yards project was announced.
In a dissent, Judge Robert Smith excoriated the majority for abandoning its duty to critically examine the ESDC’s assertions. “To let the agency itself determine when the public use requirement is satisfied is to make the agency a judge in its own cause,” Judge Smith wrote. “I think that it is we who should perform the role of judges, and that we should do so by deciding that the proposed taking in this case is not for public use.”
“The developer’s study did not find anything a normal person would call ‘blight,’” explained Berliner. “Instead, it found that the neighborhood was ‘underutilized’—in other words, that the developer could think of bigger things that could be built where these homes and businesses are. If that is all that is necessary for condemnation, then literally every piece of property in New York is at risk.”
The majority’s opinion frankly acknowledges that the court may be opening the door to “political appointees to public corporations relying on studies paid for by developers . . . [as] a predicate for the invasion of property rights and the razing of homes and businesses.” But, it says, preventing such abuses is not the job of the courts, advising New Yorkers to look to their legislature to fix any problems.
“New York is one of only seven states that has failed utterly to pass any kind of eminent-domain reform in the wake of the Kelo decision, and today’s opinion will only make things worse,” said IJ Staff Attorney Robert McNamara. “The state courts are looking to the legislature to fix the problem, while the legislature is apparently looking to the courts. And that means more and more New Yorkers will be looking at condemnation notices.”
“Property rights are as sacred to citizens of New York as they are to Americans nationwide, and New Yorkers have rightly looked to their courts to protect those rights,” concluded IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. “Today’s opinion should be a clarion call to the state legislature that they cannot avoid this issue any longer. Now is the time to give state residents the reform and protections they desperately need.”
Posted by lumi at 5:03 AM
OFFICIAL STATEMENT: NY State Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries
"I am extremely disappointed with the decision of the Court. The power of eminent domain is extraordinary and should only be authorized in limited circumstances where, unlike in this case, there is a clear and robust public benefit. The use of eminent domain to benefit a private developer to build a basketball arena for a team owned by a foreign billionaire is an abuse of this extraordinary power, and I hope that Governor Paterson will choose not to exercise it."
— Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries
Posted by lumi at 4:33 AM
November 24, 2009
Court rules against Goldstein et al.
Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter
It was a depressing shoot this morning. For the last several days I have been to Dan and Shabnam's early in order to shoot as they waited for the verdict on their community's eminent domain case. The NY State Court of Appeals posts decisions at between 8:30 and 9:30. Dan nervously hit refresh on his mouse for minutes at a time waiting for the decision to get posted. At about 3 minutes after 9 today he yelled out, "It's up!" Moments later he flatly stated, "We lost."
There were no tears or hair pulling- there was work to do- press to talk to and a press conference to hold.
He had a press release ready to go win or lose- and lose went right out.
We didn't start this project with a particular beef against eminent domain. We heard about the project and we were curious and started shooting to find out what was going on. What we found out disturbed us. That sense of disturbance has only grown over the course of our shooting.
On the bright side of things- we have spent 6 years shooting and editing to make sure that this story doesn't go unnoticed. We have an incredible film that will shine a bright light on the situation. We also have an incredible community of friends and supporters who have come together to help us get this film made. We have now reached the 50% mark in our funding goal and we have a week to raise the rest.
If the over 200 people that have helped us out can take a moment to tell a few other people about our project we will reach our goal with plenty of time to spare.
While we were hoping that our main characters would prevail in their lawsuit, not only for their sake- but to bring a quick end to our shooting- we also know that this legal outcome makes the film that much more necessary.
Thanks to everyone for all the support.
NoLandGrab: Please help ensure that the story of the Battle of Brooklyn gets told — become a backer of the film today by clicking here.
Posted by eric at 7:02 PM
FAQ on the Court of Appeals decision in the Atlantic Yards case
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder posted an FAQ on today's state high court ruling.
Basically, one justice agreed with the property owners, two didn't even think that the case belonged in the high court, and nearly all of the petitioners' arguments were ignored, i.e.:
- the "argument that the state didn't perform an (allegedly) required comparison of public and private benefits,"
- the "gerrymandered" site map,
- "argument that blight was a pretext because it wasn't mentioned as a justification for the project more than a year after it was announced,
The prize for irony goes to "mild conditions of blight":
From the majority opinion:
The land use improvement plan at issue is not directed at the wholesale eradication of slums, but rather at alleviating relatively mild conditions of urban blight principally attributable to a large and, of course, uninhabited subgrade rail cut.
This raises the question: can't such blight be alleviated in other ways, such as rezoning the land and putting it out for bid?
NoLandGrab: The ruling found that blight conditions on and caused by State property, comprising of one-third of the project site, is ample justification for the State to use eminent domain? This doesn't even pass the smell test.
Posted by lumi at 6:28 PM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites! P.M. Edition
NY Observer, Prospect Heights Not Dickensian, Still a Slum
The Court of Appeals is not so impressed with Prospect Heights.
Okay, so it's not as bad as a Dickens' Bleak House, the state's highest court admits, but in a majority opinion issued this morning, six of the judges agreed with the state that the neighborhood is blighted, and that Bruce Ratner should be allowed to take whatever land he needs to build the shinier, happier Atlantic Yards development.
Blight's changed, says the court. The petitioners, led by Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, "are doubtless correct that the conditions...do not begin to approach in severity the dire circumstances of urban slum dwelling described by the Muller court in 1936," wrote Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, but he added, it doesn't have to look like the Great Depression to be blight. Nor does it have to look like any of that pre-Depression blight you might have read about. "Of course, none of the buildings are as noisome or dilapidated as those described in Dickens' novels or Thomas Burke's Limehouse stories of the London slums of other days," the court wrote back in the 1950s--in a quote cited by the court.
...Meanwhile, on Craig's List, Prospect Height remains "a wonderful sought after area."
Daily Intel, High Court Gives the Go-ahead to Atlantic Yards Seizures
Obviously, some complex constitutional and legal issues were the main concern here, but we wonder whether the court took into consideration that maybe nobody wants to watch the dismal 0–13 Nets play basketball, anyway.
The Local [Fort Greene/Clinton Hill], Top Court Upholds Eminent Domain for Atlantic Yards
In its 48-page opinion, the court held that the suit by Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn and other property owners should be dismissed because it was filed too late — more than 30 days after the Empire State Development Corporation’s “determination and findings” in favor of the developer, Forest City Ratner.
The court took a jaundiced view of the barrage of lawsuits — at least eight since January 2006 — filed against the project: “What has happened in this case is precisely the result that the Legislature sought to prevent when it enacted the Eminent Domain Procedure Law,” Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wrote — “the sidelining of a public project on account of prolonged litigation.”
Reason Hit & Run, “The majority is much too deferential to the self-serving determination by Empire State Development Corporation”
Not only does this disastrous 6-1 decision put every property holder in the state at risk, it represents the court’s utter failure to serve as an independent tribunal of justice. Rather than judging the facts and, if necessary, voiding an illegal state action, the court punted, arguing that determining whether or not the properties in question were actually blighted—as New York dubiously asserts—is not “primarily a judicial exercise.”
...It's a sad day for the New York judiciary when six of the state's seven highest judges can't be bothered to do their basic constitutional duty.
Brownstoner, BREAKING: Goldstein et al Lose Eminent Domain Lawsuit
The ruling means that Ratner may proceed with the sale of tax-exempt bonds to finance the sports arena that is scheduled to be the first stage of the gigantic development. The construction of both affordable and market-rate housing is supposed to begin with months of the arena, but as The New York Times points out this morning, "with so many new apartments sitting vacant, analysts say it could be many years before demand will justify building so many units in one neighborhood."
NBC New York, The Nets Actually Pick Up a Win (In Court)
The Nets may have lost all 13 games they've played so far this season, but they picked up the only kind of court victory they actually care about on Tuesday. The New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the the state can use eminent domain to force tenants out of buildings slated to be used as part of the Atlantic Yards project designed to build the team an arena in downtown Brooklyn.
...But those individual battles won't necessarily decide the entire war. The Nets still need to issue tax-exempt bonds before the end of the year to actually get started with construction, and the project's adversaries are still using a four-corner offense, to use basketball parlance, to delay things past that point.
Land Use Prof Blog, Atlantic Yards Wins
Not a great shocker in the result, considering NY's state court precedent on eminent domain, and the fact that New York is one of the only states without any sort of post-Kelo law (purporting) to restrict economic development takings (again, see Ilya Somin's critique of post-Kelo reform attempts). However, this is another high-profile eminent domain case in the books to annoy takings opponents. It may have an effect on public opinion and the feasibility of future large-scale redevelopment projects that require delegation of the government's eminent domain power for private land assembly. Will it add to the impact of the Pfizer pullout in establishing, as the NY Times suggested, a turning point for eminent domain? New London, like Poletown, was a project that may have been doomed from the start. Atlantic Yards is a similar pie-in-the-sky comprehensive redevelopment project, but perhaps it has a better economic foundation, with participation of a major-league sports franchise and its location in the hip borough of Brooklyn. If it fails, it will surely add to the arguments against economic development takings. If it succeeds, it will probably just egg developers on.
If it does proceed, for the sake of Brooklyn I hope that Atlantic Yards will turn out better than New London.
The Volokh Conspiracy, New York Court of Appeals Upholds Atlantic Yards Condemnations
[T]he decision states that courts can only strike down a condemnation if “there is no room for reasonable difference of opinion as to whether an area is blighted.” With respect to any neighborhood, there is nearly always “room for reasonable difference of opinion” as to whether the area is “underdeveloped” relative to some possible alternative uses of the land in question. Defining blight this broadly and then deferring to the government’s determination of whether such “blight” actually exists effectively reads the public use restriction out of the state constitution. I highly doubt that New York state constitutional amendment allowing condemnation of “substandard and insanitary areas” (Article XVIII, Section 1 here) would have passed had it been understood to mean that virtually any area could be declared blighted and condemned.
...
The case is also significant because it is the first major state supreme court defeat for property rights on a public use issue since Kelo. Over the last 10 years, the tide had been going the other way, with more and more state high courts applying restrictive definitions of “public use” and forbidding economic development takings of the kind upheld in Kelo, including important decisions in Ohio, Oklahoma, and Michigan, among others.
NetsDaily, Court of Appeals Permits Condemnation for Barclays Center
In a 6-1 decision, the New York Court of Appeals has turned down critics’ arguments that the state’s Empire State Development Corp. violated New York’s constitution in pursuing eminent domain to acquire land for Atlantic Yards, including Barclays Center. The ruling means the ESDC will now be free to begin condemnation proceedings against landowners. There is no appeal to the US Supreme Court.
NBC New York, Latest Legal Obstacle at Atlantic Yards Project Cleared
"They have won round one, and we still have round two to go," Brinckerhoff said. "I think everybody believes that they need to do a number of things by the end of the year, and where exactly this fits into that process I'm not sure. But the fact that they haven't yet taken the properties can't be helping them."
Dome Pondering, Taking Care of The Real People That Build These Stadiums
I understand the power of sport and business. I definitely do.
However, sports are just an avenue of entertainment and enjoyment. A mere means of theatrics, thrill, and emotion that remove us from the on-going struggle of everyday life. Sports, however, are in no way an essential part of life.
Even as an admitted fanatic of the New York Yankees and New York Knicks, I understand that as rich in history as the two franchises and their two home facilities in Yankee Stadium and Madison Square Garden are (or have been), they are not as important as the important things in life. They are not as important as life.
With that understanding, is why I cannot understand the constant movement for the Atlantic Yards project here in Brooklyn, NY.
...With all of the perks and benfits now reduced to just a basketball and event arena, is this project even worth it?
Orange Juice, Major Court Ruling Property rights decision...Atlantic Yards
What a sad property rights update two days before Thanksgiving.
We just celebrated Veterans Day to honor those patriotic Americans, some of whom made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom abroad while we are losing it right in our own back yards.
Government agencies using their “police powers” of eminent domain to take our homes and businesses when we have no desire to sell.
The AM Law Litigation Daily, New York High Court Dismisses Eminent Domain Challenge to Atlantic Yards Complex
Is there a more contentious development project in the United States than the proposed $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards housing-stadium-office mexa-plex near downtown Brooklyn?
Posted by eric at 6:11 PM
FOREST CITY RATNER PRESS RELEASE: FCRC Statement on NYS Court of Appeals Ruling on Eminent Domain Lawsuit Filed by Opponents of Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn
Courts Again Side with Atlantic Yards: Jobs and Affordable Housing to Come to Brooklyn
BROOKLYN, NY—Bruce Ratner, CEO and Chairman of Forest City Ratner Companies, issued the following statement today regarding the NYS Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.
The Court's ruling upholds the State’s right to use eminent domain given the public benefits associated with the Atlantic Yards Development in Brooklyn.
“Once again the courts have made it clear that this project represents a significant public benefit for the people of Brooklyn and the entire City,” Mr. Ratner said. “Our commitment to the entire project is as strong today as when we started six years ago. Today, however, this project is even more important given the need for jobs and economic development.”
Mr. Ratner said construction activity on the yards will continue, with the intent that the Nets will play ball in the Barclays Center in the 2011-2012 NBA Season.
In addition to Barclays, which has the exclusive naming rights, eight companies have signed on as founding partners for the arena.
The courts have ruled consistently in favor of the development. Mr. Ratner explained as well that the arena and larger development are expected to create 16,924 union construction jobs and over 8,000 permanent jobs. The tax revenues that will be generated for the City and State during the construction period are expected to exceed $240 million and after construction reach approximately $70 million a year.
NoLandGrab: 8,000 permanent jobs?! That number is only inflated about three times over from the latest plan, and without the proposed office tower — Ratner himself asked a Crain's reporter a few weeks ago "can you tell me when we are going to need a new office tower?" — the true number is likely fewer than 1,000.
Posted by eric at 2:50 PM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
Here's a round-up of stories from the mainstream media and blogosphere pertaining to this morning's New York State Court of Appeals ruling on the permissibility of eminent domain for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project.
The New York Times, Atlantic Yards Project in Brooklyn Clears Legal Hurdle
The last major obstacle to a groundbreaking for the $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn fell Tuesday when New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, dismissed a challenge to the state’s use of eminent domain on behalf of the developer, Bruce C. Ratner.
