November 28, 2009
Atlantic Yards Report Saturday Edition
David Sheets, one of the plaintiffs on the case recently decided by the New York State Court of Appeals is particularly soft-spoken during a press conference, but there's no masking the anger and truth in his words.
At the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn press conference on Tuesday, held after the Court of Appeals upheld the use of eminent domain for Atlantic Yards, plaintiff David Sheets (left), a residential tenant, spoke so softly that only those close in could hear him, but the video below captures his words.
In his pointed commentary, he referenced two court cases in Michigan, a state, unlike New York, where the highest court was willing to reverse itself on eminent domain. While those cases were raised in amicus curiae briefs to the court, none of the three opinions--majority, concurrence, dissent--acknowledged them.
"It's a scam"
"I'm not an attorney, but I am a paralegal. I know my way around a legal document," said Sheets, who as a tenant is in a precarious position serving as a plaintiff in the case, since comparable housing is not at all guaranteed. "This is a scam. It's sucking up to the public trough. These are welfare kings, and it needs to be looked at that way."
There are processes on the books to guarantee public participation, he said, but "the state and developer have done everything they could think of to reduce those to nothing more than occasional acts of civic masturbation. They are utterly meaningless."
There was a method beyond Noticing New York blogger Michael D.D. White's running silent commentary on the Atlantic Yards bond deal Tuesday. Remember, and most importantly, no public comment was allowed. Here's part of White's message:
Of course, you should be worrying that these bonds will default and consequently don’t deserve a good rating. A default will negatively affect the market for all New York issuers. But that is not all you should be worrying about. Moody’s has warned that the entire state is weeks away from a substantial downgrade of its credit rating if it doesn’t close its budget gap.
Wall Street Journal editorial
The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial headlined Property Owners Get Dunked On: Another victory for the powerful over property rights, grasped the issue:
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.
Daily News editorial
Contrast the above with another (duh) wrongheaded New York Daily News editorial, headlined A Net gain for Brooklyn: High court did right by the city in Atlantic Yards lawsuit, which claimed:
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.
It did nothing of the sort. It acknowledged that the standard may be very fuzzy, but said it was not the place for courts to intervene. More critique from Eric McClure of No Land Grab.
Posted by steve at November 28, 2009 9:31 AM | Permalink
Schumer's Multi-Monopoly Positions Unhealthily Muddy Debate on an Issue With Left, Right and Center Appeal
Noticing New York
Senator Charles Schumer understands the evils of monopolies when it comes to health care costs, but is just fine with supporting developer Bruce Ranter's growing monopoly on development in Brooklyn.
We bring this up because this week we found Senator Schumer talking about an issue that is near and dear to our economics-loving heart: The evil of monopolies. No dummy, Senator Schumer is apparently quite aware that the issue should appeal “left, right and center” across the entire political spectrum. Problem is that Senator Schumer has a monopoly-supporting skeleton in his closet, one we have been speaking out against strenuously: Forest City Ratner’s proposed mega-monopoly in Schumer’s hometown of Brooklyn, New York. Jeepers, not only is Atlantic Yards in Schumer’s own borough, he might even be able to see it from where he lives in nearby Park Slope. Schumer can’t dodge knowledge of the ugly details of this scam.
Consider the Senator's skepticism of a study on health care costs paid for by a health care insurer and contrast it with his support of claims made for the benefits of the proposed Atlantic Yards project.
Why would anyone believe that Atlantic Yards is good? Not because of the highly suspect studies funded at the instigation of and paid for by the developer. On Face the Nation Senator Schumer pointed out that “studies” bought and paid for by the industry involved ought to be rejected. Here is what he said about the health care reform study that Senator Jon Kyl was trying to promote as persuasive in the same Face the Nation debate:
Let me answer that. First the Lewin study, which Jon cites is widely discredited for one good reason--they’re fully funded by United Health, a health insurer.
Schumer went on to counter that the appropriate study figures to reference should be those of the Congressional Budget Office because “they’re not funded by anybody. They’re impartial and we both go by their readings.” Promoting the study of the CBO because they are impartial (which is definitely a good thing) is like, in the case of Atlantic Yards, promoting the figures of the NYC Independent Budget Office for the same reason: that they are impartial. These findings of the IBO which Bloomberg and the state agencies in service to the developer Forest City Ratner have summarily rejected says that the basketball arena those agencies are about to finance for the developer will be a $220 million net loss to the public.
Posted by steve at November 28, 2009 6:25 AM | Permalink
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 November 28, 2009 6:08 AM | Permalink
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 November 28, 2009 6:02 AM | Permalink
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 November 28, 2009 5:55 AM | Permalink
Picturing What Could Have Been Said If Public Officials Accepted Public Comment at the Atlantic Yards Bond Approval Meeting
Noticing New York
This past Tuesday the Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation (“BALDC”) met in the offices of the ESDC, the tool of developer Bruce Ratner. The purpose of the meeting was to approve the issuance of bonds.
Michael White attended the meeting and found that there was no opportunity for public comment. As a way to make his objections known, he brought a set of graphics with him that he held up in succession during the meeting.
This blog entry is a way of presenting the commentary that was not permitted by the state.
In addition to objections to a money-losing arena, there are also questions to the BALDC that should make anyone who is considering the purchase of bonds for the proposed Nets arena be wary.
There are of course many questions to be asked about why you are issuing bonds with so many tell-tale loose ends. We could ask you why, for instance you aren’t reviewing and approving the involvement of Mikhail Prokhorov as a proposed principal in this transaction?
