July 5, 2009
NY Court Agrees To Hear Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Suit
Encore
Perhaps this article is about the progress of the Eminent Domain lawsuit brought by residents living in the footprint of the proposed Atlantic Yards project appears to be a little late due to the Encore's weekly publication schedule.
New York's highest court has decided to hear a challenge to the state's use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn.
According to the New York Times, the Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments in October in a case that might throw a roadblock into developer Bruce C. Ratner's plans for the development.
Lawyers for the project expect that the favorable decisions of the lower courts unanimous rulings will be upheld, supporting the state's use of eminent domain while opponents hope that the Court of Appeals will reconsider the matter based on constitutional concerns.
The Appellate Division had previously rejected the suit, stating that the development would serve the public interest as approximately 40% of the housing being planned would be aimed at low income residents. The state had recommended that the Court of Appeals reject the suit as well, noting that the project had been approved at the city and state level but the request appeared to fall on deaf ears.
The decision to hear the case could raise issues for the developers, who are already facing significant challenges in obtaining funding for the project.
Posted by steve at 8:00 AM
July 4, 2009
Court to hear yards case
Courier-Life
By Stephen Witt
This article makes reference to the alleged public benefit of affordable, although the majority of so-called affordable units (most not affordable to low-income Brooklynites), are scheduled for Phase 2 of the proposed Atlantic Yards project. Nobody can say when Phase 2 might be built.
The state’s highest court agreed last week to hear the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case.
The Court of Appeals decision comes about a week after developer Forest City Ratner Companies received two greenlights for its 22−acre arena⁄housing plan at the Flatbush and Atlantic avenues intersection.
...
The high court’s decision comes after the state appellate court ruled unanimously in May for the state to condemn property to make way, in part, for affordable housing.
“This case provides an opportunity for the New York Court of Appeals to continue its proud tradition of interpreting this State’s Constitution in a manner that affords more protection to individual rights and liberties,” said Matthew Brinckerhoff, the lawyer representing the appellants.
Please notice how the following sentence tries to up the percentage of affordable units by saying that 50% of rental units will be affordable. If there are 6,000 units in all, then 2,250 affordable units would make up 37% of the total.
The planned project includes an arena to house the NBA’s Nets, and about 6,000 residential units with half the rental units (2,250) being reserved for low− and moderate−income housing.
The Court’s decision came after the MTA last week voted to sell the eight−acre Vanderbilt Rail Yard portion of the project.
Under the deal, FCRC will pay $20 million down for the arena and four buildings (phase 1 of the project), and a remaining $80 million with interest over 22 years as it proceeds with the rest of the project.
...
FCRC needs to finance the project and begin construction by Dec. 31 to qualify for tax−exempt status, which would save the company millions of dollars in borrowing costs.
In order to do this, the company intends to sell about $650 million in bonds for the arena in late September, according to published reports.
...
The ESDC also announced a 60−day public comment period complete with hearings on the modified general project plan.
The hearings are slated for July 29 and 30 with two sessions for each hearing − an afternoon hearing between 2−5 p.m., and an evening session from 6−8 p.m.
The hearings will take place at the New York City College of Technology’s Klitgord Auditorium, 285 Jay Street.
Posted by steve at 5:59 AM
July 3, 2009
MediaStorm's "Hold Out" and a bit of fact-checking
Atlantic Yards Report
Some Friday fact-checking — and a brief review of a brief movie — from Atlantic Yards Report.
Don't expect the brief video Hold Out, by the multimedia company MediaStorm, to provide a full sketch of the Atlantic Yards development, and don't even expect main character David Sheets (right), a crusty and compelling Dean Street resident and regular at Freddy's Bar & Backroom, to have all the facts.
Backed by an ominous soundtrack, Sheets, a rent-stabilized tenant and plaintiff in the eminent domain case, offers his incredulity at the plans for Atlantic Yards, his deep frustration at the utility and other work that made life on Dean Street hell last year, his lament at the community lost, and his commitment to fighting the project until the end. It's a highly sympathetic portrait.
Some fact-checking
Do note, however, that the overview text asserts that, when announced in 2003, Atlantic Yards would cost nearly five billion dollars. That's the tab now, but it was $2.5 million when announced.
Also note that, at 22 acres and nearly 8 million square feet, Atlantic Yards would not be "three times the size of Rockefeller Center," as Sheets asserts, but rather just about the same size. The key difference: AY would be mostly housing, while Rock Center is mostly commercial space.
Nor would the arena be twice the size of Madison Square Garden, as Sheets states, but, at 800,000 square feet, would be fractionally smaller than MSG's 820,000 sf.
Posted by eric at 10:09 AM
HOLDOUT
MediaStorm presents a short documentary on some of the remaining residents and property owners who stand in the way of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards megaproject.
Atlantic Yards is Brooklyn's largest ever proposed real estate development. The plan includes a basketball arena, numerous high rises, and would cost nearly five billion dollars. To make room, many buildings have been razed and more than 600 residents have left the neighborhood. But a handful of residents refuse to leave.
Posted by lumi at 6:19 AM
Lawyer for footprint owners says ESDC effort to move tenants is premature
Atlantic Yards Report
Is the friendly neighborhood Empire State Developerment Corporation just trying to be helpful, or were the letters they sent to residents and property owners in the Atlantic Yards footprint meant to apply more pressure to get them out?
I wrote Wednesday that tenants and property owners in the Atlantic Yards footprint have received letters from the law firm Berger & Webb, which represents the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) in its pursuit of eminent domain, telling them it'll be time to move soon.
Attorney Michael Rikon, who represents some footprint property owners, sent a letter of complaint to the ESDC, saying the process shouldn't begin until eminent domain is completed:
My client forwarded a copy of a letter dated June 26, 2009 in which you inform that the New York State Urban Development Corporation relocation consultant, Cornerstone Group Real Estate Services will start conducting initial visits with each occupant in the effected business buildings. Please be advised that no one is permitted to enter the premises to speak to any tenant on the property with respect to relocation until title has vested. We will view any such visit as trespass and further as an “affirmative value depressing act.” No relocation effort may begin or contact with the tenant with respect to relocation until title vests.
In a comment to me, Rikon added, "ESDC has absolutely no right to talk to tenants about relocation before it acquires title.
Posted by lumi at 5:49 AM
July 1, 2009
State’s highest court sees some ‘appeal’ in Yards eminent domain case
The Brooklyn Paper
by Mike McLaughlin
In a twist that could be disastrous for Bruce Ratner, New York’s highest court surprised many and agreed to hear an appeal that the state has illegally used its power of eminent domain to spearhead the embattled $4.9-billion Atlantic Yards project.
Previous eminent domain cases have gone well for Ratner, but even if he wins another court battle — this time in the Court of Appeals — he could still lose hundreds of millions of dollars in possible construction and financing delays stemming from another round of litigation.
To qualify for tax-exempt financing that could save him millions, Ratner must begin construction by Dec. 31 on the Barclays Center, now a $772-million basketball arena no longer designed by Frank Gehry. Also on the line is the British bank’s agreement to pay $400 million to have its name on the Nets’ now-generic future home court, another deal that turns into a pumpkin at the end of this year.
Posted by eric at 10:01 AM
Right of way: ESDC letter warns AY footprint tenants/owners that relocation consultant will be knocking on the door
Atlantic Yards Report
Just as the New York State Court of Appeals announced that it would hear the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case, the Empire State Development Corporation was getting ready to unleash its friendly "relocation consultants" on residents of the project footprint.
Tenants and property owners in the Atlantic Yards footprint have received letters from the law firm Berger & Webb, which represents the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) in its pursuit of eminent domain, telling them it'll be time to move soon.
One complication: the letter offers only services of a real estate agent and a modest $5000 stipend for residential services, not mentioning the offer by Forest City Ratner--which was part of the General Project Plan (GPP) and Modified General Project Plan--to those in residence for at least one year to "return and to rent a comparable unit within the Project Site at a comparable rate to what they are currently paying."
The absence of an offer to relocate tenants into the project--as state law recommends but does not ensure--prompted a protest by George Locker, who represents eight rent-stabilized residential tenants in the project footprint and has filed a number of lawsuits on their behalf.
...But Empire State Development Corporation spokesman Warner Johnston said, "The letter is just intended to alert occupants that representatives of The Cornerstone Group, our relocation consultant, will be in the neighborhood and contacting them soon, and it includes the basic parameters of the relocation assistance that ESDC is providing (essentially verbatim from the General Project Plan), such as referrals to alternative housing, provision of moving services, etc. The General Project Plan also references some additional assistance that FCRC has been and will continue to provide for residential tenants, such as relocating residents back on the Project Site as soon as feasible (if that's what residents desire) and providing interim rent subsidies. The referrals to alternative housing to be provided by Cornerstone (mentioned in the letters of introduction) will include coordination with FCRC as necessary with respect to this assistance."
NoLandGrab: Cornerstone is a member of the International Right of Way Association, which is fitting, since Bruce Ratner appears to believe he has a right to push property owners and tenants out of his way.
Posted by eric at 9:37 AM
Atlantic Yards project faces roadblock from New York State Court of Appeals
NY Daily News
by Erin Durkin
More on this week's Atlantic Yards legal news.
The New York State Court of Appeals agreed to hear an appeal by nine plaintiffs who sued to prevent the government from taking their homes and businesses under eminent domain to make way for developer Bruce Ratner's long-delayed Nets arena and 16 residential and commercial towers.
When a lower court ruled in his favor, Ratner told the Daily News it was the "last hurdle" to the project and vowed to break ground in September. The latest court action will likely push that date back.
"You can't start building until you own the land and demolish the buildings," said Daniel Goldstein, whose Pacific St. home sits in the middle of the site of the planned arena. "It's just not possible for that to happen in '09 with this ruling."
Additional coverage...
New York Law Journal, Newsbriefs: Judges to Hear Challenge To Atlantic Yards Project
Yonkers Tribune, Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case Going to New York's High Court
Metro NY, Atlantic Yards' new hurdle
Posted by eric at 8:40 AM
June 30, 2009
State’s Top Court Will Hear Appeal Against Atlantic Yards
The New York Times
by Charles V. Bagli
New York’s highest court has agreed to hear a case challenging the state’s use of eminent domain on behalf of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.
The decision by the top court, the Court of Appeals, to hear arguments in October came as something of a surprise to the project’s developer, Bruce C. Ratner, who had expected a clear path after a lower court rejected the case in a unanimous decision in May.
And not a pleasant surprise, for sure. We wish we could've been there when Bruce got the news.
The Court of Appeals’ involvement, announced on Monday, is the latest hurdle to Mr. Ratner’s plans to build a $772 million basketball arena, the centerpiece of the project. The developer and his bankers intend to sell about $650 million in bonds for the arena in late September.
That $650 million figure is up some 10% from estimates just last week. One wonders, why the increase?
Mr. Ratner must finance the project and begin construction by Dec. 31 to qualify for tax-exempt status, which would save him millions of dollars in borrowing costs. Most analysts say it is unlikely that conventional bonds would sell in the current market.
“I certainly don’t envy anyone who has to raise capital in the current environment,” said Robert White of Real Capital Analytics, a research firm.
Posted by eric at 11:35 PM
HEADLINES: Not-so-frivolous eminent domain lawsuit (late) edition
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Atlantic Yards Likely Delayed Until Winter
The Eagle's Ryan Thompson has an excellent wrap-up of today's legal news, and its implications.
The state’s highest court will consider the constitutionality of Atlantic Yards, and regardless of what it decides, the multibillion dollar project will likely be delayed until winter.
Arguments are scheduled for October, and a decision from the court is expected to be issued in November or December, meaning that resolution of the eminent domain issues and transferring of title likely won’t happen until the winter, if not next year.
Developer Bruce Ratner, facing financial deadlines, had vowed to break ground on the Barclays Center basketball arena in the fall. That now appears impossible, according to the court’s scheduling of the case.
...“We are gratified that the state’s high court will hear this important case about whether our state’s constitution protects the homes of its citizens from the wrecking ball of greed wielded by influential developers and the public officials who do their bidding,” [plaintiffs' attorney Matthew] Brinckerhoff said. “This case provides an opportunity for the New York Court of Appeals to continue its proud tradition of interpreting this state’s constitution in a manner that affords more protection to individual rights and liberties. We look forward to the argument in October."
NY Post, STATE'S HIGHEST COURT TO HEAR ATLANTIC YARDS CASE
In a stunning move, the state's highest court has agreed to hear a legal challenge over the use of eminent domain to seize private land for Brooklyn's controversial Atlantic Yards project.
..."It is a great day for New Yorkers concerned about abuses of power," Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn spokesman Daniel Goldstein said. "We will vigorously continue to defend our rights. But New York State and Mr. Ratner have a choice: they could avoid our legal challenge by finally taking eminent domain off the table."
Crain's NY Business, Atlantic Yards faces fresh obstacle
Just when it seemed that Forest City Ratner Cos. was overcoming all the obstacles blocking its controversial plan to develop Atlantic Yards, another potentially serious hurdle has emerged.
What Crain's means is "just one day after we wrote a silly whopper of an editorial supporting Atlantic Yards, another potentially serious hurdle has emerged."
WNYC Radio, Court of Appeals to Hear Atlantic Yards Case
By agreeing to hear the case, plaintiffs say, the court has already decided there's a constitutional issue worth settling. They also contend that the appeal will put Ratner dangerously close to a December 31st IRS deadline for issuing tax-exempt bonds. If it takes longer than that to sort out legal questions, Ratner would have to resort to conventional bonds, which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more in interest payments. Last year, the court of appeals did decide all of its October cases by December 2nd. If that schedule holds this year, and Ratner wins the appeal, a late December groundbreaking for the basketball arena is still possible.
WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show, Gridlock at Ground Zero
"[Bruce Ratner's] got a very small window of opportunity here, which just got even a little bit smaller today."
[Atlantic Yards segment from 17:10 to 19:10]
NLG: The New York Times's Charles Bagli and WNYC's Andrea Bernstein confuse the dates of the Court hearing and the ESDC public hearings, but the upshot is still not great for Bruce Ratner.
Posted by eric at 6:24 PM
HEADLINES: Not-so-frivolous eminent domain lawsuit edition
NY Observer, New Uncertainty for Atlantic Yards as Court of Appeals Takes Eminent Domain Suit
New York’s highest court has agreed to hear an eminent domain case over the Atlantic Yards project proposed for Brooklyn, a move that infuses new uncertainty into the planned $4.9 billion development that entails a new Nets basketball arena and 6,400 apartments.
The decision by the Court of Appeals was not expected by the project’s developer—Bruce Ratner and his Forest City Ratner—at least based on its public statements and actions. After a year and a half of stagnation, the development seemed to gain new momentum in recent weeks after an appellate court ruled against opponents. Mr. Ratner had been pushing for new public approvals and renegotiated deals with the stated intent of breaking ground on the arena this fall.
Mr. Ratner already confronts a tight schedule in securing $530 million in tax-free financing for the arena. Based on a Dec. 31 I.R.S. deadline for the financing, the cost of the arena would jump by tens of millions of dollars without a tax exemption, and the task of securing financing would grow substantially harder (the broader real estate financing market is more inclement than the tax-free bond market). Thus the viability of the project seems to depend in large part on how fast the court can turn around a ruling.
NoLandGrab: The ESDC and MTA giveth, and the Court of Appeals taketh away.
Reason Hit & Run, New York Court of Appeals to Hear Atlantic Yards Case
The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) agreed today to hear arguments in the case of Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, which deals with the controversial use of eminent domain on behalf of developer and New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner. As I discussed in an article last week, Ratner is the real estate powerbroker behind the Atlantic Yards redevelopment project in Brooklyn, a massive boondoggle centered on a new basketball arena for the Bruce Ratner-owned Nets.
Things are certainly heating up now. Last Monday, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which controls a crucial 8-acre rail yard at the center of the Atlantic Yards footprint, offered Ratner a massively discounted new offer, whereby he would pay just $20 million up front for the land, then pay another $80 million over the next 22 years. Three years ago, however, the MTA wanted the full $100 million up front (and that's for 8-acres that have been appraised at over $200 million). Bear in mind that the MTA just raised subway and bus fares, yet somehow still has the cash to bail out Ratner and his lousy corporate welfare arena. So much for acting responsibly during an economic recession! As for Ratner, he still needs to raise over $500 million and break ground before the end of the year in order to qualify for tax-exempt status. So it's wonderful news that he'll be tied up in court trying to explain away eminent domain abuse while the clock keeps ticking away.
NY Daily News, Court challenge could delay Ratner plan to break ground at Atlantic Yards in fall
The developer has vowed to break ground this fall, but the latest court action could throw a wrench in those plans.
When a lower court threw out the eminent domain case in May, Ratner told the News: "This is really the last hurdle that we have and now we can do what our company does best and build an arena and houses."
NLG: Actually, Forest City did what it does best last week — secure more handouts of public money courtesy of the MTA and ESDC.
The Local {Fort Greene/Clinton Hill, Court of Appeals to Decide AY Suit
The suit was filed by nine property owners and tenants, including DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein, whose corner of Prospect Heights was deemed “blighted” and whose homes and businesses in the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint have been slated for government seizure.
The Architect's Newspaper Blog, See Bruce in Court!
We recently wrote above how opponent’s best hope of stopping Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards Project was not the departure of Frank Gehry but lawsuits. There was a good possibility the “sweetheart” deals the state had crafted to make Ratner’s project easier to move forward could have triggered further litigation, but it seems it may not even come to that, as the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has decided to hear Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn’s challenge to the state’s use of eminent domain.
Nets Daily, Court of Appeals Will Hear Critics’ Lawsuit
New York’s highest court will hear a critics’ appeal against the Empire State Development Corp., further tightening the schedule for Barclays Center and possibly jeopardizing it. The court asked for briefs by July 31, with a hearing in mid-October. The ESDC, Ratner’s partner in the arena project, had asked the court for a hearing in September so Ratner could meet a Dec. 31 deadline for tax emempt bonds.
Curbed, Atlantic Yards Tripped Up Again
In a somewhat surprising decision, the state's highest court has decided to hear the appeal filed by Atlantic Yards opponents in the eminent domain case against New York State.
NY Politics, Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case To Be Heard By Court of Appeals
Willets Point United Against Eminent Domain Abuse, Appeals Court agrees to hear Atlantic Yards case
Queens Crap, Appeals Court will hear Atlantic Yards case
CastleWatch Daily, New York High Court to Consider Atlantic Yards Suit
Brownstoner, Court of Appeals Will Hear AY Eminent Domain Case
Posted by eric at 12:40 PM
State's highest court accepts eminent domain appeal; oral arguments in October, thus complicating AY end game
Atlantic Yards Report
The Atlantic Yards end game just got a whole lot more complicated.
Despite claims May 15 by Forest City Ratner CEO Bruce Ratner that the unanimous dismissal of the state eminent domain case in May "is really the last hurdle," the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, has accepted (PDF) an appeal in the case and won't hear oral arguments until the middle of October.
While eminent domain law still tilts significantly to the advantage of the condemnor, in this case the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the court's willingness to hear it indicates that it believes the originating court, the Appellate Division, did not address some aspect of the legal argument.
Also, as Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) noted, last year half of all civil appeals were affirmed, and the other half were either reversed (about 40%) or modified (about 10%).
The case is brought by nine residential and commercial tenants and property owners in the AY footprint, and is organized and significantly funded by DDDB.
Delays in groundbreaking, arena bonds
At the very least, the appeal delays Forest City Ratner's announced plans to begin construction by October and severely narrows--but does not close--the window of opportunity to have crucial tax-exempt bonds issued by the end of the year.
Click through for a rundown of the constitutional issues in question.
NoLandGrab: The New York State Court of Appeals has just blasted a very large hole in any and all claims that legal challenges to the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards project have been "frivolous."
Attorney George Locker, who represents a group of Atlantic Yards footprint rental tenants who are fighting condemnation, added this comment to Norman Oder's post:
The appeal halts all moves by ESDC to proceed with relocation and the EDPL Article 4 vesting proceeding. The project has just ground to a halt. There certainly will be no groundbreaking in 2009, and probably no groundbreaking ever. Or maybe the basketball coach sees it differently.
Posted by eric at 10:15 AM
DDDB PRESS RELEASE: Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case To Be Heard By New York’s High Court
Property Owners and Tenants Will Argue Their Case Against the Empire State Development Corporation In October
BROOKLYN, NY— The New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, has announced that it will hear the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case—Goldstein et al. v. N.Y. State Urban Development Corporation—in October. The owners of homes and properties targeted for seizure have argued that the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards proposal violates New York State Constitution.
The appellants’ briefs are due on July 31 and the case will be argued in front of the High Court in October on a date to be scheduled. (The Court convenes for six days in mid-October.)
"We are gratified that the State’s High Court will hear this important case about whether our State’s Constitution protects the homes of its citizens from the wrecking ball of greed wielded by influential developers and the public officials who do their bidding," said Matthew Brinckerhoff, the lawyer representing the appellants. "This case provides an opportunity for the New York Court of Appeals to continue its proud tradition of interpreting this State’s Constitution in a manner that affords more protection to individual rights and liberties. We look forward to the argument in October."
The properties in question are required for developer Forest City Ratner to construct its proposed Barclays Center Arena and 16 skyscrapers.
Nine property owners and tenants, whose homes and businesses in the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint have been slated for government seizure for the megaproject proposed by developer Forest City Ratner, filed the original case. Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) organized the case, which is funded by thousands of donations from individual community members across Brooklyn and New York City.
The original case was filed in August 2008 in the Appellate Division, as required by New York State eminent domain law. The Appellate Division ruled on May 15th
Bruce Ratner told the Daily News, after that court ruling, "We're very, very happy. This is really the last hurdle that we have and now we can do what our company does best and build an arena and houses." The developer claimed he would break ground and issue the bond for his arena this fall. He has an end-of-year IRS deadline to float the bond for the arena.
"It is great news that New York's High Court will review the Atlantic Yards project’s use of eminent domain. It is a certain sign that the Court understands the seriousness of the issues my constituents have been dealing with for the past six years," said City Council Member Letitia James who represents the 35th District where the project is proposed and has been a stalwart opponent of its abuse of eminent domain.
"My co-plaintiffs and I are very excited that the Court will hear our case. It is a great day for New Yorkers concerned about abuses of power," said lead appellant and DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein. "We will vigorously continue to defend our rights. But New York State and Mr. Ratner have a choice: they could avoid our legal challenge by finally taking eminent domain off the table, and working to implement affordable housing over the rail yards based on the community’s development plan offered to the MTA last week—the UNITY Plan."
The appellants have asked the Court to decide:
Whether the public use requirement of the NY Constitution imposes a more stringent standard for takings than does the Fifth Amendment—a question expressly preserved by the Court of Appeals in Aspen Creek Estates, Ltd. v. Brookhaven (2009), and never before considered by any court in New York;
Whether the public use requirement of the NY Constitution "is satisfied when a condemning authority determines that he public benefit to be gained by forcibly appropriating citizens' homes and businesses is 'not incidental or pretextual in comparison with benefits to particular, favored private entities,"' without ever examining the nature and magnitude of the private benefit and thus failing to create any record that would allow a reviewing court to make such a determination—a question never before considered by any court in this State (and ignored by the Appellate Division in this action)";
Whether, according to Article XVIII, Section 6 of the Constitution, subsidized "blight clearance" projects must be restricted to "persons of low income."
According to the 2008 annual report for the Court of Appeals about half of all civil appeals last year were affirmed, and the other half were either reversed (about 40%) or modified (about 10%).
All past case files and the Court’s letter can be downloaded at: http://www.dddb.net/eminentdomain
Posted by steve at 9:33 AM
June 27, 2009
Atlantic Yards Tottering
Castle Watch Daily
Despite recent moves by the MTA and ESDC to sweeten the sweetheart deal with Prospect Heights blighter Bruce Ratner, this article explains how the proposed Atlantic Yards project is far from a "done deal".
The Atlantic Yards project is inching towards total collapse even as it continues to be propped up on dozens of gigantic government-sponsored crutches. One of those crutches includes eminent domain, but the problems facing the Forest City Ratner redevelopment project won’t be fixed by condemnations.
When megadeveloper Bruce Ratner bought the Nets he pledged not only to move the NBA team out of New Jersey and into Brooklyn but also build an entire neighborhood around his proposed arena. The neighborhood was to be designed by celebrity architect Frank Gehry and was to include thousands of units of affordable housing. Ratner apparently did not think the fact that a neighborhood already existed at Atlantic Yards would matter too much. And he had good reason to believe so, due to New York’s horrendous eminent domain laws, which makes it nearly impossible for property owners to have an opportunity to defend what rightfully belongs them. However, the community in Brooklyn, led by resident Daniel Goldstein, has tried every possible legal argument in the courts to overcome Ratner’s use of state power for his own personal benefit.
...
The ESDC this week, as expected, approved the revised plans. However, Ratner’s cost-cutting measures seem to have been a quixotic adventure, as the costs of the project have increased by nearly another billion to $4.9 billion. And some local officials think that the promised affordable housing may go the way of Frank Gehry, too.
State and local officials continue to scramble to approve various measures because they’re on a deadline. If Ratner does not sell $586 million in bonds for the arena by the end of the year, those bonds lose their IRS tax exemption. Without the ability to obtain the tax-exempt financing the project could finally collapse.
Posted by steve at 8:15 AM
June 25, 2009
"As Naked an Abuse of Government Power as Could be Imagined."
How the Sotomayor nomination revived the debate over eminent domain abuse
Reason Online
by Damon W. Root
That headline refers to the case of Didden vs. Village of Port Chester, but it could just as easily apply to Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project — or the separate approvals this week by the MTA and ESDC to bail out the developer's tenuous boondoggle.
Property rights were probably the last thing on President Barack Obama's mind when he selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. But that hasn't stopped Sotomayor's nomination from reigniting the long-simmering national debate over the use and abuse of eminent domain.
The controversy centers on Sotomayor's vote in a 2006 eminent domain case, Didden v. Village of Port Chester. New York entrepreneur Bart Didden says Port Chester condemned his land after he refused to pay $800,000 (or grant a 50 percent stake in his business) to a developer hired by the village. One day after Didden refused to pay those bribes, Port Chester began eminent domain proceedings against him.
...None of that is likely to derail Sotomayor's nomination, however, which the Senate is fully expected to approve next month. But this renewed national focus on eminent domain abuse might still benefit a group of long-suffering property owners in Brooklyn, New York, who have been waging a five-year battle against the combined forces of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), real estate developer Bruce Ratner, and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a controversial quasi-public entity empowered by the state to seize private property via eminent domain.
...This week the saga went from bad to worse, as the MTA, which controls the central portion of the land needed for the project, released a disastrous new plan. Consider this: In 2006 the MTA agreed to sell Ratner its 8-acre Vanderbilt rail yard—which had been appraised at over $200 million—for a lump-sum payment of just $100 million. Now the MTA says Ratner can pay just $20 million upfront, with the rest due over the next 22 years.
...So what happens next? The state will no doubt approve this sweetheart deal just as it approved the previous one. But Ratner still needs to sell more than $500 million in arena bonds and break ground before year's end in order to qualify for tax-exempt status. Here's hoping Goldstein's lawsuit, a lousy economy, and renewed public outrage over eminent domain abuse make the Atlantic Yards the perfect size to fail.
Posted by eric at 6:11 PM
June 22, 2009
ESDC asks for eminent domain appeal to be dismissed or heard ASAP, says delays put AY "slum clearance" project in jeopardy
Atlantic Yards Report
Further delays in resolving the Atlantic Yards state eminent domain lawsuit would put the project's future in jeopardy, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) argues in court papers, calling for the final appeal to be dismissed or, if accepted, heard in early September so tax-exempt bonds could be issued by the end of the year.
Norman Oder examines the "legal fiction" submitted in court documents, that "'once constructed,' the project: 'will eliminate long-standing blighted conditions.'" Unmentioned in the court filing is the fact that there is no construction timetable for the entire project, and that the blighted conditions cited and created by Ratner demolitions would persist indefinitely.
NoLandGrab: The truth is Ratner's entire strategy and schedule is hinged around getting these tax-exempt bonds.
Posted by lumi at 6:35 AM
Questions Hold Up Atlantic Yards Project
New York Post reporter Rich Calder talked to some off-the-record sources who attended Friday's behind-the-scenes meeting between officials of the Empire State Development Corporation and local legislators, where the new plans for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards megaproject were revealed:
Some who attended the closed-door session told The Post they're furious the agency is claiming revisions are minor, when they feel the project has completely changed from the one state officials approved three years ago.
One angry source called it a "bait and switch," and another said, "I think there needs to be an investigation into why this is being rubber-stamped."
They want the developer to start from square one and resubmit the plans for another full public review, a process that could take years.
Ratner can't wait years and is pulling out all the stops in a last-ditch effort to get the project moving forward this year, in order to receive tax-exempt financing.
In a new twist, the ESDC is saying that eminent domain will be used in stages because it will save Ratner money.
ESDC spokesman Warner Johnston yesterday said... that eminent domain is being broken up into phases -- not because certain parts of plan won't be built -- but because this will allows Ratner to "defer acquisitions costs" associated with a controversial deal to buy a rail yard from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority needed for the project.
The community coalition Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn is planning on seizing upon these new twists as grounds for further litigation.
Posted by steve at 6:16 AM
June 18, 2009
Apology Doesn’t Go Far Enough
LoHud.com
by Phil Reisman
Bill Brody, whose Port Chester, NY, property was taken by eminent domain for the "higher use" of a Stop & Shop and a parking lot, gets the last laugh, though it's hardly a hearty one.
There’s also an extraordinary final chapter to the Brody-Port Chester story. The village had to eat crow. As part of a settlement agreement, the village paid Brody $475,000 and publicly apologize. The apology came at a village board meeting Monday night…and set in stone at a settlement signing ceremony held today at Village Hall.
That’s not all. The village also agreed to rename the corner where Brody’s building stood—William Brody Plaza.
Having covered this story in the early years, I never thought I’d see anything like this happen.
However, the apology to Brody isn’t enough. The village should extend it to the scores of merchants, landlords and apartment dwellers who were bullied, terrorized and swindled during that terrible period.
Brody had the means and forbearance to fight back. Others didn’t. They had to cut their losses and leave.
NoLandGrab: For those who castigate the property owners who have stood fast in the way of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project for getting in the way of progress, let us remind you that they are simply exercising their rights under the law — which all too often favors the powerful vs. the just.
Posted by eric at 2:01 PM
Looking for hope
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
By Henrik Krogius
The news got worse. Forest City Ratner had held back on telling us that not just the arena but all of Atlantic Yards would no longer be built to the designs of Frank Gehry. The project would have no touch of greatness.
But don't worry, Ratner can still forceably take private property (Phew!):
From a legal perspective, a change of architects would not seem to affect Bruce Ratner’s use of eminent domain...
Huge as the disappointment is, a second-best project may yet be better than none.
NoLandGrab: Though, these soundbytes make Kroguis sound like a complete heel, they betray an inferiority complex among Brooklynites of a certain era.
In all fairness, Kroguis goes on to make some of the same suggestions project critics have proposed since the beginning.
Posted by lumi at 6:12 AM
June 17, 2009
Yards foes ‘suit’ up for another appeal
The Brooklyn Paper
By Mike McLaughlin
Nine property owners inside the Atlantic Yards footprint moved last week to appeal last month’s Appellate Division ruling that said the state could use eminent domain to seize privately owned land for the controversial arena and skyscraper proposal.
The plaintiffs want the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, to review the plan’s constitutionality, and ultimately, overturn the May decision by the lower court.
At issue is whether or not the NY State Consitution allows for property seized by eminent domain to be used for anything other than "low income housing" and whether or not an economic analysis is actually required.
NoLandGrab: Basically, the plaintiffs want the justices to rule whether or not the State Constitution is enforceable, or do developers get to change the rules along the way.
Posted by lumi at 5:19 AM
June 15, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
New York Law Journal, Coalition Tries for Last Time To Halt Atlantic Yards Project
A community group in Brooklyn has filed what may be its last, best chance to block the construction of the massive Atlantic Yards project. Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, which was formed in 2004 to oppose Forest City Ratner's 16-tower plan for downtown Brooklyn, submitted on Friday its notice of appeal for the Appellate Division, Second Department's rejection last month of the coalition's eminent domain claims. The group claimed the appellate court's unanimous decision in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp. , 2008-7064 (NYLJ, May 18), presents three "substantial constitutional questions," including whether the public use requirement of the state Constitution "imposes a more stringent standard for takings than does the Fifth Amendment." Last year, 152 notices of appeal were filed in New York, according to a Court of Appeals spokesman. Of those, 70 were subjected to preliminary inquiries and of those 70, all but 10 were dismissed. The average length of time from a notice of appeal until oral arguments was seven months.
NorthJersey.com, Eminent domain ruling on Nets' Brooklyn site appealed
The appeal is based on three constitutional issues:
- Whether New York State’s eminent domain laws are more stringent than federal laws.
- Whether it is legal for state agencies to approve condemnation of land without ever reviewing the magnitude of the private benefit for a project developer, in this case Nets owner Bruce Ratner.
- Whether the project plan is not sufficiently designed to aid local lower-income residents.
The New York Times, Issue of Property Rights Is Likely to Arise in Sotomayor’s Confirmation Hearings
The Supreme Court nominee was a member of the U.S. Second Circuit panel that heard Didden v. Village of Port Chester — and ruled against the property owner in a case reviled by proponents of property rights.
The brief decision in Didden made two points. First, it said Mr. Didden had filed his suit too late. The village had announced the redevelopment plan in 1999, and Mr. Didden did not sue until 2004. His claim, the court said, was therefore barred by a three-year statute of limitations.
That was a curious ruling, Professor Epstein said, because it required Mr. Didden to sue over his claim of extortion before it happened.
The court also rejected Mr. Didden’s claim that Port Chester should not be allowed to take his property so that another company could build a different drug store. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment — “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation” — should not apply, he had argued, to such transfers.
Judge Roberts, at his confirmation hearings in 2005, seemed sympathetic to that kind of argument. The takings clause is uncontroversial when it is used to take property for public purposes like roads and schools. But it is a “basic proposition,” Judge Roberts added, that “government can’t take property from A and give it to B.”
Posted by eric at 9:52 PM
Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Plaintiffs File Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals
From Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (dddb.net):
Late last Friday the nine owners and tenants challenging New York State's effort to seize their properities by eminent domain for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards development plan, filed their Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals on Constitutional Grounds.
Atlantic Yards Report, Plaintiffs in eminent domain case file Notice of Appeal; the Court of Appeals is not required to accept it
Though, the "Notice of Appeal states that 'this appeal is taken as of right... because the judgment directly involves the construction of the New York Constitution and presents multiple substantial constitutional questions,'" Norman Oder points out that the Court of Appeals may not agree and refuse to hear the case, though attorneys for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn are optimistic that the court will.
The constitutional questions include:
1) whether the public use requirement in the state Constitution "imposes a more stringent standard for takings" than does the federal Constitution, a question not yet considered by any state court
2) whether the state Constitution's public use requirement can be satisfied when the condemning authority does not examine whether the public benefit "is not incidental or pretextual in comparison with benefits to particular, favored private entities" (a phrase from a separate 2009 case)
3) whether the project violates a clause of the state Constitution which requires that subsidies for reconstruction of blighted areas must be restricted to "persons of low income"
Posted by lumi at 6:57 AM
June 11, 2009
What We’re Reading: Enraged Ouroussoff Eviscerates New Atlantic Yards Plan
Off the Record (Architectural Record blog)
by Bryant Rousseau
[W]here I do have a quibble with Ouroussoff’s piece is his utter avoidance of one of the critical questions with the Atlantic Yards project: the use of eminent domain to condemn private property in a fully functioning, if not vibrant neighborhood—for a fully private project. (For the record, I am adamantly opposed to this practice and believe it’s clearly unconstitutional, despite the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London.)