Mr. Ratner, whose 22-acre development has been delayed for three years by a flurry of lawsuits, the collapse of the credit and real estate markets and a glut of luxury housing, plans to begin selling tax-free bonds next month to finance the development’s cornerstone project: an 18,000-seat basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues near downtown.
...If construction begins in the coming weeks as expected, Atlantic Yards will stand out in a city where 530 different construction projects are stalled, sitting lifeless and without adequate financing in virtually every neighborhood.
NY Observer, Atlantic Yards Passes State’s Top Court
More than three years after a legal battle over property takings in Brooklyn began, it's now come to a close.
...Now the state, at the request of the project's developer, Forest City Ratner, is likely to move forward on acquiring the property of the holdout landowners and tenants, a relatively small handful of individuals who have been waging this legal fight since 2006. The takings, and the project as a whole, depend on Forest City hit Dec. 31 deadline to get financing for the arena.
...New York is one of just a handful of states that did not add restrictions to the use of eminent domain after the Kelo v. New London case of 2005. That case has made the news once again recently, as Pfizer, which built a facility in New London, Ct. that helped spur the city's use of eminent domain, is pulling out of the area. A large development site near the drug giant's facility still sits vacant.
WNYC Radio, Top Court Upholds Use of Eminent Domain on Atlantic Yards Project
In a 6-to-1 decision handed down this morning, the Court of Appeals ruled against property owners and businesses in the development's footprint in Brooklyn. A majority of the judges said that the area was sufficiently blighted to justify the state's use of eminent domain.
...One judge, Robert Smith, dissented, arguing that blight was never a "bona fide purpose" for the development but instead a justification invented after the project was conceived.
The Brooklyn Paper, Rejection! State’s highest court turns aside anti-Yards case
The Court of Appeals ruling, written by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and joined by five colleagues, affirmed that the state’s use of its condemnation power to clear land on behalf of a private developer, is “in conformity with certain provisions of our State Constitution.
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Talkin’ Takings, Part I: The Atlantic Yards Decision
Almost every Brooklynite you talk to has a fairly strong opinion about the Atlantic Yards project. Many shudder to think about the traffic and congestion that might beset downtown Brooklyn after all is up and running — and the Nets are over there, possibly losing games by the dozens (not to mention the displacement of many local residents). Others like the thought of the borough reclaiming is place as major-league in its own right, separate and apart from its flashier brother just to the west. Reaching full consensus on the Atlantic Yards project? As one might say in the rest of the country: Please forget all about that.
In any event, the New York state Court of Appeals handed down its long-awaited ruling on the project Tuesday morning, holding it lawful a state economic development agency to seize private land to build an arena.
NY Daily News, State's highest court allows Bruce Ratner to proceed with plans to develop Atlantic Yards
In a statement, Ratner said, "The courts have made it clear that this project represents a significant public benefit," Ratner said. "Our commitment to the entire project is as strong today as when we started six years ago."
Construction will continue, said Ratner, who said he expects the Nets will begin playing at the new arena for the 2011-2012 season.
AP, Court: NY can seize property for new NJ Nets arena
Reuters, NY top court rules for state in Atlantic Yards case
Ratner must start building the arena before the end of 2009 or he will lose out on $700 million of low-cost tax-free debt. Ratner still faces another lawsuit over whether the state mass transit agency sold the site for too low a price.
NorthJersey.com, Court ruling sends Atlantic Yards project forward
“It may be that the bar has now been set too low — that what will now pass as ‘blight’ … should not be permitted to constitute a predicate for the invasion of property rights and the razing of homes and businesses,” Lippman wrote.
But he added that limitations on eminent domain would be “the province of the legislature” and not the courts, except in extreme circumstances.
NoLandGrab: If Atlantic Yards doesn't count as "extreme circumstances," we're not going to hold our breath.
Crain's NY Business, Atlantic Yards developer gets OK to take land
But the politicians and community groups that have been fighting the development have vowed to continue their quest to kill the project. The court decision cannot be appealed, but there are at least four other suits pending against the project, which is slated to include sixteen towers of mostly residential units although a hotel and office building are also possible. However, legal experts said the eminent domain suit posed the greatest threat to the project.
Gothamist, Appeals Court Clears Way For Atlantic Yards
NY1, Court Rules Eminent Domain Can Be Used On Atlantic Yards Project
NY Law Journal, Atlantic Yards Project Clears Major Hurdle As Court of Appeals Upholds Use of Eminent Domain
Four of the seven judges, in a majority ruling by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, said the state had sufficiently shown that the project area containing the private parcels was "blighted" and subject to condemnation under the state Constitution, although Judge Lippman conceded that definitions of urban blight that were established during the Great Depression may have to be updated.
...Judges Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, Theodore T. Jones and Victoria A. Graffeo joined in the majority ruling.
NetsAreScorching, ATLANTIC YARDS PROJECT INCHING CLOSER TO REALITY
With the start of the season Mark and I have been really focused on the games, so focused in fact, that there has been little attention paid to some of the off-the-court stuff happening with the Nets. Today, however, something happened that can’t really be ignored. In a 6-1 decision, the New York Court of Appeals has turned down critics’ arguments that the state’s Empire State Development Corp. violated New York’s constitution in pursuing eminent domain to acquire land for Atlantic Yards, including Barclays Center.
Curbed, Atlantic Yards Opponents Lose Challenge Over Eminent Domain
In a statement, Tenacious B said, "Once again the courts have made it clear that this project represents a significant public benefit for the people of Brooklyn and the entire City. Our commitment to the entire project is as strong today as when we started six years ago. Today, however, this project is even more important given the need for jobs and economic development." He also reinforced his claim that the NBA's Nets will
lose horriblyplay in the new Barclays Center in the 2011-2012 season.
Bloomberg News, New York May Take Atlantic Yards Property, Court Says
Andrew Brent, a spokesman for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Morgan Hook, a spokesman for New York Governor David Paterson, didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment.
Reason Hit & Run, New York's Highest Court Upholds Eminent Domain Abuse
Very bad news out of Albany this morning: New York’s Court of Appeals has just upheld the state’s controversial use of eminent domain on behalf of real estate tycoon Bruce Ratner and his Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.
The Architect's Newspaper, Down to the Wire
Atlantic Yards opponents may have lost another battle in their war with Forest City Ratner as the state's highest court ruled against them today in a case challenging the use of eminent domain for the massive arena-and-condos project in Brooklyn. But with barely a month left to issue tax-exempt bonds on which the SHoP- and Ellerbe Becket-designed arena rely, the opponents knock-down, dragged-out legal strategy may have won the war.
A special bond authority created by the Empire State Development Corporation is set to begin proceedings to issue those bonds at a 10:00 a.m. meeting today, and now will have some breathing room, given the court's decision. As has long been the case with the opponent's challenges to eminent domain, the majority, in their decision took many issues with the process but ultimately found that it was not their place to overrule the legislature.
Posted by eric at 11:53 AM
DDDB: new lawsuit coming because court refused to consider revised project
Atlantic Yards Report
From a statement from Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn:
"We are disappointed, but undeterred. We lost this round, but the legal fight is not over. My clients will continue to resist Ratner's efforts to steal their homes and businesses in the New York courts," said lead attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff of Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady. "Because the Court of Appeals made it clear that it considered itself 'bound' by the self-serving record created by the Empire State Development Corporation prior to its December 2006 public use finding, and thus refused to consider the events leading up to the ESDC's adoption of a modified general project plan two months ago, we now intend to commence a new lawsuit seeking to compel the ESDC to issue new or amended public use findings.
Posted by eric at 11:49 AM
Court of Appeals upholds AY eminent domain 6-1
Atlantic Yards Report
In a decision (PDF) that gives the crucial--but perhaps not final--boost to the Atlantic Yards project, the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, approved the use of eminent domain by a 6-1 margin, saying that it's not the role of the courts to intervene in agency decisions, given the wide latitude in state law to decide on blight.
The case, which involves nine petitioners (homeowners, commercial property owners, and residential and commercial renters) is known as* Goldstein, et al. vs. New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a/ Empire State Development Corporation* (or ESDC).
Project backers had long expressed confidence about the result, given the state court's general deference to agency decisionmaking, but the court's willingness to accept the case in the first place--the Appellate Division had unanimously upheld the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) in the first round--had left some room for ambiguity.
Moreover, two of the seven judges seemed skeptical of the ESDC during the oral argument October 14, though the judges spent the most time on procedural issues and the attorney for the nine petitioners faced similar skepticism. One of those judges, Robert Smith, filed a blistering dissent that stated:
[T]he majority is much too deferential to the self-serving determination by Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) that petitioners live in a "blighted" area, and are accordingly subject to having their homes seized and turned over to a private developer.
...It is clear to me from the record that the elimination of blight, in the sense of substandard and unsanitary conditions that present a danger to public safety, was never the bona fide purpose of the development at issue in this case.
...No bar to groundbreaking
Developer Forest City Ratner still must get arena bonds sold by the end of the month, and they may be hampered by the remaining cloud of litigation and the lowered market for sports facilities, but this was the largest roadblock, and there is no bar to a promised groundbreaking in the next month or so.
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, which organized and funded the lawsuit (and whose spokesman, Daniel Goldstein, was the lead plaintiff), said it would file a new lawsuit because the court ruled only on the record from 2006, which promised much greater benefits than are now likely.
...Forest City Ratner issued a statement:
“Once again the courts have made it clear that this project represents a significant public benefit for the people of Brooklyn and the entire City,” Mr. [Bruce] Ratner said. “Our commitment to the entire project is as strong today as when we started six years ago. Today, however, this project is even more important given the need for jobs and economic development.”
Mr. Ratner said construction activity on the yards will continue, with the intent that the Nets will play ball in the Barclays Center in the 2011-2012 NBA Season.
The ESDC issued a statement:
“Today the State's highest court, like every other court that has considered the issue, upheld the use of eminent domain to facilitate development of the Atlantic Yards Project. Empire State Development is as committed as ever to seeing the completion of this Project. With this major hurdle overcome, we can now move forward with development which will accomplish its goals of eliminating blight, and bringing transportation improvements, an arena, open space, affordable housing and thousands of jobs to the people of Brooklyn and the State of New York.”
Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz issued a statement:
"The ruling by the State Court of Appeals reinforces previous decisions supporting the numerous public benefits of the Atlantic Yards project—during these difficult economic times and into Brooklyn’s bright future—including the creation of affordable housing, solid union jobs and permanent employment opportunities for Brooklynites who need work. Today’s decision from our state’s highest court marks what amounts to the final step in the legal process to make it happen. Finally, we will bring a national professional sports team and a world-class facility back to our borough after 52 years! Brooklyn’s shovels are, and have been, ready. So, let’s pick them up and get to work!”
Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries issued a statement:
"I am extremely disappointed with the decision of the Court. The power of eminent domain is extraordinary and should only be authorized in limited circumstances where, unlike in this case, there is a clear and robust public benefit. The use of eminent domain to benefit a private developer to build a basketball arena for a team owned by a foreign billionaire is an abuse of this extraordinary power, and I hope that Governor Paterson will choose not to exercise it."
Posted by eric at 11:42 AM
DDDB PRESS RELEASE: Constrained Court Rules Against Property Owners and Tenants in Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case
Despite Ruling, Fight Against Ratner's Brooklyn Project Is Far From Over
BROOKLYN, NY — New York's high court ruled today against property owners and tenants who had challenged the state's use of eminent domain to seize their homes and businesses for the enrichment of developer Bruce Ratner and his Atlantic Yards project in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn.
In the 6-1 decision the Court of Appeals ruled that the state agency's determination to take the plaintiffs property had a rational basis under state law.
Today, November 24, at 12:30pm plaintiffs, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, members of the community, attorneys and elected officials will hold a press conference about the ruling and the fight against Atlantic Yards. The press conference will be held in front of Freddy's Bar in Brooklyn at 485 Dean Street at the corner of 6th Avenue. (Directions, 2/3 train to Bergen St, or B,D,Q,N,4,5 to Pacific/Atlantic.)
"The fight against the Atlantic Yards project is far from over. The community has four outstanding lawsuits against the project and, meanwhile, the arena bond financing clock ticks louder and louder for Ratner. While this is a terrible day for taxpaying homeowners in New York, this is not the end of our fight to keep the government from stealing our homes and businesses,” said Develop Don't Destroy spokesman and lead plaintiff Daniel Goldstein. "Governor Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg now need to decide if they want their legacy to be the next New London—a dust bowl in the heart of Brooklyn caused by the abuse of eminent domain, because that will be the outcome if they allow the property seizures and final clearance for Ratner's unfeasible project."
"We are disappointed, but undeterred. We lost this round, but the legal fight is not over. My clients will continue to resist Ratner's efforts to steal their homes and businesses in the New York courts," said lead attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff of Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady. "Because the Court of Appeals made it clear that it considered itself 'bound' by the self-serving record created by the Empire State Development Corporation prior to its December 2006 public use finding, and thus refused to consider the events leading up to the ESDC's adoption of a modified general project plan two months ago, we now intend to commence a new lawsuit seeking to compel the ESDC to issue new or amended public use findings. It would be perverse and unfair if my clients homes and businesses were confiscated based on circumstances that no longer exist. At the same time, we will also vigorously defend the cases that the State will now file seeking to seize my clients' properties, which is the second barrier that Ratner and the ESDC must now attempt to overcome."
"While we are deeply disappointed in the Court's decision, our fight against the government's abuses on Ratner's behalf continues, and we expect to defeat Atlantic Yards through political and legal means", said Develop Don't Destroy legal director Candace Carponter. "It now falls to Governor Paterson to guarantee, through a binding legal contract, which the State would be required to enforce, that all the developer's promises about the project—including all of the ‘affordable' housing and the ten year construction timeline—are fulfilled. If the Governor is unable to do that, he is duty-bound to abandon this ill-fated project, and start over so the rail yards can be developed properly and realistically."
In 2005, in the wake of the Supreme Court's widely despised Kelo decision that expanded the reach of eminent domain, then-Senator David Paterson called for a state-wide blanket moratorium on the use of eminent domain.
"Governor Paterson needs to ask himself what happened to Senator Paterson's position on eminent domain. And then he needs to act on his principles," Carponter concluded.
