« The Antidote to Brooklyn Nets Fever | Main | Property Seizure for Atlantic Yards Is Delayed »
January 30, 2010
Atlantic Yards Condemnation Rests in Hands of Brooklyn Judge
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
By Samuel Newhouse
The fate of properties in the footprint of the proposed Atlantic Yards project is still in limbo after a condemnation hearing on Friday in Kings County Supreme Court. Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Abraham G. Gerges decided not to issue a decision Friday, citing submissions as recent as the day of the hearing and the day before. A decision will be released “expeditiously,” Gerges said.
It was within the power of Justice Gerges to condemn the properties on Friday and transfer title to the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) – a state-run construction organization that would then lease the properties seized by eminent domain to developer Bruce Ratner.
Ratner’s company Forest City Ratner would then be able to build his multibillion dollar Atlantic Yards project at Atlantic and Flatbush avenues, which includes a NBA basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets to move to Brooklyn.
Community group Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) and home- and business-owners who will have their land seized by the state have filed a myriad of lawsuits to stop or modify Atlantic Yards. Several months ago, in the most high-profile case, New York’s highest court ruled that it is constitutional for the state to take the land in question.
...
One of the arguments by attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff (whose name is misspelled in the Brooklyn Eagle article) calls for a hard look at what really constitutes the proposed Atlantic Yards project.
Lead attorney for the plaintiffs Matthew Brinckeroff said that one of the reasons that the condemnation petition is defective is that changes to the Atlantic Yards project since December 2006 have never been considered by any court.
Brinckeroff said that according to the amended project plan released in September 2009 and other sources, changes to the Atlantic Yards project include a construction timeframe increase from 10 years to up to 25 years, the possible absence of affordable housing from the project, and the reduction of the project from 7.9 million square feet to 4 million square feet.
“The Court of Appeals never examined any of these issues,” Brinckeroff said, saying that a November 2009 decision by the state’s highest court was based entirely on plans and environmental reviews from before December 2006.
“Where on the continuum from nothing changing from December 2006 to everything changing from December 2006 do we get to be heard?”
Posted by steve at January 30, 2010 7:23 AM