Of all the multiple loose ends that make this so transaction dangerous, perhaps the most important to ask you about is this: Why are you financing an arena that is different from the one that the ESDC board and the PACB actually approved and which will be so much more risk for the bondholders? You are financing an arena which, among other things is so much smaller that it won’t be able to host a second team playing hockey.
Of course, you should be worrying that these bonds will default and consequently don’t deserve a good rating. A default will negatively affect the market for all New York issuers. But that is not all you should be worrying about. Moody’s has warned that the entire state is weeks away from a substantial downgrade of its credit rating if it doesn’t close its budget gap. Governor Paterson is asking the legislature to take steps to close that gap but who can take the governor seriously when on his behalf you are still pursuing this supremely wasteful financing that is driving the state into a deeper financial hole. You are responsible for the misapplication of billions of public money to Atlantic Yards.
A Goldman Sachs banker's remarks suggest that the bonds might not be very tasty.
Before the meeting we were talking with one of the Goldman Sachs bankers involved in issuing the bonds, commenting that this must be the weirdest transaction on which they had ever worked. We were told that they had worked on some pretty weird transactions. We challenged them to name one as strange or involving so many oddities. Various other transactions were named. . . and discarded as candidates. We never came up with a transaction that even marginally approached eing comparably strange. We commented that this transaction probably had within it every element of every weird deal that had been done anywhere else that strange things were going on in New York. Our banker mentioned that he sometimes tells people he does “Tutti Frutti” deals. Then he sighed, and perhaps realizing what was more apropos to this deal, he said, “Or I sometimes tell them I do `Rocky Road.’” “This,” we said certainly involves more than one scoop of “Rocky Road.” And god knows how many scoops of something else.
Posted by steve at November 28, 2009 5:38 AM | Permalink
What Next?
Nets Daily
This consolidation of reports from multiple sources includes a explanation of bond ratings for the proposed Nets arena and why the sale of bonds by a December 31st deadline is not a foregone conclusion.
Here’s why the ratings are crucial to the project. Ratings agencies review revenue projections and other factors provided by the bond issuers. In some cases, agencies will additional equity be put into a project in return for a lower interest rate. Think of bonds as the arena “mortgage” and the $282 million in equity the Nets have put down as the “down payment”. Not everyone in the front office is as positive as Yormark about the ratings. The Nets needed to get an “investment grade” rating for the arena bonds, something BBB- or better, or they wouldn’t have qualified for tax-exempt bonds. Reportedly, they succeeded, but just barely. Beyond the tax exempt bonds, there are other, taxable bonds, to construct surrounding infrastructure. Rates on those bonds are going to be significantly higher. Originally, the Nets had hoped for rates as low as those sold to finance Yankee Stadium and CitiField. The Barclays Center bond rates will not be close to the 6.5% rate the two baseball stadiums received. Also, Cablevision, the Knicks’ parent company, will soon be marketing $500 million in bonds to finance a massive refurbishing of the Garden. Those bonds will be a better investment. It’s uncertain when they will be marketed or what effect they will have the Nets’ efforts. Carey has said the most likely investors are funds who have previously invested in sports facility bonds.
In any event, Goldman’s Carey has said the bonds will go on sale December 7. He added that Goldman and Barclays expect to have them sold by “mid-December”, or around the time of the ESDC’s December 15 “master closing”. Of course, they have to get all arena financing in place by December 31, the IRS deadline. If by that date it’s not in place, the arena bonds lose their tax exempt status. That would lead to a significant increase in bonding costs and perhaps kill the project. (There’s been some speculation by the arena critics that the deadline can be moved back. A Nets’ insider said the deadline is indeed “real”.)
Posted by steve at November 28, 2009 5:21 AM | Permalink
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 November 27, 2009 1:06 PM | Permalink
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 November 27, 2009 5:18 AM | Permalink
The Record: Game-changing ruling
The Bergen Record
Editorial
Soon enough, they will probably be the team from Atlantic Yards, with an 18,000-seat arena built just for them. The New Jersey Nets will become the Brooklyn Nets, and we will have lost our team.
This is not the outcome we wanted. We wanted the Nets to stay in the Garden State. If they had to move to the Prudential Center in Newark from the Izod Center in the Meadowlands, then so be it. At least they would still be in northern New Jersey.
Posted by lumi at November 27, 2009 5:15 AM | Permalink
ACORN’s Flagrant Eminent Domain Abuse
David Horowitz's Newsreal
by Matthew Vadum
The relentlessly sanctimonious radical advocacy group-cum-organized crime syndicate has become the leading cheerleader for the real estate development that is slated to use eminent domain to remove the poor people it claims to represent.
ACORN, which has long prided itself on fighting the so-called gentrification of neighborhoods as rising property values force the poor to move, has taken money from the project’s developer and signed a binding agreement forcing it to stand behind the project no matter what.
In the world of corporate shakedowns it is commonplace for liberal activist groups to use the money they extract from a supposed “donor” to fund operations, but it is very unusual for a group to take money in exchange for betraying those it is supposed to represent.
Posted by lumi at November 27, 2009 5:08 AM | Permalink
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 November 26, 2009 11:32 AM | Permalink
Pass the cold turkey
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn is thankful for all of the group's supporters and volunteers, though, this Thanksgiving, we have to settle for Russian dressing on this turkey, since all of the gravy is headed to developer Bruce Ratner's trough.
Speaking of Bruce, he should be thankful to live in a country where the government will serve up people's homes and businesses with piles of pork and gravy, to build an arena for a mega-millionaire developer, for a team owned by a multi-billionaire Russian oligarch. It's as American as apple pie borscht.