For me, the sheer brilliance of Gehry’s plan made this eminent-domain play a lot more palatable. If, instead, all we’re going to get is a conventional stadium design—and as someone who works literally on top of Madison Square Garden, I experience firsthand everyday the blight that arises around poorly designed arenas—then I hope the people and public officials of New York will rise up to kill this deal outright.
NoLandGrab: We're not quite sure how Frank Gehry's design would make Atlantic Yards "more palatable" to someone "adamantly opposed" to the "clearly unconstitutional" use of eminent domain for a private project, but we're down with sending the project to the great beyond.
Posted by eric at 11:52 AM
June 9, 2009
Was eminent domain ruling the last hurdle? And when would the arena open?
Atlantic Yards Report
Is the eminent domain case the "last hurdle," as Bruce Ratner contends, or "one of the few remaining obstacles," as his cousin Chuck said?
And when is the arena supposed to open? In 2011, as the Ratners tell a "credulous press," or is the opening date still murky, as indicated by a recent SEC filing.
Watchdogs will be watching this morning's conference call with investors.
Posted by lumi at 6:07 AM
June 7, 2009
Media Advisory
WHO: Willets Point United Against Eminent Domain Abuse and Councilman Tony Avella
WHAT: Press conference/Rally
WHERE: Shea Gas Station 127-48 Northern Blvd, Willets Point, Queens.
WHEN: Monday, June 8th at 1:30pm
WHY: The City Economic Development Corporation has announced condemnation proceedings against Willets Point business and property owners while Article 78 challenge is still pending in court. EDC has also decided to do this before negotiating with property owners and after telling many of them that negotiations will not start for more than a year.
CONTACT:
Councilman Tony Avella: (718) 747-2137
Jerry Antonacci, President, WP United Against Eminent Domain Abuse, (718) 446-7297
Jake Bono, Spokesperson, WP United Against Eminent Domain Abuse (917) 334-7926
Posted by lumi at 8:50 PM
June 5, 2009
"BECKET THY NAME IS EMINENT DOMAIN"
Photo by Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.
 |
Project critics wasted no time keeping up with the headlines that architect Frank Gehry has been replaced by Ellerbe Becket.
Posted by lumi at 6:28 AM
May 28, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
The Washington Post, Sotomayor on the Issues
In an examination of the judicial record of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York, The Washington Post reports:
Sotomayor ruled with the majority that the Village of Port Chester violated a property owner's due process rights by failing to give adequate notice of his right to challenge the determination that his land should be used for a redevelopment project. Nevertheless, the panel supported the right of the government to take property for public use.
From the majority decision in the case of Brody v. Village of Port Chester:
"While a legislature may juggle many policy considerations in deciding whether to condemn private property, judicial review of the final legislative decision to exercise the power of eminent domain focuses exclusively on whether or not the taking is for a public use. In addition to the narrow scope of judicial review, a long line of Supreme Court cases have 'defined [the concept of public use] broadly, reflecting [the Court's] longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.' The combination of those factors — the narrow scope of issues and the broad deference to the legislature — suggests that the role of the courts in enforcing the constitutional limitations on emin ent domain is one of patrolling the borders. That which falls within the boundaries of acceptability is not subject to review."
Iron Triangle Tracker, City to begin eminent domain process at Willets Point
The city will formally kick-off plans to seize control of the remaining privately-owned land at Willets Point this June, officials at the Economic Development Corp. said Wednesday.
The EDC said a public hearing on eminent domain will be held at Flushing Town Hall on June 22, a procedural first step in the legal process through which the city plans to take the remaining 22 acres of land at Willets Point.
Property owners at Willets Point said representatives from Cornerstone Realty Group, a firm hired by the city to assist in business relocation in the area, canvassed the Iron Triangle on Wednesday informing people that the city intended to begin eminent domain proceedings and a letter would arrive Thursday detailing the process.
“They said they’re going to send a letter,” said Marcos Neira, President of the Willets Point Defense Commitee. “They’re talking about eminent domain. Whoever is going to read this letter is going to be scared.”
Posted by lumi at 6:21 AM
May 22, 2009
In Columbia eminent domain case, some skeptical judges, AY echoes, and signs of emerging strategy for community resistance
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder turns his attention to another case of eminent domain abuse.
Lawyers representing two property owners resisting the use of eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion maintained a passionate argument in appellate court yesterday, calling the Empire State Development Corporation’s (ESDC) actions in bad faith and seeing an ESDC lawyer clearly on the defensive before two clearly skeptical judges.
“Nobody’s opposed to Columbia expanding. They’re opposed to eminent domain,” attorney Norman Siegel said in his closing remarks before a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division, First Department. “The [skeptical] questions [from the Court] I hope will reflect the decision.”
Harlem State Senator Bill Perkins, speaking after the hearing on the sidewalk outside the courthouse, at 25th Street and Madison Avenue, was blunt: “It looks like Columbia’s going to lose.”
That’s unclear, given that three judges were largely quiet and ESDC lawyer John Casolaro, despite facing some withering skepticism from Justice James Catterson, reminded the court that the condemnor had a structural advantage. Their job, he told the judges, is to decide whether ESDC has some foundation for its decision. If they decide that the ESDC “had a reasonable basis or a basis, the inquiry is at its end.”
(Should two judges dissent, an appeal would be automatic.)
The argument came just a day after Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson saluted the Public Authority Control Board’s final approval of the General Project Plan for the Columbia University expansion into West Harlem, aka Manhattanville.
NoLandGrab: Perkins, who has opposed Columbia's land-grab plan, will chair a State Senate inquiry into Atlantic Yards one week from today.
Posted by eric at 10:23 AM
May 21, 2009
Fallout from the Weinstein case: questions of condemnation timing and valuation; will Site 5 really be taken?
Atlantic Yards Report
AYR suggests more potential questions for next Friday's Senate hearing on Atlantic Yards.
So it's worth asking about the ESDC's plans at the public hearing: would the whole site be condemned at once? What are the plans for Site 5?
It's also worth asking whether, given that the project likely will take much longer than projected, Forest City Ratner plans any interim open space, as once suggested in plans by landscape architect Laurie Olin.
Valuation questions
I suggested May 8 that, while the appellate court ruling couldn't stop the ESDC from taking [Henry] Weinstein's property, it could make it more costly, since Weinstein has contended that [Shaya] Boymelgreen’s deal with Ratner diminished the value of his property.
[Eminent domain attorney Michael] Rikon, who does not represent Weinstein but has met with him in the past, told me that when property is condemned and appraised, the appraiser then can ignore all leases. "That doesn't mean you ignore existing leases, if they're good fair market leases," Rikon said.
The goal is to look at comparable leases, but it may not be easy to find such comparable leases. That suggests to me that Weinstein still gained an advantage in the valuation phase should condemnation occur.
But Rikon suggests that the more important impact of the lease was in suggesting that Forest City Ratner controlled the property, not in setting its value. And that's another question for the oversight hearing.
Posted by eric at 9:58 AM
TODAY: Columbia University Eminent Domain Abuse Heads to Court
We usually have our hands full with Atlantic Yards and admittedly don't get around to posting enough on all the other eminent domain-abusing land grabs in NYC. However, NoLandGrab readers should know that the Columbia University land grab is headed to court today. Please attend if you can.
Here's the bulletin from the Coalition to Preserve Community:
Thursday, May 21, the biggest eminent domain case in Manhattan's history will happen at 2:00PM.
The state appellate court will hear the issue of Columbia's land grab eviction expansion in terms of the use of eminent domain against property owners, businesses, residents and all of us.
We urge you to attend at the address below and give support to the Sprayregens and the Singhs and others who will be affected like Ramon Diaz of Floridita, residents who live in the immediate expansion area, and all those facing displacement in the surrounding community. The case is framed by the property owners but of cousre this will affect every neighborhood in the city of New York and beyond.
Come out. Get there by 1:45 pm. This will be a very short appearance. Each side has a maximum of 15 minutes to present its case. Come out and support the legal battle against the all or nothing Columbia plan.
27 Madison Avenue (Cross St. 25th)
New York, New York 10010
(212) 340-0400Presiding Justice: Luis A. Gonzalez
The Campaign for Community-Based Planning, NY Supreme Court to Hear Columbia Eminent Domain Case Tomorrow
Posted by lumi at 6:10 AM
May 20, 2009
A Teaching Moment From a Times Correction on NY State Eminent Domain Legal Procedures
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
The following correction in the New York Times is important to note. It is not surprising that a reporter or anyone else would assume that an Appellate Division ruling would be a ruling on an appeal of a lower court decision.
What IS surprising, and shocking, is that New York State law, specifically the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), requires property owners to initiate their challenge to one of the state's greatest powers—seizing a person's private property, home or business—not in the state's lowest court but, rather, in the appeals court. We are not aware of any other legal challenge in the state that is required to skip a court level.
And not only do private property owners have no right to state their case in each level of the state courts, but when they do present their case to the Appellate Division, there is no legal right to discovery or depositions, no introduction of evidence outside of the record created and controlled by the condemning agency, and no testimony, examination or cross-examination.
So while the Times mistake is understandable, and we are glad it has been corrected, the attenuated right to protect one's property in New York State is no mistake and the legislature is less than reticent to correct it.
From the Times:
Corrections
An article in some editions on Saturday about a state appeals court’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the use of eminent domain to seize property for the Atlantic Yards development project in Brooklyn referred incorrectly to the decision. As an eminent domain case, it was heard first in the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court, so there was no lower-court ruling.
Posted by eric at 3:25 PM
Atlantic Yards, Finance Footrace
The NY Observer
By Eliot Brown
Though Forest City Ratner has cleared an important legal hurdle, there are still "numerous loose ends": tax-exempt financing, the deal with the financially strapped MTA, mounting losses for the Nets, and additional modifications to the project.
...the clock is ticking. Forest City Ratner has until the end of the year to get financing for the arena, the key part of Atlantic Yards, at which point the cost of doing so will rise substantially for the firm, headed by Bruce Ratner. The firm is professing new confidence, saying it will be able to secure financing and get shovels in the ground. But there are still many balls in the air, including negotiations with the city and M.T.A., and the uncertainties warrant keeping the Champagne in storage for quite some time to come.
Check out the rest of the article to learn more about bumps in the road for Ratner.
Posted by lumi at 6:46 AM
Forest City’s Planned NJ Nets Arena Clears Another Legal Hurdle
CoStar Group
By Randyl Drummer
Forest City Ratner Companies is claiming a court victory in its attempt to move the NBA’s New Jersey Nets onto the hardwood floor at the company’s Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, NY.
In other news from the industry newsheet, CoStar Group is reporting that Saks Fifth Avenue has signed on as the anchor tenant for Forest City Ratner's Ridge Hill project in Yonkers.
Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC) announced that Saks Fifth Avenue signed a Letter of Intent to anchor the company's mixed-use development, Westchester's Ridge Hill, which is currently under construction. Saks plans to open an 80,000-square-foot store at the development, which is located between the New York State Thruway and Sprain Brook Parkway in Westchester County, New York.
Posted by lumi at 6:29 AM
Activists Vow Appeal of Atlantic Yards Ruling
GlobeSt.com reporter Cody Lyon filed this article on last Friday's court ruling that eminent domain may be used for Bruce Ratner's controversial Atlantic Yards megaproject:
According to the court documents, the judges said much of the land to be acquired is "substandard, and that the taking [of it] is rationally related to the purpose of remedying these substandard conditions." They added, "any incidental profit that may inure to Forest City from the remediation of the blighted project site does not undercut the public purpose of the condemnation of the substandard land."
NoLandGrab: In plain English, the court is saying that Ratner's determination that the property in the footprint is blighted is correct and that any money he may make on the deal is "incidental" to the purpose of removing that blight.
...FCRC chair and CEO Bruce Ratner says in a statement... that he was confident the project will break ground this year, with the intent that the Nets will play ball in the Barclays Center in the 2011-2012 season.
...
[A] lawyer for the plaintiffs says the group will be appealing to the state’s Court of Appeals. And, if that court agrees to hear the case, Atlantic Yards could be in store for many more months of litigation.Drawing a line in the sand, Matthew Brinckerhoff, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, tells GlobeSt.com that Ratner has not acquired his client’s property yet, and until he does, he cannot build the arena.
NoLandGrab: Presciently, GlobeSt.com ran an image of the project commissioned by the Municipal Art Society, intended to show what an arena and one building would look like, which is what Ratner is currently publicly committing to for the foreseeable future.
Posted by lumi at 5:52 AM
May 19, 2009
Ratner courtroom win loose ends
Here are some late links and reports on the decision, released last Friday, in the state eminent domain suit:
The Cleveland Plain Dealer, Forest City cheers Atlantic Yards ruling, plans to break ground this year for Nets arena in Brooklyn
There is crack reporting and reporting on crack —
Plain Dealer real estate reporter Michelle Jarboe filed a story largely based on the press release and The NY Times.
"We're thrilled with this decision, which is the 23rd in a row in favor of the development," Bruce Ratner, chairman and chief executive officer of Forest City Ratner, said in a statement.
NoLandGrab: Ratner is obviously ignoring the loss in court just the week earlier over his attempt to weasel a lease out from under the nose of property owner and landlord Henry Weinstein.
PR Newswire, Forest City Statement on Appellate Division Eminent Domain Ruling
"We're thrilled with this decision, which is the 23rd in a row in favor of the development," Ratner said.
SmartBrief, Developer will break ground on Brooklyn arena in October
A synopsis of the NY Times story:
Developer Bruce Ratner plans to start construction on an $800 million basketball arena in Brooklyn for the New Jersey Nets in October. Ratner's announcement came shortly after he learned that a state appeals court dismissed challenges to his development. The project, dubbed Atlantic Yards, would also include an office tower and apartments. New York Times, The (05/15)
NoLandGrab: In Friday afternoon's press blitz, Bruce Ratner claimed that groundbreaking would occur in October, September, "this summer" and "this year." This is what happens when you are not used to telling the truth — lying, like smoking, is habit-forming.
CoStar Group, Forest City’s Planned NJ Nets Arena Clears Another Legal Hurdle
Another item based on the Forest City press release.
About.com, A Win for Ratner
Blogger Kristen Goode wonders if, despite Ratner's win in court, the project will ever get built:
We've been getting mixed messages from Ratner's camp for years now, and while Ratner still claims that he's going to break ground in the coming months, I have my doubts (and honestly hope that his "soon" translates to "never"). What do you think? Are the Atlantic Yards dead?
NoLandGrab: Based on this roundup, it's no small wonder why the print media is in despair and bloggers are getting a lot of attention these days. Does the public really need several reporters to rewrite a press release, when it is available for free?
Posted by lumi at 5:38 AM
May 18, 2009
Nets to Break Arena Ground This Year, Play in 2011, Ratner Says
Bloomberg.com starts Monday off with Friday's announcement that Bruce Ratner prevailed in the eminent domain case.
The New Jersey Nets intend to break ground for an arena in Brooklyn this year and begin to play there in the 2011-12 National Basketball Association season, owner Bruce Ratner said.
Ratner, the chairman and chief executive officer of Forest City Ratner Cos., said in a statement that a New York State appeals court ruling on May 15 cleared the way for construction of the complex that includes the planned $800 million Barclays Center arena.
Posted by lumi at 6:01 AM
May 15, 2009
Eminent domain case is dismissed unanimously; appeal in this and EIS case remain as last legal hurdles
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder analyzes today's Atlantic Yards court decision.
The Atlantic Yards eminent domain case was always a long shot in state court (even more so than in federal court), and today a state appellate court dismissed Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) in an unanimous opinion.
In New York State, an appellate court, rather than a trial court, hears eminent domain cases, and no testimony or cross-examination is allowed.
The straightforward language of the 16-page decision, which gave no quarter to the petitioners' claims, contrasted with the appellate decision in the case challenging the Atlantic Yards environmental impact statement (EIS), which took pains to express some skepticism about the project and featured a concurrence that sounded like a dissent.
Appeal issue
Eminent domain law in New York State gives unusual deference to the government condemnor. A major issue raised in legal briefs and the February oral argument is whether the defendant ESDC conducted a study to measure the relative benefit to developer Forest City Ratner.
In legal papers, the ESDC claimed it had done so, though it cited a document that didn't perform such a measure. In court, the ESDC lawyer said it wasn't necessary, and the court agreed.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff said today, “The court’s logic is faulty. The private benefit to Ratner was never compared with the alleged public benefit because no one knew or cared to ask Ratner whether he would make billions, tens of billions or hundreds of billions. The ESDC has conceded that it had no idea how much money will be made by Ratner when it agreed to seize my clients’ homes and businesses on his behalf."
...The nine petitioners, organized and funded by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, will appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, and say that they have the right to appeal without asking permission.
Update: Brinckerhoff said that the state Constitution and the Civil Practice Law and Rules allow the right to appeal when a case raises a constitutional question. That's been interpreted to mean a "substantial contitutional question." He said "we have multiple substantial constitutional questions, which gives us the right to appeal." However, he acknowledged, if the Court of Appeals disagrees, it could reject the appeal and require the petitioners to ask the Appellate Division to file a motion for leave, which would be discretionary. "I have a high degree of optimism [that the Court of Appeals would hear it], but I can't guarantee it," he said.
Such an initial request for leave to appeal is still pending in the case challenging the EIS. It could take several months--likely until the fall, given the courts' summer recess--for final appeals to be denied, and it would take much longer should the appeals be accepted. If the latter, there could be two more years of delay.
Posted by eric at 2:52 PM
Eminent domain expert: AY EIS decision deserves an Oscar for "approving a litigation outcome while holding the judicial noses"
Atlantic Yards Report
In February, when a state appellate court ruled against a challenge to the Atlantic Yards environmental review, I noted that the majority "took pains to express some skepticism about the project" and Justice James Catterson offered "a concurrence that had the tone of a dissent."
Gideon Kanner, an emeritus professor of law at Loyola University in Los Angeles and a veteran eminent domain litigator and critic, took a much bigger swing, in a post on his Gideon's Trumpet blog headlined It’s Oscar Time for their New York Lordships:
Since we write a stone’s throw from Tinseltown, we tend to award Oscars for outstanding performance, and the New York judiciary has just turned in a breathtaking bravura performance that calls for such recognition. The Oscar for writing an opinion approving a litigation outcome while holding the judicial noses, goes to the New York Appellate Division, First Department, for its virtuoso performance in Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn v. Urban Development Corp.
Here's Kanner's original post:
Gideon's Trumpet, It’s Oscar Time for their New York Lordships
No comment appears necessary, except perhaps to tell New Yorkers who may be reading this blog, that next time some politician — black-robed or otherwise — starts pontificfating about “judicial independence,” remind him of this opinion in which the judges recognized that there was no basis for their decision, but they rendered one in favor of the condemnor anyway in a sort of a the-devil-made-us-do-it performance.
Posted by eric at 10:55 AM
May 5, 2009
No redevelopment without AY? The ESDC should be pressed to explain
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder continues his series on questions the Empire State Development Corporation should be made to answer for a possible State Senate Committee hearing on Atlantic Yards:
The first part here mostly reprises what I wrote 12/4/06, but the issue shouldn't be ignored.
It was one of the least credible statements in the Atlantic Yards Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued in July by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC):
The project site is not anticipated to experience substantial change in the future without the proposed project by 2016 due to the existence of the open rail yard and the low-density industrial zoning regulations.
The Park Slope Civic Council and Park Slope Neighbors challenged that, commenting that a city rezoning could do just that, though it would "involve professional planners whose job is to advance the public interest, rather than a reliance on private interests to establish de facto zoning."
NoLandGrab: Without getting too far off topic, it's worth mentioning that while every neighborhood close to the footprint of Atlantic Yards experienced some measure of "substantial change" during the past five-plus years since Bruce Ratner's megaproject was announced, most of the 22-acre footprint has been in decline, blighted by Ratner's demolitions and complete lack of social or economic vitality.
Posted by lumi at 6:24 AM
April 29, 2009
Second thoughts from a former state official; could Times Square have been reclaimed without eminent domain?
Atlantic Yards Report
The former insider and CEO (1983-85) of the state Urban Development Corporation (UDC) has publicly concluded that the use of eminent domain actually hindered the progress of developement of the Times Square area. Norman Oder examines William Stern's arguments and matches them against competing opinions.
The recently transformed Times Square area is a poster child proffered by city officials like Mayor Mike Bloomberg in defending the use of eminent domain. But what if eminent domain really didn’t work?
Here's a taste of Stern's arguments:
In hindsight, eminent domain was not merely unnecessary; eminent domain was destructive and counterproductive to the aim of achieving redevelopment. The properties surely could have all been bought out by the mega-developers. After all, that is how mega-development traditionally has taken place in the United States. It used to be called an “assemblage,” and good developers know how to do it without eminent domain. That kind of process would have been fairer and less costly. It also would have helped assure from the start that the buildings ultimately constructed on the site had the best chance of meeting the market’s demand—rather than government officials’ caprice. It was the way, after all, that Times Square had been developed in the first place. During my time at the UDC, developers approached me privately and said eminent domain was not needed. They had previously implemented large-scale development without eminent domain and were confident they could do so in Times Square.
...
While eminent domain may have made it easier two decades later to build (since the property was already condemned), the city lost far more than what it could ever gain from the lands’ new uses. It destroyed legitimate local businesses that create the patchwork of unique attractions that bring tourists from across the country to any major city. It delayed any resurgence of Times Square, as property owners and government officials remained in limbo and tax dollars were lost.Our efforts ignored the root causes of the problems in Times Square, blinding us to any true cures and setting a dangerous precedent for future projects in New York City. Property owners who were anticipating massive buy-outs as a result of the West Side’s upzoning were shocked when they learned this simply ushered in a plan that effectively wiped them out, with “fair” market value in place of negotiation.
Check out the rest of the article for more analysis, including how Bruce Ratner's eminent domain-dependent Atlantic Yards megaproject is Stern's example of current abuse of power.
Posted by lumi at 5:20 AM
April 22, 2009
Mall rats
The Brooklyn Paper, The Police Blotter
By Mike McLaughlin
Even though Bruce Ratner's own crime survey in the Blight Study for the Atlantic Yards project claims that the "high crime rate in sector 88E is more likely a result of crimes occurring on the project site than in Atlantic Center or Atlantic Terminal," stories indicating otherwise keep piling up on the police blotter:
Police arrested three women last Monday in two shoplifting incidents in the Atlantic Terminal mall near the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues on April 13.
In the first crime, police cuffed a 60-year-old woman in Target for allegedly stealing another woman’s purse — and the $230 in it — at around 5:30 pm.
About two hours later, it took three cops to subdue two women, 19 and 26, who were caught pilfering “miscellaneous merchandise” from the Daffy’s department store in the same Bruce Ratner-owned mall.
According to the police report, the two women scuffled with officers, injuring three of them, after they were caught skipping the bill.
Posted by lumi at 4:49 AM
April 20, 2009
Spotlight Finds Eminent Domain Crusader
The NY Times
By Lary Bloom
Susette Kelo's little pink house became the national symbol of the fight against eminent domain abuse. Now the straight-talking woman who was the lead plaintiff of the controversial case, which led to the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to uphold the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, is on a book tour, where she ends up in Fox's NY studios at the same time as conservative media darling Ann Coulter:
Ms. Kelo and the book’s author, Jeff Benedict, a New London native, arrived at the Fox News green room on schedule. They watched as another guest on the show, Ann Coulter, commanded attention — a makeup artist required a full 40 minutes to prep the glamorous basher of liberals. When it came time to apply the blush to the other woman in the room, Ms. Kelo said, “I haven’t worn makeup in 10 years.”
A longtime nurse, Ms. Kelo also thought — as she confided later — that Ms. Coulter resembled patients she had seen.
“She’s way too thin,” she said. “This poor girl needs to eat.”
Mr. Benedict thought of other contrasts between the two women. There was a great buzz in the building when Ms. Coulter arrived. Ms. Kelo was greeted as any ordinary citizen off the street, without heads turning. Yet Mr. Benedict wrote in his journal that night that 50 years from now the name Susette Kelo will be far better known than Ann Coulter.
Posted by lumi at 5:42 AM
April 14, 2009
It came from the Blogosphere...
WebCommentary.com, Don't Blame ACORN Whistleblower Anita MonCrief for Providing Proof!
On Good Friday, Norman Oder wrote an open letter to the Public Editor of The New York Times, asking why The New York Times has ignored developer Forest City Ratner's "incredible" bailout of ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).
...
Hurray for Mr. Oder for raising what he described as "the complicated, vexing question of the impact on Times coverage from the parent New York Times Company’s relationship with developer Forest City Ratner (FCR), which together built the Times Tower in Midtown--a relationship that has drawn critical scrutiny from Editor & Publisher's ethics columnist."But Mr. Oder's criticism of [whistleblower] MonCrief for "decid[ing] to make public what [NY Times reporter] Strom considered confidential reporter-source communication" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of privileged communications.
The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, not the lawyer. A lawyer cannot conceal his or her malpractice by claiming privileged communication with the client.
Likewise with the physician-patient privilege.
NoLandGrab: To be clear, Oder said he was "uncomfortable" that a souce released a "confidential reporter-source communication."
Curbed.com, It Happened One Weekend: eBay for Apartments, Starter Studios Cheapen Up, Kosciuszko 2.0, More!
"Atlantic Yards" and Columbia University have become the NYC gold standard of eminent domain abuse:
4) The Kosciuszko Bridge, the unpronounceable worn strip of metal that connects Greenpoint and Maspeth along the BQE, is set to be replaced with a new nine-lane bridge, with construction beginning in 2013. The scrap metal dealers and wholesalers located below will lose their land via eminent domain, but don't expect another Atlantic Yards or Columbia. After all, good lord that bridge needs replacing. [The City/'Uneasily Contemplating the Arrival of a Spiffy Newcomer']
Orange Juice Blog, Do we have 21st century “pirates” operating in NJ & NY today?
The news about Bruce Ratner and his eminent domain-abusing subsidy-sucking "Atlantic Yards" megaproject is getting around:
Exactly five months ago I blogged about a major redevelopment project that I first became aware of when attending an Institute for Justice, IJ conference in the Washington, DC area two years ago.
A property rights victim from Brooklyn, NY attended the conference to share their efforts and literature as well as to gain our support in fighting to protect their homes and businesses from the corporate wrecking ball in a pending eminent domain action involving Bruce Ratner. The name of this development is “Atlantic Yards.”
Here we go again. Another professional sports team with their hands in the public trough.
Reason Online, SLAPP Silly
The online libertarian mag is NOT POSTING about the developer who is suing the author of a book about an egregious case of eminent domain abuse, the book's publisher, the professor who wrote the blurb, and two newspapers who ran reviews.
And in case you-know-who is checking, we're not saying anything either.
Noticing New York, Bloomberg Update: Fire and Ice (Part I)
A two-part -volume series outlines how Mayor Bloomberg uses his "unfathomable wealth" to collect support and promote pet projects with little consideration for impacts to the environment and surrounding communities.
Part II: If you have a problem with that, you can take it up with the ex-Blagojevich operative Bloomberg hired to run his reelection campaign.
Posted by lumi at 5:30 AM
March 31, 2009
As foreclosures increase, real blight (unlike AY 'blight') creates "real-estate panic"
Atlantic Yards Report
While municipalities are struggling to contain real blight, resulting from the housing boom and bust, Bruce Ratner's own blight study hardly passes the smell test, especially where evidence of blight was of the developer's own making:
In the case of Atlantic Yards, there were some vacant buildings and empty lots, but there was and remains enormous demand for the land in and around the AY footprint.
That's why the failure by consultant AKRF to conduct the market study called for in its Blight Study contract with the Empire State Development Corporation looms large in the effort to appeal the dismissal of the case challenging the AY environmental review.
Instead, we saw AKRF straining to find blight, for example at the Mobil Station at Flatbush Avenue and Dean Street, contending that, "as shown in Photographs C and D, portions of the lot’s asphalt surface are pot holed (Photograph C shows a drainage grate near the lot’s entrance that has sunk below grade) and areas of the sidewalk surrounding the lot are cracked and uneven."
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn responded that the "so-called potholes are in fact asphalt patches applied to holes drilled by Roux Associates in the course of making soil sample borings for AKRF when FCR was purchasing the property. It is not evident as asserted in Photo 1127-1-D that the entry drainage grate has sunk below grade. Likewise, the concrete sidewalk has cracks so very modest and so easily fixed, they do not merit 'blight characteristic' status."
Posted by lumi at 5:55 AM
March 22, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
Noticing New York, Willets Point Lawsuit Points Out . . .
This wide-ranging entry of Noticing New York covers:
- The latest in legal challenges to proposed development for Willets Point.
- How the City and State can become locked in a death embrace with "zombie mono-developers" who gain exclusive development rights to a site, but cannot actually follow through due to deteriorating economic conditions.
- Parallels to the AIG scandal analogy, wherein a developer might get paid extra to clean up its own mess.
- Extra bonus: a re-defining of BYOB as "Bring Your Own Blight."
References to the proposed Atlantic Yards project and developer Forest City Ratner (FCR) abound. One example compares AIG with FCR:
Consider the similarities: Like Forest City Ratner, huge AIG was headed for bankruptcy. Essentially, AIG was bankrupt except for the fact that the government stepped into a subsidizing partnership relationship with AIG. Through its subsidies, the government owns 79.9% of AIG. Similarly, the government is subsidizing Atlantic Yards so heavily with taxpayer money that it is paying for substantially more than half of the $4.4 + billion price tag of Atlantic Yards. In each case we are discovering how rushed and badly thought out the government’s provision of subsidies has turned out to be.
Cato Institute, Kelo v. City of New London
Here is a recently posted video that gives an overview of the Supreme Court decision allowing a broad definition of public use so that property may be taken by the State. In the case of Kelo, the result has been what is now feared for the proposed Atlantic Yards development: job creation only for demolition crews and a development that never happens.
Posted by steve at 8:20 AM
March 13, 2009
Get political
Time Out New York compiled a list of favorite NYC bars from castmembers of three Broadway shows that are about to open.
Still under seige of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards eminent domain-abusing overdevelopement, Freddy's Bar and Backroom lands a spot in groups of bars with a notable political history.
Freddy’s BAR & BACKROOM
As Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project dies a painful, protracted death, Freddy’s regulars have reason to hoist inky pints of Guinness and cheer. Since the developer’s Brooklyn Nets plans were first announced, this eclectic bar, where bands strum nightly, has served as a nerve center for community opposition. 485 Dean St at Sixth Ave, Prospect Heights, Brooklyn (718-622-7035). Average drink: $5
Posted by lumi at 6:16 AM
March 12, 2009
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
Willets Point United, WILLETS POINT UNITED CHALLENGES CITY’S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Willets Point business and land owners filed an Article 78 petition yesterday challenging the environmental review for New York City's proposed redevelopment of their properties.
Twenty-two members of Willets Point United Against Eminent Domain Abuse filed an Article 78 petition today with the NY State Supreme Court against Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York City Council, the City Planning Commission and Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber challenging the environmental review that was completed by the City of New York.
The main points of the filing are as follows:
Petitioners are challenging the Deputy Mayor’s Office appointing itself as the lead agency on the project. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) this office does not “have jurisdiction to fund, approve or directly undertake an action,” and therefore cannot be a lead agency.
The Deputy Mayor’s Office failed to identify and report many of the environmental impacts it was required to under a SEQRA review, including impacts on traffic and highways, emergency response, the city’s water supply and the likelihood of plan approval by federal and state highway authorities.
The plan takes private property without a public purpose. The current plan is simply a theoretical possibility and the Kelo decision stated that condemners must have a concrete plan in place and a “carefully formulated economic plan” in order to seize property.
Duffield St. Underground, Dissolving businesses in the name of economic development
In order to promote business, the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) is displacing businesses. Today's example comes from 223 Duffield Street, where A&B Distributors have been thrown into uncertainty. The EDC has bought their building, and now this long-standing enterprise must pay its "occupancy fee ("rent")" to the NYC Department of Housing Preservation & Development (HPD). Of course, since the EDC is so good at economic development, it has not told this business how long it will hold this business in limbo before demolishing the building.
Crain's NY Business, Companies sue to stop city’s Willets Point remake
In their latest attempt to thwart the Bloomberg administration’s plans to redevelop Willets Point, more than 20 Iron Triangle business owners filed suit Wednesday in state Supreme Court challenging the city’s environmental review of the area.
The suit alleges the city’s environmental impact statement falls short of requirements under state law, especially regarding the project’s potential effects on local traffic. It also contends Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber’s office does not have the authority to play a lead role on the project. And it argues the city’s plans for the area are too vague to serve as a justification for the use of eminent domain.
NoLandGrab: "Latest attempt to thwart the Bloomberg administration's plan to redevelop Willets Point?" How about the latest attempt to keep their properties from being seized against their wishes? Guess we know which side Crain's is on.
Posted by eric at 10:33 AM
March 10, 2009
NL officials regret relinquishing power of eminent domain
Forum revisits Fort Trumbull case that went to Supreme Court
New London Day
by Kathleen Edgecomb
Here's a cautionary tale for everyone in New York's State Capitol building and New York City Hall who thought it a good idea to empower the Empire State Development Corporation in the matter of Atlantic Yards.
The city's law director and a former mayor agreed Wednesday that if they could have a “do-over” for the past 10 years, they would not relinquish the powers of eminent domain to an unelected body that is not accountable to the voters.
“Never, ever delegate the powers of eminent domain,'' said Beth Sabilia, who was mayor more than three years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the city's powers of eminent domain to take private property in the city's Fort Trumbull neighborhood for economic development.
...“My lesson is, if the state offers you $70 million, say 'no thank you','' she said. “Yes, the city won, but no one in the City of New London really won. In New London we are all connected. I don't care if you live in a lean-to or a 4,000-square-foot house. It's where we all take our babies home.”
...The city won the case and had the full backing of the law, but it could have made room in the project for those who did not want to leave, [Little Pink House author Jeff] Benedict said. The city chose not to and forced everyone out. Now, three years later ,with the old neighborhood removed and nothing new in its place, it's time to admit mistakes were made, he said.
NoLandGrab: Albany has the benefit of being able to learn from New London's mistake before it actually exercises the power of eminent domain for Atlantic Yards, with the added cover of being able to blame a withdrawal of support for the project on the state of the economy. So what'll it be, Governor Paterson?
More coverage...
Civil Liberties Examiner, Susette Kelo's revenge: New London regrets eminent domain fiasco
Posted by eric at 1:13 PM
Coney Island Deadlock Could Be Broken With Eminent Domain
Gothamist
The idea to use eminent domain to stop developer Joseph Sitt from his Coney Island blightification campaign has been floated more than once.
The president of the city's Economic Development Corp. says the administration "doesn't think" eminent domain will be necessary, and the Municipal Art Society, which has been critical of both Sitt's plans and the city's proposal, says it should only be used as a last resort because such a tactic would inevitably be dragged out in court. (Cf. Atlantic Yards.) But the option is officially on the table, and some Sitt opponents would love nothing more than to see the developer get zilch for the property he's been using as leverage against the city as he threatens to create a summertime Boardwalk dystopia of shuttered businesses and vacant amusement parks.