Posted by eric at 11:32 AM
New York State Court of Appeals rules against Atlantic Yards footprint property owners
The New York State Court of Appeals handed up a ruling this morning In the Matter of Daniel Goldstein, et al. v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation.
The court ruled 6-1 in favor of the State, permitting the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards project under New York State law.
Click here to download a PDF of the 60-page decision. Much more to follow.
Posted by eric at 11:25 AM
With decision in eminent domain case possible on same day arena bonds are authorized, it could be an interesting Tuesday
Atlantic Yards Report
By about 9:20 am today, we should know whether the Court of Appeals has ruled in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case.
If there's no ruling, then the 10 am meeting of the Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation to authorize arena bonds should be relatively uneventful--except, of course, for the details to be revealed about the mix between tax-exempt and taxable bonds, as well as whether they're to be used for infrastructure.
...
If the ruling is in favor of the state, then likely there will be a collective sigh of relief among those running the hearing, even if other lawsuits and the challenge of selling bonds in the current market represent potential snags.And if the ruling turns out to be in favor of the plaintiffs, then expect a rather surreal meeting. Atlantic Yards would have been dealt a near-fatal blow.
Also...
ArtInfo, Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards Project Awaits Judges’ Ruling
Posted by lumi at 6:12 AM
November 21, 2009
Eminent Domain For New Arena?
CNN
Daniel Goldstein on the proposed Atlantic Yards project and the pending eminent domain case: "It looks wrong, feels wrong, and it is wrong and I'm confident we're going to win."
Posted by steve at 5:43 AM
Kelo v. New London, Part II – Eminent domain for Atlantic Yards in New York
RadioVice
This review of the eminent domain case pending with the New York State Court of Appeals includes a mention of the questionable criteria used to declare the area in the proposed Atlantic Yards project footprint as blighted and a contrast with how use of eminent domain worked out in New London.
It seems that less than half of the 22 acres of the proposed redevelopment area contain a below grade rail yard used by the MTA, and, (perish the thought) there are growing weeds and graffiti on some of the properties. Thus, the consultants rationalize, the entire 22 acres is blighted, subject to what amounts to a seizure of private property by government for use by a private developer.
And, how is that Kelo deal working out, you ask? At the time of the decision, Mr. Justice Stevens insisted that:
The city [of New London] has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue.
This carefully formulated plan essentially gave Ms. Kelo’s land to a private developer to construct a hotel, office buildings, etc. to “enhance” Pfizer’s existing nearby research and development headquarters.
Almost four and one half years after the Supreme Court’s decision, the city of New London has spent $78 million to bulldoze the properties so taken by the city, no development has occurred on that property, nor is any likely to occur anytime soon, and, were that not enough, Pfizer has announced it is closing it’s facility in New London.
Posted by steve at 4:44 AM
November 19, 2009
Daily News article about the compensation issue
Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter
The NY Daily News has an article about the compensation issue. Tonight CNN will run a story featuring Dan - discussing Kelo.
NY didn't rule on the eminent domain case today. The decision should come on Monday or Tuesday. We'll be filming as the decision comes down.
We are at 44% of our goal. Please continue to let other people know about our efforts.
Posted by eric at 5:41 PM
Home and property owners say state's offers for Atlantic Yards property adds insult to injury
NY Daily News
By Erin Durkin
Hardball eminent domain tactics begin with lowballing property owners under threat of condemnation.
Chief opponent Daniel Goldstein got a letter offering $510,000 if his three-bedroom Pacific St. condo is taken by eminent domain. He paid $590,000 for it in 2003.
...
"That's way low. That's ridiculous," said Slope Heights Realty broker Tony Atterbury, who added a 1,290-square foot, two-bathroom apartment like Goldstein's could fetch somewhere between $720,000 and $900,000.
...
Peter Williams said he was offered $432,000 for the one-story Sixth Ave. loft building where his two grown kids live - a far cry from the $2.5 million Ratner offered two years ago."They lowball everything," he said. "There's no way I could replace the living space that my kids are in in an equivalent neighborhood for the money they've offered me."
And Henry Weinstein said the $16 million he was offered for a 7-story office building and parking lot on Pacific St. is less than it's worth.
Weinstein - already embroiled in a complicated battle with a tenant who tried to turn the property over to Ratner without his permission - said the offer is just the latest slap in the face.
"They're bank robbers," he said. "I couldn't be more aggravated and mad than I am."
Additional coverage...
Atlantic Yards Report, Daily News: other AY footprint landowners also have been low-balled
Yes, the first offer is not definitive and, should condemnation proceed, they'll get that, and hash out the rest in court. Still, the ESDC's appraiser does not appear to have read the ESDC-commissioned KPMG report, since the offer for Goldstein's apartment is below the Prospect Heights minimum.
Posted by lumi at 7:10 AM
Ranting on the weeds of New London
"In legal terms, this may be the most symbolic weed-choked lot in America." — Bill Weir, ABC News
Every time someone mentions that all that's left in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London are "weeds," you gotta cringe. These are native plants! The attitude that some plants are weeds (read "blighted"), while others are more desirable, is what gets municipalities like New London in trouble in the first place.
In order to make productive use of New London's failure, the city ought to turn the lot into an eminent domain monument, where school groups can spend a few hours in a native-plant landscape and learn about eminent domain abuse from a park ranger in a replica of Susette Kelo's little pink house. Afterwards, they can visit the gift shop in the lobby of the former Pfizer R&D headquarters.
Posted by lumi at 5:39 AM
November 18, 2009
Eminent Domain Ruling Expected Soon...What Will it Mean?
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
The Court of Appeals ruling on the property owners and tenants challenge to the abuse of eminent domain for Atlantic Yards is expected to come down as soon as this week and certainly within the next 2-3 weeks.
We expect the Court to rule in the plaintiffs' favor, so they can keep their homes and businesses.
If the Court does, the project is dead.But if the Court rules against the plaintiffs,
the fight against the project is far from over.Remember, the fight against the project is about many issues. So should New York State get the right to seize these properties and give them to Ratner, there are still three other outstanding lawsuits against the project and more expected. Ratner is still struggling to meet his end of year IRS deadline to issue his tax-exempt arena bond, contending with chastened and wary bond credit rating and insurance agencies, and a skeptical bond market.
Governor Paterson will also have to decide if he wants his legacy to be a New London dust bowl in Brooklyn.
The community wins if the Court rules against eminent domain, but Ratner doesn't win if the Court rules for eminent domain. He just lives to see another day and the project will have to be stopped a little further down the road.
That, of course, will require your continued support for our work.
Please stay tuned...
Posted by eric at 11:37 PM
Think of Kelo, But Remember Poletown and County of Wayne v. Hathcock Too
Develop Dont Destroy Brooklyn
Norman Oder makes a strong argument that the NY State Court of Appeals will think about Kelo when considering its own legacy when it rules on the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case in the coming days.
But they should also look to and think deeply about Poletown and County of Wayne v. Hathcock.
Before Kelo and New London, Michigan courts made a horrific decision in 1981 to allow massive property takings in Poletown (the nickname of a Detroit neighborhood) for so-called "economic development." Twenty-three years later, Michigan's high court overturned that ruling, far too late for that neighborhood and the thousands who were forced out. And, as is always the case, the pie-in-the-sky benefits never panned out.
New York can and should forestall this outcome in Brooklyn.
Click through for more.
Posted by eric at 10:09 AM
Court ruling on Nets' Brooklyn arena looms
The Bergen Record
John Brennan reports on the countdown to the court ruling that will put wind in the sails of developer Bruce Ratner, or be the ultimate project buzz-kill.
New York's highest court resumed session Tuesday, and spokesman Gary Spencer said rulings are issued on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If the court doesn't rule this week on the project's proposed use of eminent domain at the Brooklyn site, the court's release dates for rulings next week would be Monday and Tuesday because of the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday.
The court could take until as late as mid-December to announce its decision, but most of the 25 cases heard in October are expected to be ruled upon this month.
Here's what's at stake:
If the court allows the project to go forward, that will accelerate a scramble by the developer, Forest City Ratner, to beat three Dec. 31 deadlines:
The expiration date of an Internal Revenue Service ruling that would grant tax-exempt status for $600 million or more in bonds issued for construction of the Nets' arena in Brooklyn.
The end of a one-year extension granted by arena title sponsor Barclays Bank to remain committed to its reported 20-year, $400 million naming rights deal.
The deadline for the Nets to inform the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority whether it intends to leave the Izod Center for Newark's Prudential Center for the 2010-11 season.
If the court decision favors the plaintifs, the project would come to a screeching halt.
Posted by lumi at 6:54 AM
Do the judges on the Court of Appeals read the papers and think about Kelo? If so, they have to consider their legacy
Atlantic Yards Report
In advance of the NY State high court's decision on the use of eminent domain, which is expected any day now, Norman Oder wonders if the final chapter in the nation's most notorious eminent domain case to come before the federal Supreme Court will cast a long shadow on Atlantic Yards.
Do the judges read the papers?
Do they know the aftermath of the *Kelo vs. New London *case, where not only nothing was built but the company behind the plan, Pfizer, is leaving town?
The answer has to be yes to both.
And if they have any concern about their legacy, they should take a long pause before proceeding--as many legal observers were predicting--to simply reaffirm the state's power to pursue eminent domain.
After all, the legacy of a victory for the state could well be a basketball arena and a building or two--and a lot of vacant land serving as parking lots or "interim open space." In other words, a project ostensibly aimed to remove blight would perpetuate it.
And the airy promises of new tax revenues are simply bogus.
Posted by lumi at 6:41 AM
Jane Jacobs Atlantc Yards Report Card: #32, 33, 34, & 35
Noticing New York's Jane Jacobs Report Card continues with four installments covering the use of eminent domain:
#32: Is Eminent Domain's Full Cost Being Reckoned and Paid For? NO
Jane Jacobs was not 100% per cent against the use of eminent domain but her thinking involved giving its use a very high degree of scrutiny and she put forth several separate standards to apply before resorting to its use. Jacobs asserted that if eminent domain was used, the full actual value of what was being supplanted should be paid for. Probably this is an appropriate standard for social justice, especially when privately used land is being taken to be given over to another private owner for a use, which as is the case of Atlantic Yards, might even be the same use. However, there was another prime reason to require that full value be paid: so that the vitality and viability of that which must be supplanted will not be quashed but will be able to move and locate elsewhere without diminishment. She thereby sought to preserve diversity. Lastly, paying full value supported achievement of another standard, which is that the public should not use eminent domain without being fully cognizant of the actual economic trade-offs underlying the decision.
The law has not changed since Jane Jacobs' time so that payment of full value as she proposed is not required and would not be done in the case of Atlantic Yards.
#33: Is Eminent Domain Being Used with Restraint? NO
Jane Jacobs was aware that eminent domain was an extraordinarily drastic and ruthless tool which, even in those situations where it can properly be defended involves the causation of ruinous harm (even with full compensation being paid). The question then is whether it is being used with restraint. In the case of Atlantic Yards the answer is “no.” It is clear that at least one complete block, the block with the Ward Bakery building, (which wraps around another similar block that is not being condemned) is being condemned without any good reason. This block (where the historic Ward Bakery building was acquired and torn down) is the home to many other worthy buildings, such as Henry Weinstein’s, that are indistinguishable in quality from the those on adjacent property that is not being torn down. It has been noted by us and others how odd and unprecedented it is to have a historic district (the recently designated Prospect Heights Historic District) and an eminent domain site interlock like strangely configured jigsaw puzzle pieces.
#34: Is Eminent Domain Used With Public's Full Comprehension? NO
Jane Jacobs felt that if the public fully comprehended the true economic equations and balances when eminent domain was being used it would almost never be used, especially when it was proposed to transfer property from one private property owner to give it to another for “economic redevelopment” purposes. In the case of Atlantic Yards, every effort has been made to minimize public involvement and participation in an evaluative process while the developer, aided and abetted by some politicians, has promulgated misinformation and misunderstanding about the project. Among other things, the public agencies involved, like the Empire State Development Corporations have refused to do an assessment of the public costs of the eminent domain...
#35: Is Eminent Domain for Greed Being Avoided? NO
Though Jane Jacobs did not dwell on it she certainly thought that in worst case scenarios eminent domain would be wielded not just out of misguidance but with greed as an operative factor.
...
It cannot be regarded as an accident that the planning of the footprint was the megadeveloper’s own work. Furthermore, the peculiar wrench-shape footprint of the project highlights that the way in which eminent domain is being used is suspiciously odd.
Posted by lumi at 6:21 AM
November 17, 2009
Brooklyn Paper article about the ESDC's low ball offer to Daniel
Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter
About a month ago, Daniel Goldstein was informed that the ESDC was offering him 510,000 dollars for his apartment; an apartment that he paid nearly 600,000 for in 2003. This was a surprisingly low offer that Daniel feels was meant to punish him for fighting the project. The Brooklyn Paper ran an article about it today, following up on a very strong article by Nicole Gelinas in the Wall Street Journal.
...For those of you in the New York area who are interested. We are going to do a rough cut screening of the first 30 minutes of the film- followed by a panel discussion with Daniel, Norman Siegel, Mindy Fullilove, William Stern (former head of the ESDC), and Robert MacNamara of the Institute for Justice- on Dec 10th at 7pm. rsvp to us through kickstarter and we will send you an invite with the location.
One last note. We are close to finalizing our efforts to have your pledges go through our fiscal sponsor MPI- this means that all of your pledges will be tax deductible.
Posted by eric at 11:18 PM
Be Careful What (Change of Law) You Ask For; You Might NOT Get It: Atlantic Yards and 1967's Rejected NYS Constitutional Amendment
Noticing New York
The first rule of proposing a change to the law, by passage of legislation or otherwise, is to consider if you really need the change or whether it is possible to construe the law as already saying what you want it to. Why? Because if you propose a change in law and fail that failure will forever afterwards stand as evidence you CAN’T then interpret the law as already saying what you want it to. This is for two reasons. First, proposing a change in law puts on the record the evidence that everyone and most particularly the legal experts on the subject, believe that the law DOESN’T already say what you are asking it to be changed to say, and second, when the proposed change in law doesn’t pass it shows that those who voted it down (those with authority and from whom the law flows) are opposed to modification of the law to make it say what you proposed.
