No Land Grab

In the meantime, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) Spokesman, Daniel Goldstein, owner of a condominium in the AY footprint and nine other tenants, small business and home owners filed suit in Federal Court asking the court to stop the whole project as violating the constitutional provisions (1) requiring private property be taken only for a public purpose; (2) equal protection of the laws; (3) and due process. They ask ESDC be prevented from condemning property and Ratner be prevented from tearing down any property he acquires. It is likely this case will end up in the Supreme Court no matter who wins at lower levels. The problem is whether courts will grant stays to prevent destruction of existing properties and new construction.

The complaint is quite persuasive in demonstrating the public purposes involved all run against the project and that if a public purpose is found here to justify eminent domain condemnation, then there is no such thing as a private purpose, and the “Public purpose” requirement is written out of the constitution. After all, this is strictly a matter of taking property from small property owners and giving it to a billionaire so he can use it to make more private profit.

The suit also argues that the whole process and procedure reeked of insider discussion and deals among Ratner and his pals in state and city government that short-circuited the formal legal procedures. In seeking court orders to obtain documents and information further establishing this claim, complainants cite a memo in hand from fellow billionaire Daniel Doctoroff, City economic czar, to MTA head and billionaire developer, Peter Kalikow, saying the city wants Kalikow to give the construction rights over the MTA yards to low bidder, Ratner, rather than to higher bidder, Extell, and over a hundred million less than the appraised value.

While by strict legal interpretation of previous decisions, including the recent Kelo vs. New London, this case has a very good chance to win, the history of the Supreme Court shows that when big capitalist economic interests would be hurt as in this case, it is very difficult for such legal doctrine to win out. This is especially true now when the majority on the court is ultra-right, and most of the moderates and mild liberals are pro-development and big business, as they showed in Kelo v. New London. The libertarian opposition in that case who are ultra-right might well shift to assure big business wins out over “private property” rights. Therefore, it is most important that the fight not be left to a strictly formal legal approach.

Thus Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) briefs need to be organized showing all the states and cities who changed their laws since the Kelo decision, the overwhelming vote in the House to change the law and prevent use of eminent domain in such situations, the public polls overwhelmingly against eminent domain for private profit, the organizations and prominent individuals against, and if possible signatures of the vast majority of residents living around AY in opposition to the project and use of eminent domain.

Silver, Spitzer and many others now point out that figures essential to an informed decision have been withheld. What profit is expected? If the project is reduced in size can a normal profit still be obtained? Some of the documents have suggested a profit of $1 billion on a total cost of $4.2 billion, with nearly $2 billion of the costs paid by the public. That indicates a huge, abnormal profit. But Ratner is used to the public paying half of his costs at Met-Tech, Atlantic Mall and Atlantic Terminal. So why not at Atlantic Yards also?

There are those who have concluded AY can not be defeated and be replaced by a project like the Unity Plan or the Extell Plan, half the size, using no eminent domain and including no arena. For them, the issue is to get as many concessions short of this, as possible by pressure and negotiation and accept the rest. These are mainly well-intentioned individuals and organizations that do good work in the community. They are not simply another front for Ratner to get an agreement that suits him as was done when he created most of the organizations who signed the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). Those grouped in Brooklyn Speaks include groups that also have had a working relationship with DDDB on various issues, while DDDB works to defeat the project as a whole and substitute the Unity Plan or similar alternative.

Some in Brooklyn Speaks are not aware that its official position accepts the arena and what goes with it, eminent domain condemnation and closing of streets. The problem is what remains to negotiate and what evidence is there Ratner is willing to negotiate anything of consequence? Brooklyn Speaks talks of “correcting the flaws” in the project. The main “flaws” flow from its huge size and luxury character, which are essential to Ratner’s profit designs. The square footage, the record density, the height of its buildings, the luxury character of most that is to be built determine the fact that it will drive away more low income people out of the neighborhood than will ever receive “affordable” housing there. The figures submitted by Ratner to the ESDC reveal that the size and character of the project will drive up real estate values and resulting rents and real estate taxes on small houses and businesses so that 3000 families below the median community income of $28,000 will suffer “secondary displacement.” They will be priced out of the area. These people will be predominantly African Americans, Latinos, Arabs and also poor whites. At the same time, the CBA provides 225 families who earn less than the median income but more than $21,000 (the lowest income permitted in the project), will receive apartments either on or off site. Their rent at 30 percent of income will be $8400 a year, leaving little for all the other necessities.