Posted by lumi at November 26, 2009 9:48 AM | Permalink
Ratner's winless Nets stay 'undefeated' ... in court
The Brooklyn Blog
By Rich Calder
As the NJ Nets have fallen from top dogs to doormats, Ratner continues his happy dance:
Meet Bruce Ratner.
He’s a Brooklyn developer who loves to boast about being “undefeated” in court -- even while his New Jersey Nets are winless on the court.
...
Following a favorable ruling on the eminent domain suit by a lower court in May, Ratner bragged that it was the 23rd victory “in a row” granted by the courts “in favor of the development.”Yesterday, the bragging continued. The project’s latest “key” win boosted its court record to a perfect 24-0 – although there are still other lawsuits in play.
...
Ratner must break ground on the Brooklyn arena by the end of the year or risk losing crucial tax-exempt financing. He says Atlantic Yards will be built now that the Court of Appeals has ruled in the project's favor, and says that the Nets will be playing in Brooklyn by 2012.But anyone who’s been following this project since it was first proposed in 2003 should know to expect the unexpected. Those feisty Atlantic Yards opponents are now talking about filing new lawsuits.
Posted by lumi at November 26, 2009 9:32 AM | Permalink
Nets won't go outside organization if they fire Frank
NY Post
By Fred Kerber
Frank is left to answer virtually every day questions about how he can remain so gosh-darn peppy when the executioner is around the corner. And with the Nets making national news as they approach the dubious 0-17 start achieved by an expansion team (Heat, '88-89) and the Nets West (Clippers, '98-99), the coaching death watch is on.
Names have floated. But make no mistake. The same organization that required workers to take Fridays off in the summer to save money is not going outside. If Frank is canned, one of the current staff or GM Kiki Vandeweghe (whose name pops up in discussions more and more) will likely take over. Forget experience. All those candidates have one major requirement on the resume.
Also...
NetsAreScorching, Nets on the Net: 11/26/09 Turkey Day Edition
Meanwhile, the whispers about Frank’s future continue. If Frank gets fired, his replacement will likely come from in-house as the organization continues to pinch pennies.
Another article that gathers some reaction from the 88-89 Miami Heat and the 99-00 LA Clippers, aka, the two teams the Nets could soon be challenging for infamy.
Posted by lumi at November 26, 2009 9:09 AM | Permalink
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 November 26, 2009 8:25 AM | Permalink
Nets CEO Yormark optimistic about the bond sale, says team will recover from losing streak
Atlantic Yards Report
New Jersey Nets CEO Brett Yormark appeared yesterday on WFAN's Boomer & Carton to talk about the team and Court of Appeals' dismissal of the Atlantic Yards lawsuit.
"It was a big moment for all of us, especially Bruce Ratner," Yormark said, saluting his boss. "He's been fighting so many battles over the last couple of years and, yesterday gave him a chance to feel good about what he's done over the past couple of years."
I guess that's one way of looking at it.
"We feel really good about the financing for the arena," Yormark added. "I think you'll hear some very positive news in the next couple of days from the rating agencies."
Posted by lumi at November 26, 2009 8:03 AM | Permalink
Thankful for what? Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, that's what.
Rocky Sullivan Report
Here's Scott Turner's commentary on this week's events, from his Rocky Sullivan Pub Quiz email, published in full. [Press conference after yesterday's court decision. Photo by the excellent Tracy Collins.]
Something happened yesterday, though, that made me wanna throw myself into the brackish, mawkish pond of Thanksgiving thankfulivities.
Dan Goldstein, Freddy's Bar and other homeowners and residents lost their big eminent domain case. They'd gone to court to stop Bruce Ratner and the state's development agency, the ESDC, from taking their homes, businesses and properties so that Ratner can build the vile Atlantic Yards colossus.
By a 6-1 decision, the court washed its hands of the matter, saying it couldn't get involved in the affairs of a state agency. By that logic, they would refuse to order election commissions to let Black people vote, marriage license departments to allow mixed-race marriages, and school districts to integrate.
More to the point, if the Court of Appeals were King Solomon, it would've gone like this: "Hmmm...okay. Each of you chicks says you're the momma to this baby. Okay, first, I dunno if I'm the right guy to decide this. Second...hmmm....okay, you know what? I can't really get involved. Get out of my palace."
The one dissenting judge, Robert Smith, had harsh words for his colleagues on the bench:
[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.
Another battle lost, but is the war over? Not by a long shot. Ratner has to sell $700 million in bonds by the end of the year, and there are at least four lawsuits -- and possibly more -- between him and getting the project started. All of the grandiose affordable-housing and new-jobs promises are now distant echoes, having fulfilled their one raison d'etre -- to flim-flam elected officials and people desperate for housing and work -- to support the project. It's the same model as Ratner's hitting the eject button on the Nets basketball team -- it too having fulfilled its role as a feel-good nostalgia seduction.
Oh...and that basketball team of his is now 0-14.
Besides the immediacy of the court decision, what does this have to do with the giving of thanks?
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, that's what.
Continue reading "Thankful for what? Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, that's what."
Posted by lumi at November 26, 2009 6:36 AM | Permalink
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 November 25, 2009 6:52 PM | Permalink
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 November 25, 2009 6:47 PM | Permalink
Domo arigato, Mr. Ratner
Tokyo MX News
ニューヨーク市ブルックリン区のアトランティックヤードの再開発事業が前進しそうです。反対派住民との間で争われていた裁判で、ニューヨーク州最高裁が市に対し空きスペースを生み出すための強制収用を認めたためです。
link [Click "Movie" to launch video]
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 6:34 PM | Permalink
Atlantic Yards "Cloud" Lifted, But Fog Remains: What About the Bonds?