All this is relevant because in 1967 New York State voters voted against a “public use” amendment to the New York State constitution proposed for the purpose of permitting the use of eminent domain for “economic development.” Even though that amendment was rejected state agencies officials are attempting to use eminent domain in exactly that way at the proposed Atlantic Yards megadevelopment site.
Posted by lumi at 6:14 PM
Is the state playing lowball with Daniel Goldstein?
The Brooklyn Paper
By Stephen Brown
Bruce Ratner needs Daniel Goldstein's condo in order to demolish the building that stands in the way of a new arena for the NJ Nets:
State officials have finally put a price on Daniel Goldstein’s opposition to the Atlantic Yards project — it’s going to cost the activist $80,000.
Goldstein, the lone holdout in a Pacific Street condo building that is slated to be condemned to make way for Bruce Ratner’s basketball arena, has been offered just $510,000 for the three-bedroom unit that cost him $590,000 in 2003.
Goldstein, who runs the project’s principle opposition group, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, was miffed (to say the least) at the offer.
Goldstein's lawyer suggests the possibility that the State is "being vindictive," while another lawyer, who is not involved in the case, concludes, "They’re being very punitive."
In another irony, the state condemnation process also provides a “relocation firm” to help Goldstein find a new place. But the firm’s suggested apartment only rubbed salt in the opponents’ wound: For $510,000, all he could get was a two-bedroom apartment near Crown Heights that is two-thirds smaller than his current digs.
NoLandGrab: Norman Oder of Atlantic Yards Report noted that the State's lowball figure of $395/sf stands in stark contrast to Ratner and the State's projection that condos at Atlantic Yards would fetch $1217/sf in 2015. [link]
Photo by Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.
Also...
Brownstoner, Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo
Posted by lumi at 6:10 AM
Pfizer Move a New Blow to Conn. City in Land Fight
With Pfizer leaving, residents of Conn. city say fight over waterfront land was unnecessary
ABC News
By Eric Tucker, AP
[Click image to launch video.]
After drug giant Pfizer Inc. announced that it was opening a new research center here, city officials aggressively moved to acquire surrounding land for an economic development project — triggering an epic fight over eminent domain that reached the U.S. Supreme Court and ended with residents being forced from their homes.
But the land where the homes once stood has remained undeveloped, and the community took another hit last week when Pfizer, a major economic engine in the city and its largest taxpayer, announced plans to close the $350 million research center and relocate about 1,500 jobs to nearby Groton.
Now some angry and befuddled current and former residents, including some who lost their homes, say the drug company's announcement reaffirms their conviction that the city never needed to pick the property rights fight in the first place. If they have lost, they say, then so apparently has the city.
"We just got so sick of hearing that we were supposed to sacrifice for the greater good," said Matthew Dery, the sales and retention manager at The Day newspaper in New London who relocated to Waterford after being forced out of a home that had been in his family for about a century. "As it turns out, there was no greater good."
Posted by lumi at 5:23 AM
November 16, 2009
Reform eminent domain
The Star-Ledger, Editorial
New Jersey's largest newspaper calls for reform of state eminent domain laws, principally the tightening of the definition of what constitutes blight.
Eight years after a Connecticut town seized land under eminent domain to sweeten a package deal to lure Pfizer, the drug giant has decided to move on, taking 1,400 jobs elsewhere and leaving behind a huge office complex and acres of vacant, weedy lots. New Jersey should take heed and move swiftly to reform its eminent domain laws.
New London, Conn., is the loser in this cautionary tale for other officials who think selling the store to win corporate favor is a good idea.
The town, which gave Pfizer substantial tax breaks, also forcibly took dozens of homes under eminent domain with the promise of building an "urban village" of new homes and stores.
...New Jersey needs to get moving. The state constitution allows local governments to seize private property in areas of "blight," a term loosely applied in recent years, to the great disadvantage of property owners, many of whom have fought back.
Since 2007, state and appellate court rulings have put town officials on notice.
...These rulings ultimately helped Long Branch homeowners this year beat back a plan to raze their beachfront homes for private, higher-priced condominums. But residents who fought the plan also had the broken economy on their side. The downturn made the whole project considerably less appealing to the developer and town leaders, who, in better times, might have continued the court fight. Another group of homeowners might not be so lucky.
NoLandGrab: We probably don't need to remind you that the developer in the Long Branch case was none other than Forest City Ratner. [Ed. note: we confused Long Branch with Bloomfield, NJ, where a judge struck down an eminent domain taking for a proposed Forest City project. We regret the error.] New Jersey's courts have been stepping into the void that the legislature has failed to fill — are you paying attention, New York State Court of Appeals?
Posted by eric at 11:51 AM
November 15, 2009
Kelo outcome shows Atlantic Yards risk
Village Voice By Julia
The exit of Pfizer from New London makes the author of this item question the wisdom of granting public subsidies and seizing property, via the use of eminent domain, for the benefit of developer Bruce Ratner.
Ratner already doesn't feel any particular obligation to the taxpayers providing his windfall (or the current residents being offered below-market value for their condemned properties). Last week, he told business paper Crains NY, not generally a hotbed of anti-development sentiment, that he didn't feel a need to share building plans with the public: "Why should people get to see plans? This isn't a public project."
It's particularly striking that Ratner feels free to show such an intransigent attitude at this point, when he's facing multiple lawsuits challenging the city's actions on his behalf and a looming Dec. 31 deadline to break ground or lose the tax-free status for the project's bonds he's relying on to finish the project. Even if he manages to jump those hurdles, the Independent Budget Office says that revenues on the project won't cover debt service, much less the subsidies.
Complicating matters even more, Ratner is battling with bond rating agencies which don't want to give the project's bonds the investment-grade rating the project is relying on. If he does manage to talk them around, he's got to market the bonds, sell them, complete the legalities with the city and the MTA, and break ground in the next six weeks.
On the other hand, he has been working the refs pretty hard. He spent almost a million dollars on lobbying for the plan last year. He also has a friend in City Hall and an affluent partner, either of whom could cover his nut in an emergency out of petty cash.
All the same, given the outcome of the New London experiment in protecting corporations from the free hand of the market, perhaps the city should think twice about fighting to subsidize someone who feels comfortable telling us to go fuck ourselves before he gets his hands on our money.
NoLandGrab: This blog entry mentions the City of New York as both facing legal challenges and acting to seize property. Actually, the lead agency for this project is the Empire State Development Corporation, the tool of developer Bruce Ratner.
Posted by steve at 6:46 AM
New York: Where “Underutilization” Equals “Blight”
The Volokh Conspiracy
This blog entry makes note of how New York State's loose definition of blight is being exploited for the proposed Atlantic Yards project. This blog describes itself as: "The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog. Most of us are law professors." It's not surprising, then, that the comments section is a kind of back-and-forth on constitutional issues.
Jay-Z and Alicia Keys sing “there’s nothing you can’t do” in New York. That may be true for Hova, but it’s not supposed to be true when it comes to eminent domain under New York law. A purported “public purpose” is insufficient to seize private property for economic development. So government authorities resort to “blight” designations to condemn private property they would like to redevelop. This is the strategy being used for the Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project in Brooklyn. Yet as Nicole Gelinas reports, the blight designation here is a bit of a stretch, as it relies upon the condition of the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s railyards, occasional weeds and grafitti, and the alleged “underutilization” of local properties. As Gelinas notes, if “underutilization” is sufficient to constitute blight, then nearly any proposed economic redevelopment project could utilize eminent domain under New York law.
Posted by steve at 6:32 AM
November 14, 2009
Views On Eminent Domain From An Eminent Blogger
Atlantic Yards Report
A defender of eminent domain: it should be a local decision (but what about AY?)
If you don't recall when you or your elected representative got to vote on the proposed Atlantic Yards project, it's because that never happened.
Two more commentators have joined the online New York Times discussion (previous coverage) regarding Pfizer's pullout from New London and the aftermath of the Kelo vs. New London eminent domain case.
Yale Law School professor Thomas Merrill, a supporter of eminent domain, writes:
I do not believe that this sad episode means we should overturn Kelo and ask federal judges to arbitrate questions about when eminent domain should be used. The solution is not to nationalize eminent domain, but to localize it. If a proposed project is one that will have primarily local benefits — like economic development — then local citizens should decide whether to pursue it, not some state redevelopment agency or the governor’s office.
Local residents will have a better idea whether a project is likely to succeed, and what impact it will have on those who are forced to move. It is particularly important that these projects be funded with local dollars — either local tax revenues or block grant monies that can be used for a variety of purposes — rather than federal or state grants controlled by people outside the community. The New London project was almost entirely funded by the State of Connecticut. This is the root cause of a series of calamities that now leave virtually everyone worse off.
(Emphasis added)
While Atlantic Yards would have both state and local benefits, it would most affect the city of New York and borough of Brooklyn. But a state redevelopment agency--the Empire State Development Corporation--is in charge. And no local elected official had a vote.
Norman Oder adds his assessment to today's piece by Nicole Gelinas in the Wall Street Journal.
Given that the justification for eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards case is blight, rather than economic development (as in the Supreme Court's controversial Kelo vs. New London decision, now back in the news), Nicole Gelinas's op-ed in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal is especially timely.
It's headlined The Empire State and Eminent Domain: A neighborhood with $600,000 apartments is declared 'blighted.'
Gelinas, who's part of the free-market Manhattan Institute, points to a state court decision that suggests that when private benefit trumps public use, eminent domain is invalid, and the failure of state voters to approve an amendment adding "public purpose" to "public use."
...
She writes:
So to push the Atlantic Yards project through the courts, New York state isn't arguing that it needs to take Mr. Goldstein's property for economic development. Instead, it has declared that Mr. Goldstein's neighborhood is "blighted." This allows the state to condemn property on the theory that clearing unsanitary and unsafe slums constitutes a public benefit.
In fact, the Prospect Heights neighborhood that Mr. Goldstein and his wife have made their home is hardly a slum. Prospect Heights was thriving before Atlantic Yards construction began. It's a hip neighborhood that's a short hop on the subway from Manhattan.
Well, not every block was thriving, but Prospect Heights was surely on the way up, as New York Times Real Estate section stories indicated.
The blight argument is bogus--remember, then-Assemblyman Roger Green, a supporter of the project, declared in 2005 that the neighborhood around the site wasn't blighted.
...
Gelinas points out that the Blight Study by AKRF cites weeds and graffiti as examples of blight--which could be removed by development. She adds:
Mainly, however, the report pointed to "underutilization" of the land, concluding that the area wasn't being used to the maximum economic benefit allowed by law. But that means the Atlantic Yards is really an economic-development project—and that the politicians along with Mr. Ratner want to manage Brooklyn's economy rather than let competitive forces continue to improve the neighborhood.
The next conclusion should be this: Atlantic Yards then is not very distinct from Kelo.
There is an unmentioned argument for eminent domain: the difficulty of assembling land for a large project. But there has to be a legitimate public use/purpose, like, say building new rail networks.
...
While Goldstein in 2003 paid $590,000 for a 1290 square foot apartment, now, Gelinas reveals, the state has offered only $510,000, less than half of what Ratner offered four years ago.
That offer is $395/sf, a stunning figure, given that the ESDC's consultant, KPMG, says that the current range for Prospect Heights starts at $470/sf and ranges up to $1225/sf.
Posted by steve at 8:29 AM
The Empire State and Eminent Domain - A neighborhood with $600,000 apartments is declared 'blighted.'
The Wall Street Journal
By Nicole Gelinas
This opinion piece clearly spells out how the Empire State Development Corporation, the tool of developer Bruce Ratner, has tried to portray an up-and-coming neighborhood as blighted in order to justify the use of eminent domain. A decision from the New York State Court of Appeals on this issue is expected soon.
In September, Dan Goldstein received a letter from New York State informing him and his wife that the government was about to seize their Brooklyn apartment "In furtherance of the Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project." The building would be razed as part of a 22-acre, $4.9 billion sports-complex project.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and developer Bruce C. Ratner have promised that the project will bring jobs, affordable apartments and the Nets basketball team. Lost amid these promises is the story of Mr. Goldstein, his wife Shabnam Merchant, and a few others who have spent years resisting efforts to dislodge them. The state's highest court—the New York Court of Appeals—is expected to issue its ruling in Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation any day. The case is a pivotal one in the struggle to prevent abuse of the power of eminent domain.
...
So to push the Atlantic Yards project through the courts, New York state isn't arguing that it needs to take Mr. Goldstein's property for economic development. Instead, it has declared that Mr. Goldstein's neighborhood is "blighted." This allows the state to condemn property on the theory that clearing unsanitary and unsafe slums constitutes a public benefit.
In fact, the Prospect Heights neighborhood that Mr. Goldstein and his wife have made their home is hardly a slum. Prospect Heights was thriving before Atlantic Yards construction began. It's a hip neighborhood that's a short hop on the subway from Manhattan.
...
All of this places Mr. Goldstein in an important spot. The case that bears his name is the first opportunity since Kelo for New York's highest court to affirm that the state's constitutional standard for seizing property is more stringent than the federal constitutional standard.
If the court rules against Mr. Goldstein, however, he and his wife could suffer one final injustice. The letter they received in September informed them that the state will compensate them $510,000 for their property—less than what they bought it for and less than half of what Mr. Ratner offered to pay them for it four years ago.
It's also less per square foot than what Mr. Ratner expects to sell his luxury apartments for once they are built. "I think [the state] lowballs to deter people from fighting like we have," Mr. Goldstein told me.
Mr. Goldstein should win. The state constitution supports him. If he loses, so will the owners of private property everywhere in the Empire State.
Posted by steve at 7:45 AM
November 13, 2009
Pfizer – New London CT – Eminent Domain – Atlantic Yards
The Cross Pollinator
TCP blogger Steven Walcott adds his two cents after excerpting a couple bits from the New York Times story posted below.
Anyone who thinks that property tax reductions and promises of jobs for normal folks justifies eminent domain for corporate purposes should read this article about Pfizer and eminent domain in Connecticut.
Anyone who thinks the giant turd called Atlantic Yards is really for anything other than Bruce Ratner’s bottom line and Mayor Bloomberg’s ego/legacy are deluding themselves.
These companies expect full ass kissing and bending over, and when they don’t get it they tip out.
