« You’re Helping Bruce Ratner Pay His Mortgage | Main | Another Setback for Brooklyn Arena Foes »
June 6, 2007
Judge Rejects Main Argument of Effort to Stop Atlantic Yards Project in Brooklyn
The NY Times
By Nicholas Confessore
The decision by the judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis of United States District Court in Brooklyn, centered on the looming condemnation of about a dozen businesses and homes to make way for the 22-acre complex, which state officials approved late last year. It was among the most significant eminent domain cases to unfold since the United States Supreme Court’s much-disputed Kelo v. City of New London decision in 2005, which held that public officials may transfer condemned property to another private interest if doing so would create a superior benefit to the public.
The plaintiffs argued that any public benefit of the project was incidental, and the true purpose was to enrich the developer, Forest City Ratner Companies, and its investors.
...
But Judge Garaufis rejected their reasoning. “Plaintiffs have not set forth facts supporting a plausible claim of an unconstitutional taking,” he wrote. “Nowhere in the amended complaint or their briefs do plaintiffs sufficiently allege any purpose to confer a private benefit.” He also said any claim that the condemnations would not benefit the public were “baseless.”
...
The plaintiffs said they would appeal the decision. “We will continue to pursue every single legal option available to the plaintiffs, wherever they lead us, to stop what we believe is a private taking in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” said Candace Carponter, a lawyer and a member of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, a coalition of groups and individuals opposed to the project.A federal magistrate judge had earlier recommended that the eminent domain lawsuit be dismissed from federal court on procedural grounds and moved to state court. But Judge Garaufis said the case was appropriate for federal court.
...
Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Judge Garaufis had erred both in his assessment of the lawsuit’s merits and in the test he chose to apply in dismissing the case. At this stage of the lawsuit, before discovery and a trial, he said, the judge should have considered whether the case could succeed if all the plaintiffs’ claims were true, rather than decide whether he thought the claims were plausible.“Not only is what we believe plausible, but all of the evidence that is undisputed points to our conclusion being correct,” Mr. Brinckerhoff said. “And that is why we are appealing, and that is why we will win.”
Posted by lumi at June 6, 2007 10:58 PM