« Hit the road, Dolly! | Main | Moment of Truth: Court to determine if Ratner gets land »
October 12, 2007
Atlantic Yards case is strong
The Brooklyn Paper explains the difference between the Kelo v. New London landmark Supreme Court eminent domain ruling and Atlantic Yards:
There’s an important difference between that scenario and Atlantic Yards: New London did not take the private property to benefit the private developer who would build the Pfizer plant; indeed, the identity of the developer was determined only after a proper bidding process.
As the high court noted, that bidding process is essential: “It [would], of course, be difficult to accuse the government of having taken A’s property to benefit the private interests of B when the identity of B was unknown.”
But Atlantic Yards turns Kelo on its head. In this case, state officials did know the identity of B — Bruce Ratner — when it took property from A — the 13 plantiffs.
To get around Kelo, the state has argued that the public benefit of Atlantic Yards — the construction of a basketball arena, the creation of affordable housing, the covering over of a scar-like rail yard — makes it a prime candidate for eminent domain.
But at Tuesday’s hearing, two judges questioned that assertion, seemingly understanding that under the Kelo ruling, government is not “allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit.”
One indication of NY State's and Bruce Ratner's eagerness to advance the notion that Atlantic Yards is a public benefit is the sudden reliance on "blight" to justify the use of eminent domain:
State officials say that Atlantic Yards will also eliminate urban blight. But we find it very telling that the state commissioned its sham “blight study” only after the Kelo verdict — an indication that they and Ratner were anxious to fabricate yet another supposed public “benefit” of Atlantic Yards.
That lie was unmasked in the appeals court this week.
NoLandGrab: The court of public opinion understands the distinction between real "public benefit" and a pretextual one used to justify eminent domain for Bruce Ratner's PRIVATE megaproject — it remains to be seen if the appellate court agrees.
Posted by lumi at October 12, 2007 5:53 AM