« Enough kvetching already. RT @NoLandGrab 1,100 Space Parking Lot at Issue in Latest Atlantic Yards Fight | Main | When "low six figures" makes the Times (a new Nets sponsor) and when it doesn't (the failure to hire a monitor for the Community Benefits Agreement) »
December 1, 2010
Atlantic Yards – war seems over yet legal battle continues
Meadowlands Matters
by John Brennan
The milestone of steel recently being erected at the site of the Barclays Center Nets basketball arena in Brooklyn sure makes it feel as if the multi-year legal Atlantic Yards battle must be over for good. Even ‘last holdout’ Daniel Goldstein finally took a buyout, and his building has been knocked down.
So what will New York State officials and Atlantic Yards opponents be doing on Dec. 22? Not giving each other Christmas gifts, that’s for sure. Instead, they have a tentative meeting with Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman regarding a possible halt to construction until state officials get their environmental impact statement house in order. That filing was made on Thanksgiving Eve.
This comes as a result of a Friedman ruling three weeks ago that was a basket for Nets owners but not quite a slam dunk. Friedman accepted the possibility that opponents are right to say that since a 10-year buildout plan has been changed to 25 years, maybe new environmental analysis is required. But Friedman didn’t stop the Nets from continuing their feverish work at the site designed to have the building finished in less than two years from now.
So what’s the point of the meeting?
Good question.
Opponents are convinced that the Empire State Development Corp. state agency and the Nets owners are complete allies, to the point where state officials will do anything to make the project happen. The project was in peril in 2009 because a federal tax exemption on construction bonds for stadiums and arenas – one enjoyed by the Mets and Yankees, for instance - was expiring at the end of the year.
The developer agreement was signed with days to spare, and the money was raised – but not coincidentally, these opponents claim, the details of the deal weren’t revealed until Jan. 2010. Friedman didn’t even address the issue in her key March 2010 ruling that paved the way for site work to pick up in earnest. In her ruling in early November, Friedman seemed annoyed with state officials for the lack of transparency; she may have been embarrassed to have ignored complaints last spring by these opponents.
Posted by eric at December 1, 2010 3:25 PM