Posted by eric at 4:50 PM
Pfizer to Leave City That Won Land-Use Case
The New York Times
by Patrick McGeehan
From the edge of the Thames River in New London, Conn., Michael Cristofaro surveyed the empty acres where his parents’ neighborhood had stood, before it became the crux of an epic battle over eminent domain.
“Look what they did,” Mr. Cristofaro said on Thursday. “They stole our home for economic development. It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away.”
That sentiment has been echoing around New London since Monday, when Pfizer, the giant drug company, announced it would leave the city just eight years after its arrival led to a debate about urban redevelopment that rumbled through the United States Supreme Court, and reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use.
Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city’s biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built.
NoLandGrab: Is it just a coincidence that Pfizer's big property tax break at its New London site will expire right about the same time it will move from that facility?
Posted by eric at 1:12 PM
Eminent Domain Outrage in Connecticut: Pharmaceutical Giant Pfizer To Leave New London, Site Of Major Housing Battle
Democracy Now!
Here's a must-watch segment from Democracy Now! on the decision this week by Pfizer to abandon New London, which seized land to build an office park around the company's headquarters, giving rise to the landmark Supreme Court case of Kelo vs. New London.
Homeowners in New London, Connecticut took on the city’s leaders after they announced plans to condemn all of the homes in one neighborhood to make way for a private development project for pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The city said it would bring in thousands of jobs. After a 2005 Supreme Court ruling against the homeowners, the entire neighborhood was bulldozed. This week Pfizer announced it is shutting down its research center.
Juan Gonzalez raises the issue of Atlantic Yards at approximately the 21:30 mark.
Posted by eric at 11:23 AM
The final collapse of redevelopment plans in New London leads to new scrutiny of eminent domain for Atlantic Yards
Atlantic Yards Report
The Kelo vs. New London case is experiencing some serious blowback, now that the entire rationale for eminent domain there has unraveled.
While the commentary does not directly address Atlantic Yards--where the justification for eminent domain is the removal of blight, not the pursuit of economic development--the experience in New London may nudge judges (like, say, the New York Court of Appeals in the AY eminent domain case) and legislatures toward greater scrutiny and skepticism of eminent domain.
The court decision
Remember, the Supreme Court, in its controversial 5-4 2005 decision, upheld the city of New London's plan for eminent domain because, as the majority opinion concluded:
The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including–but by no means limited to–new jobs and increased tax revenue.
Moreover, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his nonbinding concurrence (seized on by plaintiffs in the unsuccessful Atlantic Yards federal eminent domain case), observed:
This taking occurred in the context of a comprehensive development plan meant to address a serious city-wide depression, and the projected economic benefits of the project cannot be characterized as de minimus.
(Emphases added)
The problem: Pfizer will close its global research and development headquarters in New London, ending any lingering hopes that anything would happen with the long-dormant plan.
Posted by eric at 11:12 AM
Eminent-domain outrage in Conn. shows why Ratner's Yards plan stirs anger
NY Daily News
by Juan Gonzalez
It is not just New London, of course, where local governments have rushed to use eminent domain in recent years to bulldoze neighborhoods for the benefit of the rich and powerful.
Here in this town, the Bloomberg administration keeps trying to seize properties in downtown Brooklyn to make way for the giant Forest City Ratner Atlantic Yards Project. In Willets Point, Queens, it wants to condemn scores of small businesses for another grandiose commercial development project.
But local residents and owners, like Dan Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, and Jake Bono of Willets Point United, refuse to give in.
Kelo and her neighbors in Trumbull may have lost their homes, they say, but the fight they started continues.
Posted by eric at 10:54 AM
A Turning Point for Eminent Domain?
NYTimes.com
When Pfizer announced on Monday that it was closing its global research and development headquarters in New London, Conn., the news reverberated far beyond the struggling seaport city. The project, part of an urban renewal effort, was the basis for a much-debated 2005 Supreme Court decision upholding government’s eminent domain rights to take private property for public use.
But the New London redevelopment never got off the ground, even after the local and state governments spent more than $80 million to buy and demolish private property to pave the way. Now comes the blow from Pfizer: how will its withdrawal affect future eminent domain battles in redevelopment projects? What are the lessons learned for urban planners and local governments?
- Paul Finkelman, law professor
- Paul Bass, journalist and author
- Dana Berliner, Institute for Justice
- Matthew J. Festa, law professor
Here's an excerpt from Paul Bass's essay, headlined Clarence Thomas was right:
The lesson learned in the City of New London’s Fort Trumbull neighborhood — or what was once the Fort Trumbull neighborhood — is that urban liberals make mistakes, big mistakes when they stand against the little guy through the misuse of eminent domain.
These urban liberals — the Democrats running New London at the time — thought they could build a “better” neighborhood by destroying generations of individual investment. And they used government power, the power of eminent domain, to do it. Eminent domain makes sense when used for public safety, but it doesn’t make sense when it means giving already powerful interests an advantage in real estate development.
Now the homes are gone and vast acres remain abandoned. Not only is Pfizer not building the new neighborhood it promised, it is closing its research and development headquarters and moving 1,400 jobs out of town.
Posted by eric at 10:40 AM
November 12, 2009
Atlantic Terminal Mall teenage crime wave
Brownstoner, Two Teens Shot on Fulton in Fort Greene
Update 12:52 pm: We just got the official report from Captain Tasso at the 88th. Turns out there were two separate shootings last night, the one discussed above in which two teens were shot but are in stable condition, and another (also non-life threatening) one at Flatbush and Fulton; there was also a stabbing in the vicinity of Atlantic Center. All three events are being linked to the buffalo wing promotion. There was a large police presence on hand that managed to send thousands of the teens home, obviously some managed to cause problems before leaving the area; none of individuals involved in any of the incidents were from the neighborhood.
Atlantic Yards Report, Crime in the footprint: AKRF was either incompetent or lying
Tuesday night's incidents serve as a reminder of one of the big fat lies in Forest City Ratner's blight study, used to justify taking of people's homes to make way for the developer's basketball arena.
An altercation spilling out of the Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant in the Atlantic Terminal (not Center) Mall Tuesday night led to a shooting--and another piece of evidence that high crime in Sector E of the 88th Precinct is related to the malls, not the much-emptier Atlantic Yards footprint.
So consultant AKRF, in conducting the Blight Study for the Empire State Development Corporation, was either incompetent or lying:
Similarly, while there were 115 grand larceny crimes reported for sector 88E in 2005, the shopping center security force recorded only one incident of larceny that same year. Although crimes catalogued by the Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal security staff are not necessarily the same as those catalogued by the NYPD, the relatively low number of crimes reported at the shopping centers indicates that the high crime rate in sector 88E is more likely a result of crimes occurring on the project site than in Atlantic Center or Atlantic Terminal.
More likely? Nah. Remember, "A large percentage of our crime--particularly grand larceny and petit larceny--occurs in the malls," declared Captain Vanessa Kight, 88th Precinct Executive Officer, in March.
AKRF apparently talked only to Forest City Ratner, operator of the malls, which has an interest in minimizing the amount of crime, despite mounds of evidence (1, 2, 3, etc.). The cops weren't questioned.
Press Release: Shooting incident in Fort Greene on Veterans Day Eve alarms local residents and the community
From the office of City Councilmember Letitia James:
(Brooklyn, Nov.11, 2009) In an example of poor planning, two teens were injured by gunfire last night, possibly due to irresponsible management of the promotional event, as well as insufficient security at the Atlantic Center Mall. The incident occurred at the Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant’s Tuesday, 40-cent, Wing Promotion. An altercation between restaurant patrons happened in the mall, which then spilled into the streets of Fort Green, Brooklyn.
[Rest of the press release after the jump.]
“Falling on the night prior to the Veterans Day school holiday, the restaurant could not accommodate, nor provide proper security for the crowd of teens that responded to the promotion – geared to middle and high school students. The NYPD was forced to maintain order, resulting in resources being withdrawn from local streets, a burden to Fort Greene and the 88th Precinct,” said Council Member Letitia James.
“I question the marketing and management of this event, and ask that restaurants and mall management seriously re-evaluate security procedures for highly attended promotions such as the one held yesterday evening. It is my hope, and those of the community that the two injured teens have a speedy recovery.”
Posted by lumi at 5:44 AM
November 11, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA
The Wall Street Journal, Editorial, Pfizer and Kelo's Ghost Town
Pfizer bugs out, long after the land grab.
The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut.
The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.
That's especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that.
Castle Coalition Press Release, The End of an Eminent Domain Error: Pfizer Closes in New London
Land Taken in Infamous Kelo Supreme Court Case Remains Empty More Than Four Years After Ruling
Pfizer, Inc., announced today that the company will be closing its former research and development headquarters in New London, Conn. This was a project that involved massive corporate welfare and led to the abuse of eminent domain that ultimately bulldozed the home of Susette Kelo and her neighbors in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London.
This was the same bogus development plan that five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court refused to question when the property owners of New London pleaded to have their homes spared from the wrecking ball. Justices mentioned that there was a plan in place, and that so long as lawmakers who are looking to use eminent domain for someone’s private gain had a plan, the courts would wash their hands. Now, more than four years after the redevelopment scheme passed constitutional muster—allowing government to take land from one private owner only to hand that land over to another private party who happens to have more political influence—the plant that had been the magnet for the development is closing its doors and the very land where Susette Kelo’s home once stood remains barren to all but feral cats, seagulls and weeds.
New York, of course, is one of just seven states that have not reformed eminent domain laws. It's on the table in Yonkers, among other places.
LoHud.com, Yonkers may seize downtown properties through eminent domain
Two city development agencies are preparing to forcibly take 11 downtown properties from their owners for a massive redevelopment project.
The New Main Street Development Corporation voted Thursday to ask the Yonkers Industrial Development Agency to begin eminent domain actions against the owners of 11 properties that NMSDC officials claim have been unresponsive to their purchase offers. Eminent domain is a legal mechanism that allows governments to force property owners to sell so the land can be used for a greater public benefit.
"It continues to be our goal to reach voluntary purchase agreements with as many property owners as possible," said Ellen Lynch, the YIDA president, whose agency approved the NMSDC request Friday.
Really?
Nader Sayegh, an attorney representing the owner of the gas station at Elm and School streets, said the NMSDC's attorneys have not followed up with him about negotiating a fair price, even though he reached out to them.
Posted by eric at 9:29 AM
November 10, 2009
Bruce Ratner Finally Admits It: "This isn't a public project"
Reason Online
By Damon Root
Finally something we can all agree on:
Last month, New York’s highest court heard oral arguments in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, which centered on the state’s controversial use of eminent domain on behalf of real estate tycoon Bruce Ratner, who wants to build a basketball stadium, a hotel, and some office and apartment towers in central Brooklyn. As I’ve previously argued, it’s a blatant case of eminent domain abuse.
And as it turns out, Bruce Ratner himself agrees with that judgement. In a startling interview with Crain’s New York Business, Ratner finally admitted what his critics have maintained all along: “This isn’t a public project.”
NoLandGrab: Even Bruce is confused: it's a "public project" when he wants the state to use eminent domain to take property, override the local zoning and secure massive subsidies, but it's a "private project" when he doesn't want to answer any questions about the program, financing, profitability, timeline and purported "public" benefits.
Atlantic Yards Report, Is Atlantic Yards a public project , a private one, or "public-private"? Well, the latter, but Forest City Ratner's in the driver's seat
Norman Oder's explains that things are a little more complicated:
So, AY is a public project when it comes to public purposes and the pursuit of eminent domain. It is a public project when it comes to the use of PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) to build a sports arena on tax-exempt land.
It's a public-private project when the state gives Forest City Ratner to do things--like build a deck over the Vanderbilt Yard--that it's unwilling to do. It's a public-private project when Forest City Ratner seeks access to scarce housing bonds.
But it's a public-private project with the private entity in charge when the private entity draws the map of the "blighted" project site, the private entity controls the pace, and the private entity chooses not to show what anything looks like.
Posted by lumi at 7:04 AM
EMINENT DOMAINIA
NEW LONDON: SHOCKER!
The City of New London went to the mat to seize the homes of residents of the modest waterfront neighborhood of Fort Trumbull, ultimately winning a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court to allow taking of private property for economic development purposes. The houses were razed, but the redevelopment of the neighborhood, which was meant to serve the new headquarters built by Pfizer, never occurred.
Yesterday, in a shocker to officials of New London, the company in the "company town" announced it was leaving. The Hartford Courant is reporting that Pfizer will try to sell or lease the waterfront campus, but that redevelopment of the adjacent neighborhood of Ft. Trumbull "remains a dream." While one swath of waterfront property is destined to be totally unproductive in the near future, the Pfizer campus will likely remain vacant during these difficult economic times.
Some would say that city leaders are getting what they deserve, by staking their city's future on one company, while turning their backs on long-time residents. Whether you believe in karmic repercussions of eminent domain abuse, the latest development is a cautionary tale, one that may be sadly repeated, perhaps even now, in our own backyard.
The Hartford Courant, Pfizer Inc. Plans To Vacate Its R & D Center In New London
WEST HARLEM: COLUMBIA DEMO
Back in our own eminent domain-abusing metropolis, Queens Crap is reporting that demolitions for the Columbia University expansion project are "in full swing," including a building on the National Register of Historic Places, the facade of which will be moved and preserved. Sadly, Columbia, like Bruce Ratner in Brooklyn, will take down every building it can, thus making the determination of blight a self-fulfilling prophecy, and ensuring the neighborhood will remain so blighted for years to come.
Queens Crap, There goes the neighborhood...literally!
Posted by lumi at 5:14 AM
November 9, 2009
Pfizer abandons site of infamous Kelo eminent domain taking
Washington Examiner
by Timothy P. Carney
The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain.
But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes' seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London.
To lure those jobs to New London a decade ago, the local government promised to demolish the older residential neighborhood adjacent to the land Pfizer was buying for next-to-nothing. Suzette Kelo fought the taking to the Supreme Court, and lost. Five justices found this redevelopment met the constitutional hurdle of "public use."
...Scott Bullock, Kelo's co-counsel in the case, told me: "This shows the folly of these redevelopment projects that use massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain."
Posted by eric at 8:51 PM
Pfizer to close New London campus
The [New London, CT] Day
by Lee Howard
Pfizer, the private corporation for which the City of New London, Connecticut seized the little pink house belonging to Suzette Kelo, along with the homes of her neighbors, announced today that it is abandoning the site and consolidating operations in the nearby city of Groton.
