« Lupica on Goldstein: "the guy didn't get into this to get rich, he got into this to fight for his neighborhood" | Main | An eminent name in domain debate »

April 25, 2010

The Holdout

New York Times

From the "Week in Review:"

link

Additional coverage...

Atlantic Yards Report, Parsing the Times's misleading summary of the Atlantic Yards settlement

From the New York Times's Week in Review today:

THE HOLDOUT

The News Daniel Goldstein, above, the last holdout standing in the way of the giant Atlantic Yards redevelopment in Brooklyn, agreed to accept $3 million in return for surrendering his apartment and ending his active opposition.

Behind the News Mr. Goldstein, who paid $590,000 for his condominium in 2003, became the standard-bearer for opponents of the $4.9 billion mixed-use project when he refused to move. If he had not reached a deal with the developer, Forest City Ratner, he faced eviction by the state government, which had lost patience with the delays and had condemned his property.

The annotations

He was the last residential holdout.

Atlantic Yards isn't redevelopment.

He agreed to accept $3 million in return for surrendering his apartment in about two weeks, and because a judge pressured both sides to make a deal that day, thus leaving Goldstein vulnerable to a lowball payout and a fairly swift eviction date anyway.

It's not at all clear what active opposition means, given that Goldstein (who was likely to step back in some way) has continued to slam the project.

Forest City Ratner had ample reason to make a deal, given that it claimed delays were costing $6.7 million a month. It had received $131 million in taxpayer money for (until then) $280 million in land purchases.

It wasn't that the state government "had lost patience with the delays and had condemned his property." It was that the state government had already condemned properties for Atlantic Yards--via a dubious blight finding--and the judge had lost patience with delays.

Actually, the state government has enabled delays by signing a Development Agreement that gives Forest City Ratner 25 years, rather than the officially promised ten years, to complete the project.

The Times has not reported on this Development Agreement.

Nor did the Times, in this brief summary, disclose its business relationship with "the developer, Forest City Ratner," in building the Times Tower.

Posted by steve at April 25, 2010 10:13 AM