Runnin' Scared
by Neil deMause
Speaking of astute, sports-facility-boondoggle expert Neil deMause runs the numbers on Ratner's arena bonds.
So is the long-heralded arrival of Atlantic Yards finally at hand, or what? According to the front page of today's Times (echoed on its sports page), the answer is yes: Following yesterday's appeals court ruling, which dismissed challenges to the state seizing private land for the Nets-arena-and-other-stuff project, "a cloud of uncertainty that has hung over Atlantic Yards for more than a year had lifted," writes development reporter Charles Bagli, while rookie Nets beat writer Jonathan Abrams calls the ruling the "last major hurdle in the groundbreaking process."
When and whether the bulldozers will actually pull up to Freddy's, though, remains murky. That's because despite all the fuss about the eminent domain lawsuit — one of four remaining legal challenges against the project — the real hurdle facing developer Bruce Ratner is selling $800 million in bonds to pay for the damn thing. The Wall Street Journal last month declared the likelihood of the bonds passing muster with financiers as a "toss-up," and the bond issuance date has been pushed back at least once since then, with a December 31 IRS deadline fast approaching.
...The real test now is whether the ESDC can secure bond rates that Ratner can afford to pay off — and there, all official answers are saying "we'll tell you later." An initial statement by ESDC that it had secured investment-grade ratings was contradicted by Bond Buyer, which got a Standard & Poor's bond analyst to confirm that no public rating had been made; ESDC later amended its statement to say it had "tentatively secured" a rating, a coinage that no doubt would have entertained George Carlin.
...One possible holdup is bond insurance, which was the main bugaboo cited in that Wall Street Journal piece: Thanks to the financial meltdown, there's effectively only one bond insurer left in town, Assured Guaranty — and they've been unable to come to an agreement with Ratner's team on how much to charge to cover the Atlantic Yards bonds should the whole thing go kablooey. Yesterday's court ruling might make Assured a bit more amenable to compromise, but here again, nothing's been finalized, according to Goldman Sachs, which is handling the bond insurance talks.
How much difference does all this financial mumbo-jumbo make? Well, the Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation (an ESDC subsidiary spun off for solely for the purpose of issuing the arena bonds) authorized rates as high as 8 percent for tax-exempt bonds and 14 percent for taxable bonds, which is pretty much a rating of "usurious"; if the rate were really bumped up from the 6.5 percent Ratner previously said he hoped for to 8 percent, that'd mean close to $10 million a year in extra bond payments, or more than one Devin Harris worth. But what interest rate Ratner will get — and how much he'll have to pay to Assured to get it — won't be made public until next Wednesday at the earliest, which is when ESDC hopes to issue a "preliminary offer statement" spelling out the details.
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 6:01 PM | Permalink
Atlantic Yards Decision Drama! More Lawsuits as Financing Questions Remain
NY Observer
by Eliot Brown
The ever-astute Mr. Brown follows the money.
The project, developed by the Brooklyn firm Forest City Ratner, received a key victory early Tuesday morning with a decision from New York's highest court, as the judges ruled 6-1 to uphold the use of eminent domain in the project.
Shortly after, the plans for financing were revealed, and the state's development agency said that the project was expected to receive an investment grade rating from the ratings agencies on hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds for the arena.
There has been skepticism that the bonds would be able to reach investment grade; failure to do so would render the project unable to receive financing ahead of a Dec. 31 deadline on the use of tax-free debt.
Now, the question becomes whether or not Forest City will succeed in selling the tax-free bonds, and then if it will be able to ward off any additional obstacles, including lawsuits, between now and the end of next month.
THE SPECIFICS OF THE financing are still unclear, though the state-run Empire State Development Corporation, said at a hearing Tuesday that the state expected $600 million in tax-free bonds to be approved as part of a complex financing agreement meant to skirt federal laws intended to bar many stadiums and arenas from using tax-free debt. (These have proved controversial when used on recent stadium deals, with critics alleging that land values were improperly inflated in order to make the numbers work. Would-be property tax payments are used to pay the debt service on the bonds.)
The ESDC said that there would also be $150 million in taxable bonds, which are far more expensive for Forest City. The stated reason? The property taxes are not excepted to be high enough to cover more than the $600 million in debt.
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 5:54 PM | Permalink
It came from the Blogosphere...
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, Governor Paterson's Own New London
Governor Paterson's Brooklyn legacy, should he allow eminent domain for Atlantic Yards to go forward...
The Sports ITeam Blog (NY Daily News), Atlantic Yards activist Scott Turner: 'Cross Michael Ratner off the list of good guys'
In the wake of yesterday’s ruling by the New York Court of Appeals that gives Nets owner Bruce Ratner the green light to seize private homes and businesses for his Atlantic Yards project, activist Scott Turner raises some good questions about how the proposed mega-development has blurred political preconceptions.
Ratner’s brother Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, has been cheered for years by many progressives for his work for human rights and civil liberties. But he has also been named as a Forest City Ratner officer in project documents and he refuses to publicly discuss why he supports the project and why the rights of Brooklyn homeowners and business owners should take a back seat to his family’s plans. Many Brooklyn residents who once viewed Michael Ratner as a hero now look at him as just another limousine liberal.
College Sports View, The View from the Cheap Seats
Nets Basketball Fans Don’t Grow In Brooklyn
So, now Nets’ owner Bruce Ratner wins his eminent domain battle to evict homeowners and build his Atlantic Yards empire in Brooklyn. Got news for you, Brucie. Brooklynites aren’t dummies and won’t soon be drawn to that mess you call a basketball team. If you build it, they won’t come unless you can play.