So much for eminent domain for the purpose of "economic development."
Pfizer Inc. announced today the company will be closing its former R&D headquarters in New London, but the impact locally is expected to be minimal because New London workers will be consolidated into the pharmaceutical giant's Groton campus.
The announcement today that Pfizer will be closing six R&D sites worldwide means that 1,500 positions currently based in New London will be transferred to Groton, where about 3,500 people work.
"In Groton and New London, there will be a minimal headcount effect," said Martin Mackay, president of Pfizer's PharmaTherapeutics Research and Development division, in a conference call. "Our presence in Connecticut will be approximately the same ... it's about 5,000 now, and that number will continue, though the makeup will change around the edges."
The announced closing of the New London site eight years after it opened to great fanfare came as a blow to a city that had counted on Pfizer's multimillion-dollar facility to help revive its fortunes.
New London City officials were broadsided by the news Monday morning.
...Councilor Rob Pero, who also had no advance warning, said Pfizer officials told him they would have a better idea of what was happening by mid-November.
"Why would they build a facility 10 years prior and then just move 1,500 people out,'' he said. "Why leave a complex of that nature and ship them across the bridge. I would want to know why.
NoLandGrab: And Councilor, we'd like to know why the City of New London thought it was a good idea to seize those private properties and hand them over for a company that obviously puts it own interests before those of New London.
It seems that what comes around, goes around, but the people of New London lose out both coming or going.
Posted by eric at 5:59 PM
November 6, 2009
The condemnation process: what might happen if the ESDC wins the eminent domain case
Atlantic Yards Report
So, what might happen if the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) prevails in the pending eminent domain case--decision expected around Thanksgiving, but who knows--and pursues condemnation of properties in the Atlantic Yards footprint.
In previous coverage of the ESDC's July 22 community information session, ESDC counsel Joe Petillo offered an outline, and I also asked an attorney representing potential condemnees.
The process can take 110 days, involving a 20-day process and then a 90-day process.
Meanwhile, if Forest City Ratner wants to have a groundbreaking before the end of the year, they can, but it won't be on a fully cleared arena block and it might well take place while footprint residents, including uber-opponent Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, are still in their homes.
Oh, and if the ESDC loses, well, the project would die and a new legal mess would begin.
Posted by lumi at 5:49 AM
November 2, 2009
Compensating Justly? What Is the Property Being Condemned at the Atlantic Yards Site Really Worth?
Noticing New York
This blog post examines how developer Bruce Ratner benefits from eminent domain abuse. He can both underpay for a condo he's planning to take via eminent domain and yet claim over-the-top value for the property he owns due partially to an upzoning given to him via state leadership on the proposed Atlantic Yards project.
Atlantic Yards Report noted that Forest City Ratner wanted to pay Daniel Goldstein an `estimated’ $450 per square foot for his condo in the Atlantic Yards footprint while at the same time FRC is getting state agency blessing to proceed with its (no-bid) mega-monopoly based on a (suspect- we’ll get to that) KPMG market survey that says that the current condo market in Prospect Heights is $470-$1225 p/s/f. Further, as AYR notes, FCR estimated in 2006 it would get $850 p/s/f for its proposed Atlantic Yards condos.
...
Atlantic Yards Report “estimated” the $450 p/s/f offer to Goldstein based on the fact that during the Lehrer program Mr. Goldstein phoned in to speak about the absence of “just compensation,” saying that Forest City Ratner was offering below the $466 p/s/f Goldstein paid in 2003 explaining, "It is even below what I paid for the place... over six years ago, and everybody knows the market is not lower.”
Read the rest to see how the proposed Atlantic Yards project continues to be structured for the benefit of the developer, regardless of whatever public benefits might, or might not, come of it.
Posted by steve at 4:23 AM
October 30, 2009
What's a Prospect Heights condo worth? ESDC low-balls Goldstein (who once walked away from $500K profit) and overpromises the public
Atlantic Yards Report
The Empire State Development Corporation had to inflate the residential-condo projections for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards megaproject, so the project appears to be financially viable. On the other hand, the public-private corporation is lowballing the price for one home owner whose condo the agency is planning to seize, using the state's power of eminent domain.
If you go by what the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) offered Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn spokesman Daniel Goldstein for his condo in the Atlantic Yards footprint, and compare that to the values projected by ESDC consultant KPMG, you might suffer some vertigo.
After all, KMPG agrees that Forest City Ratner could get $1217/sf for condos in 2015, a figure that represents more than double the $600/sf price that consultant (for AY opponents) Joshua Kahr thinks is currently realistic.
KPMG says that the current condo market in Prospect Heights is $470-$1225/sf, though the latter seems a major stretch, limited perhaps to a few units in the Richard Meier-designed On Prospect Park, which isn't doing well and surely must be dropping prices.
And it's more than two-and-a-half times--by my calculation--what the ESDC is offering Goldstein.
Both extremes, I suspect, are unrealistic: the ESDC is low-balling Goldstein and KPMG (and Forest City Ratner) are overly optimistic. Whether Atlantic Yards proceeds or dies, iit's unlikely Goldstein would ever (nearly) double his money, as Forest City Ratner once offered. (To be precise, his gain would've been 83%.)
...
Looking at the price per square foot$466: what Goldstein paid in 2003
$850: what Forest City Ratner paid in 2005 in one building
$850: what FCR estimated in 2006 it would get for Atlantic Yards condos
$600: what Joshua Kahr estimates is the current Brooklyn condo market
$470-$1225: what KPMG says is the current Prospect Heights market
$450: what (I estimate) Goldstein has been offered
Posted by lumi at 5:52 AM
October 29, 2009
Eminent Decision for Brooklyn
Freddy's Brooklyn Roundhouse via YouTube
Couldn't make it to Albany for the Atlantic Yards eminent domain hearing on October 14th? Thanks to Freddy's Brooklyn Roundhouse, you are there.
Freddy's Brooklyn Roundhouse traveled on the bus from Brooklyn to Albany with members of DDDB, including several of the plaintiffs, to the NY State Court of Appeals for the oral arguments in this landmark case.
Posted by eric at 1:08 PM
October 28, 2009
The Specter of Condemnation: What Isn't Public Use?
The Huffington Post
by Daniel Goldstein
Since Kelo 43 states have reformed their eminent domain laws. New York, as the Wall Street Journal so ironically put it, has been a holdout from those reforms. Notoriously dysfunctional Albany has barely put the issue on its radar. That’s why the first post-Kelo public use case to make it to New York State’s high court, which was argued on October 14th, is so important. Without legislative protections the court is the last place for New Yorkers to gain some semblance of assurance that their home is not just some placeholder ripe for plucking when the state thinks some “benefit” may accrue from its seizure.
As of now, though, there is basically no protection for property owners and tenants in New York. If a condemning authority, such as the Empire State Development Corporation, or New York City’s Economic Development Corporation, staples together enough pieces of paper that make speculative claims about some amorphous “public benefits”—then your home will become theirs to transfer to private developers for their enrichment.
Such is the case with the use of eminent domain for the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project, which is what the Court is now considering. If public use can mean public “benefit,” then it can literally mean whatever the state wants it to mean, and leads to the non-rhetorical question: What isn’t a public use?
Posted by eric at 10:50 AM
October 26, 2009
David Stern: NBA Commish and Eminent Domain Abuser
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
David Stern is the chair emeritus of the Trustees of Columbia University. He is also the NBA Commissioner.
What do Columbia and the NBA have in common? They are both deeply involved in New York City development projects that abuse eminent domain.
Mr. Stern's Columbia University's expansion plan includes the abuse of eminent domain for Columbia's benefit. That abuse of eminent domain is pending a judicial ruling by Supreme Court First Department Appellate Division.
Mr. Stern's NBA would benefit greatly, along with Bruce Ratner, from the abuse of eminent domain to construct the most expensive arena in human history—the Barclays Center Arena, part of the Atlantic Yards plan.
Stern's 6-year long support for that boondoggle, and that abuse of eminent domain, is now pending a ruling by New York's high court—the Court of Appeals.
Posted by eric at 3:05 PM
October 22, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
The Village Voice, Most Disgruntled Business Owner: Nick Sprayregen
New Yorkers are a generally disgruntled bunch. We live in a city where it's impossible to avoid stepping on someone else's toes, and the mere act of breathing can set a neighbor off. But even in this perturbed crowd, no one's irritation approaches that of Nick Sprayregen. The feisty and handsomely rich owner of Tuck-it-Away Self-Storage, a 300,000-square-foot warehouse off 125th Street, has achieved minor fame as the last landlord left in the footprint of Columbia University's West Harlem expansion. As Columbia has moved to fulfill its manifest destiny, taking over 17 acres of land and buying out or relocating hundreds of tenants and property owners over the past four years, Sprayregen refused to budge from his location. When Columbia declared the area officially "blighted" (a ruling that cleared the way for the granting of eminent domain), Sprayregen got his lawyer to produce hundreds of documents—obtained through the Freedom of Information Act—charging that the blight study was a rigged deal between Columbia and the state. For nearly six years, he has been fighting Columbia with every available tool, writing op-eds in the New York Post, hiring a lobbyist, and starting blogs with names like My Land Is Mine. You gotta hand it to the guy: The lawsuits have personally cost him over a million dollars, and it's a fight he may never be able to win. Columbia has hired more lobbyists and has easily outspent him, but the relentless Sprayregen presses on.
Traditional Building, Your Building, Too, Could Be Declared ‘Blight’
To most of us, “urban blight” means abandoned buildings, broken windows, and rubble-strewn vacant lots. But a number of other, seemingly minor, things can cause a property to be declared “blight” under existing law. One of the most surprising blight factors is “underutilization.”
An official “Blight Study” can be a devastating tool in the hands of the state – especially when it wants to seize private property for a politically favored project. A cynical architect friend of mine, wise in the ways of urban development, declared: “Show me an urban block – any block – and I can write a report that will show that it is “blighted.”
This reality became painfully clear to a group of us who have been trying to block an obscenely over-scaled $4-billion mega-development that a private developer – allied with politically powerful forces in New York State – has been trying to impose on brownstone Brooklyn
Posted by lumi at 7:44 AM
October 21, 2009
Walkabout with Montrose: The Road to Prospect Heights
Brownstoner
by Montrose Morris
This essay on the history of Prospect Heights and its environs reveals that Atlantic Yards is hardly the first example of eminent domain abuse rankling the locals.
A huge controversy occurred when the city acquired the eastern park land through the right of eminent domain, and then sold some of the land back to private developers when it was no longer needed by the city. This land was “rocky sterile land occupied only by goats and squatters”, the Brooklyn Eagle said in 1873. When the site of the park moved west, the city sought to unload some of unnecessary eastern parcels, and after much litigation and controversy, the parcels were sold to private developers for a song. Marketed as being located in the highest and most desirable part of the city, this area, roughly from present day Park Place to Empire Blvd, remained “a howling wilderness” until the 1890’s, with squatter’s shanties surrounded by pigs, goats and chickens occupying much of the land. Meanwhile, the public buildings adjacent to the park were being planned, and the developers made a fortune selling some of the same land back to the city at highly inflated prices.
NoLandGrab: We have to give the Eagle an "A" for consistency.
Posted by eric at 2:06 PM
More manuevering at the corner of Carlton and Pacific with Boymelgreen firms pushed toward bankruptcy by (alleged) tenant
Atlantic Yards Report
The saga of Henry Weinstein's properties at the corner of Carlton Avenue and Pacific Street--a six-story building and two parking lots--just keeps getting stranger.
Remember, Weinstein won a court battle to evict tenant Shaya Boymelgreen, who operated his headquarters in Weinstein's building at 752 Pacific Street and had subleased that property--without Weinstein's consent--to Forest City Ratner, allowing the developer to claim that it controlled more of the Atlantic Yards footprint than it actually did.
Then Weinstein tried to get Boymelgreen evicted. Yesterday, before representatives of the sheriff's office could pursue eviction, Boymelgreen's tenant--or perhaps the developer himself--threw a wrench into those plans.
In short, sub tenants of Boymelgreen have filed to force Boymelgreen's company into bankruptcy, which makes no sense to Weinstein, because Boymelgreen wasn't supposed to have sub tenants without Weinstein's consent in the first place, leading folks to speculate that these "sub tenants" are really controlled by Boymelgreen, who is trying to pull another fast one on Weinstein.
NoLandGrab: While Boymelgreen can't seem to get past his original double-cross on Weinstein, Bruce Ratner still has designs on Weinstein's property via eminent domain.
Photo, Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.
Posted by lumi at 7:03 AM
October 16, 2009
If court rules wrongly, desperate times may call for desperate takings
NY Fiscal Watch
by Nicole Gelinas
Homebuyer beware.
New York State and City are increasingly desperate for tax revenue. This desperation makes the highest state court’s upcoming ruling on whether the Empire State Development Corp. (ESDC) has the right to seize private property for the Atlantic Yards redevelopment project in Brooklyn very important to private property rights here.
The most significant component of Atlantic Yards is high-rise, market-rate apartment buildings. The state has declared the property blighted, and thus fit for condemnation, not based on dangerous or unsanitary conditions, but largely on “underutilization” — that is, that people aren’t using their property to the maximum allowed under the law.
In arguments this week, one judge asked the state’s lawyer: “is it the law of New York that if I own a house in an area that the government thinks could be improved, a perfectly nice house, it’s a clean house, nothing particularly wrong with the area, but it could be better, more vibrant, more dynamic businesses, is that enough for the government to [condemn and seize] the house?”
The state’s answer: “Under New York State constitutional law, yes, it is.”
...The court, then, has a chance to reassert the state constitution in the Atlantic Yards case.
If it does not, anyone who lives in an “underutilized” property — like a three-story brownstone on a lot that’s fit for a skyscraper — should be very worried. His property is only his subject to Albany’s disinclination to seize it in an attempt to squeeze out more tax revenues for the ever-insatiated political interests.
Posted by eric at 4:57 PM
Atlantic Yards: Court of Appeals Hears Case
GlobeSt.com
by Joel Stashenko
GlobeSt. posted a note that "this story appeared in a slightly different form originally in the New York Law Journal." We had that story yesterday, but we don't know what's different, so we've included a link to the GlobeSt. version below. Again, we caution that the article errs in a few places regarding details about the Atlantic Yards project.