NoLandGrab: "Atlantic Yards" is now the poster-project for how NOT to ram a controversial project down the community's throat, that is, if you plan on breaking ground in the next five years or so.
Posted by lumi at 6:12 AM
March 8, 2009
Atlantic Yards Report Sunday Two-fer
Nets-to-Newark depends on closing of the Izod Center
The Newark Star-Ledger opines on the chances of the New Jersey Nets moving permanently to Newark: In the end, the Nets' fate will come down to money -- whether Ratner and his investors still have enough of it, and if they don't, what follows as Plan B.
What [Newark Mayor Cory] Booker really needs is the closing of the Izod Center, which would allow Newark and the Prudential Center to land the lucrative A-list concerts currently booked at the Meadowlands. That's where the real money is.
In other words, there's a whole lot of New Jersey politics involved.
More on the battle
The newspaper reports today: Last week's announcement that the New Jersey Nets, who call Izod home, will play two preseason games at Prudential next fall fueled new speculation that the team will abandon a five-year quest to move to Brooklyn and make a deal to play basketball in Newark. At the same time, it reignited a debate over the competition between the state-operated arena in the Meadowlands and the new arena, nicknamed "the Rock," that was intended to spark a renaissance in the state's largest city.
"I believe we need to start looking at this as a regional issue," said Newark Mayor Cory Booker. "Ultimately having a very old arena and a new arena cannibalizing each other is just not a productive thing for our state."
Prudential Center officials say they are not at war with Izod, but it was always their expectation that Izod would close once the Devils and Nets left the Meadowlands.
That was sports economist Andrew Zimbalist's assumption, too.
Indeed, while the Nets pay between $50,000 and $60,000 a game as tenants, a concert date "can make five, seven, 10 times more than an NBA date for us," a spokesman told the newspaper.
Turns out "You Don't Mess With the Zohan" is about a real estate dispute
Norman Oder finds echoes of the Atlantic Yards fight in last summer's film "You Don't Mess WIth the Zohan."
Given the circumstances, it was fortuitous that You Don't Mess With the Zohan, the zany, dumb, and distracting movie starring Adam Sandler as an Israeli Special Forces Soldier-turned-hairdresser, showed up in my Netflix queue on Friday.
And guess what? It's sort of about sports and real estate, offering very tangential echoes of AY. Turns out that a villainous developer named Walbridge wants to clear a Lower Manhattan neighborhood--improbably a commercial district populated with Israelis and Arabs--so it can "have its own indoor mall, with its own 300-foot tall rollercoaster."
Click on the link to learn how the movie mixes ethnic tension and hacky-sack into its plot.
Posted by steve at 11:44 AM
Taps for Atlantic Yards?
Gideon’s Trumpet
This blog, which is largely concerned with eminent domain issues, wonders if the end is nigh for Atlantic Yards.
The Wall Street Journal of March 7-8, 2009 (Julia Vitullo-Martin, A Hole Grows in Brooklyn, at p. A9) reports that the grandiose $4.3 billion Atlantic Yards redevelopment project in Brooklyn, that was the subject of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Goldstein v. Pataki, shows new signs of coming apart. We blogged about that case on March 22, 2008 (Another Big Redevelopment Project Down in Flames?) — check it out.
Says the Journal: “The projected December 2008 ground-breaking for the [new Nets’] arena came and went without a shovel hitting the dirt. The chances that the Nets will be playing in Brooklyn for the 2009-10 season, as promised, are nil. Architect Frank Gehry has laid off his entire Brooklyn staff, and Mr Ratner’s company (Forest City Ratner) has renegotiated its loans. Financing to finish the project has dried up amid a global financial meltdown.”
And so it goes . . .
Posted by steve at 10:13 AM
February 25, 2009
It came from the Blogosphere...
Brownstoner, State Appellate Court Hears AY Eminent Domain Arguments
Much of the substance of [Monday's] arguments, which were limited to 15 minutes per side, focused on whether the State should apply a stricter definition of public use in OK'ing seizure by eminent domain and whether the ESDC erred in not considering the amount of profits a private entity (Forest City Ratner, in this case) stood to make in the deal. The lawyer for Goldstein et al argued that, depending on the size of Ratner's potential profit, the benefit to the public could be merely "incidental" in comparison. On a related note, a petition again Ratner getting stimulus funds for Atlantic Yards has been started here.
The Community-Based Planning Project, Opening Arguments Heard in Altantic Yards Case
The Brooklyn Paper has a thorough wrap-up of yesterday’s opening arguments in Goldstein et. al. vs. Empire State Development Corporation, the case brought before the State Supreme Court by tenants who are threatened with displacement via eminent domain for the proposed Atlantic Yards development.
NoLandGrab: Monday's oral arguments were not "opening arguments." Both sides had already submitted lengthy briefs [oxymoron alert], and the law permits a paltry 15 minutes per side to augment those briefs in front of the justices.
Posted by lumi at 4:36 AM
February 24, 2009
In a swift half-hour, eminent domain argument touches on balance of public and private benefit--but not much more
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder covered yesterday's eminent domain hearing:
Does the state constitution, as the plaintiffs contend, require a stricter evaluation of public use--the bedrock of condemnation--than does the federal constitution? The judges in the ornate Brooklyn Heights courtroom of the Appellate Division, Second Department, seemed willing to consider the argument, but also injected skepticism.
The plaintiffs gained ground on one potentially important point. While the defendant Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) had in legal papers claimed (without foundation) that a document quantified the private benefit to developer Forest City Ratner, that document went unmentioned.
Indeed, an ESDC lawyer conceded no such analysis comparing private and public benefit was performed, but quickly argued that no such analysis was required. Indeed, case law suggests that even if there's substantial benefit to a private entity, the condemnation should be confirmed if public purpose is dominant--and an ESDC lawyer claimed there's "overwhelming public benefit."
Still, one judge called the absence of such an analysis a "critical point."
...
The judges yesterday seemed unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' argument, previously untested in court, that a section of the state constitution approved at the 1938 Constitutional Convention requires projects developed with state subsidies or loans to be restricted to low-income people.
Click here to read the rest of Oder's report, which includes a brief explanation of why yesterday's hearing was so brief and play-by-play review with color commentary.
Posted by lumi at 5:35 AM
Lawsuit asks Ratner: So, how much profit WILL you make on Atlantic Yards?
The Brooklyn Paper
By Gersh Kuntzman
A lawsuit against the Atlantic Yards mega-project now hinges on whether the state agency that approved the project can back up its claim that the development is a benefit to the public even if the agency never actually determined the profit that private developer Bruce Ratner is expected to reap.
In oral arguments in a case brought by nine residential and commercial owners and tenants who are facing forced eviction to make room for Ratner’s 22-acre project, plaintiff’s lawyer Matthew Brinckerhoff repeatedly argued that the state never examined whether Ratner’s profit was so large that the supposed public benefit of the basketball, office and residential development is merely “incidental.”
...
The plaintiffs’ case also hinges on Brinckerhoff’s reading of the state Constitution. In Monday’s arguments, he reiterated his contention that Article 18, section 6 of the state’s Constitution bars the use of public money from being allocated to an urban renewal project unless “the occupancy of any such project shall be restricted to persons of low income.”
The State's attorney argued that the State isn't required to review Ratner's profit and that blight clearance for low-income housing refered to in Article 18, section 6 doesn't apply, since "An arena and new infrastructure for the Long Island Rail Road are perfectly reasonable [uses] of state funding."
NoLandGrab: Without the actual transcript, it's hard to know if the State attorney actually managed to sidestep the last point.
Posted by lumi at 5:23 AM
Arena opponents: New York violated eminent domain laws
The Bergen Record
By John Brennan
During a 40-minute inquiry, the judges asked several questions of each side regarding a central tenet of the lawsuit: Did the Empire State Development Corp. — a New York state agency — properly weigh the public benefits of the project against the private benefits for Nets owner Bruce Ratner?
"They don't have to," ESDC attorney Charles Webb said of his client.
Webb added that state law merely requires that the project area be designated as blighted and that the project serve a public purpose. Webb's colleague, Philip Karmel, added that the construction of an 18,000-seat arena near downtown Brooklyn as well as the remaking of a blighted community was "an overwhelming public benefit."
But Matthew Brinckerhoff, the attorney for Goldstein and the other plaintiffs, said he was encouraged by the judges' questioning about what he called a "sweetheart deal for Ratner that could be worth billions." He said the judges could order ESDC to either complete a formal estimate of the private benefits or reveal what specifics they already have but have not made public.
Webb countered that almost a century of court decisions buttress his side's arguments.
The court dwelled just briefly on the ESDC's claim that Goldstein filed the state case only after striking out in federal court — long after such legal challenges could properly be brought in New York, Webb said.
The judges' decision is not expected for six to eight weeks.
Posted by lumi at 5:16 AM
N.Y. court hears objections to Nets arena
The Star-Ledger
Four Brooklyn judges heard arguments about whether New York violated its eminent domain laws when it approved the proposed Nets arena and housing project in Brooklyn, according to a report in the Record.
The report said judges inquired whether the Empire State Development Corp. needed to weigh the project's public benefits against the private benefits for Nets own Bruce Ratner.
The parties in the case offered sharply different predictions of the project's timeline, the report said. Daniel Goldstein, the lead plaintiff, predicted the Nets would not be able to break ground before 2010, while the Nets hope that construction can begin early summer.
NoLandGrab: To date, Goldstein's prognostications regarding the timeline have been more accurate than those of the Nets and Forest City Ratner.
Posted by lumi at 5:15 AM
At Supreme Atlantic Yards Hearing, Questions of Process
The NY Observer reporter Lydia DePillis attended yesterday's eminent domain hearing and filed a story which included this brief exchange:
In the 15-minute skirmish—the seventh of 16 hearings on the court's docket that morning, and easily the highlight—the petitioners and their ESDC respondents ran through their briefs as well as they could, interrupted frequently by questions from the bench.
ESDC attorney Charles Webb also didn't have much time to begin his argument before the panel's chair, Justice Robert Spolzino, asked him to respond directly to the petitioners on the question of whether ESDC should have dug deeper into the financial reward in store for Mr. Ratner (even if the project constitutes "public use," Ms. Levy and fellow plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff used case law to argue, public benefit should be considered in relative terms).
"Did they [ESDC] address private benefit?" Justice Spolzino wanted to know.
"I don't believe they did, because there was no reason to," Mr. Webb answered.
"They don't have to?"
"They don't have to."
The article also mentions that with a decision in the environmental review case pending and a possible appeal of the eminent domain case it will be difficult for Bruce Ratner to float the triple tax exempt bonds he needs for the project before the December 2009 federal eligibility deadline.
Posted by lumi at 4:58 AM
It came from the Blogosphere...
Reason "Hit and Run", "Nobody cared if Ratner was going to benefit to the tune of a trillion dollars or one billion"
The New York Observer reports that questions of transparency and favoritism loomed large: "Nobody cared if Ratner was going to benefit to the tune of a trillion dollars or one billion," [plaintiffs' attorney Matthew] Brinkerhoff said. "This is something that his company has zealously guarded for years."
Brownstoner, Atlantic Yards Case Starts in State Appeals Court Today
Eminent domain arguments aside, the [Atlantic Yards Report] post reminds us of what an untransparent, back-room deal the MTA deal was: First, the MTA announced it would sell to Ratner, then it went through the motions of issuing an RFP; when Extel Development bid $150 million for the Yards versus Ratner's $50 million, the MTA gave it to Ratner anyway. Nice.
In the comments section, "bkn4life" shares his own observations after attending the hearing.
Posted by lumi at 4:44 AM
February 23, 2009
TODAY: Eminent Domain Court Argument
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
The challenge, by nine brave home and business owners and tenants, to New York state's use of eminent domain to take the their properties for developer Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards development proposal will be argued in court on Monday, February 23.Forest City Ratner cannot build its floundering project without these plaintiffs’ properties.
Monday, February 23. 10am*
Supreme Court, State of New York. Appellate Division**, Second Department
45 Monroe Place. Brooklyn, NY.
Directions to the Court.The lawsuit was filed on August 1st, 2008 and fully briefed at the end of December. All briefs in Goldstein et al. v Empire State Development Corporation can be found here.
Posted by amy at 10:45 AM
Missing from Chuck Ratner's Atlantic Yards claim: blight--and hoops
Atlantic Yards Report
On February 13, after Gramercy Capital Corporation offered Forest City Ratner a crucial extension on a loan, Chuck Ratner, CEO of parent Forest City Enterprises told the New York Times, “This is a key step in our strategy of proactively managing our debt maturities. By working closely with Gramercy to secure this extension, we have put Atlantic Yards in a position to achieve the vision of economic revitalization, job creation and affordable housing for the future of Brooklyn.”
(Emphasis added)
What's missing from that statement?
First, the original Forest City Ratner slogan of "Jobs, Housing, and Hoops," one which by 2006 had already begun to downplay basketball for an emphasis on affordable housing. Now, the twin promises of economic revitalization" and "job creation" seem calibrated to the current zeitgeist.
Second, the primary (but not exclusive) official government goal of the Atlantic Yards project: blight removal.
Though Forest City Ratner has never emphasized an intention to remove blight--that's the goal of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC)--it surely has been on the mind of the developer.
...
But a lot of people (including some judges) looking at Atlantic Yards don't really believe the site is blighted. The issue is important, because blight claims are key to the eminent domain case being heard today.
Posted by lumi at 4:45 AM
February 21, 2009
Oral Argument in Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case Monday
Gowanus Lounge
In case you haven’t heard, oral arguments in the state eminent domain case concerning Atlantic Yards are being held on Monday, February 23. The hearing will take place in a session that starts at 10AM at the Supreme Court, State of New York; Appellate Division, Second Department; 45 Monroe Place. Brooklyn, NY. The case is seventh on the docket, so it could be a long time before the hearing starts. The case is known as Daniel Goldstein et al v Empire State Development Corporation. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It is the most significant piece of remaining litigation concerning Atlantic Yards, but not the only one.
Posted by amy at 2:10 PM
February 19, 2009
Flashback, 2005: Roger Green says AY area “not blighted;” academic says AY a far cry from Times Square blight
Atlantic Yards Report
There's much attention now on whether the proposed Atlantic Yards project will receive Federal stimulus funds, despite the widely acknowledged lack of benefits the project will return to the City and State. One way to have avoided this mess would have been for the State to acknowledge that there's no need to threaten use of eminent domain for a neighborhood that was already developing well economically without any special intervention. All involved would have done well to note former Assemblyman Roger Green who, despite being a project proponent, said that the project area is not blighted.
Anyone wishing to catch up on all the issues relating to eminent domain would do well to read as Norman Oder uses a look back at a 2005 public hearing to examine the issue of eminent domain and Atlantic Yards. It will be particularly useful as the Atlantic yards eminent domain case will have a hearing in State appellate court this Monday.
The blog entry ends with a quote from Develop Don't Destroy spokesman, Daniel Goldstein, who testified at the 2005 hearing.
Goldstein brought up the malleable definition of blight: “What’s troubling is if you call that area blighted a lot of Roger’s district could be called blighted.
Green responded with the money quote: “The area, for the record, the area is not blighted. For the record.”
“And I appreciate that, “ Goldstein continued. “And Roger is correct. Just this week, in the Real Deal real estate magazine there’s a glowing article about how booming that area is. One of the buildings… that was mentioned in that article was my building, which is a converted warehouse which six months after it opened and people moved in, this project came along. Within a year and a half, the building has emptied out. I’m glad to hear Roger say that. If blight can be used for this neighborhood, as you go eastward in Brooklyn you better watch out because it will just continue.”
Posted by steve at 6:39 AM
February 10, 2009
Little Pink House: the absorbing story behind the Kelo case (but not the legal complexities)
Atlantic Yards Report, Book Review
Jeff Benedict’s new book, Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage, comes with an additional subtitle, “One woman’s historic battle against eminent domain.”
So we know that the book will focus on the remarkable and enduring effort by Susette Kelo, a woman who stood up when redevelopment efforts in New London, CT, aimed at her hard-won home, and, with a handful of neighbors and the help of savvy lawyers, took the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court. And we get a hint that the book, though an impressively dramatic tale, barely sketches the bigger picture.
In the 2005 Supreme Court decision, the city won the battle--gaining permission to condemn a small piece [Parcel 4-A, below] of a 90-acre planned site--but lost the war, given the massive national backlash against eminent domain used for economic development and the significant, if mixed, responses by legislatures and courts in some 43 states to tighten eminent domain under state constitutions. And nothing's been built in New London.
...
Though Benedict has a law degree, the book can’t serve as a guide to the legal controversy. Most of the book focuses on the machinations and struggles leading up to the historic Supreme Court case, with virtually no analysis of the decision, and a brief reference to its impact. It’s as if Benedict was so worn out by reconstructing the fight that he punted on the fallout.
Posted by lumi at 5:48 AM
February 7, 2009
GREG DAVID WAITS FOR BOTTOM
Real Estate Bisnow
Despite the headline, this publication is "BIS now" not "Bi's now" as you might have thought. And AREW is the Association of Real Estate Women:
You didn't think Bisnow would forget about lunch, did you? We stopped by AREW's event yesterday at 101 Park to hear keynoter Greg David, editorial director of Crain's New York Business (with AREW prez Jennifer McCool of Moynihan Station Venture and Crain's Jill Kaplan). He's determining NYC's bottom by watching three things: Atlantic Yards, particularly the court's ruling on eminent domain and how Forest City Ratner will finance the project; West Side Rail Yards' delay and whether Related will close on the project; and his friend Mike, who moved from Merrill Lynch to a hedge fund—if he keeps his job, it means that the financials will get through this market.
Posted by amy at 11:34 AM
February 4, 2009
Eminent domain case set for oral argument February 23
Atlantic Yards Report
It's a date:
Well, a day after I wrote that no hearing had been scheduled in the Atlantic Yards state eminent domain case, the case was scheduled for Monday, February 23, in a court calendar that begins at 10 a.m.
The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, is at 45 Monroe Place in Brooklyn Heights.
Posted by lumi at 5:53 AM
February 1, 2009
Sunday irony: Pfizer sponsors segment on eminent domain abuse
Atlantic Yards Report
From the web site for the CBS show 60 Minutes: a 2003 segment on eminent domain, focusing on a case in Lakewood, OH, happens to be sponsored by Pfizer, a key beneficiary in the Kelo v. New London case, which, when the Supreme Court decided in 2005 for the city of New London, sparked a national backlash.
Posted by amy at 9:55 AM
January 31, 2009
THIS LAND IS MY LAND, YOUR LAND IS MY LAND
National Center for Policy Analysis
Source: Roger Meiners, "This Land is My Land, Your Land is My Land…" PERC Reports, Vol. 26, No. 4, December 2008.
Atlantic Yards -- a publicly subsidized multibillion dollar project in New York which includes public land, some "heavily blighted" private property and some "land with less blight" -- will house apartment and office buildings as well as the Barclay Center for the Brooklyn Nets. However, not everyone is excited, says Roger Meiners, professor of economics and law at the University of Texas at Arlington. Recently, property owners sued the governor, the mayor, the state, city agencies and private developers who had agreed that the plaintiffs must be forced to sell their land. Guess who won.To piece the land together, the developer and government created a coalition to overcome the squawking of those being booted out. Promises include:
-Creating an estimated 15,000 union construction jobs; 45 percent will be held by women and minorities.
-In an agreement with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), over half of the housing units will be rent controlled or sold at below-market rates to low-income buyers.Dispensing such goodies is the price of doing business in places like New York, says Meiners. The largess is borne, to the tune of $1 billion, by the taxpayers and, in part, by the property owners forced out at a price less than they were willing to accept. However, the court noted that judges may not intervene on behalf of the property owners "simply on the basis of our sympathies," and that this case follows precedent, including the much discussed Kelo case.
Yet, the Kelo decision shocked many people when they saw ordinary folks being booted out of their homes so a developer could get control of property, says Meiners. Due to the backlash, many states passed anti-takings legislation. However, some states allow an exception to use eminent domain to seize property for private development if there is "blight." As the court in the Atlantic Yards case noted, this is "merely the means to the end."
Posted by amy at 9:55 AM
January 28, 2009
Columbia Law School Eminent Domain Forum, Today
Susette Kelo, the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court eminent domain case Kelo vs. New London, and Jeff Benedict, author of Little Pink House, which chronicles the legal battle, will appear this evening at a forum hosted by the Columbia University School of Law's Federalist Society.
Also attending will be Nick Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-It-Away Self Storage, who is fighting Columbia University’s effort to take his generations-old family business to make way for a private development plan, and Sprayregen’s attorney, Norman Siegel, former Executive Director of the New York ACLU.
Wednesday, January 28th, 2009
4:30 p.m. — 6:00 p.m.
Columbia University School of Law
William & June Warren Hall
Amsterdam Avenue & West 115th Street
(Entrance on Amsterdam Avenue between 115th & 116th Streets)
Room L107 (on Lower Level)
#1 Subway to 116th Street [map]
Click Here for more info.
Posted by eric at 10:43 AM
January 27, 2009
Evicted, But Not Without a Fight
The government took her home. The Supreme Court approved.
The Wall St. Journal, Book Review
By Melanie Kirkpatrick
Enter Susette Kelo. Ms. Kelo is a classic American heroine -- the feisty little guy who takes on city hall and corporate fat cats in pursuit of a just cause. "Little Pink House," by Jeff Benedict, is her story. It opens on the day in 1997 when she fell in love with a Victorian fixer-upper overlooking Long Island Sound and plunked down her life savings to buy it. She was 40 and fleeing a troubled marriage. She had spotted the "for sale" sign on the cottage when she answered an emergency call in the neighborhood while on the job as an EMT worker.
A few months after Ms. Kelo moved into her dream house, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceutical company, announced plans to build a large research facility nearby. The state put up $100 million to upgrade the neighborhood. The city's development arm, run by a bulldozer of a woman who was also president of Connecticut College, moved quickly to buy out the local property owners. Ms. Kelo and a few others said no. The day before Thanksgiving in 2000 she came home from work to find an eviction notice on her front door; she had 90 days to vacate the premises.
Thus began the campaign of Ms. Kelo and several of her neighbors to save their homes.
This from the Institute for Justice:
Susette and author Jeff Benedict will hold a book forum at Columbia University on Jeff's new book, Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage. The book is available for purchase from Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Little-Pink-House-Defiance-Courage/dp/0446508624. We hope you will be able to make it, and be sure to check out the Wall Street Journal's review of this terrific book below.
Book Forum
Hosted by the Federalist Society
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2009
4:30pm - 6pm
Columbia University School of Law William & June Warren Hall
Amsterdam Avenue & W. 115th Street
(Entrance on Amsterdam Avenue between 115th & 116th)
Room L107 (on lower level)
New York, NY
Posted by lumi at 4:16 AM
January 22, 2009
It Came from the Blogosphere...
Brownstoner, Ratner Now Trying to Stiff the MTA
A week after the (not surprising) news that Forest City was "value engineering" its development plans for Atlantic Yards in an effort to cut costs, word comes that the developer is also trying to restructure the $100 million payment it committed to make to the MTA....
Noticing New York, Caroline Kennedy, in Our Defense Against Eminent Domain?: The Way it Might be
Michael D.D. White muses about how a Senator Caroline Kennedy might approach the issue of eminent domain, an issue now moot given her withdrawal from consideration for New York's junior senate seat.
Further, in Atlantic Yards you have perhaps the clearest possible example of a developer-initialed and -driven megadevelopment. In Atlantic Yards there is ample evidence of bad faith and incompetence on the part of the government in assisting that private enterprise and putting a particular private entity’s goals ahead of the public. That includes the way in which competitive bidding was avoided and the accommodations in structuring the project to make it the maximum possible subsidy sponge, despite what that means in terms of poor design and oppressive density. Since so much is being torn down and left vacant for so long, and since the subsidies are so great, the argument of any economic benefit is conspicuously undermined or totally nonexistent.
NYObserver.com, Columbia Expansion Holdout Sues To Block Eminent Domain
The owner of a set of storage buildings in West Harlem, Nick Sprayregen, has filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s use of eminent domain, he said this afternoon. The state has commenced actions to acquire the properties in connection with Columbia University’s planned 17-acre expansion in the area.
...Also in Harlem eminent domain-related news, a group of business owners in East Harlem has filed suit against the city in connection with the Bloomberg administration's plans to develop a large mixed-use project along 125th Street. In claims laid out in the press release here and the lawsuit here, the group argues that the city is violating a number of provisions associated with the urban renwal area where the site is based (including the fact that a large number of the planned apartments be market-rate).
BrooklynPaper.com, Cartoonist has gone country
[Brooklyn-based country crooner Andy] Friedman lives in Prospect Heights, near Freddy’s Bar, the Prohibition-era tavern that is slated to be torn down for Bruce Ratner’s basketball arena. The bar appears in a mournful song on Friedman’s forthcoming CD, “Weary Things,” which will be unveiled at Friedman’s Jan. 29 show at Southpaw. This week, he traded bons-mots with GO Brooklyn.
...GO: The most overtly local song is “Freddy’s Backroom.” It’s bittersweet. But isn’t the story of our borough and our city that we simply pave over the old, even if history gets lost in the name of progress?
AF: I don’t think that song is a protest song, or an anti-Ratner song. Heck, I’ve shopped at Target. But I love those bars and I’m entitled to lament. That’s all it is. I wrote that song sitting at the bar on a stack of beer coasters one night, just looking around, and thinking that soon it will be gone.
NoLandGrab: Gone? With Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project looking ever so shaky, Friedman might have to one day rewrite that tune to give it an ever-so-rare-in-country-music happy ending.
Curbed, Now Mr. Bruce Doesn't Want to Pay Mr. Sander & the MTA
Any day now, we expect a story about how the Atlantic Yards project has come across a new construction process that will allow everything to made from popsicle sticks and super glue, slashing the cost by 99.5 percent, with the remaining .5 percent coming from piggy banks stored at an undisclosed location on the outskirts of Cleveland. Ah, but we jest.
City Room Blog [NY Times], Housing & Economy
Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards project is in such financial upheaval that the developer is now trying to cut back on much-needed transit improvements, which he promised in exchange for approval for the $4 billion project. Sources said the developer, Bruce C. Ratner, is in talks with the cash-poor Metropolitan Transportation Authority about cutting costs on a revamp and move of the Long Island Rail Road’s Vanderbilt railyards, which he agreed to buy three years ago for $100 million. [New York Post]
NJ.com, Atlantic Yards developer seeks to cut transit costs
Gothamist, Ratner May Scale Back Atlantic Yards Transit Upgrades
Posted by eric at 11:13 AM
Willets Point Not Vanishing Yet
Castle Watch Daily
This item notes that Willets Point is the next hot spot for those concerned with eminent domain abuse. For now, the proposed Atlantic Yards project is "stalled".
Now that Atlantic Yards has stalled and Columbia’s expansion has gone to court, the focus of eminent domain activists shifts to Willets Point in Queens. The 45-acre area employs thousands of highly-skilled workers, and generates billions of dollars in economic activity and millions in tax revenue for the city - yet for decades, the city has refused to supply the area with basic municipal services like garbage collection, plumbing and electricity.
One of the businesses most active in opposing eminent domain for private gain is Bono’s Sawdust, a family business owned by Jake Bono. Jeremiah’s Vanishing New York has tracked the Bonos’ plight for some time with an interview, photos and video.
Posted by steve at 8:04 AM
January 16, 2009
Nonfiction Reviews — 10/13/2008
Publishers Weekly
The story of New London's epic eminent domain battle merits a starred review in Publishers Weekly.
Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage Jeff Benedict. Grand Central, $26.99 (416p) ISBN 978-0-446-50862-9
Benedict (The Mormon Way of Doing Business) has taken a complicated court case centered on eminent domain and turned it into a page-turner with a conscience. In 1997, an EMT named Susette Kelo left her husband, bought a cottage and started over in the economically depressed Ft. Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. In February 1998, the New London Development Corporation began trying to muscle the neighborhood into selling homes to make way for a Pfizer research complex. Benedict's passionate account is rife with heroes and villains—he delights in pillorying Kelo's foil, Claire Gaudiani, the president of Connecticut College who lured Pfizer to consider New London. The fight escalated when the city tried exercising eminent domain to seize the homes of Kelo and others who refused to sell, leading to the case, Kelo v. City of New London, reaching the Supreme Court in 2005. Raising important questions about the use of economic development as a justification for displacing citizens, this book will leave readers indignant and inspired.
link (scroll down)
NoLandGrab: While we strongly urge you to patronize your local independent bookseller, for those of you without easy access to a neighborhood book store, Little Pink House is available from Amazon.com.
Posted by eric at 12:31 PM
January 12, 2009
Eminent Domain Is Density
Noticing New York
Michael D. D. White makes a point that has so far been overlooked in the conversation about the use of eminent domain for property transfer from one private owner to another in an urban environment... it inevitably leads to greater density and all of the attendant issues.
It does not seem to be an accident that density and the use of eminent domain coincide in the following examples of recent and proposed NYC development:
- The Bank of America Tower, the second tallest building in New York (6th Avenue and West 42nd Street. Year of completion 2009)
The New York Times Tower, which is tied with Chrysler Building for third place as the third tallest building in New York (8th Avenue between West 41st Street and 40th Street. Year of completion 2007)
The proposed 22-acre Atlantic Yards megadevelopment which, calculated on a per square mile basis, would be twice as dense as the densest census tract in the country. (Though the 22 contiguous acres of the megadevelopment should certainly be considered as a whole, the 22 acres do not constitute a single census tract since the span of acreage spans partakes in four different districts. See: Ratner Will Bring Us Closer Together, by Matthew Schuerman in the Observer, October 5, 2006. The project area unto itself is substantial: Though the project design involves discredited superblocking, its footprint could readily constitute 10 city blocks if it were better laid out.)
...Eminent domain is being used as the tool to shoehorn in density that would not be achievable under normal circumstances. The fact that these three examples are current era projects separated by only a few years bespeaks something of the new proclivity to use eminent domain to force private owners to transfer their property to other private owners. Often the transfers being forced involve the new, after-transfer owners making similar or identical use of the land as the original owners even though the original owners’ actual buildings might be torn down.
Posted by lumi at 5:00 AM
December 24, 2008
2008: Year in Review
The Campaign for Community-Based Planning posted the 2008 "the good," "the bad," and "the ongoing." Bruce Ratner's five-year-old Atlantic Yards megaproject threat made the top of the ongoing-and-going-and-going list, with other eminent domain abuses following close behind:
The Ongoing
Atlantic Yards: 2008 marked the fifth year since the Atlantic Yards project was announced. The spring and summer were busy times: local organizations held a rally opposing the project, and the Municipal Art Society imagined a partial buildout of the site as Atlantic Lots. In response, developer Bruce Ratner manufactured a pro-Atlantic Yards rally. By August, the footprint was a mess, the stadium opening date was pushed back again, and nine property owners were challenging the state’s proposed use of eminent domain in State Supreme Court. In September, the State Supreme Court rejected the ESDC’s motion to throw out the case, which will now be heard in spring 2009. Most recently, Ratner stopped all work at the site, citing the ongoing lawsuit and the financial meltdown, and local organizations called for an audit of public funding spent on the development.
Eminent Domain: A major issue in 2008, eminent domain came up regarding Atlantic Yards, Columbia University’s expansion into Manhattanville, and in the City’s redevelopment of Willets Point. In September, the Community-Based Planning Task Force testified for state senators who are examining eminent domain policy at the state level.
Posted by lumi at 5:07 AM
December 21, 2008
As Columbia plan gets approved, a fight over blight and eminent domain emerges
Atlantic Yards Report looks at the Columbia plan's approval, and an article in the Weekly Standard by Jonathan V. Last:
Last thinks, as did AY opponents in their case, that the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London case may have an impact on the Columbia case. No, Sprayregen won't be able to establish that the ESDC was engaged in “impermissible favoritism” toward Columbia, given that such a designation is much more likely in a trial court. (That's why the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn-organized lawsuit was first filed in federal court.)Last thinks Sprayregen can argue that Columbia’s plan, unlike that endorsed in Kelo, is not “comprehensive” because Columbia has not made firm plans for the site. I'm not so sure; I suspect that the state will argue that the framework, at least, is comprehensive, and courts will defer to that.
And while courts have readily agreed to included non-blighted property to create contiguous sites, writes Last:
the Court has not been confronted with a case in which the neighborhood blight was directly caused by the party seeking the benefit of eminent domain.
Posted by amy at 11:10 AM
December 18, 2008
M'ville Expansion Clears Last Major Hurdle, State Approves Eminent Domain
Columbia Spectator
by Kim Kirschenbaum & Maggie Astor
Denied their own holiday cheer, the Empire State Development Corporation has placed large lumps of coal in the stockings of Manhattanville property owners in the path of Columbia University.
Making room for Columbia's Manhattanville campus expansion, the Empire State Development Corporation unanimously voted to invoke eminent domain on private commercial properties in the project area.
The state's decision on Thursday, will allow the state to seize land from two holdouts who have not struck property deals with the University. In exchange, the landowners--Nick Sprayregen, the owner of Tuck-It-Away Storage, and the Singh family, which operates two gas stations in Manhattanville--will receive market rate compensation.
Through the ESDC's invocation of eminent domain, the state will take over these commercial properties and then transfer ownership to Columbia, with an understanding that the land can be put to better civil use by the University. Columbia has said it needs control of all the land in its development site in order to build the campus expansion according to the plans approved by the New York City Council last year.
...Though the ESDC has voted in favor of eminent domain, the battle may still be far from over. Sprayregen said that he and his lawyer "have already begun our preparations for the next step, which will be to file our petition contesting the findings of eminent domain." He added later, "I will have no choice but protect the interests of my family to the very best of my ability. I am cautiously optimistic that we will prevail in the courts."
Posted by eric at 2:52 PM
December 15, 2008
Bansal, attorney for ESDC in Atlantic Yards case, is on Obama's short list for Solicitor General, the "Tenth Justice"
Atlantic Yards Report
Now that President-elect Barack Obama has appointed New Yorkers Shaun Donovan and Adolfo Carrion (much more controversially) to become, respectively, secretary of the department of Housing and Urban Development and head of the new White House Office of Urban Policy, the latter two might offer support to the policies and project of the Bloomberg administration, including Atlantic Yards.
A third New Yorker is also up for a key job with Obama and, while the position almost surely would have nothing to do with AY, she's had a close and controversial relationship the legal battles over the project.
On the president-elect's short list for Solicitor General, who has primary and mostly independent responsibility for presenting the Government's case to the Supreme Court, is Preeta Bansal, a former New York State Solicitor General (supervising 40-50 appellate submissions per week), a member of his transition team, and the lead attorney representing the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) in appeals court.
Norman Oder examines Bansal's arguments in the federal appeal of the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case and finds some questionable assertions, which may (or may not, but still may) be cause for concern.
Posted by lumi at 5:54 AM
December 8, 2008
The flexing of 'domain' power
the ticker [Baruch College]
by Ilda Rastoder
Fast-forward to the 21st century and the Supreme Court revisits the public use debate in the case of Kelo v New London in 2005, where the state used eminent domain "for the purposes of economic development."