MultiFamilyInvestor, Atlantic Yards One Step Closer To Compromised Development
Ratner’s optimism does not entirely reflect the realities on the ground: He and Goldman Sachs must complete a bond sale by December 31 to qualify for tax-free financing. tax-free bonds to be approved as part of a complex financing agreement meant to skirt federal laws intended to bar many stadiums and arenas from using tax-free debt.
Otherwise Forest City Ratner would have to resort to conventional financing, which could be prohibitively expensive.
Runnin' Scared, Helsinki "World Design Capital" for 2012; New York Lags Badly
The International Council of Societies of Industrial Design has announced at their World Design Congress that Helsinki is the "World Design Capital" for 2012. Fast Company has a nice photo series of design highlights from the Finnish capital, and they are dazzling.
Eindhoven was the runner-up. There is no mention of New York, which figures. The designation, according to ICSID, is "appointed to cities based on their accomplishments and commitment to design as an effective tool for social, cultural and economic development." Imagine someone walking into their competition with a rendering of the proposed Atlantic Yards, or Marty Markowitz's "Potato Chip" amphitheater design for Asser Levy Park. About the best we can say for ourselves is that our fast food joints are getting slicker.
It's sad to be reminded of it, but people used to look at us in awe. Now New York just gets butt-uglier by the minute.
Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter, The story in a nutshell
New York Daily News nailed it with their piece on Dan, Shabnam and Sita.
Please consider sending this story to a friend that might be interested in helping us to tell the story.
We have six days to reach our goal. With yesterday's court loss it is even more important that we get this story told.
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 5:20 PM | Permalink
Gov. Paterson should tell potential bondholders that Atlantic Yards isn’t too big to fail
NY Fiscal Watch
by Nicole Gelinas
Fresh from a key court victory, Albany’s Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), via its subsidiary, the Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation (BALDC), yesterday approved the issuance of up to $800 million in bonds for the construction of the Atlantic Yards basketball venue, sponsored by developer Bruce Ratner.
What is state and city taxpayers’ obligation here?
As A/Y blogger Norman Oder reports, up to $650 million of the financing would be tax-exempt (meaning that the state and city, as well as the feds, are losing the value of the taxes). The rest would come in taxable bonds.
Technically, the bonds don’t enjoy state backing or ESDC backing. They will rely on revenues for their repayment. Ratner will make “payments in lieu of taxes” for the tax-exempt bonds, and he’ll use money from other arena-related revenues (not well-defined at the moment) to pay back the junior, taxable portion.
ESDC officials said yesterday that the arena will garner investment-grade ratings, but none of the three major ratings agencies has released a report yet.
Are potential investors really counting on the arena’s revenue to be enough?
...It’s unclear how much due diligence potential investors can do in a month on a complex financing in an uncertain investment environment that doesn’t offer many comparable benchmarks.
So, perhaps potential investors are counting on something else instead.
The possibility is that bond investors will simply rely on Atlantic Yards being “too big to fail” — that is, they’ll figure that New York State and City have invested so much political capital in the project that they’ll step in to make up for any revenue shortfalls.
Yesterday, ESDC officials didn’t exactly disabuse anyone of this notion, according to Oder’s account.
When a WNYC reporter asked if ESDC would let the bonds default “if Ratner can’t make these payments,” ESDC lawyer Jonathan Beyer said coyly, “I don’t know if I’d characterize it as willing. It’s just that the documents do not require us to make any payments.”
NoLandGrab: Caveat emptor.
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 1:29 PM | Permalink
From the DDDB press conference: a vow to continue fighting
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder reports on yesterday's Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn press conference, with video by Jonathan Barkey and photos by Tracy Collins.
At Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn press conference yesterday outside Freddy's Bar & Backroom, slated for condemnation, DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein was careful to describe Atlantic Yards as a "proposed project" and to say that "the fight against the abusive, corrupt Atlantic Yards development proposal is far from over."
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 1:19 PM | Permalink
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 November 25, 2009 1:09 PM | Permalink
Ratner says team will move mid-season, but Times says June 2012
Atlantic Yards Report
Developer Bruce Ratner said yesterday in a statement that "the intent [is] that the Nets will play ball in the Barclays Center in the 2011-2012 NBA Season."
The New York Times reported today:
The developer expects that it will take about 28 months to build the arena, enabling the Nets to move from East Rutherford, N.J., to Brooklyn around June 2012.
The season's over by then.
NoLandGrab: Norman Oder is discounting the possibility that the (0-14) Nets could, with Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and George Mikan, be headed to the NBA Finals in June of 2012.
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 1:04 PM | Permalink
Nets Have Dug a Big Hole, but Their Foundation Is in Place
The New York Times
by Jonathan Abrams
The Nets have lost their first 14 games in a start that is threatening to make their season irrelevant before the calendar turns to 2010. The long-term future, however, looks a lot brighter.
The final challenge to their plans to build an arena in Brooklyn was denied Tuesday, increasing the likelihood of the Nets’ opening the 2012-13 season there. No matter where they play that season, their two budding stars — Brook Lopez and Devin Harris — give them the building blocks for an improved on-court product.
NoLandGrab: Final challenge? The decision was a blow for project opponents, to be sure, but four lawsuits challenging the project are still unresolved.
New York’s Court of Appeals dismissed a challenge over the use of eminent domain in constructing the long-planned and long-delayed Atlantic Yards project near Brooklyn’s downtown and ushering in a new arena for the Nets.