Posted by eric at 12:39 PM
Goldstein vs. UDC NYS Appeals Court Proceedings
YouTube (Freddy's Brooklyn Roundhouse)
Freddy's Brooklyn Roundhouse has posted the New York State Court of Appeals' official video of Wednesday's oral arguments in the case of Goldstein v. UDC — the Atlantic Yards eminent domain challenge.
Posted by eric at 11:44 AM
October 15, 2009
Atlantic Yards at New York's High Court
NY Observer
by Eliot Brown
The Observer's Eliot Brown, camera in hand, files a thorough (and entertaining) report, complete with slideshow, from the New York State Court of Appeals.
 |
Three Years of Litigation
For the planned Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, it’s been an exhaustive three-year journey of eminent domain-related lawsuits. Starting in October 2006, challenges to the use of state condemnation for the private development have constantly been in courts, first traveling up through the federal court system and then on to the state courts.
Now the voyage is clearly nearing an end. On Wednesday, an eminent domain suit brought by business and property owners in the project’s footprint went before New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, for oral arguments. A victory here by the landowners would kill the $4.9 billion project—the planned new home of the Nets—though such a win is considered unlikely, and they’ve lost at every step of the way in their process.
The Observer headed up to join the fun in the capital, so here’s a few pictures from the day.
Click thru for more coverage, and more photos.
Posted by eric at 1:31 PM
Court Weighing Eminent Domain
New York Case Pits State Against Land Owners Opposing a New NBA Arena
The Wall Street Journal
by Suzanne Sataline
This story appeared in yesterday's print edition and in the online version of The Journal.
New York's highest court is set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case that will decide whether the state government can lawfully seize private property for a development company.
The case pits the New York State Urban Development Corp., a government agency, against nearly a dozen land owners who say the state constitution bars the government from stripping the rights of private parties to benefit a developer that aims to build a new arena for the New Jersey Nets basketball team. The developer, Forest City Ratner Cos., is currently one of the owners of the Nets.
"The state is taking my home and other people's homes, not for the public use, but to give an extraordinary benefit to the developer," said the lead petitioner, Daniel Goldstein, one of the few remaining residents within the 22-acre site slated to be demolished. "It's not a public use. For the government to take my home to enrich any developer...is wrong and I believe is illegal."
Posted by eric at 1:14 PM
Atlantic Yards Project Reaches NYS High Court
WNYC Radio
by Matthew Schuerman
WNYC's Matthew Schuerman made the trek to Albany yesterday.
The state's constitution, like the federal one, says government can take private property only if it's for public use. But the definition of public use is up for interpretation.
The tenants and property owners pressing this case say the benefits to the public should outweigh the profits to the developer- but, they say, the state never bothered to make that calculation when it came to Atlantic Yards.
Lawyers for the state are arguing that a 1938 amendment to the state constitution makes that point moot, since it allows eminent domain to be used for slum clearance.
A decision is expected in the next four to six weeks, and if it favors the opponents, it could doom the project. But the plaintiffs lost a similar series of cases in federal courts.
Posted by eric at 1:04 PM
Atlantic Yards lawsuits filed and heard
Courier Life Publications
by Stephen Witt
The Courier reports on the just-filed MTA lawsuit, and yesterday's oral arguments at the Court of Appeals.
Also in Albany for the court hearing were several local grassroots groups who have long favored the project.
The "several local grassroots groups" amounted to about a half-dozen people, including James Caldwell and Marie Louis of BUILD, and one-time City Council hopeful Delia Hunley Adossa, point person for the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement, all of whom have received money from Forest City Ratner.
“We were in Albany to voice our support in terms of wanting to see the project move forward,” said Marie Louis, chief operating officer of BUILD (Brooklyn United for Innovative Development), which received funding from the developer as per a community benefits agreement for local workforce development.
Witt has used the "as per the" CBA line before, as if these groups are only taking money from Ratner because they're legally obligated to do so.
“We also believe these frivolous lawsuits need to be put to rest because all they want to do is delay the project and kill it. The need for jobs and affordable housing is even more intense given the economic climate,” she said.
NoLandGrab: "Frivolous?" Hardly. Aimed at killing the project? Guilty as charged.
Posted by eric at 12:26 PM
Judges Ponder Constitutionality of State's Use of Eminent Domain for Atlantic Yards Project
New York Law Journal
by Joel Stashenko
This review of yesterday's court arguments gets some project details wrong, but includes some interesting snippets of exchanges between the justices and counsel, including this one.
Matthew D. Brinckerhoff countered for project opponents that the nearly $4 billion Atlantic Yards, whose centerpiece would be a new arena for the NBA's New Jersey Nets, does not fit the Public Use Clause of Article I, §7 of the state Constitution.
The clause, which first appeared in the Constitution in 1821, prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. Mr. Brinckerhoff argued that Empire State Development failed to show how the project meets the definition of "public use" that has developed in state courts since.
"Won't it provide recreation facilities for the residents of Brooklyn, athletic facilities for school children, etc.?" Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick asked Mr. Brinckerhoff. "Is that part of the proposed plan? …That's a public purpose, right?"
"Right, but I don't think anybody can argue that its primary purpose is to provide facilities to community groups," Mr. Brinckerhoff replied. "It's primary purpose is to house a for-profit professional basketball organization."
article [subscription or free trial sub required — full story after the jump]
ALBANY - The state's highest court yesterday confronted the issue of whether eminent domain should have been used to advance a massive private development in Brooklyn.
Philip E. Karmel, arguing for the Empire State Development Corp. on behalf of developer Bruce C. Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, told the Court of Appeals that the development would replace 22 acres of largely "substandard and unsanitary" land.
"It's extremely well-established, from many, many decades that that is an adequate constitutional basis for use of eminent domain," Mr. Karmel told the judges in Matter of Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 178.
See the Appellants' Brief, Respondent's Brief and Appellants' Reply Brief.
Matthew D. Brinckerhoff countered for project opponents that the nearly $4 billion Atlantic Yards, whose centerpiece would be a new arena for the NBA's New Jersey Nets, does not fit the Public Use Clause of Article I, §7 of the state Constitution.
The clause, which first appeared in the Constitution in 1821, prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. Mr. Brinckerhoff argued that Empire State Development failed to show how the project meets the definition of "public use" that has developed in state courts since.
"Won't it provide recreation facilities for the residents of Brooklyn, athletic facilities for school children, etc.?" Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick asked Mr. Brinckerhoff. "Is that part of the proposed plan? …That's a public purpose, right?"
"Right, but I don't think anybody can argue that its primary purpose is to provide facilities to community groups," Mr. Brinckerhoff replied. "It's primary purpose is to house a for-profit professional basketball organization."
Mr. Brinckerhoff argued that Empire State Development failed to properly make an accounting of the projected private benefits of the project to Mr. Ratner and his Forest City Ratner Companies and weigh those against the benefits to the public before allowing the project to go forward in 2006.
At that time, the state agency authorized the condemnation and taking of 123 parcels of privately owned land, or about 20 percent of the property in the project zone. Some landowners have since sold out to Forest City Ratner.
Though little or no work has been done on the project for months, Mr. Ratner has recently reached an agreement to have Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov invest $200 million in the Nets, the 18,000-seat arena and in Atlantic Yards in exchange for an ownership share in all three. He faces an end-of-the-year deadline to break ground.
There was limited discussion before the Court yesterday about the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Kelo allowed, with what critics called an overly broad definition of "public use" under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the taking of private land for a private development in Connecticut.
Judge Robert S. Smith did ask Mr. Karmel yesterday how Kelo related to Atlantic Yards.
"Are you asking us to follow Kelo and say that any public use is good enough, or do you acknowledge that you have to show blight here to justify the use of the eminent domain power?" the judge asked.
"The result in this case is the same whether you follow Kelo or you don't follow Kelo" based on the state Constitution and case law, Mr. Karmel replied.
State Precedent
Justices Susan Phillips Read and Victoria A. Graffeo both said at several points they wanted to know more about state precedents and how they relate to the use of eminent domain under the state Constitution.
Mr. Brinckerhoff also challenged whether public funding for Atlantic Yards—the state and the city have each pledged $100 million—is legal under Article XVIII, §6 of the state Constitution. It allows public financing for residential housing projects only when low-income units are being replaced by other low-income units.
Atlantic Yards calls for construction of about 3,000 market-value housing units and 2,250 low-income units.
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman asked whether public funding was going to the project in violation of Article XVIII, §6.
"Are public subsidies going to market-rate housing here?" he asked.
"No," Mr. Karmel responded.
"There are no public subsidies going to market-rate housing?" Judge Lippman asked again.
"The only subsidies identified in the record are the $100 million appropriation by the state Legislature, which is for a state-owned arena and a state-owned rail yard," Mr. Karmel said. "The state has had the authority to fund state-run facilities of that kind forever."
Mr. Karmel said city funding for the project was not subject to Article XVIII, §6.
Filing Timeframe
The judges also probed both sides on whether the state court action before the Court yesterday was filed in a timely fashion. The plaintiffs challenging Empire State Development's approval of the project went first to federal court and, Mr. Karmel contended, missed a 30-day filing notice in state court as they were pursuing their federal claims.
"Can that serve to toll for a couple of years the 30-day requirement in the [Eminent Domain Procedure Law]?" Judge Read asked. "That seems to be the implication."
"I think there is no question that it can and it did here," Mr. Brinckerhoff argued.
The judges yesterday heard an appeal of an Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimous ruling rejecting arguments by Atlantic Yards' opponents that the project's environmental impact statement and use of eminent domain are improper (NYLJ, May 18).
The prime organizer, the coalition Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, also tried unsuccessfully to challenge the project and the Empire State Development Corp.'s approval of it in another state court action, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn v. Urban Development Corp., (NYLJ, Feb. 27), and in a federal court case, Goldstein v. Pataki, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately denied certiorari (NYLJ, June 24, 2008).
J. Kevin Healy of Bryan Cave and Charles S. Webb III and Kenneth J. Applebaum of Berger & Webb are also representing the Empire State Development Corp.
Eric Hecker of South Brooklyn Legal Services is aiding Mr. Brinckerhoff's representation of the plaintiffs.
In an amicus brief filed in support of the Atlantic Yards project, New York City's Law Department argued that many privately developed projects have been made possible in the city by the condemnation of private property.
Kelo has prompted the filing of a series of bills in the New York state Legislature concerning the use of eminent domain. In 2009, they included A1568/S1669, which would give citizens more time to contest proposed property takings, and A1570/1670, to create an eminent domain ombudsman to ensure the even-handed application of the condemnation of private property.
Again this year, none of the bills gained traction.
The Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which represented property owners in Kelo, released a report last week in which it named New York as among the most permissive states in the country for the use of eminent domain to aid in the development of private projects. It cited recent projects sponsored by the New York Stock Exchange, Costco and Stop & Shop as among those in which private businesses benefitted from the public taking of private property.
Another Suit Filed
On Tuesday, the Straphangers Campaign of the New York Public Interest Research Group, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and several lawmakers filed another suit related to the Brooklyn Yards project.
The Manhattan Supreme Court suit alleges that the sale by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of its Vanderbilt Rail Yard to Forest City Ratner vastly undervalued the true worth of the 8.5-acre property. (See the Verified Petition and the Petitioners Memorandum of Law.)
The rail yard, owned by the MTA's Long Island Railroad Co., accounts for about 40 percent of the Atlantic Yards site.
The Court of Appeals is expected to hand down a ruling by the end of November in the case it heard yesterday.
Mr. Prokhorov's investment deal is contingent on Forest City Ratner's securing title to the remaining parcels at the site as well as financing for the project by Jan. 1.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Material from diverse and sometimes temporary sources is being made available in a permanent unified manner, as part of an effort to advance understanding of the social justice issues associated with eminent domain, local development and land use. It is believed that this is a 'fair use' of the information as allowed under section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the site is maintained without profit for those who access it for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
To use material reproduced on this site for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', permission is required from the copyright owner indicated with a name and an Internet link at the end of each item.
Posted by eric at 11:21 AM
At eminent domain oral argument, judges skeptical of both sides; court spends more time on process, low-rent housing issue than AY as sweetheart deal
Atlantic Yards Report
Well, that’s what they call a “hot bench.” In 50 minutes of argument, the seven justices of the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, peppered the attorneys on both sides of the Atlantic Yards eminent domain suit with tough questions, essentially derailing both lawyers' efforts to proceed through their arguments.
In the end, there was no way to tell how the judges would rule in the only case that can formally stop the project, but, given the multiple legal issues in play, it's plausible they could focus on just one to resolve the case, known as Goldstein, et al. vs. New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a/ Empire State Development Corporation (or ESDC).
(Photos by Tracy Collins)
Speaking afterward, plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff pronounced himself “"cautiously optimistic." While representatives of developer Forest City Ratner and the defendant Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) weren’t talking, they praised defense attorney Philip Karmel enthusiastically.
More...
Posted by lumi at 7:34 AM
Court battle could determine fate of long-delayed Atlantic Yards project
NY Daily News
By Erin Durkin
Judges on the state's highest court lobbed tough questions at both sides Wednesday in a court case that could decide the future of the Atlantic Yards project.
Opponents charged that it's unconstitutional for the state to seize their homes and businesses for a private effort such as Bruce Ratner's Nets arena and 16-tower development.
Judges seemed skeptical of that argument.
...
Judge Robert Smith questioned whether a state finding that the area was blighted was cooked up as an excuse to seize the property needed for Ratner's vision under eminent domain.
...
[Chief Judge Jonathan] Lippman also suggested the seizure could be problematic because the project is mostly market-rate housing, possibly violating a state law on slum clearance.
...
State officials said in a statement they're confident the court "will recognize the many substantial public benefits of the Atlantic Yards Project."But lead plaintiff Daniel Goldstein said if the court lets eminent domain go forward, "Forest City Ratner will get 22 acres of great real estate by stealing people's property."
Posted by lumi at 6:54 AM
AP in The NY Post and Newsday
NY Post, Brooklyners to court: It's unfair that we we're forced to sell land to Ratner
The NY Post ran the AP story on yesterday's hearing of oral arguments in Albany by the NYS Court of Appeals.