The court ruled the use of eminent domain constitutional for private economic development, broadening the public use requirement, slightly altering its previous conservative position. Justice Stevens stated that a narrow definition of public use has "steadily eroded over time" and is "impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society." After being tested by the Berman, Midkiff and Kelo cases, eminent domain has given the green light to private developers such as Bruce Ratner and Columbia University to pursue their "public" expansion projects.
NoLandGrab: And, man oh man, does society ever need a new billion-dollar basketball arena.
Posted by eric at 1:27 PM
December 5, 2008
On Dean Street, a slide show shows blight
Atlantic Yards Report ran the slideshow we compiled of photos by Tracy Collins, showing how developers can create blight in the name of "blight removal," thus fulfilling predictions made by Norman Oder and others.
NoLandGrab: Sadly, this is typical of eminent domain-abusing large-scale megaprojects.
Posted by lumi at 5:27 AM
Will It Come? What the Bloomberg Administration Wills at Willets Point
Noticing New York blogger Michael D. D. White is a curious mix of lawyer and urban planner with expertise in the public and private sector.
Today White posted a four-part series on Willets Point, which like Atlantic Yards, is a case study of the coercive use of eminent domain to clear way for a Xanadu-like megaproject, oops... we mean "the next great neighborhood." White explores the decision making and environmental review process, the effect of Taxpayer Field (aka Citifield), the benefit to the developer of upzoning, the story behind jobs, and the politics of "affordable housing" (including our foresight on ACORN's conversion).
For those of you trying to get caught up on the politics and planning behind Willets Point, this is a must read that contains information and analysis that you'll never find in the mainstream media.
Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV
Posted by lumi at 4:51 AM
November 30, 2008
Eminent Domain abuse is nothing more than theft
Juniper Park Civic Association
In New York City, under the Bloomberg administration, the evil aspect of eminent domain is thrusting itself into every neighborhood in the City from Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn to Sunnyside Yards and the proposed Willets Point Project in Queens. And let us not forget Manhattan where New York State forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And, what went up - a courthouse, a school? Nope, the new New York Times Building. This was an instant case; where the original owner’s rights, all the investments, and the expectation that the original owner’s children would inherit, all disappeared.I believe that most knowledgeable people would agree that once the shroud of eminent domain cast its shadow over any neighborhood the concept of fair market value or just compensation is a fraud. The Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, which includes building a new stadium for the New Jersey Nets basketball team, is an example of theft.
Posted by amy at 8:24 AM
November 28, 2008
Eminent domain cloud darkens Bay Ridge neighborhood
NY Daily News
by Jotham Sederstrom
The poster project for eminent domain abuse, Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards, finds its way into this story about a more nuanced dispute over best public use in another section of Brooklyn.
A plan to build a public school in Bay Ridge has drawn the ire of several Fourth Ave. property owners whose land could be seized under eminent domain, officials said. The move to clear land for the 480-seat school would mark the first time the School Construction Authority has had to resort to the controversial move of seizing private land for a government project.
"We're still in negotiations, but we also are prepared to initiate eminent domain proceedings so we don't lose time," said spokeswoman Margie Feinberg, who could not recall another instance of land seizure being used for a school project.
The possibility of eminent domain - which is typically used for projects that would benefit the public - has put plans for a grocery store and medical center on hold for the swath of Fourth Ave. between 88th and 89th Sts.
"There's no question that a school is a quintessential public use," said attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff, who has represented residents threatened by the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards project in Prospect Heights.
"Having said that, as a matter of good policy, [the School Construction Authority] should target a spot that doesn't already have another public purpose in mind."
Posted by eric at 9:54 AM
November 25, 2008
Eminent domain case speeded up, might be heard in January
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder reports on a timetable shift in the state eminent domain case that might explain a recent comment by Nets CEO Brett Yormark:
Well, the Atlantic Yards state eminent domain case will be heard on a faster track than first envisioned. On September 29, I predicted that final briefs would be due in late February, with a hearing sometime after that. That implied a decision no sooner than May or June.
The state appellate court, however, on its own accord changed the schedule, with the nine petitioners required to file their brief by this Friday, November 28. That means that the defendant Empire State Development Corporation has to respond by December 19 and that the petitioners' reply brief is due December 29.
Decision by March?
While no hearing has yet been scheduled, the timetable leaves open the possibility of a January hearing. And while a decision might come by March, that doesn't mean that Atlantic Yards backers would "get through litigation, some time in March," as New Jersey Nets CEO Brett Yormark said last week.
The losing side--most likely the petitioners, because the case is a long shot--would inevitably file an appeal, which could require several more months. And other litigation may persist or arise.
Posted by lumi at 5:41 AM
November 14, 2008
Blight's hard to find: why Mike Bloomberg could never work for AKRF
Atlantic Yards Report
Mayor Mike Bloomberg has started backing away from claims that Willets Point is blighted. “To take an area which, it’s not fair to say it’s blighted,” he told NY1, as quoted in Crain's and cited by DDDB. “It’s seen its better days is a fair way to phrase it.”
Well, Willets Point is pretty rough--unpaved, no sewers, remember--though the city should take the lion's share of the blame.
But it's curious how unpaved Willets Point has "seen its better days" but a small but well-kept house (the fifth one in) in the Atlantic Yards footprint drawn by Forest City Ratner is, according to consultant AKRF's report for the Empire State Development Corporation, blighted because it doesn't fulfill 60% of allowable development rights.
NoLandGrab: We wonder if Mayor Bloomberg would testify on the behalf of any remaining property owners, if they try to make their case that their property isn't blighted.
Posted by lumi at 5:47 AM
November 13, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
Too many Willets Point stories for us to list them all, but here's a sampling.
Crain's NY Business, Deal struck on Willets Point redevelopment
Mr. Monserrate also was satisfied that the city would not abuse eminent domain to condemn land in the project footprint.
...The agreement is a blow to Willets Point landowners who have yet to agree on a sale price with the city. The Willets Point Industry & Realty Association, a group of the 10 largest land and business owners in Willets Point, Queens, released a statement that said many substantial businesses on the site have not begun or concluded negotiations. "We feel the announcement today on agreements reached at Willets Point are premature," the group said.
While the city maintains that it has been fair with its offers and relocation assistance, and hopes not to use eminent domain, the mayor said, "Having that threat there gets everybody focused."
NoLandGrab: Sure, Councilman Monserrate, eminent domain won't be abused.
Crain's NY Business, Greg David: Willets Pt. another Bloomberg victory
NY Post, WILLETS POINT SHAKEDOWN
Outgoing City Councilman Hiram Monserrate and some particularly dubious allies have succeeded in squeezing City Hall for a "community benefit" agreement requiring a vast tract of low-income housing to be included in whatever ultimately rises at Willets Point.
"Community benefit," of course, is a euphemism for "legal shakedown."
NY Daily News, Willets Point deal set for Council OK
One of the balking owners, Jake Bono, vowed to take his fight to court.
"What's going on here is a giant land grab," he said. "The mayor and the City Council ain't going to be the ones to dictate me off my land. It's going to be a guy in a little black robe and a wooden hammer."
Gothamist, Monserrate Paves the Way for Willets Point Plan's Passage
Not all of Monserrate’s constituents were happy with his announcement—some local business owners painted over his name on his campaign bus.
Queens Tribune, Opponents Flip On Willets Point Plan
Not everyone is finding reason to celebrate.
Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside) spent all day cloistered inside City Hall, only receiving word of the deal three hours after it was announced. He may have been the last to know, but it changed little.
“I’m still opposed. It still doesn’t address the main issue, which is eminent domain,” he said. “Let’s spend a couple hundred million dollars to buy out property and take the rest. Where’s the American dream in that?”
WNYC's The Brian Lehrer Show, Boom Town
The City Council is expected to approve the redevelopment of Willets Point today. Carlos Canal, owner of Flushing Towing, explains why he sold his property, while Jake Bono of Bono Sawdust Supply opposes the plan.
Then, WNYC's Matthew Shuerman on why the city is moving ahead with the project and the status of Atlantic Yards and other developments.
Posted by eric at 7:09 PM
Willets Point Makeover Has Locals Crying Foul
Small Business Owners Say City Councilman Made Sweetheart Deal With Mayor And Then Sold Them All Out
WCBS-TV
Willets Point, Queens is about to get a complete overhaul.
But a group claiming to represent 250 small businesses says the city councilman who traded affordable housing in exchange for the overhaul sold them out in the process.
...The Willets Point scrap metal/chop shop/auto body area is in the shadow of the new ballpark the Mets are building. And it's no coincidence that after decades of neglect, businesses and apartments will suddenly be built there. But the Willets Point group said the trade off Monserrate negotiated in getting 35 percent of the 5,500 homes for affordable housing does not help them. And the $3 million these 250 small businesses are being offered to divide among themselves in exchange for getting out --- they say is an insult.
Posted by eric at 2:51 PM
City Council Caves, Supports Willets Point Eminent Domain
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
DDDB runs down the selling out of Willets Point property owners.
The City Council and Bloomberg administration have reached agreement to approve the Willets Point rezoning plan which is dependent on the threat, use, and abuse of eminent domain.
Led by councilman Hiram Monserrate, a majority of councilmembers had said they would oppose the rezoning unless there was an improved "affordable" housing plan and eminent domain was taken off the table. Crains quoted Monserrate in September:
“I look forward to finally having an open discussion and solution on the issues that the administration has so far not resolved—guaranteed affordable housing, fair-market compensation and relocation plans, traffic mitigation plans and a commitment to take eminent domain off the table," Mr. Monserrate said in a statement.
(Emphasis added)But on the day before the Council's vote on the project, Monserrate, Speaker Quinn, ACORN's Bertha Lewis and Mayor Mike Bloomberg (according the Times "an improbable cast of allies," even though the selling out came like clockwork) announced an affordable housing deal and that the "rezoning" of Willets Point—including the right for the City to threaten and use eminent domain—would pass in a planned Thursday vote.
No mention was made about taking eminent domain off the table. It is still there.
Posted by eric at 2:35 PM
Willets Point Project Foes Reach Deal With the City
The New York Times
by Fernanda Santos
Two of the leading opponents of the Willets Point redevelopment project in Queens came out in favor of the plan on Wednesday, after they reached a critical deal with the city over the number of homes for low-income families that will be built at the site.
The agreement calls for more than 800 homes for families earning less than $38,400 a year and essentially paves the way for the project’s approval by the City Council on Thursday. The agreement is a major political victory for one of the opponents, Councilman Hiram Monserrate, and for the Bloomberg administration, which spent considerable time and money in recent weeks to arrange support for the plan.
“This is a project for the people,” said Councilman Monserrate, who represents a district that includes Willets Point, a 62-acre expanse of auto body shops, junkyards and manufacturers on unpaved roads near Shea Stadium. “Everybody wins,” he said.
...The agreement was announced on Wednesday at a news conference at City Hall that brought together what days ago would have been an improbable cast of allies.
On hand were Mr. Monserrate and Bertha Lewis, chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, which Mr. Monserrate had enlisted in opposing the project’s housing levels and the city’s plan to take over privately owned property by eminent domain. At their side were Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the city’s deputy mayor for economic development, Robert C. Lieber, who worked late into the night on Tuesday to arrange the deal.
NoLandGrab: "Everybody wins?" Not quite. Despite Councilman Monserrate's one-time insistence that the City not use eminent domain, many Willets Point property owners haven't even begun negotiations with the City. With the project approved by the City Council, those property owners will have zero leverage when negotiating the sale of their properties, and if they don't want to sell, then what? Yup, eminent domain seizures.
As for Acorn's role, bringing them in to help oppose eminent domain is — based on their role with Atlantic Yards — a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Posted by eric at 10:09 AM
November 8, 2008
Willets Point down to the wire
Crain's
Daniel Massey
With less than a week remaining before the City Council votes on the contentious Willets Point redevelopment project, the Bloomberg administration has made some progress on buying up land at the Queens site. But it’s still unclear if the city has the votes it needs to see the measure pass. To prevail, it may have to strike additional deals on land and one on affordable housing.
...
A majority of Council members have vowed to reject the proposal Thursday over concerns about use of eminent domain and lack of affordable housing. City officials have intensified efforts in recent weeks to tilt the members’ opinions in favor of the plan.Last week, Mayor Michael Bloomberg met personally with each borough’s Council delegation to press his case. The mayor and his staff also met with some Council members individually. Opponents of the project say the delegation meetings were unprecedented and indicate the mayor is worried he doesn’t have the votes to get the project passed.
“That’s never been done before,” said a Willets Point Realty and Industry Association spokeswoman. “In his seven years, the mayor never once did it, not on congestion pricing, not on term limits. If they had the votes, they wouldn’t have dragged him out.”
Posted by amy at 7:45 AM
November 5, 2008
Eminent domain question approved
AP/Las Vegas Review-Journal
Nevada voters on Tuesday approved a constitutional amendment limiting use of eminent domain and rejected giving state lawmakers more authority over regulating sales and use taxes.
Voters approved Question 2, a constitutional amendment that restricts use of eminent domain.
The ballot question passed once already, in 2006, with strong voter support after being put on the ballot by those seeking reform to the eminent domain process.
The initiative would make it illegal for state and local governments to force property owners to sell land for use in private projects. Such seizures for public works would remain legal, but they would face new hurdles.
NoLandGrab: Nevada's constitution requires that an amendment pass in two consecutive elections in order to become law; this amendment previously carried in 2006.
Posted by eric at 11:06 AM
November 3, 2008
Still Looking for a Chance to Vote on Eminent Domain Abuse
Noticing New York
When polls show that 95% of Americans agree that eminent domain should not be used for transfer of private property to another private owner, why have politicians left this hot-button issue on the table? Michael D. D. White calls some state senate campaigns to see what they're saying.
Posted by lumi at 5:17 AM
October 29, 2008
MAS to Hold CLE Course on Eminent Domain
This news about a legal ed course on eminent domain comes to us via, The Campaign for Community-Based Planning:
For the lawyers out there: on Monday, November 3 at 8:30 am, the Municipal Art Society is holding a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) course, titled “Public Use After Kelo: The Continuing Debate Over 5th Amendment Takings Jurisprudence.”
This course will discuss the evolution of the public use clause of the 5th Amendment, tracing its evolution up through the Supreme Court’s now famous 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Panelists include Matthew Brickerhoff, who argued for the plantiffs in Goldstein vs. Pataki, the eminent domain case dealing with the Altantic Yards development.
The panel will revisit Kelo, as well as the implications of Justice Stevens’ reminder that “nothing in [the Court’s] opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.” Panelists will discuss legislative responses to the Supreme Court’s ruling, as well as recent public use litigation in state and lower federal courts. The program will conclude with a discussion of what changes, if any, should be made to New York’s own law of eminent domain.
Posted by lumi at 6:58 PM
AMONG HEARTLAND HOMAGES, POLS ADDRESS URBAN ISSUES
One party has stated opposition to the US Supreme Court Kelo decision, which upheld the use of eminent domain for economic development.
In New York and other cities, the use of eminent domain to clear land for economic development is always controversial, be it at Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn or on the area in West Harlem where Columbia University wants to create a new campus. In their platform, Republicans weigh in on the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, which permits governments to take land for private uses. "That 5-to-4 decision highlights what is at stake in the election of the next president, who may make new appointments to the Court," the platform reads. "We call on state legislatures to moot the Kelo decision by appropriate legislation, and we pledge on the federal level to pass legislation to protect against unjust federal takings."
NoLandGrab: Too bad VP candidate Sarah Palin couldn't remember this plank in her interview with Katie Couric; it would have scored her big points, despite her own record of abuse during her tenure as Mayor of Wasilla.
Even though eminent domain abuse is one of the few issues that crosses party lines, the silence of the Democratic party and the lip-service paid by the GOP indicates who really calls the shots in Washington.
Posted by lumi at 5:13 AM
October 23, 2008
Brooklyn's Top 50 Most Influential No. 21 - 30
Brownstoner
Two superheroines of the fight against the Atlantic Yards land grab made Brownstoner's 21-30 list:
23. Whether it be Atlantic Yards, Admirals Row or the proposed homeless intake center in Crown Heights, City Councilwoman Letitia James comes out with a position early and often, and fights for it while other local elected officials sit on the sidelines measuring the political climate. She's managed to come out as a leader for multiple factions of her diverse constituency, has been known to offer free legal assistance to causes she believes in, and is a tough interrogator at City Council hearings. Her office recently launched a blog called "Team Tish."
27. Joy Chatel tirelessly fought to save her home, which a national network of historians believe was involved in the Underground Railroad, from eminent domain ... and actually won. Now the city must build its underground parking garage and public plaza around her home. Without Chatel, hundreds of pages of history on Brooklyn's role in the abolitionism movement would not have been written. As a concession, the city has already agreed to commemorate Brooklyn's abolitionist movement in the planned plaza. And if Chatel succeeds in her dream, the home will be turned into a museum, an unplanned addition to the glitzy Downtown Brooklyn overhaul.
Posted by lumi at 6:16 AM
October 7, 2008
Meltdown gives
MetroNY
By Patrick Arden
While Mayor Bloomberg is still making plans for Willets Point that don't include anybody who is currently working there, ACORN protests for more affordable housing in the project.
However, one local housing advocate takes a broader view:
“There are times when big projects make sense, but then there are times when you have to rethink your strategy,” said Brad Lander of the Pratt Center for Community Development. “With Willets Point, they seem to be killing 1,500 non-Wall Street jobs for an outdated vanity project that’s not going to happen.”
From one land grab to another: "An outdated vanity project" never makes sense... especially when it's "not going to happen."
Posted by lumi at 6:12 AM
October 6, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
|
Queen's Chronicle, Willets Pt. owners fear eminent domain threat
Mayor Bloomberg's plans for Willets Point do not include this business owner, as the city's attempts to find another location for the business have proved futile: |
“If we get thrown out through eminent domain, then who’s to say you’re not next?” asked Jack Bono, who now heads Bono Sawdust Supply Co., with his son, Jake. “This kind of thing is done in other countries, not here.”
The Bonos own one-quarter of an acre on 127th Place and rent another quarter acre nearby for their operation that specializes in turning sawdust into a sweeping compound used in the construction trade and for animal bedding used by local stables, race tracks and the circus. It is the only such business remaining in New York City, they said.
The business is located in the 60-acre Willets Point area of Corona and Flushing that the city wants to develop into a $3 billion mixed-use project. The plan would require all businesses there to leave.
The city has promised to try and find them other locations, but so far has failed to locate anything comparable to the Bono’s current site. “They showed us two storefronts and a huge area in another borough,” said Jake Bono. “Our life is here in Queens. Where are we going to move?”
NY Newsday, Babylon seeks eminent domain on Wyandanch site
Wyandanch's downtown revitalization plans don't include this small business owner:
One reluctant seller, Moo S. Kwon, didn't want to move his 6-year-old beauty supply store from its current location at 1567 Straight Path, a desirable spot in the heart of the business corridor. However, Kwon said he felt he didn't have a choice after receiving a letter from Town Attorney Paul J. Margiotta indicating that the town was prepared to seize his property without his consent.
...
As a small-business owner, Kwon doesn't have the resources to fight Babylon in court if the government condemned his property."I have no choice," Kwon said. "What are we going to do?"
...
Kwon agreed to sell the property, which is more than 11,000 square feet, to Babylon for $420,000. The town, however, did not compensate him for his business."That's unfair," Kwon said.
Posted by eric at 5:33 AM
October 5, 2008
"Sitt"ing Not So Pretty
Noticing New York takes on the missing parts of the NY Times article "Failed Deals Replace Boom in New York Real Estate":
Not mentioned in the Times list of large-scale ambitious projects that are surely going to take longer to start and to complete than expected is the Atlantic Yards megadevelopment. This unnecessarily huge project already assails the community with an inordinately protracted development schedule. The schedule will be more protracted still. Unless the megadevelopment is replaced by something more appropriately designed and scaled, decades of blight will befall the adjoining communities. Again, as with nearly all eminent domain-abusing projects, it is an example of blight of our own making.If the Atlantic Yards project had never been undertaken, the newly renovated and expensive co-ops and condominiums within its speculative footprint would be fully and productively occupied just like the adjacent Newswalk development. In contrast to the lumbering Atlantic Yards besetting the community during these many recent boom years, without Atlantic Yards, the example of these successful cooperatives and condominiums developments would have been followed by other developments. Propelled by the boom of these past years the elegant white terra cotta Ward Bakery building, also within the speculative footprint, would no doubt have been landmarked: It would be well on it way to exciting the community with creative adaptative reuse.
Posted by amy at 9:57 AM
October 4, 2008
She Read the Cliffsnotes?
Talking Points Memo presents a Fox News clip of Sarah Palin making up for her original heedeous non-answer to the question of which Supreme Court cases she disagreed with. Kelo vs. New London makes an appearance in her new answer, but considering that she abused eminent domain in her tenure as mayor, her answer here may surprise you.
Ok, we won't leave you in suspense. Here's her answer as reported on Politico:
Also, eminent domain. That affects me as a governor and as a mayor as well. private property rights are so precious in this nation and for the Supreme Court to have sided with government, instead of the people, the property owners, that was frustrating.
Well, gee, Sarah, how do you explain this?
Posted by amy at 10:00 AM
October 2, 2008
Atlantic Yards Opponents Pleased With Court’s Denial of Motion
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
Associated Press, with additional reporting by Ryan Thompson
Borough President Marty Markowitz said that he is disappointed by the recent denial of the motion to dismiss the eminent domain suit filed by opponents of Atlantic Yards.
“I truly believe that in the current economy, Brooklyn needs the kind of investment that Atlantic Yards will bring, the union jobs and affordable housing it will create. Projects like this one are catalysts for job creation and growth, and Atlantic Yards is a very important part of the effort to help Downtown Brooklyn, which is so well-served by public transit, become the kind of live-work hub and center of cultural life that our borough of 2.5 million has long deserved.”
NoLandGrab: Unfortunately, Marty will exploit anything in order to justify Bruce Ratner's controversial Atlantic Yards project.
Brooklyn Downtown Star, Atlantic Yards Suit Has Merit, Court Says
Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards may be facing serious legal trouble, as the state’s move to dismiss the case was denied by a State Appellate Court.
...
The ESDC tried to dismiss the property owners’ case, but was unsuccessful in their attempts, and will have until October 15 to file their response.
Posted by lumi at 4:59 AM
October 1, 2008
Déjà delay all over again, redux (Part deux)
Here are two more online items on the latest Atlantic Yards hold-up, delay, stall, et cetera, et cetera...
Reason (blog), Eminent Domain Abuse on Hold in Brooklyn
Back in June, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a previous Atlantic Yards case, Goldstein v. Pataki, which had challenged the eminent domain use on Fifth Amendment grounds. While the afflicted property owners were hardly thrilled at the High Court's refusal to take their case, lead attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff promised to take the fight to state court, declaring, "New York State law, and the state constitution, prohibit the government from taking private homes and businesses simply because a powerful developer demands it."
Today he scored his first victory. Here's hoping it isn't the last.
Campaign for Community-Based Planning, Atlantic Yards Opponents Will Get Their Day in Court After All
The lawsuit claims that Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project violates the New York State Constitution’s public use, due process and equal protection clauses, as well as low-income resident requirements. According to DDDB, the Court’s decision means that oral arguments will be heard in the case sometime in March or April, with a decision then expected between late spring and fall 2009.
This is a major setback for developer Bruce Ratner, who recently told the New York Times that he planned to break ground in December. The project cannot move forward without using eminent domain. In addition, according to the Times, Ratner has brokered a contract with Barclays Bank that would provide $20 million a year for naming rights to the arena. This contract requires FCR to close on the land and secure the financing by the end of November.
Posted by lumi at 6:49 AM
September 30, 2008
Déjà delay all over again, redux
The stories about more Atlantic Yards delays just keep on comin'.
Gothamist, Atlantic Yards Project Further Delayed By State Court
In light of yesterday's ruling, Ratner says the groundbreaking "may" be delayed another six months. The developer is also waiting for the IRS to rule on whether he can use tax exempt bonds to pay for the $1 billion arena, which he intends to build first. He's also struggling to line up financing for the rest of the $4 billion project, doesn't have an anchor tenant for the office tower, and city officials have not shown much enthusiasm about his recent request for $100 million more in taxpayer subsidies.
Curbed, Atlantic Yards 'Will Go Forward'
Bruce Ratner declares "let me be clear," yadda, yadda, "will go forward," yadda, yadda, "all the more important," yadda, yadda, "committed as ever," yadda, yadda, "ensure that it goes forward," yadda, yadda.
Posted by eric at 11:15 AM
Arena, 2012? The Nets likely have four more seasons in New Jersey
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder stays one step ahead of the mainstream media as he tries to pin down the constantly slipping timeline for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards arena:
Bruce Ratner admitted yesterday that a state appeals court decision not to dismiss the pending eminent domain lawsuit "may" delay an announced December groundbreaking for the Atlantic Yards arena by six months. It almost certainly will do so--and could delay it even longer.
That means that the long-promised 2010 arena opening, already discredited by Ratner's own words (after promises of openings in previous years went by the wayside), is impossible.
Also, though Ratner previously told investors the arena would open in 2011, it's highly unlikely the arena would open that year. An early 2012 opening seems more likely. Given the difficulty of moving a team in mid-season, that suggests, in the best-case scenario, that the New Jersey Nets would not become the Brooklyn Nets until the fall of 2012.
That means four more seasons in the creaky Meadowlands--2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12--unless there's a move, say, to Newark.
Oder reviews the timeline math, explains how the Barclays naming-rights deal was not fully examined in recent coverage, and how a renegotiated deal with the banking giant would presage the need for more subsidies.
Posted by lumi at 7:37 AM
Déjà delay all over again
Here are today's local headlines covering news that the State Appellate Division decided against the Empire State Development Corporation's motion to dismiss the eminent domain case, filed by nine property owners in the footprint of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards megaproject.
As we noted this weekend, the campaign to justify the project just took a new turn. Now Atlantic Yards is a must-needed economic engine to drive the city, heck even the country, out of the current fiscal crisis. This coordinated campaign was in evidence by Ratner's statement released to the press and Borough President Marty Markowitz's comment to the Brooklyn Paper.
Also, both daily tabloids noted that this isn't the first delay — originally the Nets were supposed to be playing in their new arena in 2006.
Headlines and highlights:
The NY Sun, Atlantic Yard Project Suffers a Setback
Remember, our country needs Atlantic Yards more than ever:
"While the Appellate Division Second Department's decision to hear the case may delay the project for approximately six months let me be clear that the project will go forward," Mr. Ratner said in a statement. "Atlantic Yards will be built and it will create thousands of needed jobs and affordable homes. This is all the more important as our City and country confront one of the most difficult economic downturns in history. We are as committed as ever to the development of this project and will continue to work with the City, State and local leaders to ensure that it goes forward."
NOTE: The Associated Press is reporting that today's edition of The NY Sun will be its last. As the ONLY New York paper that consistently voiced an opinion against taking people's homes and businesses for private projects, The Sun will be missed.
The Brooklyn Paper, Case against Atlantic Yards moves forward
It's not just litigation that's standing in the way of Bruce Ratner's dream of building an arena and the densest residential community in the nation:
Though Ratner downplayed the delay, opponents of the development pointed out that Ratner recently told The New York Times that he plans to “break ground” in December, but it is unclear how he will be able to do that given that his $400-million naming-rights deal with Barclays has not been finalized, the Treasury Department is seen as increasingly unlikely to change a key rule in Ratner’s favor, public officials are balking at a recent request by Ratner for $100 million more in taxpayer subsidies, and key financing — already in jeopardy before the credit crisis — has not been lined up.
Most important to the current case, Ratner does not yet own all the land on which he intends to build.
Marty sez that Brooklyn needs Atlantic Yards:
“I am disappointed [by the court ruling],” said Borough President Markowitz. “I truly believe that in the current economy, Brooklyn needs the kind of investment that Atlantic Yards will bring — the union jobs and affordable housing it will create. Projects like this one are catalysts for job creation and growth, and Atlantic Yards is a very important part of the effort to help Downtown Brooklyn.”
NY Daily News, Legal snag to delay Nets arena project
Remember, this isn't the first timeline delay:
When announced in 2003, the arena was to open in 2006, but mounting delays last year forced the Nets to postpone a move to Brooklyn until at least 2010.
From PR 101: when you run out of spin, then say nothing:
A Ratner spokesman declined to say if a planned December groundbreaking for Atlantic Yards will have to be postponed.
NY Post, FOES' SUIT POSTPONING YARDS WORK
Is the Barclays deal in jeopardy? Barclays does a spin move:
Also up in the air now is the record $400 million naming-rights deal with Barclays Bank, first reported by The Post in January 2007, which is expected to help offset the cost of the arena.
That is now in question because the deal was contingent on Ratner's having his entire project financing set by the end of November, which is now impossible.
When asked if an extension would be negotiated, a Barclays spokesman skirted the question but said, "We look forward to breaking ground with our partners in Brooklyn."
When Ratner announced his plan for Atlantic Yards in 2003, he had hoped to move the Nets to Brooklyn by the 2006-07 season.
amNY, Brooklyn arena could be delayed another 6 months
Posted by lumi at 6:08 AM
September 29, 2008
Atlantic Yards Faces Another Delay
City Room [NY Times Blog]
by Charles Bagli
The developer of the ambitious Atlantic Yards arena and residential complex in Brooklyn said Monday that the project could be delayed for another six months after a state appellate court failed to dismiss a court challenge brought by opponents of the $4 billion project.
Earlier this month, the developer Bruce C. Ratner vowed that he would break ground in December on the long delayed project, where he plans to build an office tower, 15 apartment buildings and a basketball arena for the Nets.
The developer has fended off a number of lawsuits brought by critics of the project over the past two years. He and state officials had expected that the state Appellate Court would also dismiss the latest suit, which sought to block the state from using eminent domain to seize private property for Mr. Ratner’s project.
Instead, the court denied a motion to dismiss the suit, opening the door for oral arguments in the case next spring.
NoLandGrab: Ratner and the Empire State Development Corporation rolled the dice, and they crapped out. If they hadn't gambled on a dismissal, they could have moved the case along much more quickly. Is it possible that deteriorating conditions in the lending market forced them into making a bad bet?
More coverage...
TheDeal.com, Barclays deals with Lehman staff, plans to hire 1,500 more
Off the beaten track, Barclays gave a shout-out to Brooklyn, saying it remains committed to a proposed basketball arena at the Atlantic Yards despite an unfavorable court ruling on the $950 million project.
Runnin' Scared [Village Voice blog] Setback for Atlantic Yards: Motion to Dismiss Denied
The Stop Shopping Monitor, Major setback for Atlantic Yards
Newark Star-Ledger, Nets' move to Brooklyn may face further delay
The Knickerblogger, Ratner Suffers Setback, the Conspiracy Theory Version
Posted by eric at 5:48 PM
Atlantic Yards Groundbreaking on Pause for 6 Months
Eminent domain lawsuit allowed to go forward
WNYC Radio
by Matthew Schuerman
While the plaintiffs lost a similar case in federal court, the state proceedings will delay the project right as a recession is threatening.
The project's developer, Forest City Ratner, had announced that a groundbreaking on the Barclays Center basketball arena would take place by the end of this year.
But a ground can't be broken before the project secures financing, and the financing won't come before all litigation is resolved. In an official statement today, the developer, Forest City Ratner, says it is confident it will build the arena.
Posted by eric at 4:39 PM
PRESS RELEASE, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn: Court Rejects New York State's Effort to Dismiss Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case
Ruling is a Major Setback for Bruce Ratner's Proposed Project and the Empire State Development Corporation
Property Owners and Tenants Will Get Their Day in Court Next Year
BROOKLYN, NY— A State Appellate Court* panel has rejected the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) motion to dismiss Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation—the Atlantic Yards eminent domain lawsuit filed by nine property owners and tenants with properties in the footprint of Forest City Ratner's foundering megaproject proposal. The case was filed on August 1st of this year.
The ESDC unsuccessfully tried to dismiss the petitioners' case, which charges that New York State's use of eminent domain to seize private homes and businesses for developer Forest City Ratner's (FCR) Atlantic Yards project violates the New York State Constitution's public use, due process and equal protection clauses, as well as low-income resident requirements.
The petitioners' victory is a major setback for FCR and the ESDC. FCR President/CEO Bruce Ratner recently told The New York Times that he plans to "break ground" in December. Ratner does not own the land he needs to build his proposed arena and skyscraper project, and is attempting to have New York State seize the land for him by eminent domain.
"Though Ratner claims that he'll ‘break ground' for his Atlantic Yards proposal in December, he cannot do so unless New York State uses eminent domain to seize the owners' and tenants' properties and give them to him as planned. But the plan is now in doubt," said Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn** Legal Director Candace Carponter.
The Court has given the ESDC until October 15th to file its answer to the petitioners' complaint. According to the normal briefing schedule, petitioners will then file their brief on January 15th, 2009. The ESDC would reply in mid-February and petitioners would file their answering brief at the end of February. Oral argument would then most likely be scheduled for sometime in March or April and a decision would presumably come somewhere between late spring and fall of 2009.
"The seizure of my clients' homes and businesses is unconstitutional. We are pleased that the Court has recognized the merit of our case and will now hear the arguments in full," said lead attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP. "We are confident that when we finally have our day in court, we will show that New York State's condemnation and seizure of my clients' homes and businesses for Forest City Ratner's enrichment violates New York's Constitution."
The initial complaint to the Court and the briefs on the motion to dismiss for Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation can be downloaded at: www.dddb.net/eminentdomain
The Court's order denying the motion to dismiss can be found at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2008/2008_84057.htm
* Note: The case at issue is not an appeal; it is a complaint that originates in the Appellate Division. New York State law requires that all eminent domain challenges must be initiated in the Appellate Court, rather than the lower court—the Supreme Court.
** Note: Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, in our effort to defend the homes and businesses of members of our community, and to advocate for their rights, organized the eminent domain lawsuit, and raises the funds to support it.
DEVELOP DON'T DESTROY BROOKLYN leads a broad-based community coalition fighting for development that will unite our communities instead of dividing and destroying them
DDDB is 501c3 non-profit corporation supported by over 4,000 individual donors from the community.
Posted by lumi at 5:31 AM
Groundbreaking, 2008? Eminent domain case survives motion to dismiss; hearing no sooner than March
Atlantic Yards Report
The State of New York was denied a quick win by the courts and instead prolonged Forest City Ratner's timetable to clear the Atlantic Yards project of all legal encumberances:
The chances for anything more than a faux Atlantic Yards groundbreaking in 2008 have now plummeted, after an attempt by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to short-circuit the pending state eminent domain case has been denied by an appellate court. That means an oral argument would occur no sooner than March, with a decision some months after that.
The decision denying the ESDC's motion to dismiss, apparently on procedural grounds, doesn’t give the plaintiffs the edge in a long-shot case similar to the one that already failed in federal court, which was seen as more hospitable to such a challenge. But it does undermine the unrealistic timetable regularly promoted by developer Forest City Ratner and complicates the arena naming rights deal with Barclays Capital.
FCR has pledged multiple times that a groundbreaking would take place in November or December, notwithstanding the likelihood that pending legal cases and the unavailability so far of tax-exempt bonds would jeopardize the project.
FCR could still hold a groundbreaking on land it already owns, but it can’t raise funds to build the arena until the lawsuits are cleared. The pledge of a 2008 groundbreaking likely was keyed to the requirement that the $400 million Barclays deal requires arena financing to be closed by November--seemingly an impossibility now.