The ruling was the last major hurdle in the groundbreaking process.
NLG: Last major hurdle? Hardly. Ratner still needs to sell $700 million worth of arena bonds, for which there may not be a market, in the next five weeks.
The present is not quite as promising. Coach Lawrence Frank and the Nets flew to Denver for their game against the Nuggets on Tuesday night barreling toward the worst start in N.B.A. history with a four-game trip in their forecast.
Their 101-87 loss dropped them to 0-14, the effects of a raft of injuries and salary purging over the last two seasons. The trip ends in Los Angeles against the Lakers on Sunday, and if the Nets return home winless, they will have matched the 1988-89 expansion Miami Heat and 1999 Los Angeles Clippers for worst start in league history.
If so, history will not reflect the injuries, the long hours of Frank, whose job is on the line, or the cost-cutting demands from the current owner, Bruce C. Ratner. Instead, the Nets may stand as holders of the league’s worst start if they lose to the Dallas Mavericks on Dec. 2.
...After Tuesday’s court ruling, the future appears much brighter, but how to bridge that gap is still uncertain. Ratner purchased the franchise in 2003 for $300 million, originally planning to transplant the Nets from New Jersey in time for this season.
NLG: This season? No, when he announced the Atlantic Yards project in 2003, Ratner said the Nets would begin playing in Brooklyn in 2006.
NLG:Could it be that The Times doesn't realize that Bruce C. Ratner runs the company that was the development partner for their eminent domain-abusing headquarters building? They seem to have omitted that fact from this article.
Atlantic Yards Report, No, Ratner didn't buy the Nets in 2003 to move them in 2009
NoLandGrab's Eric McClure reminds us that the original move date was 2006 and also points out some other miscues.
Would you believe that some bloggers in Brooklyn have a heck of a lot more institutional memory than the Paper of Record?
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 12:50 PM | Permalink
From the Times: a misleading "Atlantic Yards" photo, a buffing of "tenacious" Ratner, and no rebuttal to claims of benefits
Atlantic Yards Report
There are some unsurprisingly dismaying aspects to the front-page New York Times article today, headlined in print "Atlantic Yards Wins Appeal To Seize Land" and online as Ruling Lets Atlantic Yards Seize Land.
First, though the article correctly states that the state would exercise eminent domain, the shorthand headline inaccurately casts the inanimate "Atlantic Yards" as the actor.
Public benefit?
Second, the Times quotes developer Bruce Ratner, unrebutted, as saying "“The courts have made it clear that this project represents a significant public benefit for the people of Brooklyn and the entire city.”
The courts have made no such determination. Rather, the Court of Appeals decision issued yesterday was based on a record compiled in 2006 by the Empire State Development Corporation. The assertions in that record have not been vetted by the courts and there's much evidence--such as from the New York City Independent Budget Office--casting doubt on official claims.
"On the railyard"
Third, the original version of the article posted online said that the "arena would be built on an 8.5-acre railyard;" it took several messages to convince the Times to revise that description to "an 8.5-acre railyard and on adjacent property." (That's a basic error the Times has previously corrected.)
Actually, part of the arena would be built over the western segment of that railyard, occupying less than 30% of the total railyard acreage.
Another misleading photo
Fourth, and most important, the Times published a picture (above) of only a fraction of the Vanderbilt Yard, the railyard, and called it Atlantic Yards. The photo covers the railyard and a few buildings between Sixth and Carlton avenues and Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Street, or Block 1120, outlined in red on the map below left.
NoLandGrab: And this article could be considered error-free compared to the one in The Times' sports section, posted above.
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 12:21 PM | Permalink
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 November 25, 2009 12:14 PM | Permalink
Should the Atlantic Yards project finally go forward?
Crain's NY Business
New York's highest court on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to the use of eminent domain for developer Bruce Ratner to build his $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards redevelopment project in downtown Brooklyn. Mr. Ratner plans to begin selling tax-free bonds next month to help finance an 18,000-seat basketball arena for the NBA's Nets team hopes to occupy in 2012.
Do you think the Atlantic Yards development should begin now?
Click here to vote.
Posted by eric at November 25, 2009 11:39 AM | Permalink
Arena bonds authorized, underwriter Goldman confident, but questions remain about rating, insurance, market
Atlantic Yards Report
The news at the meeting yesterday of the Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corporation (BALDC) was not that the special-purpose LDC was going to approve bonds for the arena, but the numbers and terms surrounding the bonds.
And several important aspects of the bond sale remain unresolved.
While the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) said in a statement that it had "secured investment-grade ratings" for the arena bonds, the Bond Buyer checked with Standard & Poor's analyst Jodi Hecht, who said no public rating had been made, leading ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston to acknowledge that the ratings had been "tentatively secured." Nor has an interest rate been set.
Also, the bonds do not yet have insurance, a factor that adds a significant safety factor but adds to the cost. Officials of both the BALDC and underwriter Goldman Sachs said that such a "credit enhancement" was under discussion.
Check out the rest of the article, for reporting on the followup questions from the media, including Ted Phillips of Bond Buyer and Matthew Schuerman of from WNYC News Radio.
Posted by lumi at November 25, 2009 6:21 AM | Permalink
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 November 25, 2009 5:51 AM | Permalink
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 November 25, 2009 5:29 AM | Permalink
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.”