Newsday's commuter freebie amNY ran a short AP item in a page 3 sidebar.
Posted by lumi at 6:32 AM
It came from the Blogosphere...
Nets Daily, Procedure, Public Purpose Dominate Eminent Domain Hearing
A missed deadline and public purpose dominated the Atlantic Yards eminent domain hearing at the State Court of Appeals Wednesday. Judges wondered if by going first to federal court two years ago, critics had missed a deadline for challenging eminent domain in state court. They also questioned the state’s lawyers over the project’s public purpose and the extent of blight at the site. A ruling is expected next month.
inversecondemnation.com, Video Of Atlantic Yards Oral Arguments
Nets Daily, Live From Albany…Goldstein et al vs. Empire State Development Corp.
NJ Condemnation Law, Atlantic Yards Arguments Made to Court of Appeals
The New York Court of Appeals is hearing arguments today about the Atlantic Yards project, where challenges to the right to condemn were filed by several owners and interest groups. Lower courts upheld the condemning agency’s right to condemn.
Brownstoner, Atlantic Yards: Suit Filed Against MTA
While the Atlantic Yards' eminent domain case begins in court today, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn and four elected officials filed another suit in the state's Supreme Court yesterday against the Metropolitan Transit Authority, claiming that its sale of land to developer Forest City Ratner violates state law.... According to DDDB, "an annulment [of the sale] would disallow the transfer of the property, which the developer requires for its project, including its proposed basketball arena, until the M.T.A. complied with the law."
The Cross Polinator, Congratulations on your new lawsuit, MTA
Good for you MTA, a little pre-holiday present for you. To call the MTA part of the axis of corrupt New York City bastards would be unkind, so let’s just congratulate you on a job done behind closed doors.
Posted by lumi at 5:51 AM
An order for the court: Judges must shoot down last roadblock to Atlantic Yards
From an editorial in today's NY Daily News:
The Court of Appeals must do what two dozen courts have done: Give developer Bruce Ratner a green light to build a basketball arena and 6,400 units of housing, including 2,250 affordable units, on a grossly underdeveloped Brooklyn tract.
...
The right decision can be written in two words:Get lost.
NoLandGrab: "The Daily Snooze" must be trippin', because, though there have been several lawsuits against the project, they have not been heard by "two dozen courts."
Posted by lumi at 5:37 AM
Atlantic Yards Appeal Gets Intense in Albany
Eagle Reporter Goes Upstate for Oral Arguments
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
By Samuel Newhouse
The Eagle boils down the plaintiffs arguments before the NY State Court of Appeals:
According to Brinckerhoff, in total, there are three constitutional questions that the court must examine. They are: (1) does the state constitution provide greater protections to its citizens than does the U.S. Constitution, so that the use of eminent domain for Atlantic Yards does not sufficiently satisfy the public use clause; (2) if, without monetary figures showing how much Ratner himself is benefiting from the project, it is therefore impossible to weigh the public good versus the private benefit, as required by the court; and (3) how to interpret the unique 1938 amendment to the state constitution that says that when taking property, if state funds are being contributed to the project, then only low-income housing can be built.
Posted by lumi at 5:29 AM
Atlantic Yards eminent domain oral argument at New York Court of Appeals
NJEminentDomain.com
NJ eminent domain attorney William J. Ward explores yesterday's oral arguments before the NY State Court of Appeals.
Ward figures that the justices will be unwilling to dial back the definition of "public use" to the original intent, but may be more sympathetic to the arguments:
- that "blight" was used as a pretext to gerrymander the project boundaries,
- no analysis was made comparing the public and private benefits of the project, and
- that the State Constitution restricts the use of eminent domain for blight clearance for projects "restricted to persons of low income."
However, "the case could be dismissed without addressing the underlying merits or substantive issues" if the justices find the Empire State Development Corporation's argument compelling, "that the action in the state court presently before the court of appeals was not filed within the 30 day limitation contained in the statute, New York State’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL)."
Posted by lumi at 5:03 AM
State’s highest court hears Yards case
The Brooklyn Paper
By Gersh Kuntzman
If the seven judges of New York State’s highest court have any sympathy towards a small group of landowners suing to block the condemnation of their properties so Bruce Ratner can build a basketball arena, they had a funny way of showing it on Wednesday.
Almost half of today’s oral arguments before the Court of Appeals was consumed by a debate over whether the property owners missed a deadline for filing their appeal in the first place.
Posted by lumi at 4:57 AM
NY State Court of Appeals: Oral Arguments Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp
Video from yesterday's oral arguments before the NYS Court of Appeals has been posted on the court's web site at http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Goldstein.asx.
| Launch in external player |
Posted by lumi at 4:13 AM
October 14, 2009
NYS Court of Appeals Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Hearing
Devlop Don't Destroy Brooklyn supporters outside the courthouse this afternoon in Albany.
 |
Photo, by Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.
Posted by lumi at 9:27 PM
NY appeals court hears arguments on Atlantic Yards
Bergen Record reporter John Brennan made the trip to Albany to report on this afternoon's oral arguments in the appeal of the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case.
Aside from questions about whether the suit was filed in time and if the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) "gerrymandered" the project boundaries to satisfy private developer Bruce Ratner...
The judges also spent several minutes questioning whether New York law allows for eminent domain at a housing project that is not predominantly lower-income.
[Attorney for the plaintiffs Matthew] Brinckerhoff said he was encouraged by the number of questions from the judges about whether the three-block area where his clients are located can fairly be considered “blighted” along with a Metropolitan Transportation Authority-owned rail yard that occupies about one-third of the 21-acre site.
[ESDC attorney Philip] Karmel declined to comment.
In addition to project opponents and critics, some of the usual Ratner-supported supporters made the hike to Albany:
...James Caldwell, a member of Brooklyn United for Local Development, was among the courtroom attendees who back the project.
“Unemployment is so high in our community,” Caldwell said. “We’ve lived in this community for all our lives, and we waited a long time for a developer to come in and let us come to the table with them.”
NetsAre Scorching, Highlights from the Hearings
Posted by lumi at 8:56 PM
Atlantic Yards Case Goes Before Appeals Court
NY1 sister station Capital News 9 filed a report on today's oral arguments in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case, including live-action footage with the Empire State Development Corporation lawyer being grilled on the blight issue.
There isn't an embed feature for the NY1 footage, so check it out here.
Posted by lumi at 8:48 PM
NY top court begins key hearing on Brooklyn project
Reuters honed in on the question of "blight" from today's oral arguments in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case:
The judges pressed for answers on Wednesday on whether New York can seize homes that are not blighted or not in areas that are economically depressed, and whether the state was subsidizing market-rate housing and misusing powers reserved for replacing slums with low-income apartments.
Developer Bruce Ratner's project would be built over the state-owned Long Island Rail Road's rail yards, and the lawyer for the landowners, Matthew Brinckerhoff, argued that the state wanted to seize the land simply because it had not been developed to the maximum allowed under zoning laws.
"What they're saying is the below-grade rail yard is unsightly, the property is underutilized," he said.
A lawyer representing the state agency using eminent domain to take the land, the Empire State Development Corporation, said the agency made a "rational determination" in concluding that the entire 22-acre site was blighted.
The lawyer, Philip Karmel, was repeatedly questioned about whether only the southern part of the site was blighted, with one judge asking whether the site was "gerry-mandered" to fit the developer's objectives.
Karmel cited as a precedent the condemnation of 13 city blocks, where small businesses were located, to build the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan.
Asked why the term "blight" was not used for the project until 2005 -- a few years after it was proposed -- Karmel replied that it previously was targeted for urban renewal.
NoLandGrab: To be clear, the "southern part" of the project to which Justice Smith referred was not part of the previous urban renewal scheme. This was already reported by Atlantic Yards Report: "Behind the 'empty railyards': 40 years of ATURA, Baruch's plan, and the city's diffidence."
Posted by lumi at 8:21 PM
Atlantic Yards case hits NY's top court
AP, via Google
by Michael Virtanen
Developer Bruce Ratner's proposed $4.9 billion, 22-acre Atlantic Yards project mainly enriches private interests, while the state constitution requires public use for taking land, attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff told the Court of Appeals.
...
Empire State Development Corp. attorney Philip Karmel countered the area in Brooklyn was found blighted as a whole, and this was a legitimate government use of eminent domain to take property for public purposes. Part of the site, including an old railyard, had been designated for urban renewal for decades, he said.Judge Robert Smith said the railyard was the north end, but the south end was apparently in better shape. "Have you gerrymandered this area to fit what the developer wanted to build?" he asked.
Mr. Karmel said the detailed site study found one or more blight characteristics throughout.
The AP story was also featured on CrainsNewYork.com.
Posted by lumi at 7:56 PM
High Court Hears Arguments in Atlantic Yards Case
CIty Room [NY Times blog]
Nicholas Confessore, The NY Times's former Brooklyn-beat reporter, now stationed in Albany, reported on this afternoon's oral arguments in the eminent domain appeals:
Wednesday’s one-hour hearing featured sharp questioning from several judges over what limits the state faced when it sought to condemn private property, some of it suggesting that the judges believed that the rights of the owners had not received enough consideration from state officials.
The lawyer for the Empire State Development Corporation, Philip E. Karmel, also faced sharp questioning from the court’s chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, that went to the heart of a key legal and political dispute surrounding Atlantic Yards: Whether it is a private real estate project seeking the patina of a public purpose to justify eminent domain, or a state-sponsored economic development project that happens to include a major real estate venture.
In his questioning, Mr. Lippman repeatedly pushed Mr. Karmel to define the project.
“The majority part of this project is market-rate housing?” the judge asked.
“That is not the purpose of the project, your honor,” Mr. Karmel replied.
“Is it the largest component of the project?” Mr. Lippman pressed.
“It is a significant component,” Mr. Karmel said, not quite conceding the point.
In another line of questioning, Judge Robert S. Smith, in a tone that suggested skepticism, asked Mr. Karmel if there were any limits on the state’s ability to take private land, so long as there was a public benefit. Mr. Karmel said that under current law and precedent, there was not.
Judge Smith also questioned Mr. Karmel about the state’s definition of blight.
“Suppose I am a developer and I want to buy on an area that is half blighted and half not,” the judge asked. “They can condemn the whole thing, even if only half of it is blighted?”
The answer, Mr. Karmel said, was yes.
The Local, Eminent Domain Probed in Atlantic Yards Case
Posted by lumi at 6:54 PM
Boymelgreen Faces Possible Eviction from Brooklyn Offices
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Crain’s New York Business reported yesterday that Shaya Boymelgreen of Boymelgreen developers, a well-known Brooklyn figure, could be evicted from his American corporate headquarters in Brooklyn this week for failing to pay about $200,000 in rent and losing a court case involving Forest City Ratner’s attempt to assemble the land for its Atlantic Yards project.
...
Weinstein told Crain’s he sued Boymelgreen in 2006 after learning the developer sold his 40-year lease on the building to Forest City Ratner without his knowledge.Forest City needs to raze the building so it can construct its project on the rail yards. The New York state appeals court in May ruled that Weinstein could evict Boymelgreen and that Forest City was given illegal assignment to Weinstein’s properties, Crain’s reported.
NoLandGrab: Weinstein won the case against the Boymelgreen-Ratner doublecross, but he still faces condemnation via eminent domain by the State of NY.
Posted by lumi at 6:25 PM
TODAY: Oral arguments in Albany for eminent domain case
This afternoon at 2pm, lawyers for property owners and the Empire State Development Corporation will present the oral arguments in the eminent domain case before the NY State Court of Appeals.
Copies of briefs are posted on Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn's web site.
Posted by lumi at 6:31 AM
NY Court of Appeals to Hear Brooklyn Eminent Domain Case
Back in 2007, lawyer William J. Ward helped small businesses in Bloomfield, NJ successfully fight the town against the use of eminent domain for another project that was supposed to be built by Atlantic Yards overdeveloper Bruce Ratner.
From his blog entry on the case to be argued in Albany this afternoon:
The petitioners challenge the concept of “public use” and its interpretation in New York case law. Lower courts, in this case and other New York cases, have opted for a broad interpretation of “public use.” This is beyond the definition urged by the plaintiffs, who want the court to adopt a more restrictive definition of “public use,” one that is consistent with its plain meaning and the intent of the New York Constitution, adopted in 1821. Their argument runs contrary to many state court decisions supporting a broad interpretation of “public use”. This is an uphill battle, but the fact that the Court of Appeals is hearing the case gives rise to the hope that the court may want to weigh in on this issue on the side of the property owners.
The petitioners also urge the court to weigh the relative public vs. private benefits that would occur as a result of the project as called for in Aspen Creek v. Town of Brookhaven, 12 NY 3d 738. The City of New York has filed an amicus brief supporting the use of eminent domain to foster economic development. The Virginia based Institute for Justice has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Insitute recently published Building Empires, Destroying Homes: Eminent Domain Abuse in New York. (Click on the link to download the PDF.)
Posted by lumi at 6:04 AM
Flashback: Are the MTA or NYC responsible for upkeep of the railyards? ESDC punts
Atlantic Yards Report
In anticipation of today's court hearing on eminent domain and blight, I'll point people back to this post from 11/15/06, in which the government agency responsible for finding blight curiously was unable to assign responsibility for that blight.
Pretty much everyone agrees that, as this photo from the Empire State Development Corporation's Blight Study shows, the Vanderbilt Yard of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority deserves better treatment.
But who's responsible? Several people commented to the ESDC, saying government agencies should be blamed for neglect.
NoLandGrab: It's the beauty of kleptocracy — if government agencies didn't neglect their own properties, it would undermine the government's findings that the areas were blighted.
Posted by lumi at 6:02 AM
Politi: Dug-in Brooklynite holds for last shot
Newark Star-Ledger
By Steve Politi
New Jersey still has a professional basketball team, and it’s not because a passionate fan base or savvy politicians kept it here. The Nets are still here in large part because [Daniel] Goldstein dug in his heels against a billionaire developer and a political machine.
Wednesday, his fight comes down to the buzzer. The State of New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Albany about whether the state has the right to seize Goldstein’s home and other properties to build the Nets’ new arena and the rest of the Atlantic Yards project.
Lose this case, and there is little but financing (still no small hurdle) standing b