Norman Oder posted this analysis, followed by a thorough explanation of the court papers filed, on his blog.
Posted by lumi at 5:26 AM
September 26, 2008
Does AY "exist"? State judge dismisses lawsuit that challenged AY deadline and sought new hearing
Atlantic Yards Report
A lawsuit brought by tenants located in the footprint of the proposed Atlantic Yards project was dismissed by the New York Supreme Court. The Atlantic Yards Report goes into some of the specifics of the decision.
A “smaller” lawsuit involving the Atlantic Yards project has been dismissed by a State Supreme Court justice, who rejected charges by tenants in two AY footprint buildings that that the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) is violating a provision of state law that requires disposition of properties within a decade and should hold another hearing because the project has changed considerably.
Attorney George Locker says there will be an appeal:
Locker commented yesterday, “There is an elephant in the room. It is a project that does not exist. Choose to see the elephant, and the legal reasoning follows. Choose to ignore the elephant, and you have Judge Solomon's decision.”
He added, “In a prior but unrelated decision, the Appellate Division ordered ESDC to hold a hearing when the project that it had proposed was changed. Judge Solomon avoided the hearing issue entirely by saying it's the same project. How come Bruce Ratner won't contractually commit to a ten year project, Phase II has no time limit, but Judge Solomon finds there's no evidence it's not the same project?”
“So we will appeal to the Appellate Division, and see whether the Appellate Division chooses to see the elephant in the room. Maybe by then, the Court will have decided that the area is not blighted,” he said, referring to the September 16 argument in the case challenging the AY environmental review. “We will also give the Appellate Division the opportunity to decide whether the project exists at all."
Posted by steve at 5:42 AM
September 25, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA
WILLETS POINT
As most of you heard, the NY City Planning Commission voted to approve Mayor Bloomberg's redevelopment plan of Willets Point in Queens.
That means that the proposed plan is headed to a vote in the City Council, the legislative body that had no vote on Atlantic Yards and rubber-stamped the Columbia University expansion plan. Watchdogs anticipate a more contentious debate over Willets Point, where a majority of councilmembers have already sided with the property owners.
Here are today's headlines:
The NY Sun, Willets Point Plan Gets Planning Approval
NY Daily News, Showdown coming over Willets Point
The Wonkster, Willets Point Approved
NY1, Planning Commission Votes To Move Forward With Willets Point Redevelopment
RATNERVILLE
Because one eminent domain hearing is never enough, Noticing New York blogger Michael D. D. White sped from State Senator Bill Perkins's hearing to the NY State Appellate Court in time to catch a judicial colloquy about blight. He posted a detailed account of his eminent domain double header.
Noticing New York, Contrivance in the service of creating blight, real blight- Listen again- REAL blight
The theme for heavily-evented Wednesday, Thursday and this week as a whole is deceit, manipulation and contrivance in the service of bringing blight to our communities.
Wednesday morning State Senator Bill Perkins held hearings about the need for eminent domain reform in New York where eminent domain abuse probably outstrips such abuse anywhere else in the country.
...
After Senator Perkins’ eminent domain hearing there was hardly time to get to the oral argument, in the state lawsuit challenging the Atlantic Yards environmental review.
...
Once again we were considering a record of deceit, manipulation and contrivance in the service of bringing blight to our communities.
WOLRDWIDE ABUSE
A true sign of a progressive democracy, at least the United States can hold its head up high and lay claim that we don't jail or strip property owners who fight to keep their homes, according to the last time we checked.
Ground Report, Female Chinese Land Seizure Protesters Stripped Naked & Jailed
The NY Times coverage comes to us via a local Libertarian blog, which places Mayor Bloomberg's New York in some fine company:
Atlantic Yards, Willets Point, Manhattanville, the list goes on. Whether it is China or the United States, Zimbabwe or the Middle East, a change in philosophy is needed that embraces individualism, individual liberty, private property and markets that thoroughly and consistently rejects their opposites.
WE WEREN'T BORN YESTERDAY. YOU?
The editorial board at the El Paso Times recommends that the city use eminent domain only "as a last resort" after removing the threat of eminent domain from the table. Huh?
El Paso Times, Eminent domain: Use only as last resort
Keep eminent domain as a last-ditch tool, but don't wield it as a weapon.
To quote Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, "If you have a bazooka in your pocket and people know it, you probably won't have to use it." 'Nuff said.
Posted by lumi at 5:57 AM
September 24, 2008
Planning Commission approves Willets Point plan
Crain's NY Business
by Matthew Sollars
The surprise here is that one of the 12 City Planning Commissioners actually voted against the Bloomberg administration's proposal to redevelop Willets Point, though City Council member Hiram Monseratte saved us the trouble by calling today's vote "a rubber stamp."
The Willets Point plan will now move to the City Council for a vote, where its fate is far from certain. A majority of council members have pledged to vote against the plan if it does not include a higher percentage of affordable housing. They have also objected to the use of eminent domain, something the city has not ruled out if it can’t come to terms with property owners to acquire the land there.
Posted by eric at 4:53 PM
September 23, 2008
City, workers at odds over Willets Pt. retraining
One of the programs will focus on providing jobs in the hotel industry. But Willets Point workers, many of them in the automotive repair industry, say they would rather keep their jobs and move with their employers.
Crain's NY Business
by Daniel Massey
The city is proposing that Willets Point workers it intends to displace be retrained for jobs in the hospitality industry, but the workers are happy doing what they've been doing.
“Once again, the city intentionally fails to acknowledge the existing jobs at Willets Point,” said Jack Bono, owner of Bono Sawdust Supply. “It's ludicrous for the city to create a ‘Workforce Development Program’ for people who are already fully employed.”
Willets Point workers said the city’s training program is not the answer to their problems. “That’s not a solution for us,” said Sergio Aguirre, coordinator of the Willets Point Defense Committee, which represents tenant-run businesses and their workers. “Training can be part of the solution, but we want to be relocated. Almost everybody has been working in auto mechanics for many years. We’re experienced in that.”
NoLandGrab: How about a program for retraining certain elected officials and bureaucrats for exciting careers as used-car salesmen?
Posted by eric at 4:22 PM
September 22, 2008
Sun: eminent domain law reform may be possible (but don't hold your breath)
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder, too, thinks that the New York Sun might be a bit overly optimistic about prospects for eminent domain reform in New York State.
As the article details, however, neither Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver nor Gov. David Paterson have expressed support for changes (though Paterson did in 2005, as a State Senator).
Moreover, though the article mentions Atlantic Yards, the Columbia University expansion, and redevelopment at Willets Point, unmentioned is that any new legislation might grandfather in projects already under way.
So I'd bet that a temporary commission, as proposed by the New York State Bar Association, is a more likely first step than new legislation.
More speculation...
Curbed, Big Projects Facing New Trouble After November?
The Municipal Art Society, Eminent Domain in the Spotlight
NoLandGrab: Property rights have been a traditional concern of the right, so a Democratic takeover of the State Senate wouldn't seem to increase the odds of eminent domain reform in New York.
Posted by eric at 9:47 AM
Victorious Senate Democrats Could Target Eminent Domain
NY Sun
by Peter Kiefer
This seems like wishful thinking on the part of the conservative Sun, but there are individual senators, like Harlem's Bill Perkins, who genuinely are on the side of home and business owners.
A Democratic takeover of the Senate in November could result in changes to the state's eminent domain law, possibly complicating several of the city's largest development projects.
State Senator Bill Perkins, a Democrat of Harlem, is calling for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain and said he is willing to push for more restrictions on the use of eminent domain, provided the political climate is right in Albany.
"I don't know of too many other issues where you have such diverse and pervasive outrage," he said yesterday in an interview.
Mr. Perkins said he would be meeting with Governor Paterson this week to discuss the findings of a hearing he held last week examining the possible use of eminent domain for the proposed $7 billion expansion of Columbia University's campus. He said Mr. Paterson was "supportive" of his work on eminent domain, but said he had not discussed specifics with the governor.
NoLandGrab: The Governor, of course, called for just such a moratorium when he was a state Senator, but now that he's got the juice to actually do something about it, he's been silent on the issue.
A spokesman for the Mayor's office, unsurprisingly, claimed erroneously that the city uses eminent domain only when it's "absolutely needed for an important public purpose, and even then, as a last resort." Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Posted by eric at 8:55 AM
September 20, 2008
Friday Links Roundup: AY Report Edition
The Campaign for Community-Based Planning
Eminent domain was the main issue on our minds this week. Atlantic Yards was back in court, appealing the decision in the case challenging the project’s environmental review. According to Atlantic Yards Report, “While the lawsuit covers an enormous area of ground, including the definition of a ‘civic project,’ whether a ten-year project buildout was realistic, and whether the ESDC properly studied terrorism, among other issues, the final round of appeal papers focused mainly on blight.” AYR gave background on Tuesday, and covered Wednesday’s court proceedings.AYR was also there at State Senator Perkins’ eminent domain hearing, which we attended on Wednesday, and provided more in-depth coverage.
AYR also covered Thursday’s Congressional hearing in Washington, titled “Gaming the Tax Code: Public Subsidies, Private Profits, and Big League Sports in New York,” which focused primarily on Yankee Stadium. This hearing made headlines when Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said that there is “substantial evidence of improprieties and possible fraud” in the new Yankee Stadium development.
link
NoLandGrab: It's a good thing that AYR is run by 20 hard-working full-time staffers, or we'd never know what was going on.
Posted by amy at 3:05 PM
September 18, 2008
Daily News Eminent Domain Smackdown!
NY Daily News Opinion
In today's Daily News, the mixed tag-team of columnist Errol Louis and the Partnership for New York City's Kathryn Wylde (in pro wrestling parlance, they'd be known as "heels") gang up on West Harlem property-owner and Columbia University land grab resistance-fighter Nick Sprayregen (the "face," in wrestling-speak).
We need eminent domain to keep New York City growing, by Kathryn Wylde
Wylde, who gets paid very well to advocate on behalf of New York City's largest corporations (and greatest beneficiaries of property seizures), pens an ode to eminent domain.
Eminent domain has been required for most of our large public projects - from Lincoln Center, Times Square and downtown Brooklyn to affordable housing throughout the five boroughs. Without eminent domain, New York and other older urban centers could not have kept pace with demands for upgraded infrastructure, modern office facilities and increased housing stock.
Unfortunately, eminent domain is under attack. Property rights advocates believe it is unconstitutional to condemn private property for almost any purpose. Anti-development groups claim that it allows big government to collude with rich developers to override the interests of the little guy. Bills have been proposed in the state Legislature and the City Council that would limit the use of eminent domain and slow down economic development in New York at the worst possible point in the economic cycle.
NoLandGrab: We'd like Ms. Wylde to name a "large public project" in downtown Brooklyn. Seems to us they're all private.
And for the record, "the worst possible point in the economic cycle" was when some of the Partnership for NYC's member companies — like Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merrill Lynch and UBS — were making greedy, foolish investments in sub-prime mortgages and risky derivative products. With taxpayers having to bail out some of these bad bets with billions upon billions of dollars, should we also be offering up another form of corporate socialism to other Partnership for NYC members — like Forest City Ratner, Nets Sports & Entertainment, Related Companies and Tishman Speyer?
The eminent domain game is rigged, by Nick Sprayregen
Sadly for all New Yorkers, our state is the most egregious perpetrator of eminent domain abuse in our country. I should know since for the last four years I have battled the state and Columbia University - a private entity - in their threatened use of eminent domain. Columbia wants my land in West Harlem to assist the school in a planned 17-acre expansion in the Manhattanville neighborhood.
The university is in league with the state, and together they are threatening to wield this extraordinary power to take away a business my family has built over decades.
This is dead wrong.
Defenders of the system say eminent domain is necessary to allow for big economic development and housing projects to go forward. They liken today's use of eminent domain to yesterday's use, when property was condemned for the building of roads, fire houses and public libraries. Today, however, what the practice really amounts to is the state playing favorites, choosing one private interest over another - and abusing a government power that should only be wielded in the most limited of circumstances.
The game is rigged, in multiple ways.
NoLandGrab: Sprayregen explains how the deck is stacked mightily against condemnees — "blight" is in the eye of the condemnor, no jury trial, no witnesses allowed, no cross-examination, no discovery, etc., etc.
The right way to fight blight, by Errol Louis
In West Harlem, there are a couple of business owners who don't want to sell their property at any price, which Columbia and ESDC say would cripple the planned project. The most prominent holdout, a man named Nick Sprayregen, is a developer in his own right, with a considerable number of business ventures and commercial properties in Harlem, the Bronx and elsewhere.
Sprayregen has hired civil rights attorney and public advocate candidate Norman Siegel to battle ESDC and Columbia and a series of lawsuits have been launched, along with a frontal attack on New York's eminent domain laws.
Siegel and Sprayregen are perfectly within their rights to try and rewrite the law, and a re-examination of the 40-year-old rules makes sense. New York, unlike most states, gives broad leeway to agencies like ESDC to define when and how eminent domain may be applied, and only a fleeting window of time for property owners to object.
NoLandGrab: Louis fails to deal with the question of why Columbia, a private entity, should be able to develop the land owned by Sprayregen, a private owner. And no one has really offered a good explanation of why Columbia can't work around Sprayregen's property. Why should Nick Sprayregen pay the price for Columbia's failure to plan better?
Posted by eric at 10:53 AM
At state Senate hearing, calls for reform of state eminent domain laws, notably blight
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder (he must have an identical twin, at least) attended yesterday's State Senate hearing on eminent domain, and filed his usual comprehensive report.
Opponents of governmental plans to use eminent domain for Atlantic Yards, the Columbia University expansion, and Willets Point redevelopment were at center stage yesterday at a State Senate hearing on reforming state eminent domain laws, where they and others pointed out that, in the years following the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision, New York has been among the few states that has made no effort to tighten eminent domain laws either through legislative or judicial action.
“Nowhere else in the country is eminent domain used to benefit private interests so rampantly and so brazenly,” declared Christina Walsh, a representative of the Institute for Justice, the libertarian legal organization that has led the fight nationally against eminent domain.
Harlem State Senator Bill Perkins, an opponent of the Columbia expansion who convened the hearing, called for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain in the state and a stall on the Columbia plan. He said he supported a special commission to reform eminent domain laws--a recommendation made by a New York State Bar Association task force to study changes in the 32-year-old Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL).
Among the recommendations: formally define and limit the definition of “blight,” which is undefined; give those threatened by eminent domain a chance to challenge determinations in court by calling witnesses; and even to eliminate the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment.
Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, drawing on the Atlantic Yards example, suggested that only locally elected legislative bodies, not the unelected agencies like the Empire State Development Corporation, approve the use of eminent domain.
Posted by eric at 9:13 AM
In appeal of case challenging AY environmental review, some justices skeptical of state’s blight claim
Atlantic Yards Report
Was it déjà vu? As with the May 2007 oral argument in the state lawsuit challenging the Atlantic Yards environmental review, the plaintiffs in the appeal yesterday exited optimistically, with a sense that the court—in this case, at least two of five appellate judges—was sympathetic toward their argument. Again, representatives of developer Forest City Ratner and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), along with their clutch of attorneys, exited looking none too cheery.
Notably, when a judge skeptical of the blight claim asked whether environmental consultant AKRF had ever not found blight when asked to look for it, the ESDC attorney sidestepped the question.
Then again, state Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden, when it came time to rule last January, came out squarely on the side of the defendants, so the questions in court hardly predict a final ruling. Still, even a 3-2 decision upholding Madden means an automatic appeal to the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, potentially stringing out the case even longer.
Norman Oder published a detailed account of the hearing.
More coverage...
Brownstoner, AY Arguments Heard at Appellate Court
Curbed, Atlantic Yards Is Back in Court Again
Posted by lumi at 6:56 AM
Task Force Testifes on Eminent Domain for State Senators
From the Campaign for Community-Based Planning:
This morning, State Senators Bill Perkins and Efraim Gonzales held a public hearing on eminent domain at the Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. State Office Building on 125th Street.
Perkins issued a statement reading, “In many instances, eminent domain is an instrument used by government, not in the context of their independently created economic development plans, but at the behest of private developers who wish for the state and city to use its powers of eminent domain to aggregate parcels of land for commercial benefit. This methodology has strained the relationship between government and communities affected by these development plans, that have at best, a vague purpose and at worst create the impression of a corporatocracy instead of true democratic governance. It will be critical to examine the original procedural structure in place to justify and exercise eminent domain.” The hearing’s intention was to gather ideas for potential legislation that would govern eminent domain at the state level.
Many familiar faces from eminent domain battles in NYC were present this morning, including: Nick Sprayregen, a property owner in Columbia University’s expansion footprint (who blogs here); Daniel Goldstein, a property owner in the Atlantic Yards footprint and member of Develop, Don’t Destroy Brooklyn; and Dan Feinstein of the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association, among many others. Julie Lawrence, a member of Brooklyn Community Board 1, delivered testimony on behalf of the Community-Based Planning Task Force, which you can read [on the CBP blog].
Posted by lumi at 6:50 AM
September 17, 2008
As Projects Cue Up, Louder Calls for Stricter Eminent Domain Laws
New York Observer
by Eliot Brown
It's been something of an eminent domain-filled day so far, with three events focusing on the state and city's ability to acquire private land, particularly for economic development: First a hearing, then a press conference, and a scheduled court appearance.
...State Senator Bill Perkins, along with Senators Velmanette Montgomery and Efrain Gonzales, held a hearing this morning in Harlem where he said he intends to create a commission to study reform of New York's eminent domain laws. While most states saw a backlash against its use following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, New York's laws went unchanged.
"Something has to be done," Mr. Perkins said. "We're going to put together the commission," and work to pass new legislation.
NoLandGrab: Today's court appearance was actually the appeal of the community challenge to the Atlantic Yards Environmental Impact Statement, not the use of eminent domain. That state case has yet to be heard.
Posted by eric at 8:47 PM
In EIS case appeal, debate over blight and a mysterious market study
Atlantic Yards Report
Key to the battle in the lawsuit over the Atlantic Yards environmental review, the subject of an oral argument in state appellate court [today], is a document that surfaced only in mid-August, well after the lawsuit (or even the appeal) was filed by 26 neighborhood and civic groups. The document that suggests that the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), in its eagerness to determine blight on the Atlantic Yards footprint, ignored or omitted an investigation into market trends that was part of the initial Blight Study contract with environmental consultant AKRF.
The document, which I received via a Freedom of Information Law Request (seeking information on the issue of conflict-of-interest, not blight) shows that AKRF, in the Contract Scope for the Blight Study, was supposed to “analyze residential and commercial rents on the project site and within the study area and to analyze assessed value trends on the project site.”
No such analysis was conducted, even as claims by the plaintiffs—echoing many Atlantic Yards critics, and even some supporters—that the project footprint wasn’t blighted were dismissed as merely anecdotal.
The plaintiffs, who are appealing the dismissal of their case, want the Contract Scope to be included in the administrative record, while the ESDC and fellow defendant Forest City Ratner disagree. No decision has emerged before the hearing, but, should the judges favor the plaintiffs on this procedural issue, that would offer new support to the legal argument challenging blight.
Norman Oder reviews the briefs as a preview of today's oral arguments. Click here to read the entire article.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Another Atlantic Yards Appeal Scheduled for Wednesday
Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the lead community group in opposition to Bruce Ratner’s proposed Atlantic Yards project, is asking its supporters to attend the oral argument of its appeal Wednesday in court.
According to DDDB, the argument is scheduled for 2 p.m. at the Appellate Division, First Department in Downtown Manhattan.
DDDB is the lead plaintiff in this particular lawsuit filed by several community groups who petitioned the state supreme court in April in an attempt to have the $4 billion project’s final environmental impact statement and approval annulled.
The Manhattan Supreme Court dismissed the case earlier this year. So far, the opponents of Atlantic Yards -- which has been described as the largest single-design project in the city’s history -- continue to lose each and every lawsuit and appeal that they file.
NoLandGrab: Actually, a couple "opponents" have won lawsuits in connection with the project: A suit brought by property owner Lars Williams for his improper arrest for vandalism was settled out of court; Henry Weinstein won his claim that the lease for his building was unlawfully transferred to Bruce Ratner, who made false claims that he "controlled" the parcel.
These suits were not brought by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and haven't changed the fact that Bruce Ratner is taking down every building he can get his hands on, but by conflating "opponents" and "Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn," the Eagle isn't painting an accurate picture.
Posted by lumi at 5:48 AM
It came from the Blogosphere...
Runnin' Scared, Anti-Development Rumblings in Brooklyn
According to the Village Voice news blog:
No Land Grab and Atlantic Yards Report ride herd on rapacious developers every day.
...well, at least one rapacious developer.
Ground Report, NY Governor Dubs Politicians Bloodsuckers
Libertarian blogger Richard Cooper says it takes one to know one:
Democratic New York Governor David Paterson described politicians as bloodsuckers.
...
Paterson is correct in his description of his colleagues. But what about himself as a governor and state senator?Where does he stand on eminent domain, corporate welfare, and the welfare state in general? What about Willets Point, Atlantic Yards, or Manhattanville eminent domain schemes? He supported a property tax cap. But what about the sales tax, the income tax and the numerous taxes dubbed fees by the bloodsuckers? What about the state debt that has us New Yorkers in bondage? Does he support the Empire State Development Corporation?
The Campaign for Community-Based Planning, Friday Links Roundup
The drama continues at Atlantic Yards, where developer Bruce Ratner says they will break ground in December. Even the NY Times doesn’t seem so sure.
NoLandGrab: "Drama?" Yeah, maybe the Times's theater desk should start covering the affair.
The Campaign for Community-Based Planning, New Eminent Domain Blog: My Land Is Mine
Tomorrow, the Community-Based Planning Task Force will provide testimony on the use of eminent domain in New York City at an (invite only) public hearing sponsored by State Senator Bill Perkins. We’ll put the testimony up shortly, but in the meantime, check out a new blog from Task Force supporting organization Coalition to Preserve Community: My Land Is Mine.
Posted by lumi at 5:40 AM
September 12, 2008
If the Sun Sets
Noticing New York contemplates life without The Sun:
Notwithstanding how ardently the public feels about [eminent domain], the Democratic establishment has ceded this issue to others. Those declaring themselves Libertarians are the most reliably opposed to eminent domain abuse, but Republicans have a somewhat better record of taking the right position on this issue and it must be recognized that Republican Supreme Court appointees- essentially the same ones who voted to put Bush in office in Bush v. Gore.- aligned against the use of eminent domain in Kelo.
With the Democratic establishment ceding this popular issue to others, the New York Times likewise cedes proper coverage of the issue to the extent that it aligns itself with the Democratic establishment. It should also be remembered that the Times, in partnership with Forest City Ratner, took advantage of eminent domain to build its new Times Tower. That use of eminent domain in that particular instance was assertedly abusive and Forest City Ratner’s pursuit of it with respect to Atlantic Yards unquestionably is.
The New York Times has been reconstituting itself as a national newspaper. In doing so it has been making its national coverage much more important than its local coverage. Therefore, to the extent that eminent domain abuse is used in New York, the issue has been doubly, or maybe triply times ceded.
Therefore I will miss the Sun.
Posted by lumi at 5:41 AM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
My Land is Mine, SIGN THE PETITION and STOP THE ABUSE!!!
West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen posted this petition on his new blog.
We, the undersigned, object to the use of eminent domain in the Columbia University Expansion Plan.
First, Manhattanville is not a blighted community and Eminent Domain is not needed to stimulate economic development or to eliminate blight.
Second, The Columbia Plan has been developer driven and developed principally to benefit Columbia. The taking of private property and transfering it to Columbia, a private institution, is unconstitutional and illegal because it does not constitute a “public use” and is without a dominant public purpose.
Third, since Columbia now owns over 80% of the property in the affected area and will have control over 96% of the area, Eminent Domain is not necessary or appropriate to attain any legitimate public purpose in Manhattanville.
By signing our name below, we, individually and collectively, say NO to the use of Eminent Domain in the Columbia Expansion Plan in West Harlem/Manhattanville.
Click here and scroll down to sign Sprayregen's petition.
The New York Times, A Dilapidated Tract of Queens, and a Fight to Control Its Future
If you read this article about how the City is trying to divide the coalition of large and small business owners fighting the Willets Point land grab, keep in mind that the "dilapidated tract" of the "bedraggled industrial triangle known as Willets Point" was caused by the same City that is now trying to get control of the land.
[W]hen Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg unveiled a plan last year to overhaul the area with a hotel, school and convention center, homes, offices, parks and retail stores, two distinct groups rose up in opposition.
One comprises the owners of the area’s largest businesses, who own half the land in Willets Point and who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists, consultants and political contributions to the City Council members who will vote on the city’s plan.
The other consists of auto shop workers and shop owners who rent space in Willets Point. They are, for the most part, poor and Latino, and can afford to do little more than print T-shirts denouncing the project.
In public, the two groups present a picture of perfect unity, waving signs and chanting, “Justice for Willets Point.” But in reality, each side is motivated by different concerns and fears about its survival.
The Bloomberg administration has stepped up efforts in recent weeks to find new space for the big-business owners, offering above-market prices for some of their land.
But most owners say they will not leave Willets Point and will fight the city should it try to seize their properties by eminent domain. The small-business owners, on the other hand, are willing to move, but city officials said that they could not relocate the renters until the city had acquired all the land in Willets Point. And even then, there may not be a place to put all of them.
Posted by lumi at 4:25 AM
September 8, 2008
No Show? No Problem For State Development Agency
WNYC Radio
by Matthew Schuerman
Atlantic Yards scores a dishonorable mention in this WNYC report about how ESDC officials are rarely present at eminent domain hearings.
When the Empire State Development Corporation held hearings last week on whether to declare property in West Harlem "blighted," no board members showed up. That's not unusual for the state authority, but it would be if another agency were in charge. WNYC's Matthew Schuerman explains.
NoLandGrab: While the ESDC claims that its board members have plenty of time to "review transcripts" of testimony before they vote, the questions they tend to pose before casting their votes betrays that reviewing those transcripts ranks right behind rearranging their sock drawers on their list of priorities.
Posted by eric at 11:38 AM
Your Chance to Vote on Eminent Domain Abuse
Noticing New York nominated "Eminent Domain Abuse" as a topic for the Brian Lehrer Show's “Thirty Issues In Thirty Days” series for WNYC.
The topic is as relevant as any, since eminent domain is being used for private projects all over the city and polls show that Americans are unanimously opposed to the practice.
One of the topics now nominated, courtesy of yours truly here at Noticing New York, is the subject of eminent domain abuse.
So, if you are interested in what will surely be a very well-produced event get ready to go to the Brian Lehrer show site to vote for its discussion.
The nomination (currently # 102 submitted September 04, 2008 at10:56AM) says:
Topic: Eminent Domain Abuse
To which national party do we go to address this issue? According to polls up to 90% of Americans disagree with the Kelo decision but protections are not in place in New York, on the federal level or many other places. Abuse usually involves big corporations trampling on individual rights in pursuit of profit, the kind of thing for which we often instinctively blame Republicans but Democrats seem to have largely ceded this emotional issue to Libertarian and Republican candidates and, ironically, it is the conservative Republican judicial appointees who have been willing to uphold individual constitutional rights- The same justices who might overturn Roe v. Wade. It is a federal as well as a state issue because federal funding could require no abuse. Ratner is spending hundreds of millions lobbying against this.
NoLandGrab: If any other readers are planning on nominating Eminent Domain, note in the submission guidelines that descriptions are supposed to be 30 words or less.
MORE ABUSE
And speaking about Eminent Domain Abuse, Noticing New York also attended and submitted testimony at the Empire State Development Corporation's public hearing on the Columbia University land grab.
Click here for a report on the hearing and a copy of the testimony.
Posted by lumi at 5:29 AM
September 7, 2008
Palin's Hockey Rink Leads To Legal Trouble in Town She Led
Wall Street Journal shows that the "Killa from Wasilla" has a little secret about eminent domain and arenas on the public dime. Pushing a project through that was still in litigation turned out to not be the best idea:
Ms. Palin marched ahead, making the public case for a sales-tax increase and $14.7 million bond issue to pay for the sports center, which was to feature a running track, basketball courts and a hockey rink. At the time, the city's annual budget was about $20 million. In a March 2002 referendum, residents approved the mayor's plan by a 20-vote margin, 306 to 286. The city cleared roads, installed utilities and made preparations to build.Later that year, Ms. Palin's final one as mayor, the federal judge reversed his own decision and ruled that the property rightfully belonged to Mr. Lundgren. Wasilla had never signed the proper papers, the court ruled.
...
After Ms. Palin left office, the city decided to take 80 acres of Mr. Lundgren's property through eminent domain. An Alaska court confirmed the city's right to do so and ordered that an arbitrator determine the appropriate price.Last year, the arbitrator ordered the city to pay $836,378 for the 80-acre parcel, far more than the $126,000 Wasilla originally thought it would pay for a piece of land 65 acres larger. The arbitrator also determined that the city owed Mr. Lundgren $336,000 in interest. Wasilla's legal bill since the eminent domain action has come to roughly $250,000 so far, according to Mr. Klinkner, the city attorney.
Posted by amy at 11:31 AM
September 5, 2008
State Senator to hold eminent domain hearing September 17
Atlantic Yards Report
Harlem State Senator Bill Perkins, a critic of Columbia University's plans to use eminent domain, has announced a hearing on the practice of eminent domain in New York State, to be held on the morning of September 17. (In the afternoon that day, a state appellate court will hear oral arguments in the case challenging the Atlantic Yards environmental review).
It's likely Perkins is most interested in the Columbia case, the subject of a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. It's also likely Atlantic Yards opponents will try to get on the witness list, especially because Perkins is interested in eminent domain used "at the behest of private developers" and which "at worst create[s] the impression of a corporatocracy instead of true democratic governance."
Can Perkins get anywhere? The State Senate is at this moment controlled by the Republicans, not Democrats like Perkins, but that could change in November. Still, all legislation must get through Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, an Atlantic Yards supporter who's unlikely to favor changes that hamper the project.
Whether legislation emerges from the hearing, it at least will cast some light on this complex and sometimes dubious practice.
Posted by lumi at 5:32 AM
Hearing on Columbia Plan Elicits Emotional Speeches
The NY Times
By Timothy Williams
The Empire State Development Corporation board this week held its only public hearing before it decides whether to use eminent domain to allow for the $6.3 billion expansion of Columbia University into Manhattanville.
But while the two-day hearing featured testimony from a former mayor, members of the State Legislature and the president of Columbia University, the group that will make the ultimate decision, the development corporation’s board, was not there.
Instead, a lone hearing officer, a lawyer named Edward C. Kramer, listened stoically to more than 13 hours of often emotional testimony.
The public hearing, which was held on Tuesday and Thursday, followed a pattern: Speakers who were employed by, seeking employment with or otherwise had business ties to the university came out in support of the plan. Most other speakers opposed it.
...
Some speakers pointed to the absence of the development corporation’s board members at the public hearing as a sign that the agency had already decided to grant the university eminent domain rights.But Warner Johnston, a spokesman for the development corporation, said it was the agency’s practice to hire a hearing officer during eminent domain testimony rather than having the board listen to testimony firsthand to ensure that “the process is as judicial and impartial as possible.”
Atlantic Yards Report, ESDC: hearing officer in Columbia case makes for "judicial and impartial" process
Norman Oder points out that the absence of Empire State Develop Corporation board officials at the Atlantic Yards hearings and subsequent vote had some unfortunate consequences:
No ESDC board member attended the Atlantic Yards public hearing two years ago, though ESDC staff members were there. ESDC board members, upon voting approval of the Atlantic Yards plan in December 2006, showed themselves to be rather uninformed.
NoLandGrab, reality check: The ESDC wants us to beleve that in order for the process to be "as judicial and impartial as possible," boardmembers do not attend the hearing, even though there's no evidence during the board vote that boardmembers read or understand any of the testimony. What's the point of having a hearing officer, if no one really gets heard?
This week's hearings illustrate that there's a total breakdown in the system to the point of absurdity.
Posted by lumi at 5:15 AM
September 3, 2008
Columbia University Has No Right to My Land
The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed
by Nick Sprayregen
Manhattanville property- and business-owner Nick Sprayregen's op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal explains how New York State somehow always manages to find "blight" when some uncooperative landowner doesn't want to sell.
Under New York state law, in order to condemn property the state first has to undertake a "neighborhood conditions study" and declare the area in question "blighted." Earlier this summer the state released its study, which concluded that Manhattanville is indeed "blighted." This gives the state the legal green light to condemn my four buildings and hand them over to the university.
The study's conclusion was unsurprising. Since the commencement of acquisitions in Manhattanville by Columbia, the school has made a solid effort to create the appearance of "blight." Once active buildings became vacant as Columbia either refused to renew leases, pressured small businesses to vacate, or made unreasonable demands that resulted in the businesses moving elsewhere. Columbia also let their holdings decay and left code violations unaddressed.
Only a few years ago, this area was undergoing a resurgence. Virtually all property was occupied, many by long-standing family operations such as my own. Now most of those businesses are gone -- forced out by the university. Still, Columbia has not been able to freeze all positive change in the neighborhood. Just in the past few years, three upscale restaurants have opened here. They seem to be thriving.
article [Subscription required — full article after the jump for non-subscribers]
The Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Nicking Columbia
Lobbyist Richard Lipsky, who's working on Nick Sprayregen's behalf, decries the unfairness of New York State's abuse of eminent domain, an abuse he's turned a blind eye toward in the case of one of his other clients — Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner.
The Wall St. Journal article, con'd:
In the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government is permitted to take private property only for "public use."
This clause was once limited to true public projects such as the construction of highways, fire houses and public libraries. But over the last 50 years it has been bastardized by the powerful (in collusion with compliant politicians and the acquiescence of the courts) into a weapon used routinely to forcibly take other people's property for nonpublic uses. What is occurring in West Harlem today is a prime example of this abuse.
Columbia University, a private institution, officially announced its desire for a new campus five years ago. The university zeroed in on the Manhattanville area of Harlem -- between 125th and 134th Streets, and between Broadway and the Hudson River. Since that time, while wielding the sledgehammer of the possible use of eminent domain, Columbia has purchased roughly 80% of Manhattanville.
My family has owned for almost 30 years four commercial Manhattanville properties. We run a self-storage business, plus we lease to various large retailers such as a discount store and a supermarket. For over four years we have been fighting the state and Columbia in their joint attempts to condemn my properties for the school's expansion.
This week, the board of directors of the state agency threatening the condemnation -- the Empire State Development Corporation -- will hold two legally required public hearings, ostensibly to give the public a chance to be "heard." I believe that this is merely perfunctory.
Under New York state law, in order to condemn property the state first has to undertake a "neighborhood conditions study" and declare the area in question "blighted." Earlier this summer the state released its study, which concluded that Manhattanville is indeed "blighted." This gives the state the legal green light to condemn my four buildings and hand them over to the university.
The study's conclusion was unsurprising. Since the commencement of acquisitions in Manhattanville by Columbia, the school has made a solid effort to create the appearance of "blight." Once active buildings became vacant as Columbia either refused to renew leases, pressured small businesses to vacate, or made unreasonable demands that resulted in the businesses moving elsewhere. Columbia also let their holdings decay and left code violations unaddressed.