A total of 6400 housing units are projected, with 2250 of these being “affordable” up to an annual income of $113,800, with just 225 of these for families below the community median income. So there will be a NET LOSS of “affordable” housing in the community below the median income of 2775 units. Therefore, the foremost argument by the project’s supporters of its desirability due to creating affordable housing is a contemptible hoax and lie, far from the truth. And it may be even worse than these Ratner figures reveal as Marty Markowitz greets the project on grounds it will stimulate further development in the area. Almost any development in the area will displace more poor people than will receive places to live at 20 to 30 percent “affordable” housing included except where federal, state or city governments build the housing and provide it at the same cost to residents as where they now live. And there is little likelihood of this. It is also evident that the “displacement” taken together with wealthy people moving in means a big change in demographics. Wealthy whites will replace poor African Americans, Latinos, Arabs and whites and this has the potential of reducing the number of progressive African American elected officials and replacing them with more conservative whites.

Only a downsizing by 50 to 66 percent of AY would significantly reduce the result of large-scale displacement and reduction of affordable housing. It would also take down-sizing on this scale to reduce seriously traffic, air quality, water and sewer, fire, police, and education problems. Therefore, anything less than such a drastic downsizing is a matter of somewhat reducing overall harmful, anti-social effects, not converting it into a desirable project.

The Job Fraud Another major argument to justify the social value of the project is job creation. Ratner started by claiming 15,000 construction jobs, 10,000 full time commercial jobs and thousands of jobs in retail and in the arena. Then he admitted it was 1,500 jobs a year for 15 years and reduced the number of commercial jobs to 6800 and now to 3800. But in recent Ratner advertising, the construction jobs are back up to 15,000. It is doubtful that any commercial jobs will be created by new businesses opening up rather than existing businesses moving with their present employees from Manhattan or elsewhere to Brooklyn. And it is likely that if the $2 billion in public money were used for something other than Ratner’s profits, such as building schools or other socially necessary projects, for public workers’ contracts, the effect on the economy, on jobs would be at least as good. Thus this is also a phony argument.

Tax Benefits The claimed financial benefit over 30 years to the city from added tax revenue is also a fraud. First of all, the amount keeps going down. In the ESDC process it went down by $500 million to $940 million without explanation. And keep in mind it will cost the public 50 percent of the costs of construction to produce this tax benefit. Such public expenditure in any of many other directions (alternative uses) would likely produce a greater tax benefit to the city.

A Compromise? All the evidence is Ratner is not willing to accept or negotiate a 50-66 percent reduction in the overall size of the project. He would rather take his capital and move it somewhere else where the public will pay half the costs and he will realize the expected profit from AY without a big fight. When Assembly People Jim Brennan and Joan Millman proposed by legislation a 30 percent cut with additional public subsidy to make up for the cut in size, behind the scenes Ratner fought it, got the co-sponsors to drop support and killed it. The only cut pressure and negotiation got was the 8 percent cut in agreement with the City Development Agency, which took AY’s size back down to what was originally proposed. But still in addition to 16 high rises, Ratner will be able to build two more on top of Atlantic Mall and one over Model’s, all outside the project plan but across the street from it.

If you grant Ratner the arena and therefore also eminent domain to realize it, and street closings, then what is it really possible that pressure and negotiation can do to “correct flaws” so that it becomes a socially desirable project, without “flaws?” Even if such pressure and negotiation were to achieve a 30 percent downsizing, which was not achievable before, its basic character as an anti-social, harmful project will remain, only reduced somewhat. If such a cut can be achieved, it can also be achieved in the course of opposition to the project as a whole as a by-product, should the whole thing not be defeated. Why should a negotiated settlement end with declaring AY a socially desirable project when only the drastic cuts proposed can really make it that?

In any case, all those critical of AY in any way can and need to work together to obtain maximum results. This is so despite they may disagree on ultimate aims and on some tactical matters. They need to seek to cooperate on as much as they can and avoid unnecessary disputes.

Pressure and persuasion aimed at Silver and Spitzer will be needed so long as the court fight continues. That is so irregardless of the formalities, these two have the influence in the state to undue prior decisions and kill AY whenever they are persuaded to do so. It is clear the 3750 letters and signatures collected in the Brooklyn community and in Silver’s home district were of importance in persuading him to ask some questions and not simply rubber stamp. 25,000 signatures in West Side Manhattan helped persuade Silver to kill the Jets stadium. Would a similar number from the area around AY lead to a similar result? It is an effort worthwhile so long as major construction on the project has not been completed.