Continue reading "PRESS RELEASE: New York High Court Upholds Eminent Domain for Private Gain"
Posted by lumi at November 25, 2009 5:03 AM | Permalink
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 November 25, 2009 4:33 AM | Permalink
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 November 24, 2009 7:02 PM | Permalink
K-Mart faults Ratner for Nets ills
NY Post Nets Blog
by Fred Kerber
Kenyon Martin admitted he still has some warm feelings for the Nets. No sympathy for tonight when the Nuggets and Nets play, but warm feelings. And he still feels something toward the Nets' soon-to-be-ex-owner Bruce Ratner.
And it's not warm or good.
Ratner, K-Mart said this morning, is why the Nets are a mess right now.
Posted by eric at November 24, 2009 6:51 PM | Permalink
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 November 24, 2009 6:28 PM | Permalink
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 November 24, 2009 6:11 PM | Permalink
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 November 24, 2009 2:50 PM | Permalink
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 November 24, 2009 11:53 AM | Permalink
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 November 24, 2009 11:49 AM | Permalink
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 November 24, 2009 11:42 AM | Permalink
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."
Posted by eric at November 24, 2009 11:32 AM | Permalink
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 November 24, 2009 11:25 AM | Permalink
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 November 24, 2009 6:12 AM | Permalink
Sometimes Sports Stadiums and Arenas Are Worth A Lot Less Than the Public Pays For Them: No Silverdome Lining to Gathering Economic Clouds
Noticing New York
In the wake of the announcement that the City of Pontiac just auctioned off the Silverdome for a mere $583K (a fraction of what it took to build it), the State of NY is poised to approve the issuing of arena bonds for Bruce Ratner's "new off-the-tax-rolls Nets basketball arena that is already calculated by the NYC Independent Budget Office to be a $220 [million] net loss to the public."
According to the Detroit News... the arena was “once called the most desirable property in Oakland County” and a quoted realty firm says the land itself “should have gone for more than that.” Apparently the arena was not considered worth its upkeep and the city of Pontiac was desperate to get the property “back on the tax rolls.” Sports stadiums and arenas on the tax rolls? There’s a novel concept that spendthrift New York City seems is absolutely unfamiliar with!
...
Considering the Silverdome fiasco, we here in New York we can’t help but think of our own wasteful stadiums and arenas that are taking property off the tax rolls and giving less than nothing in return.
...
This is a very clear warning: The mysterious value of team spirit sports euphoria that cannot, and generally is not, economically quantified is in all likelihood economic value that just doesn’t exist at all. The overall lesson to be learned is how these sports stadium and arena deals terrifically shortchange the public with stadiums and arenas that have very low true economic value.
Posted by lumi at November 24, 2009 6:01 AM | Permalink
Is the closure of Fifth Avenue coming?
Atlantic Yards Report
From the latest Atlantic Yards Construction Update, Weeks beginning November 23 and November 30:
The traffic and pedestrian safety barriers along the north side of Flatbush Avenue and Block 1118 for sewer installation is complete for the current phase of the work. Additional protection will be installed to modify traffic in 5th Avenue upon approval from the Department of Transportation.
The Department of Transportation first tried to close Fifth Avenue in May 2007, planning to revise service on the northbound B63 bus route.
Posted by lumi at November 24, 2009 5:54 AM | Permalink
Fill in the blank: "Atlantic Yards is _________."
Photo by Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.
 |
This stretch of Atlantic Avenue would be the northern edge of proposed Atlantic Yards project footprint and the Barclays Center arena. The buildings in the distance would be demolished.
I don't know who put these up, but I like the informal Atlantic Yards poll. With 33% of locations reporting as of this afternoon, "POOP" and "ALMOST DEAD" are tied.
Posted by lumi at November 24, 2009 5:45 AM | Permalink
NJ Nyets: ownership bashing
The delirious pile of criticism for the NJ Nets continues, with no one to blame but team owner and Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner:
The Houston Chronicle, 0-82 season awaits hapless, ailing Nets
In the shadow of the George Washington Bridge, near an off-ramp of the Garden State Parkway, the New Jersey Nets are on the toll road to NBA history. In their sights is the league's worst record ever, and, with a little less effort, they could go winless.
At the moment, the Nets are 0-13.
After studying their schedule closely, I have determined it is possible — make that likely — the Nets will go 0-82.
...
Bruce Ratner, the Nets' principal owner, recently sold 80 percent of the team to Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov. Prokhorov, I am told, plans to auction off all the team's assets and convert the arena into in-laws' quarters.If he keeps the team intact, he might want to think about an “82 Is Enough” promotion.
Examiner.com, Frank shouldn't take the fall for Nets' struggles
If the New Jersey Nets return home from the upcoming west-coast trip at 0-17, head coach Lawrence Frank might not find himself in position to take the next team trip.
...
In fairness to the Nets, the team has gone downhill ever since Kenyon Martin was jettisoned off to Denver. Owner Bruce Ratner looked at the Nets as a business opportunity, not a championship team. After trying to move the team for years and failing, he is now openly trying to sell the team to Mikhail Prokhorov.
Posted by lumi at November 24, 2009 4:59 AM | Permalink
November 23, 2009
After Rowdy Atlantic Yards Hearings, a Senate Bill to Punish Heckling
NY Observer
by Eliot Brown
Back in May, at a state Senate hearing on the $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project planned for Brooklyn, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery started to launch into criticism of a fellow senator, Marty Golden.
...Ms. Montgomery tried to scold him for disrespecting her in her own district, but she was unable to utter more than a few audible words. Despite holding a microphone to her mouth, the union workers, on hand to show support for the controversial project that eventually might promise work for them, booed, yelled and blew loud whistles until the senator stopped talking.
Ms. Montgomery apparently was not amused.