Only a few years ago, this area was undergoing a resurgence. Virtually all property was occupied, many by long-standing family operations such as my own. Now most of those businesses are gone -- forced out by the university. Still, Columbia has not been able to freeze all positive change in the neighborhood. Just in the past few years, three upscale restaurants have opened here. They seem to be thriving.
There is also a conflict of interest in the condemnation process. The firm the state hired to perform the "impartial" blight study -- the planning, engineering and environmental consultant Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. (AKRF) -- had been retained by Columbia two years earlier to advocate for governmental approval of the university's expansion, including the possible use of eminent domain.
When I go to court in a few months to contest the condemnation, I will face an overwhelmingly unfair process particular to New York, and to eminent domain trials. I will not be permitted to question any of the state or Columbia's representatives, nor will I be allowed to have anyone take the witness stand on my behalf. My attorney will only be provided with 15 minutes to speak to the court on a matter that Columbia and the state have been working on for over four years.
Another problem is that in New York, the precise definition of what is blighted is nowhere to be found. It is virtually impossible to defend oneself from something that is not properly defined.
I am still denied access to documents with facts surrounding the Columbia expansion plan, asked for through Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests. I filed 12 different FOIL requests and have gone to court four times. The courts have now twice ruled that it was improper for the state to refuse to hand over all communication between it and AKRF.
Still, I look forward to my day in court. I am cautiously optimistic that it will expose as unconstitutional what Columbia and the state are attempting to do.
Mr. Sprayregen is the president of Tuck-It-Away, a West Harlem based self-storage company.
Posted by eric at 11:16 AM
September 2, 2008
TONIGHT: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EMINENT DOMAIN HEARING
The COALITION TO PRESERVE COMMUNITY urges property-rights advocates to come out for tonight's hearing.
COLUMBIA CONTINUES ITS EVICTION PLAN! IT HAS ASKED THE STATE TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN! HEARING: SEPT. 2, 5:30pm AT CCNY.
Do you want to lose your home?
Do you want your neighbors to lose their homes?
Do you want tax paying owners to lose their properties and have tax exempt Columbia take them away and replace them with biotech level #3 labs?
Do you want Harlem to lose its businesses like Floridita?
Do you want to face all the environmental hazards CU’s expansion will cause to our air, structural weakening of buildings, loss of parking & gain of traffic problems?
Do you want a bathtub (8 stories down) built on an earthquake fault?
Do you want eminent domain to be used to benefit an elitist private institution and spur gentrification?The Empire State Development Corporation will hold a hearing to determine if eminent domain will be used for the Columbia expansion. It will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 2 and Thursday Sept. 4, at Aaron Davis Hall at City College (135th St. & Convent Ave.), east of Amsterdam Ave. (1pm & 5:30PM sessions).
We urge you to speak out this Tuesday, Sept. 2, at 5:30 – 9:00PM, 135th & Convent. Stand up!
CONTACT US: Call (212) 666-6426, 646-812-5188, or (212) 234-3002 (se habla español) or go to http://www.stopcolumbia.org/ and sign up to be on our contact list.
Posted by lumi at 5:03 AM
August 27, 2008
It came from the Blogosphere...
Atlantic Yards Voter Guide, Marty Wants a Third Term, Voters Be Damned
Brooklyn Borough Beep and Atlantic Yards Cheerleader-in-Chief Marty Markowitz is in favor of ending term limits.
On the Times City Room blog Markowitz says:
“If the laws were changed and they allowed another term, I’d certainly be honored to serve another term,” Mr. Markowitz added. “But the choice would be up to the voters.”
Marty should be informed that the choice has been made by the voters—they ratified term limits twice.
...
Anyways, we endorse Markowitz wholeheartedly...for retirement.
Campaign for Community-Based Planning, Public Hearings on Columbia’s Use of Eminent Domain, Next Week
Now that the state has officially declared Manhattanville “blighted,” on September 2 and 4, the Empire State Development Corporation will hold public hearings, the next stage of the process that will ultimately determine whether the state will support the use of eminent domain in Columbia University’s planned expansion. While many believe this is a done deal, there is still the opportunity to make your voice heard on this issue. Talking points on eminent domain from Task Force Supporters the Coalition to Preserve Community, a group that has long been fighting Columbia’s plan, are after the jump.
The hearings will be held from 1-4pm and 5:30-9:30pm both days, at Aaron Davis Hall of the City University of New York, located at West 135″‘ Street at Convent Avenue. Speaker sign-up begins 15 minutes before each session.
Posted by lumi at 5:01 AM
August 26, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
The Real Deal, Harlem complex would move ahead with proposed rezoning
Apparently New Yorkers aren't totally fed up with the Bloomberg administration's continued use of eminent domain:
The New York City Planning Commission is scheduled to vote Wednesday on rezoning the area from 125th to 127th streets, between Second and Third avenues, for a 1.7 million-square-foot mixed-use complex. The city already owns 81 percent of the land designated for the project, and remaining property owners in the zone say they haven't had offers on their land yet, and are afraid the city will use eminent domain. The council is expected to pass the rezoning proposal, and developers Vornado Realty Trust, Thor Equities and General Growth Properties are already bidding on the project.
EMINENT DOMAIN HEARING SEPT. 2 AND SEPT. 4
From an email from the folks in West Harlem fighting the Columbia University land grab:
The Empire State Development Corporation will hold a hearing which is supposedly part of the process to help decide whether the state will support the use of eminent domain for the Columbia expansion. It will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 2 and Thursday September 4 (exact times and signup procedure is below), at Aaron Davis Hall at City College (135th Street and Convent Ave.), just east of Amsterdam Ave.
...
Columbia’s public relations gang together with Councilman Jackson’s office issued a joint press release over a year ago making claims CU would not use eminent domain against expansion properties that had residential tenants. Our coalition immediately disputed this claim, and last month, sure enough, Columbia had changed its tune. Instead of CU President Bollinger’s and Jackson’s assertion that eminent domain would never be used against residents, in the papers before the ESDC, that tune had cha nged. Now CU has reneged on its promise and says it will only forgo eminent domain for an undetermined amount of time (approximately 10 years – or until they need the land where residents are housed).
Complete text after the jump
To CPC Members and Others Interested: 8/24/08
EMINENT DOMAIN HEARING SEPT. 2 AND SEPT. 4 (COME THE EVENING OF THE 2ND IF YOU CAN) AND SUMMER UPDATE:
The Empire State Development Corporation will hold a hearing which is supposedly part of the process to help decide whether the state will support the use of eminent domain for the Columbia expansion. It will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 2 and Thursday September 4 (exact times and signup procedure is below), at Aaron Davis Hall at City College (135th Street and Convent Ave.), just east of Amsterdam Ave. Many Coalition to Preserve Community members testified at the initial meeting in July and the undemocratic practices of the ESDC became immediately evident when its chairperson called for the vote from the members on the eminent domain issue. The chair did not even make the perfunctory gesture of asking if there were any votes in opposition or abstentions. It was only when a CPC member, loudly because his hand went unrecognized, pointed out this basic violation of Roberts R ules of Order, that the chair then went back and completed the proper voting procedure. Even before the vote was taken on whether the eminent domain process would move forward, ESDC officials had already picked hearing dates in September!
State Senator Bill Perkins challenged ESDC for failing to provide him and the public with the current state documents which should have been available. Councilman Robert Jackson’s representative neither raised nor supported any issue that had been brought up by community members or Perkins, instead focusing on a lame request that the hearing be held in September. (It was clear to those present that Jackson had no interest in challenging eminent domain abuse itself – the Sept. 2 date is apparently fine with him--it would give him and his staff enough time to come back from the Democratic National Convention. The organizing challenge of getting the public to a hearing the day after the Labor Day holiday was of no concern to the Councilman. This process is so clearly rigged in favor of Columbia that Governor David Paterson needs to step in personally, come to Harlem’s defense, and show political integrity by maintaining consistency with his own formerly critical position on eminent domain.
We regret to report that Community Board 9 (CB 9) did not have a single representative at the initial ESDC meeting to reiterate the Board's and the community's opposition to Eminent Domain. There are 50 members on the board. Couldn’t someone come and represent it? We must also report that CB 9 did not have anyone present at the judge’s hearing on the environmental lawsuit (brought by Tuckitaway and covering many essential issues raised in CB 9’s resolution against the bathtub construction and other environmental issues raised by CB 9 in its 197 A plan). Where is CB 9 when the community needs them? Where is our political representation? And for that matter, why was the West Harlem Local Development Corp (WHLDC) not present and representing the community’s interests? The WHLDC needs to stand up against eminent domain earnestly in public. We hope to see CB 9 and the LDC members out in force at the ESDC hearing and standing up and speaking out.
Columbia is acting like it has ESDC approval already. Just look at what it is already doing on Broadway’s west side near 130th Street – limiting traffic flow (at least two accidents have occurred already). Has anyone tried to get gas at the Shell Station or a car repair at Papi’s there? Columbia continues its blight creation, and its attack on employment it deems not consistent with the new world it wants to create at our expense.
Columbia’s public relations gang together with Councilman Jackson’s office issued a joint press release over a year ago making claims CU would not use eminent domain against expansion properties that had residential tenants. Our coalition immediately disputed this claim, and last month, sure enough, Columbia had changed its tune. Instead of CU President Bollinger’s and Jackson’s assertion that eminent domain would never be used against residents, in the papers before the ESDC, that tune had cha nged. Now CU has reneged on its promise and says it will only forgo eminent domain for an undetermined amount of time (approximately 10 years – or until they need the land where residents are housed).
Columbia has broken its promise not to use eminent domain against residents after having used it during the government approval process to soften outrage over the use of eminent domain against longtime residents, some of whom were in the process of becoming owners of their apartments. This PR strategy allowed Columbia and the City Council to make the owners easier targets for eminent domain - as if the public is so stupid it does not understand the way eminent domain (and placement of environmentally unsafe facilities) are being used in low-income and minority communities across the country. It was a cynical attempt to divide and conquer but the unity that exists between owners, businesses facing eviction, and residents in and out of the expansion area, is strong. We suspect that Columbia’s inevitable contingency plans to mitigate the affect of C2 the arrests of community members (yes, we will be in front of the bulldozers) must be going forward in the bowels of Low Library, and in consultation with the trustees’ political friends.
Of course, the residents in the immediate expansion area are already being affected by the threat of forced displacement, as are all tenants in the surrounding area and in greater Harlem as well. And, finally, regarding those property owners facing the theft of their properties: They have been dealing with this threat over the past five years, and are now confronting the endgame abuse. The businesses and owners who have been driven out already, and those who are maintaining a courageous (and costly) resistance, have the support of Harlem residents and organized groups like the CPC. Despite Columbia’s vicious underhanded efforts to demean these owners and harass them into selling out, the largest one and others are still hanging tough. Nick Spreyregen of Tuckitaway, declared years ago that he would fight this to the Supreme Court. Those owners who held out f or a long time but were finally squeezed and pressured into selling out, tip their hats to the battle Nick is waging because they would have been right there if they had the resources. He is doing it to save his family businesses and for all Harlem residents, businesses, and workers as well. As we see more and more businesses and residents being forced out from re-zonings (yeah the Record Shack has joined Bobby’s Happy House) and the gentrification process, we know that we cannot go quietly. And we will not. We need you at this hearing. So come on out.
Coalition to Preserve Community members have been active this summer, doing flyering at subway stops against the biotech lab #3’s and the bathtub, and doing other supportive actions for neighborhood preservation, but it is now time for everyone to step into high gear and turn out at this hearing and speak against the use of eminent domain.
Below are talking points to be made at the hearing and below that is the official ESDC notice of where the hearing will take place and speaking rules.
EMINENT DOMAIN TALKING POINTS
EMINENT DOMAIN SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED ON BEHALF OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY’S PROPOSED EXPANSIO N FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
(1) THE COMMUNITY UNEQUIVOCALLY OPPOSES IT
At every forum of the West Harlem Local Development Corporation and at every public hearing in the ULURP process, the community has been united in opposing the use of Eminent Domain as a first principle and most community members have demanded that the University take it off the table as a precondition for any negotiations with Columbia. The community seeks an integrated community, where private owners who have provided good-paying jobs to community workers can stay in their historic locations. Condemnation would create a “company town” solely f or Columbia University’s use and enjoyment. Columbia’s “all of nothing” demand is unnecessary to their expansion, but not to their “fire-sale” land grab, and destructive of the neighborhood.
(2) THIS PROJECT IS NOT “CIVIC” NOR “FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD”
This proposed project would transfer private property to another private entity, which will use the property in public/private biotech business projects akin to Stanford University’s research park (a development Columbia has sought to emulate since the 1960s). This is not an 9 Ceducational” or “-“civic” use, despite the title of this hearing, but an income-producing use by a not-for profit entity which will not even pay real–estate taxes.
(3) ANY “BLIGHT” IN THE EXPANSION AREA HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE PROPOSED BENEFICIARY OF EMINENT DOMAIN
If it is true, as Columbia has repeatedly claimed, that the University owns 70-80% of the property in Manhattanville (a claim put into question by the list of properties which it seeks to have the ESDC condemn), any ill-maintained and unoccupied property has been the result of the University’s own deliberate actions. It should not benefit from those actions. Available industrial real estate is at a severe shortage in the City. Any vacant properties could have been rented immediately if maintained and truly offered for occupancy. The University has used the threat of condemnation, based on its own creation of blight, to threaten and intimidate landowners into selling their properties, saying “sell to use now or deal with the State later.” Columbia has also emptied the area of commercial tenants like Reality House and the mechanics at 3150 Broadway and is in the process of removing long-time residential tenants and potential owners.
(4) THE CONDEMNATION PROCESS HAS BEEN CORRUPT AND FULL OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The University has paid at least $300,000 to the ESDC to move the condemnation process forward (a payment unacknowledged by the University until an FOIL request uncovered it) while denying its role in the Eminent Domain process. There is an irresolvable conflict of interest in the condemnation process because the consultant AKRF was hired by the University to perform its Environmental Impact Statement for the ULURP process and at the same time created the “blight study” being relied upon by the ESDC as a basis for Eminent Domain. That conflict has not been resolved by the newly minted “blight study” by another consultant which uniformly mimics the AKRF study. Moreover, AKRF also drafted responses for the City Planning Commission in response to points brought up by Community Board 9 critiquing the “Draft Scope of Work” during the ULURP process. Thus it is seeks to serve three masters: the University, the City, and the State. That is not possible.
(5) THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN AT THIS STAGE IS PREMATURE
Columbia has never demonstrated its need for the entire proposed expansion area. We don’t have even one set of completed plans for a building. The safety and economic-feasibility of its proposed “bathtub” basement has never been demonstrated and has served primarily as a rationale for the attempted acquisition of the entire footprint. Columbia has made no commitment to building the bathtub or developing the proposed expansion area within any designated time period. The footprint may sit fallow for years as the University struggles to raise funds in a depressed economy. Present businesses are already operating, paying wages to workers and taxes to the City.
(6) EMINENT DOMAIN IS UNDEMOCRATIC AND UN-AMERICAN
Property to be acquired by private developers like Columbia University should be bought through the market at market prices. Owners uninterested in selling should not be compelled to sell by the State.
COME OUT AND TESTIFY AGAINST THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN MANHATTANVILLE. WHY SHOULD WEST HARLEM BE HANDED OVER TO COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY WITH A STATE SPONSORED EVICTION? THE PEOPLE, NOT PRIVATE DEVELOPERS AND ELITIST INSTITUTIONS, MUST HAVE INFLUENCE AND MUST BE HEARD.
THE TIMES OF THE HEARING (IT'S IN FOUR PARTS) AND HOW TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK ARE IN THE NOTICE BELOW AND TALKING POINTS TO RAISE ARE AT PASTED IN ABOVE. TRY TO COME TUESDAY NIGHT IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE – 5:30 to 9:00PM.
LEGAL NOTICE
NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION D/B/A
EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 AND CONTINUED ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2008, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 6 AND 16 OF THE NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT AND ARTICLE 2 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE IMPROVEMENT AND CIVIC PROJECT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a public hearing, open to all persons, will be held at the Aaron Davis Hall of the City University of New York, West 135"' Street at Convent Avenue, New York, New York 10031, from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. and from 5:30 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 and continued on Thursday, September 4, 2008, from 1:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. and from 5:30 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. by the New York Sta te Urban Development Corporation d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation ("ESDC") Pursuant to Sections 6 and 16 of the New York State Urban Development Corporation Act (Chapter 174, Section 1, Laws of 1968, as amended; the "UDC Act") and Article 2 of the New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law ("EDPL") to consider: (a) the General Project Plan (the "General Project Plan") for the proposed Columbia University Educational Mixed-Use Development Land Use Improvement and Civic Project (the "Project"); (b) the proposed acquisition by ESDC, by condemnation or voluntary transfer, of certain property located within the Project Site (described below) in furtherance of the Project; and (c) the essential terms of proposed conveyances of property so acquired by ESDC to Columbia University in furtherance of the Project.
For those who wish to speak at the hearing, speaker registration will commence 15 minutes before each session on each hearing date at the Aaron Davis Hall.
WE ARE COMMITED TO STOPPING THE DESTRUCTION OF HARLEM AND TO PRESERVING OUR HOMES, JOBS AND COMMUNITY
Posted by lumi at 4:50 AM
August 24, 2008
Eminent Domainia - Crain's Edition
City quiets a loud Willets Point critic
Jerry Antonacci, owner of Crown Container and once an outspoken critic of the city's plan to redevelop Willets Point, has agreed to make way for the project, for a price.
...
With his deal in hand, Mr. Antonacci has withdrawn from Willets Point Industry and Realty Association, which is leading the opposition among landowners. But despite the agreement, he says his opinions on the redevelopment haven’t changed.“I don’t want to see eminent domain used on anybody,” he said. “I hope the city treats everyone else as good as they treated me. If they do, maybe you won’t see so much fight.”
City vote on E. 125th Street rezoning near
The New York City Planning Commission is slated to vote on Wednesday on whether to rezone the eastern portion of 125th Street, which would help the pave the way for the construction of a proposed 1.7 million square foot, mixed-use complex.But property owners in the development zone say city officials have yet to make any offers for their land, which they fear will be acquired through the use of eminent domain.
NoLandGrab: The E. 125th Street folks are protesting the rezoning because there is not a pre-selected developer. Hoping for a Ye Olde Community Benefits Agreement with a developer to rectify the community's needs might not be the best plan...
Posted by amy at 9:10 PM
August 23, 2008
This week in history...Visual Acorn Edition
Norman Oder's post today about the August 2006 DEIS hearing inspired NoLandGrab to hit the archives. We found this memorable photo of Bruce Ratner walking with Bertha Lewis and wearing an ACORN t-shirt.
So, what has changed with ACORN since 2006? They came over to our side and oppose eminent domain abuse! Look they even used our catchphrase!
Sadly, no. They do oppose eminent domain abuse, but only when they're not feasting at the table.
Posted by amy at 11:33 AM
August 21, 2008
Baltimore: What The NYT Didn’t See Fit to Print
Rooflines [National Housing Institute, blog]
By Matthew Schwarzfeld
Last week, we pointed out that a NY Times article about the Johns Hopkins project being developed by Forest City in East Baltimore danced around the subject of eminent domain by using curious euphemisms and code words that would be unfamiliar to those who have not been closely following the issue of eminent domain.
Judging from this Rooflines article, the Times piece, covering the "largest urban renewal project in the nation" by the paper's own development partner, was more of a snow job than we initially thought.
Johns Hopkins has a complex and mixed relationship with the mostly black residents of the east Baltimore neighborhood in which the main campus is located, but a recent article in The New York Times on the university’s $1.8 billion expansion plan largely ignores the issue. Though the university expansion will result in the dislocation of thousands of low-income residents, The Times looks almost entirely at the positive business impact.
Johns Hopkins’ expansion is the largest urban renewal project in the country. The university, through a nonprofit partnership, the East Baltimore Development Inc., has acquired 88 acres, much of it through eminent domain. The project will raze a large part of East Baltimore—an infamously crime-ridden area with high vacancy rates—and replace it with office buildings, university lab facilities, and mixed-income housing.
The Times article, which ran in the real estate section, sees the project as nothing but a positive. It describes EBPI’s work as “turning what had become an urban wasteland into a vibrant, 88-acre community” and “demolish[ing] a neighborhood to save it.” (A June 2007 article that ran in The Times national section presents a more-balanced view).
...
The article’s discussion of Forest City, Hopkins’ development partner, has also caught the attention of opponents of eminent domain outside of Baltimore. The blog NoLandGrab, a strong opponent of Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project (Forest City Ratner is a subsidiary of Forest City), blasted the Baltimore article in a recent post. Opponents of Atlantic Yards have called the papers coverage into question, noting that the Times Company and Forest City have a series of business collaborations.“I’ve long commented that, while I don’t think there’s any directive in the newsroom to go easy on Forest City Ratner (or its parent company, Forest City Enterprises), the business relationship means that the newspaper has an obligation to be exacting in its coverage—and, in the case of Atlantic Yards, it has too often failed to do so,” said Norman Oder, editor of the Atlantic Yards Report. “The omission of eminent domain in this article [about East Baltimore] strikes me as another example of that failure.”
NoLandGrab: Of course there's no "directive in the newsroom to go easy on Forest City Ratner (or its parent company, Forest City Enterprises)," and the serious lack of critical analysis is just an odd coincidence.
This is where some of us think that Norman Oder is being a little too considerate. There need not be a "directive" when cozy business relationships and a publisher's personal predilections are often enough to quell the appetite for critical reportage.
Posted by lumi at 4:40 AM
August 20, 2008
Panic in Sambôdia: From Crack City Nights To The New Light
 |
THE NEW WORLD LUSOPHONE SOUSAPHONE
Journalist, blogger and Brooklyn ex-pat Colin Brayton reports on a Brazilian urban renewal project land grab that sounds like Atlantic Yards on steroids, complete with exaggerated tales of blight, cheerleading media coverage, and questionable crime statistics. But his Atlantic Yards reference is a little off-base.
City government wants private enterprise to execute New Light urban renewal project, report G1/Globo.
The city plans to expropriate 106 acres in the downtown area.
Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, New York, for comparison’s sake, involved some 21 acres, and years and years of intense negotiation with the local community.
The local community in this case is simply being demonized in the media — Globo is a major culprit — as an homogenous army of crack-smoking zombies and evicted at gunpoint by the fabled Tropa de Choque.
Typical of Globo journalism, some 95% of the report consists factoids plagiarized from press releases by the city government, and dedicates only a token amount of space to opposition to the project by local residents whose properties are being sold off for pennies, in offers they cannot refuse, so that Microsoft can have a nice place to work out of for very, very cheap.
It cannot even manage to interview a single person so affected. It interviews one person who knows of, and sympathizes with, a person so affected.
Symptomatic: G1 follows the city government — the incumbent mayor is polling at about 9% in his bid for reelection, trailing even Paulo Maluf — in referring to the neighborhood as “Crackland.”
...Longtime residents and property owners are now seeing themselves socioeconomically cleansed from the area along with the crackheads.
NoLandGrab: "Years and years of intense negotiation with the local community?" We'll give Brayton the benefit of the doubt, and assume that either a) he's been absent from Brooklyn a few years or b) he's been getting his Atlantic Yards news from The Brooklyn Standard, Forest City Ratner's erstwhile fake newspaper.
The only "negotiation" Atlantic Yards has gone through has been between developer Bruce Ratner and a few hand-picked community groups, several of which didn't exist before the project was announced. The community's intense battle to stop the ill-conceived project, however, has been going on for years and years.
Posted by eric at 10:05 PM
Forest City firm on price for convention center site
The Cleveland Plain Dealer
By Joe Guillen
Forest City Enterprises executives said they will not drastically cut their $40 million asking price for land at Tower City to pave the way for a medical mart and convention center.
The company has already agreed to concessions for the project, including a low-cost 20-year lease of the Higbee Building for the medical mart and a convention center redesign to reduce costs. The company is not inclined to go much further, said three Forest City executives who met with Plain Dealer editors and reporters on Tuesday.
But reducing the asking price is what Cuyahoga County officials are looking for.
NoLandGrab: Next step eminent domain? Ya think that the development company that repeatedly benefits from the use of eminent domain for land acquisition (i.e. Atlantic Yards; the NY Times Headquarters; Fresno, CA) might understand if the county just forced them to sell the land at the coincidentally appraised value of $40 million.
Posted by lumi at 4:55 AM
August 18, 2008
So when exactly was that Contract Scope for an EIS prepared?
Atlantic Yards Report
I've posted (via my previous article) the 35-page Contract Scope for an Environmental Impact Statement that I cited on Friday as promising more analysis of blight than was ultimately produced by consultant AKRF.
...
The ESDC [Empire State Development Corporation] voted on 9/29/05 to authorize the contract. It was signed by representatives of AKRF on 1/12/06 and ESDC 1/24/06.The Contract Scope is undated, but its second page states that "a final draft EAF [Environmental Assessment Form] was submitted to ESDC on September 16," which suggests that the document was in front of the ESDC when the agency's board voted that month.
It sure would've been interesting to have had it earlier.
NoLandGrab: The contrast between the original Contract Scope and what was ultimately delivered implies that the case for blight might have been very weak had AKRF conducted the study as originally outlined in the Contract Scope. This is interesting because the NY State definition of blight is notoriously lax and in favor of the condemning authority.
Posted by lumi at 4:57 AM
August 16, 2008
Should New York City reform eminent domain?
Crain's
City Council member Hiram Monserrate on Thursday proposed to reform the city's eminent domain law by requiring developers to issue a financial impact report on any city project that calls for use of eminent domain. Reports would have to explain the development's estimated costs and benefits, disclose expected tax revenues from the project, and outline expected assistance from loans, grants, and tax benefits.Would the legislation improve eminent domain?
Posted by amy at 3:43 PM
August 15, 2008
It came from the Blogosphere...
The Pressure Zone, stories 24 - 28: the whirlwind
NY Sun reporter Abe Reisman, who covers crime and emergencies for the paper and reported yesterday's story on the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty's honoring of Bruce Ratner, posted a run down of his recent bylines:
"Developer Bruce Ratner Is Honored at Gala" (not technically part of crime / emergency beat, but i did it in addition to all that)
NoLandGrab: "not technically part of crime / emergency beat," but damned close.
Nets Daily, Mayoral Candidates Praise Ratner
Mr NYC, War Over Willets Point
Every year or two an epic battle between developers and citizens erupts in New York City. There was the battle over the West Side Stadium in 2005 (which was killed) and then there was fight over the Atlantic Yards development project in Brooklyn (which wasn't killed) in 2006-2007. Now, in 2008, Willets Point in Queens is the new front is this perennial struggle.
NLG: But AY hasn't not been killed yet, either.
QUEENS CRAP, Monserrate Announces Legislation to Restrict Eminent Domain
Queens Crapper posts the press release from Councilman Hiram Monserrate outlining the eminent domain legislation he announced yesterday.
Posted by eric at 10:02 AM
Yards ‘domain’ case has some eminence
The Brooklyn Paper
by Mike McLaughlin
Legal experts agree on one thing about the latest lawsuit to block the Atlantic Yards project — the plaintiffs have put together a crafty argument to combat the project.
Law professors are intrigued by the argument, filed on Aug. 1 in state court by soon-to-be-displaced residents, that the state’s use of its eminent domain power to clear land for Bruce Ratner’s mega-project violates a little-known and never-tested provision of the state Constitution that prohibits public subsidies from underwriting any urban renewal project whose occupancy is not restricted “to persons of low income.”
Ratner’s development is slated to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in direct public subsidies and tax breaks despite the fact that it includes thousands of units of market-rate housing.
The plaintiffs claim that the luxury housing would violate Article 18, Section 6 of the state Constitution.
“It’s a very good, well-written complaint. They’ve got a hook,” said James Gardner, a law professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo.
Posted by eric at 9:34 AM
August 14, 2008
Councilman Proposes Law Restricting Eminent Domain
NY1
Just one day after crowds of supporters and opponents packed a public hearing on the rezoning of Willets Point, one local leader today will announce legislation challenging one of the biggest concerns surrounding the proposal – the possible use of eminent domain.
The city has said it would only be used as a last resort, but City Councilman Hiram Monserrate plans to announce legislation that would force the city to justify any usage of eminent domain.
He wants a definition of when exactly the city can declare a neighborhood economically blighted, as well as guarantees that any displaced business owners would be properly compensated. Monserrate is also introducing a resolution calling on state legislators to follow the city's lead.
NoLandGrab: City legislation would not affect eminent domain abuse in the footprints of Atlantic Yards or the Columbia University expansion. These properties are to be taken by the State of NY.
Posted by eric at 10:53 AM
A Confrontation Over the Future of Willets Point
The New York Times
by Fernanda Santos
Supporters and foes of the Bloomberg administration’s plan to turn gritty Willets Point in Queens into a $3 billion development of stores, offices and apartments faced off Wednesday in a confrontation that grew emotional and raucous at times.
...The hearing combined public testimony on Willets Point and two other rezoning projects, on the Lower East Side of Manhattan and at south Hunters Point, along the East River in Queens. Opponents of the Lower East Side and Willets Point plans protested outside the auditorium where the hearing was held through most of the day. Councilman Hiram Monserrate led two dozen opponents of the Willets Point proposal two blocks east, to a spot in Washington Square Park, to confront city officials holding a news conference there.
The opponents interrupted the news conference, which was organized by the city’s Economic Development Corporation, and drowned out advocates for the proposal, chanting “Justice for Willets Point!” and “Save Willets Point!”
The police told the city economic development officials that they could not remove the protesters, saying they had a right to be there, even if they were being disruptive.
NoLandGrab: The EDC couldn't force the removal of the protesters from Washington Square Park, but it remains to be seen whether or not they'll be able to remove them from Willets Point. One thing we're pretty sure about, though, is that this eminent domain-fueled war will see many, many battles before it ends.
Posted by eric at 9:08 AM
DDDB commentary on Willets Point eminent domain
As the NYC City Council takes a tough stand against the Mayor's eminent domain-abusing Willets Point proposal, Develop Don't Destroy notes some strange coincidences and contrasts.
Parallel Universes: Willets Point Redevelopment and the Atlantic Yards Proposal
We're wondering where the majority of Council members (31 members) claiming to be opposed to eminent domain in Queens were prior to New York State's approval of the use of eminent domain for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards proposal. Or, for that matter, where they are now as it is not too late for some consistency on the issue.
Eminent Domain and "Fair Deal" Are Mutually Exclusive
A reminder that "eminent domain will be used as a last resort" when the threat of eminent domain doesn't work:
Mayor Bloomberg on WABC-TV talking about the city's plan to use eminent domain on 200 businesses to "redevelop" Willets Point:
..."There is a place for eminent domain. What the city is trying to do is negotiate a fair deal with everybody there," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said...
When "eminent domain" passes the lips of the Mayor of New York City you can be sure that "a fair deal" is not part of the equation. Instead the eminent domain negotiation bludgeon is at work.
Bloomberg Needs New Eminent Domain Talking Point
Bloomberg on eminent domain, August 13, 2008 (from NY1):
"We can't have a situation where one building owner sits there and sticks it to the whole city," said Bloomberg...
Sound familiar? (Never mind that in Willets Point there are 200 businesses the City wants to wipe off the map.)
Bloomberg on eminent domain, August 27, 2006 (from WABC-radio via Atlantic Yards Report):
Bloomberg continued:
In the case of eminent domain, it is--we have to keep changing our cities, and build the infrastructure and have the jobs and the housing, and you can’t just let one person stop all of that.
Posted by lumi at 4:32 AM
August 12, 2008
City Council members blast Willets Pt. plan
Crain's NY Business
by Daniel Massey
A day before a City Planning Commission hearing on the Bloomberg administration’s plan to remake Willets Point, a majority of City Council members sent a sharply-worded letter to the planning commissioner opposing the project.
In the letter to Commissioner Amanda Burden, 30 council members say they are in “absolute opposition” to the current proposal to redevelop Willets Point, citing concerns over eminent domain, affordable housing, displaced workers and traffic.
“Unfortunately, this is a product of a flawed process that has continuously ignored the requests of the community in pursuit of a top-down planning process that sets a dangerous precedent for large-scale development projects citywide,” the council members wrote in the letter.
...The signature drive was organized by the affordable housing group NY Acorn and is the second time in the last four months it has organized a majority of council members to write to a city official opposing Willets Point. Twenty-nine council members sent a similar letter to Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber in April.
This time, the council members say they will not support the plan unless eminent domain is taken off the table in negotiations with landowners; half of the 5,500 housing units are guaranteed to be affordable; a comprehensive relocation and compensation plan for small business owners and employees is put in place; and a community benefits agreement that includes traffic mitigation is implemented.
The city has said it will use eminent domain only as a last resort; its plan calls for 20% of the housing units to be affordable; it is working with LaGuardia Community College on a program to train the approximately 1,700 workers who will be displaced by the development; and it will require the developer to put $5 million into a traffic mitigation fund.
NoLandGrab: We applaud the efforts and actions of the Councilmembers who've taken a stand against eminent domain abuse, but we're compelled to point out a couple of things.
First, the "dangerous precedent for large-scale development projects citywide" has already been set by Atlantic Yards. In fact, had the Atlantic Yards plot never been hatched by Forest City Ratner, it's likely that the Willets Point plan, however heinous it may be, wouldn't have encountered such significant — and well organized — resistance.
Second, we have to admit we're curious about ACORN's role. Sure, their interest in the affordable housing makes sense, but based on their track record with Atlantic Yards, we have a hard time believing that they give a hoot about the use of eminent domain. Left to ACORN, that would surely be a bargaining chip happily traded for a richer mix of affordable units.
Lastly, we won't belabor the silliness of the city claiming that eminent domain will only be used "as a last resort." It was already put into use long ago as a negotiating bludgeon. We'll focus instead on the $5 million traffic mitigation fund. Shouldn't the mitigation of traffic be a pre-development requirement? The time to fix traffic problems is before they materialize.
Posted by eric at 4:35 PM
Why Not Add Atlantic Yards to the Agenda?
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
DDDB reacts to the City Planning Commission's nonsensical decision to cram three controversial rezoning hearings into one day and one auditorium with a suggestion:
While they're at it, since Atlantic Yards never went through ULURP—thus avoiding a public planning hearing in front of the planning commission or any planning body—perhaps they can add Ratner's project to the agenda.
NoLandGrab: Do you think the repeated scheduling of public hearings on controversial eminent domain-reliant development projects and rezonings in August (Atlantic Yards DEIS public hearing, August 23, 2006; Columbia University expansion ULURP hearing, August 15, 2007; Willets Point redevelopment, tomorrow) is just a coincidence? Or might they be timed to many people's summer vacations? Either way, the triple-billing is a creative new twist.
Posted by eric at 11:48 AM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
|
Noticing New York rewinds to October 2007 to post testimony on the two competing plans for West Harlem, one of which is Columbia University's eminent domain-abusing land grab. |
And speaking of testimony, if you were getting the sick feeling that maybe these Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) hearings were merely a pro forma step to a rubber-stamp approval, MetroNY is reporting that "Tomorrow the City Planning Commission will hold public hearings on three controversial projects: Lower East Side Rezoning, Hunters Point South and Willets Point redevelopment."
Typically, each of these actions would warrant its own hearing.
The Willets Point property owners who are standing up against the City's use of eminent domain held a press conference and issued a press release announcing the support by Councilmember Monserrate and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer for separate hearings. [Press release after the jump.]
STRINGER, MONSERRATE DEMAND STAND-ALONE HEARINGS
FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Officials Cite Need for Separate Public Sessions for Lower East Side Rezoning, Hunters Point South and Willets Point
NEW YORK, NY, August 11, 2008 - At a press conference on the steps of City Hall, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and City Councilman Hiram Monserrate today called on the City Planning Commission to hold stand-alone separate public hearings on three major redevelopment proposals, rather than the single session now planned.
In a letter to Planning Commission Chair Amanda Burden, Stringer voiced concerns about the City's plans to hold a marathon public hearing on August 13 to consider the Lower East Side Rezoning, along with two Queens proposals -- Hunters Point South and Willets Point.
"Each of these projects deserve a full and frank discussion, and that means giving citizens in each community the time and attention they need to voice their opinions - pro or con," Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said. "The size and potential impact on affected communities and the City as a whole warrants an individualized public hearing and review process for each proposal."
The three major development projects scheduled to be discussed at the August 13 hearing include: plans for the first major rezoning of the Lower East Side since 1961, a plan covering more than 100 city blocks; Hunter's Point South, a proposed mixed-use housing development covering 30 acres of waterfront property in Long Island City, Queens; and plans to redevelop the Willets Point area of Queens, moving from its current industrial base into retail, hospitality and residential uses.
"Good government demands that we provide our citizens with every opportunity to be heard,'' Councilman Hiram Monserrate said. "By rushing through a process, people's voices are denied. The City Planning Commission must take its time and hold separate hearings for these major projects. One is simply not enough."
Stringer added that he recognized that the City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) timeline presents challenges, and he expressed sympathy for the scheduling difficulties the Commission faces. He added, however, in his letter to Commission Chair Burden, "By grouping the hearings on these actions together, the Commission risks limiting the amount and quality of public participation for one, or even all three items, by forcing community members to wait for overly long periods of time before being heard. This delay is likely to frustrate community members and may drive away speakers, thereby limiting the breadth of expressed community opinions. Such a consequence is contrary to the spirit of a public hearing."
Posted by lumi at 4:11 AM
August 11, 2008
WILLETS POINT: Imagining a Place Where Cheers Never End
The New York Times
by Sophia Hollander
Mr. Simon and Mr. McShane represent a new breed of Mets fans, people who have embraced the plans for a new stadium and are now working to help revitalize the surrounding neighborhood. They are using team blogs to publicize community meetings about the future of Willets Point and to update Mets fans on developments.
“If they can successfully build a neighborhood there that draws in people before and after games, but also has permanent residents, I feel like it would have a good effect on the whole area,” said Mr. McShane, who grew up near New Haven and frequented Fenway Park in Boston, where lively restaurants and bars surround the stadium. “That’s something that I always wanted to do for my favorite team.”
NoLandGrab: By "help revitalize the surrounding neighborhood," they mean "help get rid of those annoying businesses that belong to those property owners who've been ignored by the city and deprived of standard services like paved roads and sewers for decades." Mr McShane also represents the "new breed of Mets fan" who also happen to work for Bronx Councilman Jeffrey Dinowitz, who — big surprise — did not join 29 other Councilmembers in April in voicing opposition to the use of eminent domain in Willets Point.
If Mr. Simon and Mr. McShane are leaders in the grass-roots movement to revitalize Willets Points, diehard fans like Jim Conway are its foot soldiers. Mr. Conway, a crane operator, spoke on behalf of the plan last month at a hearing before the Queens borough president, Helen Marshall, saying that it would bring needed jobs to the area. But he admitted later that he had more on his mind than economic interests.
“In Shea, it’s very depressing,” Mr. Conway said as he prepared for his annual pilgrimage to watch the Mets play in Chicago. “You’re embarrassed to ask people from out of town to go with you. There’s no place where you can celebrate being a baseball fan. You don’t feel proud.”
NLG: Mr. Conway is most likely a member of a union whose rules mandated his attendance at the hearing, and whose "needed jobs" would come at the expense of some of the nearly 2,000 jobs that already exist in Willets Point.
And we thought one celebrated "being a baseball fan" inside the stadium. What would make us proud is a government that didn't abuse eminent domain for the benefit of wealthy real estate developers.
Queens Crap offers some additional perspective: Tweeder starts pro-eminent domain abuse website
Posted by eric at 10:20 AM
Here Today, but Maybe Not Tomorrow
The New York Times
In 2002, Stephen A. Scheer set out to photograph Manhattanville, the area between 125th and 133rd Streets and bordered by the Riverside Drive viaduct and the elevated subway on Broadway. The next year, Columbia University announced a plan to buy a huge swath of the gritty neighborhood to expand its campus. Thus, although it was not his intention, Mr. Scheer's work may come to be the last depiction of Manhattanville in its current form.
NoLandGrab: The text accompanying this photo essay fails to point out that whatever part of the swath that Columbia can't buy will be seized by eminent domain.
Posted by eric at 9:49 AM
August 8, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA
This week, property owners were vindicated in a NJ State appeals court ruling in a Long Branch case that we've been keeping an eye on because... well because taking a neighborhood of smallish, but well kept homes, to build a seaside condo complex is abusive, unseemly and un-American.
Associated Press, via Newsday, NJ court orders hearing in eminent domain case
On Thursday, an appeals court ordered a new hearing for the New Jersey homeowners, allowing them to challenge the city's assertion that their properties are blighted.
The ruling was a setback for Long Branch, which adopted a plan to redevelop its beachfront in 1996. As part of the plan, the city sought to condemn 24 properties that sit on the northern tip of the redevelopment area.
Castle Watch, Long Branch Homeowners Hail Appeals Court Victory
The eminent domain watch-blog for the Institute for Justice, the group representing the Long Branch property owners, posted a press release.
Today, a three-judge panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division unanimously reversed the June 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson, which allowed the city of Long Branch, N.J., to condemn a charming seaside neighborhood known as MTOTSA for a luxury condominium development. This is the latest in a series of major decisions from New Jersey courts, including the Supreme Court, recognizing that state law and the New Jersey Constitution place real limits on the power of government to condemn property for private development. After explaining how the lower court misapplied the law, the court of appeals found that the city did not provide “substantial evidence” to support its findings of blight.
“The Court basically told the city that if that’s all it has, it can’t take these homes,” said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents many of the homeowners along with Peter Wegener of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf in Lakewood, N.J. “It’s too late for the city to manufacture more evidence, so the Court’s ruling is a fatal blow to the city. We are confident the owners will prevail on remand.” The owners will also have the opportunity to show that changing the plan to use eminent domain was illegal.
Posted by lumi at 3:15 AM
August 7, 2008
It’s unconstitutional! Yards foes pull out new ace in the hole
The Brooklyn Paper
By Gersh Kuntzman
Lawyers for a declining number of holdout residents of the Atlantic Yards footprint may have found the silver bullet in their ongoing battle against state plans to condemn the remaining few properties still not owned by developer Bruce Ratner: the state Constitution.
Though the United States Supreme Court opted last month not to hear the tenants’ and property owners’ challenge to the state’s use of eminent domain power to facilitate the Ratner mega-project, lawyers filed suit last week in New York State Supreme Court citing a clause in the state’s bylaws that bars public money from underwriting any urban renewal project unless “the occupancy of any such project shall be restricted to persons of low income.”
Posted by lumi at 6:19 AM
August 6, 2008
Atlantic Yards Court Battle Continues
Brooklyn Downtown Star
by Jeffrey Harmatz
Property owners in the footprint of Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards Development are taking the next step in their fight against what they feel is the abuse of eminent domain. Nine property owners and tenants have filed a petition with the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court to block the seizure of their homes by the Empire State Development Corporation.
...The project’s future under Forest City Ratner has been called into question by Ratner himself, as he has said that the nation’s economic downturn may cause serious delays in the project, and that only the first phase of the project, including the sports stadium, may be built in the next five years.
Posted by eric at 12:04 PM
Building a Technology Park in Baltimore by Rehabilitating a Neighborhood
The NY Times
By Eugene L. Meyer
From the newspaper that has never seen a Forest City project it didn't like, today The New York Times ran a fairly uncritical story about how the development company and Johns Hopkins Hospital "have joined forces to demolish a neighborhood to save it." [No joke!]
Though the article contained this disclosure, "One of its affiliates, Forest City Ratner, was the development partner for the new Manhattan headquarters of The New York Times Company," it doesn't mention that the Times Company and Forest City Ratner (FCR) now co-own the building.
Also absent from the article is any mention of "eminent domain," a controversial component of the plan to build The Times's headquarters and FCR's Atlantic Yards project. Instead, The Times dances around the topic:
To accumulate land for the site, the city, state and Johns Hopkins in 2003 created East Baltimore Development Inc. to acquire buildings, tear them down, and then sell the land to developers.
[Read: In order to acquire enough land, the government and Johns Hopkins created a public-private corporation empowered with the use of eminent domain to force people to sell their homes and/or businesses.]
Check out the rest of the article, which cheerily ends with a quote from a Forest City executive: "Hopefully, this is the last time we’ll have to demolish a neighborhood in order to save it.... It’s a real opportunity to create a new model of inclusive city rebuilding."
Posted by lumi at 5:11 AM
August 5, 2008
State eminent domain suit filed, raises new state claim; hearing in January?
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder parses through the NY State eminent domain petition filed yesterday by property owners fighting Bruce Ratner's Prospect Heights land grab.
As expected, the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case has taken a last-ditch trip to state court and, though some of the arguments have already been dismissed in the (likely) more hospitable federal court system, the case filed Friday adds a novel claim, based on grounds untested in court, which might make the argument interesting.
Thus, it looks like the Atlantic Yards legal battle will not be resolved until 2009, despite developer Bruce Ratner’s stated claim--which itself represents a slowdown in the timetable--that groundbreaking would begin in January. (Two other lawsuits are pending, as well as questions over project financing.)
Nine plaintiffs--two fewer than in the recent Supreme Court eminent domain appeal and five fewer than the total plaintiffs in the federal case--have filed suit against the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the only potential defendant under the state Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). In the federal case, which was dismissed at the trial and appellate court levels and refused a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, city and state officials were named as defendants, along with developer Forest City Ratner.
Read the rest of the article to find out which original plaintiffs have settled with Ratner, what new evidence is being presented and the latest legal argument that claims that Ratner's land grab violates the State's own constitution.
Posted by lumi at 4:23 AM
FOREST CITY RATNER STATEMENT ON MOST RECENT EMINENT DOMAIN LAW SUIT FILED BY OPPONENTS OF ATLANTIC YARDS PROJECT IN BROOKLYN
August 4, 2008 - Brooklyn, NY - Bruce Bender, the executive vice president for government and community affairs at Forest City Ratner Companies, the developer of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, issued the following statement today in response to inquiries regarding the most recent lawsuit brought by opponents of the project:
“The courts have repeatedly upheld the public benefits of the Atlantic Yards project,” Mr. Bender said, explaining that the project will create thousands of needed jobs and affordable homes. “As expected, opponents have filed another law suit opposing the State’s right to use eminent domain. We’re fully confident that the courts will once again agree that this project is in the public’s interest.”
Earlier this summer, the United States Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which unanimously affirmed the District Court's decision in a case brought by opponents of the Atlantic Yards project. The District Court had previously decided against the plaintiffs in the case citing the numerous public benefits generated by the project.
Background on Atlantic Yards:
Construction on the Site
* Construction work on Atlantic Yards began in February of 2007. FCRC expects to open the Barclays Center in the 2010 calendar year.
* To date, roughly 57% of the structures on the site have been demolished or are in the process of being demolished. 31 structures have been demolished and an additional 4 buildings are being demolished or are slated to be demolished in the short term. There are 11 vacant lots and 29 other remaining structures.
* Minority- and women-owned businesses have received a large percentage of the work. Construction contracts awarded at Atlantic Yards total approximately $44.5 million. The total MBE awards are $17.9 million or approximately 40.2% of total purchases. The total WBE awards are $2.9 million or approximately 6.5% which brings the total M/WBE participation thus far to $20.8 million or approximately 46.7%.
Additionally, 37.5% of the 21 contracts awarded to MWBE firms have gone to Brooklyn based firms.
* Construction of the Temporary Rail Yard is under way. The Carlton Ave Bridge is in the process of being demolished and critical upgrades to the 100 year old sewer and water infrastructure have begun.
Legal Update * June 23, 2008. The United States Supreme Court declines to review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. * February 1, 2008. US Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit, unanimously rejects the opponents’ appeal in the federal eminent domain lawsuit that was dismissed in June, 2007. * January 15, 2008. The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court unanimously dismisses a challenge to the project approvals under Section 207 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law in November 2007. Opponents’ request for an appeal was denied in January, 2008. * January 11, 2008. NY State Supreme Court rules against opponents in a case on environmental review procedures. Opponents are appealing the case. * October 2007. A second suit brought in the NY State Supreme Court challenging the State's use of eminent domain was dismissed in May 2007, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division in October 2007.
Posted by lumi at 4:14 AM
August 4, 2008
It came from the Blogosphere...
The Real Estate [NY Observer], Landowners Bring Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Battle to State Court
If anything else, the lawsuits thus far seem to have delayed the start of the more than $4 billion planned project, which calls for a new basketball arena for the Nets, and over 6,000 apartments. Now, more than a year and a half since the Atlantic Yards project received state approval, a host of clouds circle over developer Forest City Ratner, which once anticipated building the entire first phase (which includes the arena, an office tower and at least 1,000 units of housing) by 2010. The once-lush climate for financing has turned to an arid desert, tax-free housing bonds are in short supply given soaring demand, and the financing mechanism by which the company was to get tax-free bonds for the arena is under fire by the I.R.S., threatening to drive up costs by more than $100 million.
But if the landowners had an uphill climb challenging eminent domain in federal court, the ascent in New York state court is generally regarded as a particularly daunting one, given the relatively generous treatment to the state by New York's eminent domain law.
We're waiting on a statement from Forest City, but if history is any guide, the company will point out (correctly) that the courts have tossed all the lawsuits challenging the project to date.
The Campaign for Community-Based Planning, Checking in With Atlantic Yards: A Messy Footprint, a New Timetable, and a Lawsuit in State Supreme Court
It’s been a while since we’ve looked in on the Atlantic Yards project. Luckily, Norman Oder of the Atlantic Yards Report has been keeping vigilant watch over the goings-on at the site. Here’s a quick update...
Gowanus Lounge, Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case Filed in State Court
Brownstoner, Nets Coming Late to Atlantic Yards and Suit Coming Soon
Two new developments in the Atlantic Yards saga. Atlantic Yards Report reveals that the Nets have three more years at the Meadowlands' Izod Center, not two, meaning the 2010 opening date Bruce Ratner has been promoting may be nothing more than a pipe dream; we might be looking at 2012 for the team's debut. Besides the team's schedule, there's the issue of construction. Ratner tells some outlets that groundbreaking won't begin until January; to others, he says November.
As construction remains stalled at the site, a lawsuit goes forward. Nine property owners and tenants filed a petition against the Empire State Development Corporation in the Appellate Division Second Department of New York State Supreme Court.
Nets Daily, Has Ratner Pushed Barclays Center Opening to 2011?
brooklyn bob says:
And btw, a JULY OF 2011 barclays center opening is a BEST CASE SCENARIO that assumes no further legal delays, no financing/loan delays and no construction delays. Yeah, right. That’ll happen.
3 more 20-win seasons in the swamp, at least. With 4 more being a very real possibility. While at the same time, newark’s brand new state-of-the-art arena awaits an nba franchise with open arms.
What a bleeping disgrace!!! Way to go ratner. Way to go stern. You two sure know how to screw things up. No wonder the nba’s popularity is going to hell in a hand basket.
Only the Blog Knows Brooklyn, Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case Filed on Friday
Yonkers Tribune, Nine Property Owners and Tenants File Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Challenge in New York State Court
RotoWorld, Nets may not move until 2011
Posted by eric at 12:46 PM
DDDB PRESS RELEASE: Nine Property Owners and Tenants File Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Challenge in New York State Court
Petitioners Seek to Prevent New York State's Seizure of Their Homes and Businesses by Eminent Domain
For Immediate Release: August 4, 2008
BROOKLYN, NY— Late Friday nine property owners and tenants—with homes and businesses New York State wants to seize for developer Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project—filed a petition with the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court seeking an order rejecting the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) findings and determination to seize their homes and businesses by eminent domain.
The court argument will likely be in January 2009.
"New York Courts have a proud history of interpreting the New York Constitution as providing greater protections for individual rights than the federal constitution. This case presents an opportunity to continue that tradition by declaring that the New York Constitution prohibits the government from seizing private homes simply to turn them over to a developer who covets them for a massive luxury condominium project," said lead attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP. "We are confident that the court will see this for what it is: government officials bending to the will of Bruce Ratner, allowing him to wield the power of eminent domain for his personal financial benefit."
Facing the seizure of their homes and businesses, the petitioners have alleged five claims against the ESDC— the condemning authority utilized by Forest City Ratner to take the petitioners' properties and give them to Forest City Ratner. The five claims are that the ESDC's determination to forcibly seize the properties should be rejected because:
1. It violates the public use clause contained in the Bill of Rights of the New York Constitution.
ESDC's claims of public benefit are a pretext to justify a private taking.
2. It violates the due process clause contained in the Bill of Rights of the New York Constitution.
The public process was a sham. The outcome was predetermined in a back room deal between Ratner, Pataki and Bloomberg.
3. It violates the equal protection clause contained in the Bill of Rights of the New York Constitution.
By singling out the petitioners, for unequal, adverse, treatment, and selecting Ratner as the recipient of irrational largess, the ESDC violated the petitioners' right to equal protection under the law.
4. It violates the low-income and current resident requirements of the New York Constitution.
The New York State Constitution provides that no loan or subsidy shall be made to aid any project unless the project contains a plan for the remediation of blight and the "occupancy of any such project shall be restricted to persons of low income as defined by law and preference shall be given to persons who live or shall have lived in such area or areas."
The Atlantic Yards project is not "restricted to persons of low income" and no preference has been given to "persons who live or shall have lived in such area."
5. It violates the "public use, benefit or purpose" requirement contained in New York's Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL).
ESDC's determination that petitioners' homes and businesses will serve a "public use, benefit or purpose" has no basis in fact or law.
The petition to the Court for the case, Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation, can be downloaded at: www.dddb.net/eminentdomain
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn—in its effort to defend the homes and businesses of community members and advocate for their rights—organized the eminent domain lawsuit, and raises the funds for the lawsuit.
Posted by lumi at 4:41 AM
July 31, 2008
Eminent domain will only be used...
[You know the rest of the punch line.]
...as a last resort.
|
Crain's NY Business reports that Queens Borough President Helen Marshall now backs the Willets Point plan with a few caveats, including the old cliché, that the City "use eminent domain only as a last resort." Last we checked, eminent domain is always "used as a last resort" when the threat of eminent domain doesn't work. |
Posted by lumi at 4:33 AM
July 25, 2008
On further review, O'Malley got bum rap
Case can be made that Dodgers owner was pushed
Albany Times-Union
by Brian Ettkin
In a lengthy and interesting piece on Walter O'Malley on the cusp of the former Brooklyn (and L.A.) Dodgers' owner's enshrinement in baseball's Hall of Fame, reporter Brian Ettkin repeats the too-often repeated error about the precise location of the Ebbets Field successor that never came to be, with a twist.
O'Malley continued asking for help to acquire the Atlantic and Flatbush site (where Bruce Ratner would build Atlantic Yards five decades later).
Ettkin is actually right about the location for Atlantic Yards, but he's wrong about O'Malley, who actually wanted to build on the spot that's now home to Ratner's Atlantic Center mall. He's also off on his phraseology — "would build" is different than "wants to build."
The article does offer up a number of good tidbits, including:
O'Malley offered to build a 100-percent privately financed Major League Baseball stadium, the first since Yankee Stadium had been constructed in 1923, and the land once the city acquired it.
While O'Malley's willingness to privately finance the ballpark was much different than Ratner's dependence on subsidies, O'Malley's plan, like Ratner's, relied on the use of eminent domain.
Moses considered big-league sports of minimal value to a city.
In that respect, Moses and many economists would agree.
[T]he Chavez Ravine stadium deal wasn't valid until a vote of the people narrowly passed it on June 3, 1958, and even then O'Malley had to win several court appeals filed by stadium opponents.
Unlike residents of New York City, Angelenos actually got to vote on the Dodgers' stadium plan.
Posted by eric at 12:30 PM
July 23, 2008
Zero Hour in West Harlem
Last big landowner in Columbia’s way braces for Supreme Court fight as state dangles eminent domain
NY Observer
by Eliot Brown
 |
An in-depth look at West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen's legal battle to save his property from eminent domain seizure for the benefit of Columbia University offers an update on Bruce Ratner's legal bills.
NEW YORK'S LAWS on eminent domain are viewed as rather favorable to the state when compared with other laws nationwide, making the climb for Mr. Sprayregen a distinctly uphill one.
Landowners in other eminent domain cases often hope that a prolonged legal battle will derail a project through a changing political landscape or economic climate. But Columbia’s plan seems prone to more stability than a typical private developer’s. The university has a multibillion dollar endowment; already owns the bulk of the land in the footprint; and has always said the expansion is a long-term proposition, and thus a two-year fight through the court system—landowners in Brooklyn have been challenging eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards project for more than a year and a half—does not seem likely to spoil the university’s plans.
Such a fight can be expensive for both sides. For Atlantic Yards, an Empire State Development Corporation spokesman said the state has spent more than $8 million on legal fees, which apply to litigation and other expenses (the state’s fees are reimbursed by developer Forest City Ratner, and Columbia University will reimburse the state for fees related to eminent domain).
Mr. Sprayregen, who estimated he has spent about $1 million so far in legal expenses and other fees, said he was prepared to commit a substantial sum to continue the fight.
“I think if we’re able to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, it will cost another $2 million,” he said. “Obviously, we now have a real legal fight on our hands.”
NoLandGrab: The Battle of West Harlem may have led to the coining of a new term: "University Blight."
Posted by eric at 10:30 AM
July 22, 2008
Columbia University Plan Could Impact Atlantic Yards
Opponents of Both Have Said State Abuses Eminent Domain
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
by Ranaan Geberer (and AP)
The Empire State Development Corp. (ESDC) has given preliminary approval to Columbia University’s plan to build new housing, laboratories and other facilities in West Harlem, which may force some property owners to give up their land — an issue which is somewhat related to Atlantic Yards.
The agency also ruled that two studies had found the neighborhood where Columbia wants to build is full of old, obsolete buildings in deteriorating condition. Declaring the area blighted gives the state the power to force the sale of private owners’ land needed for the expansion.
Two property owners say they don’t want to sell to Columbia, and have vowed to fight the expansion in court.
This issue is basically similar to the Atlantic Yards battle in Brooklyn, since opponents of that sports-housing-office proposal have also filed suit against the possibility of eminent domain.
NoLandGrab: Yes, "the issue is basically similar," but as for how Columbia's plan "could impact Atlantic Yards," we're not quite sure what the Eagle's headline writers are getting at.
Posted by eric at 9:45 AM
July 19, 2008
ESDC To Further Columbia's 7M-SF Expansion Plan
Globe St
The Empire State Development Corp. board of directors has adopted the Columbia University General Project Plan and authorized a public hearing to formally approve the University’s proposed expansion this fall. The $6.28-billion Manhattanville expansion project, which has had some opposition from local Harlem residents, who worry about displacement, will add up to 6.8 million sf of new facilities in up to 16 new buildings and in an adaptively reused existing building.
...
The ESDC determined the 17-acre area in Harlem "blighted" on Thursday, and according to the anonymous urban affairs source, once the ESDC determines an area is blighted, it has the authority to "undertake the condemnation." The source notes that this is the same concept that was used in Atlantic Yards. In that case, the US Court of Appeals court rejected a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the state's use of eminent domain for the site.
Posted by amy at 9:35 AM
July 18, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
|
Here are some of the latest developments from New York City's two other highly controversial eminent-domain-abusing megaprojects. It sorta makes you wonder how New York City managed to survive with all of this "blight." |
WEST HARLEM, MANHATTAN
MetroNY, Columbia tiptoes further uptown
Columbia University’s $6.28 billion plans to expand north of 125th Street passed another approval hurdle Thursday when a state agency’s board gave the nod for the school’s plan to add 6.8 million square feet of space to West Harlem.
Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage’s Nick Sprayregen — the largest hold-out property owner in the area — was unsurprised by the vote. “It went according to script,” he said. “It’s a charade.”
Columbia, which would get the state to exercise eminent domain to oust the two remaining commercial property owners if the plan is approved, said it would not do so for the seven residential buildings.
Sprayregen doesn’t buy it. “After 2018, they can exercise eminent domain against residential buildings, occupied or not,” said Sprayregen, who has filed several lawsuits against the school during his four-year fight.
The NY Sun, Columbia Expansion Expected To Get Boost From 'Blight'
This should come as no surprise to those who've followed Atlantic Yards and NY State's determination that the area was "blighted."
The two remaining parcels of privately owned land in the footprint of Columbia University's proposed expansion are expected to be deemed part of a "blighted" area, according to sources with knowledge of a report that will be presented to and voted on by the Empire State Development Corp. [Thursday]. Adoption of the report's finding would set the stage for a legal battle over the possible use of eminent domain by the state.
WILLETS POINT, QUEENS
Excerpt from a press release issued by the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association (full release after the jump):
OPPOSITION TO MAYOR'S LAND GRAB AT WILLETS POINT INCREASES
COALITION GROWS STRONGER, LARGER DESPITE BLOOMBERG ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORTS
With Five New Members, Coalition Represents Majority of Land Ownership
NEW YORK, NY July 17, 2008 – The Willets Point Industry and Realty Association (WPIRA), the group of land and business owners fighting the Bloomberg Administration's attempt to steal their property through abuse of eminent domain, today announced that five new businesses have joined the coalition. As a result of these additions, the coalition now represents more than 53 percent of the private land owned in Willets Point despite the Bloomberg Administration's attempts to divide the community.
"Our resolve is stronger than ever, and our numbers are growing larger despite the city's weak attempts to divide us," said Thomas Mina, a member of WPIRA. "With these new members, our coalition now represents more than 53 percent of the private property in Willets Point. That should send a clear message to this administration that we will never allow them to take our property just so they can give it to a politically-connected developer. This should also send a clear message to all those in Queens who think they can roll over us. This fight will never end until they stop trying to destroy our businesses, steal our land and kill the American dreams of our parents and grandparents."
OPPOSITION TO MAYOR'S LAND GRAB AT WILLETS POINT INCREASES
COALITION GROWS STRONGER, LARGER DESPITE BLOOMBERG ADMINISTRATION'S EFFORTS
With Five New Members, Coalition Represents Majority of Land Ownership
NEW YORK, NY July 17, 2008 – The Willets Point Industry and Realty Association (WPIRA), the group of land and business owners fighting the Bloomberg Administration's attempt to steal their property through abuse of eminent domain, today announced that five new businesses have joined the coalition. As a result of these additions, the coalition now represents more than 53 percent of the private land owned in Willets Point despite the Bloomberg Administration's attempts to divide the community.
"Our resolve is stronger than ever, and our numbers are growing larger despite the city's weak attempts to divide us," said Thomas Mina, a member of WPIRA. "With these new members, our coalition now represents more than 53 percent of the private property in Willets Point. That should send a clear message to this administration that we will never allow them to take our property just so they can give it to a politically-connected developer. This should also send a clear message to all those in Queens who think they can roll over us. This fight will never end until they stop trying to destroy our businesses, steal our land and kill the American dreams of our parents and grandparents."
Council Member Diana Reyna said, "The city must acknowledge the increasing number of business and landowners opposing their redevelopment plan. The City's lack of consideration for the hundreds of small businesses and their thousands of employees at Willets Point is a direct contradiction to their vowed commitment to protect and retain industrial and manufacturing businesses in NYC. The city is betraying and turning their backs on these hard-working men and women and their families."
The five new coalition members are St. John Enterprises, United Steel Products, Shea Auto Repair, Trading Used Auto Parts and Empire Group and represent more than 120,000 square feet of land. With the additions, coalition members now cover 24 acres of the approximately 45 acres of privately owned land in Willets Point -- or more than 53 percent of the land. Each of the businesses have long-standing ties to Willets Point, including St. John's Enterprises with 36 years in the same location.
Georgiou Charalambos, co-owner of Shea Auto Repair for 28 years said, "I am in jail with the city. I don't know what to do. I can't move, I can't sell my property. I'm 66 years old and I want to retire, but I am stuck. No one from the EDC has talked to me. They just the want the property."
Alfredo Franza, vice president of United Steel, a family business with 50 employees, said, "With Community Board 7 and the Queens Borough President supporting this takeover plan, we know that we have a fight ahead and we felt it was important to show a united front with our neighbors."
Queens Borough President Helen Marshall is expected to announce her formal support of the administration's development scheme in the coming weeks, despite the strong turnout by WPIRA members and employees at a recent hearing at Borough Hall. Several WPIRA members testified at the hearing, to combat the city's campaign of misinformation to get approval on the redevelopment project without a formal plan or identification of a developer.
"Helen Marshall should do the right thing and stand with the property owners and the working families of Willets Point and reject this plan," said Jerry Antonacci, WPIRA member. "At the very least, she should show some independence and make clear that her support is contingent on the city agreeing to not use eminent domain to take private property. Unfortunately, Marshall has continued the city's long neglect of Willets Point and refused to provide us with basic city services such as sanitary sewers despite the property tax bills we pay year after year. Hope springs eternal, so we call again on Marshall to side with working families over powerful developers."
###
The Willets Point Industry and Realty Association (WPIRA)
The Willets Point Industry and Realty Association (WPIRA) is dedicated to the development, improvement and growth of the Willets Point area by the businesses that reside there, and not by development schemes in which eminent domain is used to forcibly evict and raze those businesses. http://www.WPIRA.comwww.WPIRA.com
Posted by lumi at 4:44 AM
July 16, 2008
State Must Release Columbia Expansion Papers, Court Rules
City Room [NY Times blog]
By John Eligon
Good news for property owners in West Harlem fighting the forced seizure of their property for Columbia University expansion plans.
A state appellate court on Tuesday upheld a decision ordering the Empire State Development Corporation to release documents regarding the expansion of Columbia University to a group that opposes the plans.
The court voted, 3 to 1, to uphold a June 2007 decision by Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of State Supreme Court that said the corporation’s decision to hire a consultant that also worked for Columbia was a conflict of interest. That conflict meant that correspondences between the corporation and the consultant were not exempt from public disclosure laws and needed to be released, Justice Kornreich ruled.
But the appellate court did find that certain documents were indeed exempt and did not need to be released.
The state in 2006 hired the consultant Allee King Rosen & Fleming Inc., or A.K.R.F., to conduct a study to determine whether the state would be justified in using its power of eminent domain to condemn property sought by Columbia for its expansion. A.K.R.F. was already working with Columbia on the expansion.
Consultants dealing with state agencies may be exempt from public disclosure laws, but in this case the judges found that a conflict of interest nullified the exemption in certain areas.
NoLandGrab: AKRF was hired to conduct the Atlantic Yards environmental review.
Atlantic Yards Report, Appellate court upholds ESDC/AKRF conflict in Columbia case
In a somewhat similar case regarding Atlantic Yards, a Supreme Court Justice ruled that it was improper for a lawyer to work simultaneously for developer Forest City Ratner and the ESDC--but the ruling was overturned when the appellate court found the representation was consecutive rather than simultaneous.
Unresolved: what exactly are the ESDC's guidelines regarding consecutive representation? How much of a gap must there be?
Posted by lumi at 5:21 AM
July 9, 2008
TONIGHT: Eminent Domain Flicks
Splitting Hairs in Forest Hills
Brooklyn Matters is on a double feature with a film about the Willets Point fight against the City's use of eminent domain.
The Newtown Historical Society is proud to present its first public program, consisting of two free educational films about eminent domain issues in Brooklyn and Queens - Brooklyn Matters and Beyond the Curbline - followed by a brief discussion with affected landowners featured in the videos.
Where: The Community Room at the Shops at Atlas Park
When: Wednesday, July 9th, 7pmEntrance for community room is next to Amish Market. Take elevator to 3rd floor.
Light refreshments will be served.
For more information, please call 718-909-3831.
Posted by lumi at 3:49 AM
July 6, 2008
Spinning: SCOTUS on Atlantic Yards, and a Skyscraper
Culture of Congestion [NY Sun blog]
By Sanford Ikeda
The last time I blogged about Atlantic Yards, a group of local residents in the footprint of the project had petitioned the Supreme Court to halt the use of eminent domain to evict them from their property, on the grounds that the proposed complex is not sufficiently oriented toward public rather than private use.
Last week the Brooklyn Paper reported, in "Supremes Sing the Blues to Yards Foes," that the High Court denied without comment the 11 property owners' request that the High Court take up case, which has been rejected by two lower federal courts — though the court did reveal that Justice Samuel Alito, a known skeptic of eminent domain, voted to hear the case.
Too bad! However, the SCOTUS Blog suggests that Justice Alito's vote to hear the petition indicates that opponents of the use of the government's takings power in such instances have at least one sympathetic ear on the Court.
Posted by steve at 6:52 AM
July 4, 2008
An economist says no eminent domain for sports facilities
Atlantic Yards Report
During the 10/10/07 hearing, Professional Sport Stadiums: Do They Divert Public Funds From Critical Public Infrastructure?, held by the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Arthur Rolnick, Senior Vice President and Research Director, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (but speaking for himself only), made the case against tax-exempt bonds for sports facilities, then got an interestting eminent domain question from ranking minority member Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).
The answer:
Rolnick: Sir, my -- my view on eminent domain and the spirit of eminent domain, it's an abuse to use eminent domain to take from one private company and give to another. Eminent domain was strictly supposed to be used to take from a -- to build a public institution, a library, a school, not a sports stadium. So I have a lot of trouble.
Posted by lumi at 4:32 AM
July 1, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
|
Here is some of the coverage regarding the vote by Queens Community Board 7 that gave advisory approval to the City's plan for Willets Point, Queens. This is another land grab that doesn't yet have a plan or a developer, but will use eminent domain to displace businesses already established in the area. Look for the City to claim the area as being blighted, although the cause of the blight is the City having neglected to provide basic services to this area for decades.
AP via MetroNY: NYC board votes for site near new Mets stadium
A community board in Queens has voted in favor of a plan backed by Mayor Bloomberg to develop a 60-acre site into a new neighborhood of homes, shops, offices and entertainment.
Community Board 7 approved the plan 20 to 15 early Tuesday morning that would transform the gritty area known as Willets Point, near the Mets' new baseball stadium.
About 70 people spoke before the board at the meeting that began Monday evening and lasted into the next morning.
Willets Point land and business owners -- along with hundreds of their employees -- protested the meeting.
Among many concerns, including traffic congestion, the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association says the project lacks a developer or a formal plan.
1010 WINS: Repeats the same AP story, but also includes an audio report by Sonia Rincon.
The Daily News gives an indication of some of the political jockeying that went on before last night's vote by Queens Community Board 7.
Community Board 7 playing hardball on Willets Point redevelopment by John Lauinger
Community Board 7 has threatened to nix Mayor Bloomberg's Willets Point redevelopment plan Monday night unless the city consents to giving the Queens Borough Board a binding vote on the proposal.
The community board is balking at being forced to vote on the plan when the city hasn't even purchased the roughly 60-acre industrial zone near Shea Stadium.