On Friday, she introduced legislation in Albany that seeks to cut down on such outbursts, barring the employer of anyone disrupting public meetings from bidding on any public contracts for five years, and allowing the state to drop those contracts still in progress.
What's a disruption?
From the bill text:
Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during a public hearing, in its immediate view and presence, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings.
NoLandGrab: No word as to whether or not it will be known as "Bender's Law," after Forest City Ratner operative Bruce Bender, who was clearly the orchestrator of the disruptions at the May 29th State Senate hearing.
Additional coverage...
Atlantic Yards Report, Montgomery proposes bill to enforce public meeting decorum; why not just simply empower security guards and cops?
I think there's a much simpler solution: announce and enforce rules of decorum. Too often at public meetings related to Atlantic Yards that basic responsibility has been ignored. At the state Senate hearing, someone in charge--either the host Pratt Institute or the hearing chair, Senator Bill Perkins, or both--should have kept order.
And at the 8/23/06 public hearing held by the Empire State Development Corporation, many people talked past their three-minute limit, leading to heckling--and counter-heckling. Several people criticized the ESDC's management of the hearing. Only at the follow-up community forums was the time limit enforced by cutting off the speaker's microphone.
And during the public hearing this past July, security guards and cops were quick to maintain order.
Posted by eric at November 23, 2009 9:39 PM | Permalink
Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association Meeting, 2004
Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter
In 2004, the Atlantic Avenue Betterment Association held a meeting to hear from the city: Hardy Adasko of NYC's Economic Development Association and Winston Von Engel of the Department of City Planning were on hand to try to explain what was going to happen with the Atlantic Yards Proposal and why the city was not going to be involved.
This is from an older cut and now an abbreviated version appears as part of a montage focusing on Daniel getting more personally involved in the fight.
NoLandGrab: The filmmakers behind Battle of Brooklyn are just a whisker short of half way to their goal of raising $25,000 toward finishing the film, with eight days left to qualify for $25,000 in matching funds. C'mon folks — we don't want our pledge returned. Help put them over the top today!
Posted by eric at November 23, 2009 9:25 PM | Permalink
ATLANTIC YARDS RATNERVILLE CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
ATLANTIC YARDS CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
Weeks beginning November 23, 2009 and November 30, 2009In an effort to keep the Atlantic Yards Community aware of upcoming construction activities, ESD and Forest City Ratner provide the following outline of anticipated upcoming construction activities.
Please note: the scope and nature of activities are subject to change based upon field conditions. All work has been approved by appropriate City and State agencies where required. In addition to the activities described below noise attenuation and vibration monitoring measures are underway in connection with the Memorandum of Environmental Commitments dated 12/08/06.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact our project Ombudsperson at: 212-803-3233 or AtlanticYards@empire.state.ny.us
Long Island Rail Road/Vanderbilt Yard Work
Installation of two stair towers from Pacific St down to Yard level. One in BL1120 and one in BL1121
Testing and Commissioning of Yard in progress
Installation of Lighting
Completion of Hot Water Heater / Shed
Completion of Temp Yard Punchlist
Removal of old Track in BL1119 and BL1120
Work is anticipated to continue through the end of the year.
Environmental Remediation
- The environmental consultant will begin shallow excavation and drilling to test and classify soils in blocks 1127 and 1119. Work will continue on these blocks and 1118 for 3 months. This is prep work required in advance of any actual removal of soil from the site.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure work related to installation of new sewer chambers at the intersection of 6th Avenue at Pacific Street is complete. Infrastructure work related to the installation of new a water main along the east side of Flatbush Avenue is complete.
The traffic and pedestrian safety barriers along the north side of Flatbush Avenue and Block 1118 for sewer installation is complete for the current phase of the work. Additional protection will be installed to modify traffic in 5th Avenue upon approval from the Department of Transportation.
The contractor commenced pile drilling, excavation work, and pipe and chamber installation on Blocks 1127 and 1118 in connection with sewer installation. Work will continue for 5 to 6 months.
During the course of this work, the contractor may encounter unforeseen underground storage tanks or other structures. In the event that this happens and where appropriate, notification will be given to the DEC and remediation steps were implemented.
Demolition
The Abatement contractor began installation of scaffolding in preparation for the removal of asbestos at the roof at 475 Dean Street.
The Abatement and Demolition contractor will install sidewalk protection as required by the Department of Buildings in preparation for the removal of asbestos and demolition of 648 Pacific Street. The start of this work is dependent upon approvals by the Department of Buildings.
The Abatement contractor will install sidewalk protection as required by the Department of Buildings in preparation for the removal of asbestos and demolition of 467 Dean Street. The start of this work is dependent upon approvals by the Department of Buildings.
Posted by eric at November 23, 2009 9:19 PM | Permalink
Fate of Atlantic Yards project remains unclear
NorthJersey.com
by John Brennan
The fate of the $5 billion Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn will not be known until tomorrow at the earliest.
The New York Court of Appeals' list of rulings today did not include a decision on the validity of the state's use of eminent domain to facilitate the construction of Atlantic Yards, which would include a new arena for the New Jersey Nets as well as thousands of condominiums near downtown Brooklyn.
The court may release its decision tomorrow; if not, the next scheduled date for rulings is Tuesday, Dec. 1.
NoLandGrab: In the words of the legendary Magic 8-Ball, "Ask again later."
Posted by eric at November 23, 2009 10:36 AM | Permalink
No eminent domain decision today
Atlantic Yards Report
The state Court of Appeals issued a list of decisions today, but the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case was not included. Stay tuned for tomorrow.
Posted by eric at November 23, 2009 10:07 AM | Permalink