"They're asking us right now to sign off unconditionally on a hypothetical plan without a developer and without funding," said Chuck Apelian, who heads the community board's special committee on Willets Point.
Crain's New York article prior to the vote (by Daniel Massey):
Willets Point project faces key test Monday night
“This is the opportunity to make sure we get good development and good give-backs to the community,” said Chuck Apelian, chairman of the board’s Willets Point committee. “We’re not going to let the city drive its economic engine through our land.”
The board is most concerned with giving the Bloomberg administration the go-ahead on a major project that would displace 260 businesses before the city has bought the land and picked a developer. Members are worried the plan could change and that they would be giving the administration a blank check for a valuable piece of land that abuts the new Citi Field in northeastern Queens.
“How can we convey it without knowing what they’re going to do?” Mr. Apelian said.
Posted by steve at 8:26 AM
June 29, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
|
Castle Coalition
Rally To Support Willets Point Businesses
New York City officials wants to wipe out over 200 profitable businesses in Willets Point in order to transfer the land to a private, yet-to-be-determined developer. The 45-acre area employs thousands of highly-skilled workers, and generates billions of dollars in economic activity and millions in tax revenue for the city - yet for decades, the city has refused to supply the area with basic municipal services like garbage collection, plumbing and electricity. And now, after sabotaging the area for years, the city is pointing to the blight that it created as justification to condemn the businesses that have nonetheless thrived there.
This Monday, the Willets Point businesses need your help:
RALLY
Monday, June 30 @ 6:30pm
Union Plaza Senior Home
33-23 Union Street
Flushing, NYCome out and show your support for the business owners. In the meantime, if you live in New York City, contact:
Community Board #7: 718-359-2800, QN07@cb.nyc.gov
Queens Borough President Helen Marshall: 718-286-3000, mcontessa@queensbp.org
Mayor Michael Bloomberg: 212-788-3000, fax 212-788-2460
Let them know that you oppose eminent domain for private gain!
Posted by steve at 10:42 AM
June 27, 2008
The balance of power?
The Brooklyn Paper
Editorial
At its core, the issue in this case is New York State’s insistence that Bruce Ratner’s basketball arena, office and housing mega-project will bring about a “public benefit.” The declaration of such a “public benefit” enables the state to use its eminent domain power to seize the 11 properties from their owners and give them to Ratner.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that when states condemn private property for a public benefit, they do not violate the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
But in its most-recent ruling on such takings — the 2005 Kelo decision — the High Court declared that the “public benefit” cannot merely be a pretext for handing over one person’s land to another person.
In a word, the benefit must be real.
But who determines if the public actually benefits from a development? In its brief to the High Court, state officials said that only the state itself has the power to make that determination.
The 11 plaintiffs in Goldstein v. Pataki allege that a corrupt and cronyism-riddled Empire State Development Corporation simply used the pretext of public benefit to hand over properties so Ratner could make millions. Two federal courts have declined to examine this claim, saying that judges have no role in hearing challenges to a state’s determination that a project is a “public benefit.”
So, if a state agency says that a project is a “public benefit,” it is, de facto, a public benefit.
But what if the so-called “public benefit” isn’t a benefit at all?
Posted by eric at 9:55 AM
June 26, 2008
US Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Atlantic Yards Case
Brooklyn Downtown Star
By Jeffrey Harmatz
Residents protesting the possible eminent domain seizure of their homes because they are in the footprint of the Atlantic Yards project were dealt a setback on Monday, as their petition for a hearing was rejected by the Federal Courts.
Eleven property owners and tenants joined together to file Goldstein et al. v Pataki et al, an action that seeks to overturn the use of eminent domain to acquire property within the footprint of Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards plan, which includes a basketball arena and thousands of units of affordable housing.
Their petition was filed on March 31, and asserts that the project will only benefit Forest City Ratner rather than the public, therefore the state’s use of eminent domain is unwarranted. The Federal Supreme Court denied to hear the case, but the residents have said that they will continue to fight the seizure of their property.
Posted by lumi at 4:23 AM
June 25, 2008
Pols Remain Masters of Domain
RealClearMarkets
by Steven Malanga
The Manhattan Institute Fellow and RealClearMarkets editor makes a convincing free-market case against the rampant use (and abuse) of eminent domain.
In her two great works--The Death and Life of Great American Cities and The Economy of Cities—Jane Jacobs explained that effective economic development and urban renewal arise from the bottom up as the product of thousands of enterprises and people working on their own without a master plan, rather than from the top down, as planned by politicians or bureaucrats. The vibrancy and diversity of city markets and neighborhoods lie in “the creation of incredible numbers of different people and different private organizations, with vastly differing ideas and purposes, planning and contriving outside the formal framework of public action,” she observed.
This week, it is exactly three years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, which endorsed a very different view of how local economic progress occurs. In that decision, the court said that it was okay for government to condemn and take private property and use it for new economic development if officials believed that the seizures would "provide appreciable benefits to the community, including…new jobs and increased tax revenue." The court’s decision expanded the so-called “takings” clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which previously had been interpreted to mean that government could only take private property to create a public “good,” such as construction of a needed new highway or water pipeline.
...Most Americans object to such takings because the intended uses of the land don’t justify violating property rights when the owner is unwilling to sell to government. But as Jacobs observed, another important objection is that government planners often do a lousy job of anticipating the marketplace when they take property to be developed into something new. What I call mega-project ‘state capitalism,’ the grandiose schemes of politicians and their planners to invest public money in big projects like stadiums, downtown super-malls, and subsidized entertainment districts, has been on the rise for years, often with disastrous results which should have given the Supreme Court justices pause before they gave their blessings to seizures that "provide appreciable benefits to the community."
...In the wake of public reaction against Kelo, officials in many states promised they would seek laws limiting local use of eminent domain, but although a few states have put in tougher restrictions, in many places there has been little reform because regardless of public sentiment, officials like the power of takings that the Supreme Court gave them.
...Today, three years after Kelo, the game of public sponsored economic development subsidized by taxes, tax-free bonds, tax-breaks for favored businesses, and the threat of eminent domain, is alive and well, supporting everything from mega-projects like the massive 22-acre Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, N.Y., to the efforts by the tiny California town of Hercules to take land away from Wal-Mart because the town fathers objected to the big box retailer invading their domain. Kelo has allowed local officials throughout the country to remain masters of eminent domain, and private markets continue to suffer as a result.
Posted by eric at 11:58 AM
It came from the Blogosphere...
The Footprint Gazette, Another Glimpse Into Our Future?
My fears regarding my own apt. were realized this weekend for a number of families in Prospect Lefferts Gardens. Construction alongside their building caused long cracks to it's foundation. The tenants were told to grab only a few light items and then vacate. 'Light' because anything heavy might cause the building to shift.
inversecondemnation.com, Note to Self: Avoid June 23 at the Supreme Court
Though we usually ignore the stupidsticious, the headline is funny in a black humor sort of way.
Posted by lumi at 6:11 AM
June 24, 2008
The Morning Papers: SCOTUS Eminent Domain edition
The NY Times, U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Atlantic Yards Case
Mr. Ratner, whose company was a development partner in the Midtown headquarters of The New York Times Company, said in a statement, “We are gratified that the Supreme Court has decided to put an end to this lawsuit. The opponents have now lost 20 court decisions relating to Atlantic Yards, and we are now one step closer to making these benefits a reality for the borough and the city.”
NoLandGrab: The claim to have won "20 court decisions" is another one of those unquestioned lies promoted by Bruce Ratner. Shame that it made it into the NY Times. Atlantic Yards Report examines the claim in today's post.
NY Daily News, Court won't review Nets arena project
And while we're pointing out flaws in coverage, the Daily News still believes that the project is in "downtown Brooklyn:"
The Supreme Court Monday turned down the latest appeal to block construction of the $4 billion Atlantic Yards project in downtown Brooklyn.
Opponents vowed to file a new suit in state court to block what they call a shameless land grab.
NoLandGrab: If Ratner calls the Atlantic Yards footprint "Downtown Brooklyn" does that mean reporters have to do the same?
NY Post, COURT KOS YARDS FOE
The high court's inaction leaves the state with the green light to begin eminent-domain proceedings.
"We believe, and the courts have repeatedly agreed, that Atlantic Yards provides significant public benefits, including thousands of affordable homes and much-needed jobs, for Brooklyn," Ratner said yesterday.
The developer, however, is not planning to break ground until the end of the year, after a suit challenging the legality of the state's environmental review of the project is decided.'
Opponents yesterday were continuing their full-court press against Ratner, saying they'll now take the case to state court.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Atlantic Yards Case
The opponents of Atlantic Yards continue to lose each and every lawsuit and appeal that they file.
...
However, shall there be a sixth lawsuit filed by the opponents of Atlantic Yards?
MetroNY (print edition only)
|
amNY (AP), Property owners will still fight NYC arena plans
Posted by lumi at 4:57 AM
June 23, 2008
PRESS RELEASE: "Subject: Brooklyn Arena Construction to begin"
FOREST CITY RATNER STATEMENT ON UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION NOT TO HEAR EMINENT DOMAIN CASE
June 23, 2008 - Brooklyn, NY - Bruce Ratner, the CEO and Chairman of Forest City Ratner Companies, today applauded the United States Supreme Court decision not to hear an eminent domain suit requested by opponents of the Atlantic Yards project.
Today the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, affirmed the State's right to use eminent domain relating to Atlantic Yards. In February, the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, unanimously affirmed the District Court's decision in a case brought by opponents of the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn on the grounds that the use of eminent domain violates the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court had previously decided against the plaintiffs in the case citing the numerous public benefits generated by the project.
"We believe, and the courts have repeatedly agreed, that Atlantic Yards provides significant public benefits including thousands of affordable homes and much needed jobs to Brooklyn," Mr. Ratner said. "We are gratified that the Supreme Court has decided to put an end to this lawsuit. The opponents have now lost 20 court decisions relating to Atlantic Yards and we are now one step closer to making these benefits a reality for the borough and the City."
Background on Atlantic Yards
Construction on the Site
- Construction work on Atlantic Yards began in February of 2007. FCRC expects to open the Barclays Center in the 2010 calendar year.
To date, roughly 53% of the structures on the site have been demolished or are in the process of being demolished. 30 structures have been demolished and an additional 3 buildings are being demolished or are slated to be demolished in the short term. There are 11 vacant lots and 29 other remaining structures.
Minority- and women-owned businesses have received a large percentage of the work. Construction contracts awarded at Atlantic Yards total approximately $43 million. The total MBE awards are $16.4 million or approximately 38% of total purchases. The total WBE awards are $2.9 million or approximately 7% which brings the total M/WBE participation thus far to $19.4 million or approximately 45%.
Construction of the Temporary Rail Yard is under way. The Carlton Ave bridge is in the process of being demolished and critical upgrades to the 100 year old sewer and water infrastructure have begun.
Legal Update
- February 1, 2008. US Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit, unanimously rejects the opponents' appeal in the federal eminent domain lawsuit that was dismissed in June, 2007.
January 15, 2008. The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a challenge to the project approvals under Section 207 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law in November 2007. Opponents' request for an appeal was denied in January, 2008.
January 11, 2008. NY State Supreme Court rules against opponents in a case on environmental review procedures. Opponents are appealing the case.
October 2007. A second suit brought in the NY State Supreme Court challenging the State's use of eminent domain was dismissed in May 2007, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Division in October 2007.
This email was sent to you by Brooklyn Sports and Entertainment, 390 Murray Hill Parkway, East Rutherford, NJ 07073.
Posted by lumi at 8:25 PM
More coverage of US Supreme Court denial to hear case
The Brooklyn Paper, Supremes sing the blues to Yards foes
The Supreme Court will not hear a case brought by property owners who are slated to lose their land to make room for Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project — but the property owners say they will take their case through New York State’s court system, which has traditionally not been sympathetic to property owners in eminent domain cases.
The Supreme Court denied without comment the 11 property owners’ request that the High Court take up case, which has been rejected by two lower federal courts — though the court did reveal that Justice Samuel Alito, a known skeptic of eminent domain, voted to hear the case.
GlobeSt.com, Supreme Court Rejects $4B Project Petition
Crain's NY Business, Top court denies Nets arena appeal
WNYC News Radio, Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Atlantic Yards Suit
Village Voice, Supreme Court Declines to Hear Atlantic Yards Challenge
The NY Sun, U.S. Supreme Court Turns Down Atlantic Yards Appeal
Posted by lumi at 8:14 PM
Legal Blogging
SCOTUSBlog, A new vote for property rights?
Lyle Denniston explains the implications of what happened today in the US Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court refused on Monday, amid a flurry of orders, to reopen the heated controversy over the power of government to seize private property for a new economic development project, but owners of property appeared to have picked up a potential new ally on the Court. Justice Samual A. Alito, Jr., was the only member of the Court to note that he would have granted review of a significant Second Circuit Court ruling on property rights in the face of a massive new project in the Prospect Heights section of Brooklyn, N.Y.
...
Because the Court simply denied review of the Second Circuit decision, it set no new precedent. But the case had been closely watched for the Court’s reaction to the one of the first significant sequels to arise in the controversy that spread rapidly across the country following its much-disputed 2005 ruling in Kelo v. New London, allowing private property to be taken for economic redevelopment by private organizations. Justice Alito was not on the Court for Kelo; his predecessor, now-retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, wrote the main dissent. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented; they did not reveal their votes Monday in the Goldstein case. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., also not on the Court for Kelo, did not reveal his vote Monday (his predecesssor, the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, dissented in rhe 2005 decision).
The Wall St. Journal, Law Blog, High Court Says ‘Fuggedaboutit’ To Brooklyners’ Appeal, Kelo Challenge
As a Brooklyn resident, the Law Blog enjoys many quality local newspapers, from the Daily Eagle to the wonderfully understated Brooklyn Paper. If there’s one topic that’s consistently dominated the headlines of these publications, it’s the the Atlantic Yards project — a massive development plan by Bruce Ratner’s company, Forest City Ratner, to build a sports arena for the NBA’s New Jersey Nets, to be renamed the Brooklyn Nets, as well as offices and condos.
...
Today, that suit hit a snag when, on the third anniversary of Kelo v. New London — the controversial eminent domain decision from 2005, in which the Supreme Court ruled that municipalities could seize property for private development — the Court refused to reopen the same controversy that’s now raging over the Atlantic Yards project.
Castle Watch Daily, U.S. Supreme Court denies cert in Goldstein v. Pataki
Goldstein’s case goes back to the state court system in New York. Also, FNC’s Special Report with Brit Hume featured Goldstein’s case last Thursday and places it in the context of Kelo.
LAW OF THE LAND, SCOTUS Denies Cert in Goldstein v. Pataki – Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case
Links to other coverage including, SCOTUSBlog and Atlantic Yards Report.
According to the orders list handed down today, Justice Alito would have granted cert. See page 9 of the following orders document: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/orders-mon-0623.pdf
Posted by lumi at 7:38 PM
It came from the Blogosphere...
Here's what they're saying in the blogosphere, in no particular order:
Gothamist, Atlantic Yards Appeal Rejected by U.S. Supreme Court
Today the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by 11 Brooklyn property owners and tenants whose homes and businesses would be razed to make way for the $4 billion Atlantic Yards project. Coincidentally, today marks the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s narrow 5-4 ruling in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, which affirmed the government’s power to use eminent domain to accommodate private
Hoodman, Supreme Court Decides not to Hear Atlantic Yards Case
Definitely disappointing that the Supreme Court didn’t hear the case concerning the Atlantic Yards project. Ratner, Hova, and friends are seizing land owned by Brooklyn residents and business owners for their new Atlantic Yards project that doesn’t just include the Nets moving to Brooklyn, but also huge high rises and mini-mall type shits being built.
Radar Online, Downtown Brooklyn Ready For Razing
Brooklyn homeowners have failed in their attempt to get the Supreme Court to undo the damage of that court's 2005 decision in Kelo v New London—its third anniversary is today, by the way!... It's enough to make anyone into a wackjob libertarian!
Reason Hit & Run, Eminent Domain Abuse in Brooklyn
Damon Root says:
As someone who just relocated from one of the thriving neighborhoods sitting in dangerous proximity to the proposed site, I'm here to tell you that the Atlantic Yards will be a catastrophe and a disgrace, ruining many more lives and livelihoods than this lawsuit could ever hope to reflect.
...
Another interesting fact: Justice Samuel Alito noted that he would have granted review to the case. No other member of the Court shared their votes, nor is it common for them to do so when simply denying review.
The Knickerblogger, A Personal Note
So can the state, will the state (because hope of winning in state court, where the judges are utterly corrupt, is a long shot) be brazen enough to take the land from the property owners even though its obvious Ratner won't build for a long long time?
Gowanus Lounge, Breaking: Supreme Court Won’t Hear Atlantic Yards Case
There are potentially still many, many more months of litigation ahead in the case. It is believed that Forest City Ratner will launch a vigorous effort to try to prevent the case from being heard in the State Courts.
Nets Daily, Supreme Court Rejects Arena Critics’ Appeal
In the latest and the most devastating defeat for critics of the Nets’ new arena, the US Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant a hearing on their appeal of lower court rulings favoring Bruce Ratner. The Court rejected the appeal with only Justice Sam Alito in favor. Critics had hoped the Court would revisit an eminent domain decision from 2005. The decision is likely to clear the way for ground breaking later this year.
NoLandGrab: Additional lawsuits could get in the way of ground breaking for 2008.
Posted by lumi at 5:49 PM
June 21, 2008
FOX Cable News Takes a Look at Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case
Develop Don't Destroy Brookyn
FOX Cable News came to town to do a news segment on the eminent domain case Goldstein et al v. Pataki et al. (stemming from the Atlantic Yards development proposal) as the plaintiffs' petition to the US Supreme Court is under consideration. Needless to say, nobody from Forest City Ratner or the Empire State Development Corporation or any elected official would appear on camera."Fair and balanced" as always, the segment concludes with two pieces of speculation and innuendo with no foundation whatsoever and, of course, no opportunity in the segment for rebuttal.
First the reporter says that "eminent domain supporters believe the homeowners are being used as pawns giving a powerful public interest legal group another chance to have say before the Supreme Court". This is a reference to an amicus brief filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by the Institute for Justice (IJ). The homeowners and plaintiffs who initiated and have pursued the eminent domain lawsuit—a courageous bunch—are pawns to no one.
Segueing from the reportorial innuendo, the segment concludes with a sound bite from a Jeffrey Finkle, President and CEO of something called the International Economic Development Council (surely an association without any agenda). Finkle makes a baseless statement that the plaintiffs—pawns to IJ as he implies—are "probably getting free legal counsel" from the libertarian public interest legal group. That is 100% false. Perhaps we'll invite Mr. Finkle to one of our next bake sale or stoop sale fundraisers, and introduce him to the 4,000-plus donors who have supported their neighbors' challenge against the abuses of the Atlantic Yards proposal.
If you want to let Mr. Finkle know what you think of what he had to say, you can reach him at the email of his executive assistant, listed on his organization's website, which is: cziegler@iedconline.org.
Posted by amy at 11:52 AM
Fox on Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Supreme Court Petition
Fox News via Streamgazer/YouTube
June 19 Fox Cable News broadcast on the cert petition filed with the Supreme Court on the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case. Jeffrey Finkle's comments at the end and the insinuation by the reporter that the plaintiffs are pawns of some agenda and receiving "freel legal counsel" are outright lies, but what would one expect from a guy whose first job out of school was working for Karl Rove. The courageous plaintiffs initiated and have pursued the lawsuit since October 2006. Their suit is financed by thousands of donations from their neighbors in Brooklyn and New York City, as well as themselves.Finkle should be ashamed of himself, but of course he isn't. Clearly it is he, as the head of the "International Economic Development Council" who has an extreme agenda.
link
NoLandGrab: If only the real Fox News had pop-up facts!
Posted by amy at 11:41 AM
June 20, 2008
What we talk about when we talk about Atlantic Yards (& eminent domain)
Atlantic Yards Report
Ha! Jeremiah Moss, Norman Oder will see your paltry 693-word report on Wednesday's New York Public Library panel discussion on eminent domain, and raise you 2,351 words! All in!
It’s hard to talk about Atlantic Yards in public. Relatively few people know enough of the facts. Debates among opponents and proponents are rare, most recently non-existent. So a panel discussion at the New York Public Library Wednesday night, which contained its share of AY criticism, might be seen as one flip side of some of the public meetings managed well by project proponents.
It wasn’t only about Atlantic Yards, but when we talk about Atlantic Yards the topic extends to questions of gentrification, neighborhood change, and the proper parameters of public debate. And it led at least one audience member to wonder about the absence of a devil’s advocate. (Other accounts of the evening from Jeremiah's Vanishing New York and Lithuania-based curator Simon Rees.)
The program and the exhibit
First, some background. The blurb for the program, titled EMINENT DOMAIN: THE AMERICAN DREAM ON SALE, suggested an idea torn in different directions, about urban renewal and the power of social bonds:
The current exhibition at The New York Public Library, Eminent Domain: Contemporary Photography and the City, features the work of five contemporary New York–based photographers... whose works intersect and resonate with current concerns about the reorganization of urban space, and its public use, in New York City. Artist Glenn Ligon offers the literal narrative of his own housing in the city. In addition to proposed regulations that threaten First Amendment rights to photograph in public places thus becoming a form of privatization of public space, questions also arise with the current private/public arrangements that characterize much of modern urban development, particularly the legal power of eminent domain, or the taking of private property for public use.Ok, so the exhibition is called “Eminent Domain” but isn’t really about it. But the panel was assigned to “discuss the use of eminent domain and how urban renewal is changing the cityscape of New York City” and “Atlantic Yards, a hotly contested developer driven project in Brooklyn, will serve as a focus through which the evening will begin.”
NoLandGrab: "Brokeland2003" raises a good question in a comment appended to Oder's post, in response to a question raised at the event by someone wondering why there was no "devil's advocate" on the panel:
"Why must the NYPL have a so-called "balanced" panel (whatever that is) but nobody complains when Crain's holds panel after panel with Doctoroff clones?"
Posted by eric at 8:45 AM
It came from the Blogosphere...
Gowanus Lounge, Always Best to Have a Block Party While the Block’s Still There
Humorous headline from GoLo.
Brownstoner, Three Brooklyn Winners on AMNY's Most-Fugly List
Congratulations Bruce Ratner, your lame-ass mall is the posterchild for Brooklyn Fugly.
Red State, Atlantic Yards: A Chance to Mitigate "Kelo"?
The Atlantic Yards case in Brooklyn could be a chance for the Supreme Court to mitigate Kelo, or it could be just another brick in the wall separating the Constitution from the People it is supposed to protect.
NoLandGrab: Red State doesn't get all the details of the Atlantic Yards case right, but the underlying premise is correct, that this is a chance for the US Supreme Court to rein in potential abuses from the Kelo decision.
Jeremiah's
Vanishing New York, Discussing Eminent Domain
Jeremiah Moss reports from the New York Public Library's panel discussion on eminent domain.
Clawback, New Yorkers Say ‘Enough!’ to Stadium Subsidies
Fed up with public funding going to stadiums instead of services that benefit the whole city, a coalition of good government, park advocacy and community groups sent an open letter yesterday to the New York City Congressional delegation. The letter demands they ask the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department to help close a loophole discovered by local officials that allows federal subsidies (in the form of tax-exempt bonds) for sports facilities, which are normally not eligible. Another group began an e-mail campaign asking Mayor Bloomberg to refocus his priorities from stadiums to schools and other public infrastructure.
It seems the city’s attempts to use the loophole might not be so easy this time.
...
Officials seem to be in a panic over the idea that in the future large stadiums may no longer be eligible for tax-exempt bonds. A recent New York Times story noted that the city is seeking bonds for the Nets Arena, part of the controversial Brooklyn Atlantic Yards project.
Posted by lumi at 3:19 AM
June 18, 2008
TONIGHT: Eminent Domain: The American Dream On Sale
New York Public Library - LIVE presents
Wednesday, June 18 at 7:00 pm
Marshall Berman, Mindy Fullilove, Tom Angotti, Brian Berger & Michael Galinsky, moderator
The current exhibition at The New York Public Library, Eminent Domain: Contemporary Photography and the City through August 29, features the work of five contemporary New York–based photographers—Thomas Holton, Bettina Johae, Reiner Leist, Zoe Leonard, and Ethan Levitas—whose works intersect and resonate with current concerns about the reorganization of urban space, and its public use, in New York City. Artist Glenn Ligon offers the literal narrative of his own housing in the city. In addition to proposed regulations that threaten First Amendment rights to photograph in public places thus becoming a form of privatization of public space, questions also arise with the current private/public arrangements that characterize much of modern urban development, particularly the legal power of eminent domain, or the taking of private property for public use.
South Court Auditorium
The New York Public Library
Fifth Avenue & 42nd Street (enter at Fifth Avenue)Length: 1 hr 30 mins
Intermission: None
Seating: General Admission
Posted by lumi at 6:17 AM
EMINENT DOMAINIA: Reality Bites
The Day [New London], Fort Trumbull Growth Stalled By Hard Times
Morgan McGinley, the former editorial page editor for The Day, explains how the City of New London's winner-take-all approach has left the city with little to show for its efforts:
Eight years have passed since the New London Development Corp. reorganized and in short order produced Pfizer's Global Research and Development offices. The city anticipated a vibrant research and office park in Fort Trumbull with a high-quality hotel.
Pfizer's development has given a much-needed shot in the arm to the local economy. But a time-consuming lawsuit over eminent domain blocked the NLDC's other goals and now the Fort Trumbull project is mired in the national recession.
...
As a result, the city is unlikely to get much new tax revenue anytime soon in Fort Trumbull and a hotel is at least five years away, if at all.
NoLandGrab: The City of New London wouldn't accommodate a handful of homeowners and now all that's left is an empty, non-tax-generating waterfront.
New London won the case, but is now the loser; Susette Kelo lost her case, but is still fighting alongside the Institute for Justice (IJ) for property rights.
Check out IJ's website for Kelo Day initiatives, including fundraising and get-out-the-word campaigns.
Posted by lumi at 4:08 AM
June 17, 2008
The clock stalls (a bit) on Goldstein v. Pataki
Atlantic Yards Report
At least according to the U.S. Supreme Court's official docket, on Thursday, June 12, the nine justices were to consider whether to accept the cert petition--the appeal--in the Atlantic Yards emiment domain case, known as Goldstein v. Pataki.
However, the order list issued today, with the results of Thursday's deliberations, doesn't mention the case. There's only one more conference, on Thursday, during the court's current calendar. So next Monday we'll either have a decision on that cert petition or we'll know that the discussion of that petition will have been postponed until the fall.
NoLandGrab: Postponement of the discussion of the petition until the fall would put a big dent in Bruce Ratner's timeline and plans to break ground.
Posted by lumi at 5:13 AM
June 16, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
|
WILLETS POINT, QUEENS
The NY Times, City and Labor Leaders Reach Deal on Plan to Develop Willets Point
Taking a page from Bruce Ratner's landgrab playbook, the City is seeking to cut deals with favored stakeholders, to pressure property owners, the original stakeholders, to sell.
The Bloomberg administration has forged an unusual pact with labor leaders, promising that in exchange for their support of the city’s ambitious plan to transform Willets Point, a 62-acre enclave of auto repair shops and cinder block sheds near Shea Stadium, the project will provide union jobs and good wages.
Union leaders hailed the agreement as a template for similar pacts with city and state officials, even as the Real Estate Board of New York, the industry’s powerful lobbying arm, criticized it.
...
But some local civic groups, property owners and elected officials have opposed the plan because it calls for displacing about 260 small businesses, possibly through eminent domain. Housing groups like Acorn and some union leaders have also pushed for more housing that would be affordable for low- and middle-income New Yorkers.
NoLandGrab: Yes, you read it right, housing group ACORN appears to be next on deck to strike a deal with the City.
WEST HARLEM, MANHATTAN
From MetroNY:
Posted by lumi at 4:07 AM
June 12, 2008
IJ files amicus in Atlantic Yards case
Castle Watch Daily [Eminent domain blog, The Institute for Justice]
Yesterday, the Institute for Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Dan Goldstein’s case, which has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Goldstein argues that the even though the state of New York’s claims that the eminent domain takings in Brooklyn are for a “public use,” the true beneficiary of the takings is the developer. Goldstein’s case has, so far, been dismissed by judges who claim they have no power to even look into whether the state of New York’s claims of “public use” are legitimate.
Posted by lumi at 4:41 AM
New York City Music Venues
Freddy's Bar and Backroom is the place to check out music and shove it to landgrabbing overdeveloper Bruce Ratner at the same time.
Freddy’s
485 Dean St., sort of Prospect Heights area, Brooklyn
Any train to Atlantic Ave. Walk on Flatbush away from Brooklyn Heights to Pacific St. Left on Pacific, then take your first right, go past the police station and the club is right on the corner.
This legendary neighborhood dive has a corner bar upstairs and the music room downstairs. The sound is so-so in the fairly small, low-ceilinged basement room with benches and tables. The crowd is totally oldschool Brooklyn: it’s a friendly place. Drinks are cheap and the waitstaff is nice. There’s absolutely no Nazi factor here. The quality of the acts here is above average; booking here, like at most of the other well-established venues has seen a visible decline, as musicians are being priced out of the neighborhood and the city in general. But Freddy’s seems to be winning their seemingly endless court battle with megalomaniac developer Bruce Ratner, whose plans to bring the New Jersey Nets (why didn’t somebody consult Dr. J beforehand?!?), and destroy the neighborhood’s remaining middleclass housing so he can build a plastic-and-sheetrock luxury housing complex, have hit a major snag. In the meantime, if you’re in the area, this is one establishment that deserves your support.
Posted by lumi at 4:05 AM
June 11, 2008
At post-Kelo conference, AY ironies amid support for eminent domain
Atlantic Yards Report
On the brink of a decision by the United States Supreme Court on whether or not to hear the appeal brought by the plaintiffs in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case Goldstein vs. Pataki, Norman Oder revisits Kelo vs. New London through the prism of a November, 2007 conference that weighed the impact of eminent domain on urban communities.
If, as the saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," then "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," which makes the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case--now on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court--rather tainted, in the eyes of many who emphasize the importance of eminent domain to urban redevelopment.
Why? Not just because of the partial challenge to the Supreme Court's controversial 2005 Kelo v. New London eminent domain decision, but also the tangential involvement of and support from the libertarian Institute for Justice (IJ), which has a broader property rights agenda nationally that could hamstring local governments.
That was a major message from a November 9 conference at Princeton University titled Land and Power: The Impact of Eminent Domain in Urban Communities, hosted by Princeton's Policy Research Institute for the Region (PRIOR) and the Penn Institute for Urban Research. The audience included lawyers, planners, government officials, advocates, and analysts, with the panels generally tilted toward supporters of eminent domain who believe that smaller-scale reforms, rather than fundamental challenges, are needed.
The irony, however, is that property owners/leaseholders in Goldstein v. Pataki, the Atlantic Yards case, seek not to overturn Kelo, which libertarian opponents of eminent domain slammed, but to hold the Supreme Court to what may be a difficult-to-enforce doctrine, that eminent domain should proceed only after carefully formulated plans and when there are no questions that the transfer is a pretext to assist a private party.
Posted by eric at 8:14 AM
EMINENT DOMAIN AT ATLANTIC YARDS TAKES FROM THE PUBLIC TO GIVE TO THE RICH
Opinion
By Mary Campbell Gallagher
(Exclusive to NoLandGrab)
This Thursday, June 12, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet to decide whether to hear arguments in an eminent domain case reflecting every property owner's worst nightmares. Five years ago residents in the Prospect Heights section of Brooklyn learned that politicians were skipping the city's zoning and approval procedures so the state could use eminent domain to seize their homes and businesses, bulldoze 14-plus residential acres, sell the 8.3 acres of railyards at Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues to developer Bruce Ratner, and fast-track an 18,000-seat arena for Ratner's professional basketball team, plus starchitect Frank Gehry's titanium-wrapped towers. Ratner would market the whole no-bid development under the name Atlantic Yards.
In response, eleven outraged Brooklynites brought a federal lawsuit asserting the startling claim that at Atlantic Yards politicians are using eminent domain for a land grab to enrich a private developer at their expense, and not, as the government claims, to create a "public benefit." Plaintiffs in Goldstein v. Pataki argue that Ratner will lease the basketball arena at $1 a year but his annual profit will be in the millions, so the arena is no public benefit. Plaintiff Daniel Goldstein tells me his apartment will be in center court. Plaintiffs argue that the government's belated revulsion at "blight" in their gentrifying neighborhood is transparently fake. They point to the U.S. Supreme Court's saying in 2005 in Kelo v. New London that the U.S. Constitution does not permit the pretext of public purposes to qualify a project for eminent domain when the real purpose is private benefits. The federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals, they argue, wrongly refused to give them access to documents proving New York officials' illegal intentions.
Startling as their claim is, the Brooklyn plaintiffs have not argued strongly enough. To halt Atlantic Yards, the U.S. Supreme Court need not eyeball a single government email, because New York politicos' public actions loudly betray their unlawful intent. If I pull a chair out from under a woman who is about to sit down, the law says my intent was for her to hit the floor: no verbal evidence is necessary. Similarly, if skipping normal legal procedures pops the cork on limitless profits for Bruce Ratner, the government's intent must be private benefits.
Look at what the politicos did. In the sham bidding for rights to the 8.3-acre Metropolitan Transit Authority railyards, another developer submitted a higher bid, yet Ratner won. Bad enough. What's worse is that since Atlantic Yards is a no-bid job, there was no competition at all for the 14.5 acres of Prospect Heights where the Empire State Development Corporation wants to exercise eminent domain. If Ratner reaps excess profits there, it is a government-intended private benefit. Ditto for short-cuts for selecting a project, selecting a developer, setting the price and, especially, changing the zoning.
New York City's established zoning rules prohibit building skyscrapers at Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues. They prohibit inserting the gigantic bulk of a sports arena into any residential neighborhood. The City Charter's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) compels local community boards and the City Planning Commission to hold hearings on major zoning changes, culminating in a City Council hearing and vote.
Mayor Bloomberg, however, bypassed ULURP and handed decision-making on Atlantic Yards to a secretive state agency, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), which can order eminent domain and which overrides local zoning.
By that one stroke, handing the project to the ESDC, the Mayor removed all limits on the size and density and, therefore, profitability of Atlantic Yards. He plunged its financials into darkness, eliminated a possible Council veto, and assured Ratner use of the state's power of eminent domain. Let's call it by its right name: a private benefit for Bruce Ratner.
The Second Circuit said courts must defer to the legislature. The ESDC, however, is no legislature. It is accountable only to the governor.
Large-scale development proposals like Atlantic Yards always cause controversy. Some New Yorkers loved Ratner's promise to replace a lowrise neighborhood with Manhattan-style skyscrapers, offices, condos, and some units of subsidized housing. Others said it would destroy the character of Brooklyn. But loudest of all was the cry that the nationwide epidemic of eminent domain enriches private interests and threatens everyone's home.
No fair-minded person claims that setting limits on eminent domain should be easy. The Brooklyn plaintiffs merely ask the Supreme Court to clarify the constitutional rules, saying lower courts are confused. The High Court unleashed a national furor in 2005 by holding in Kelo that even "economic development" justifies eminent domain if it bears a "rational relationship to a conceivable public use." With Atlantic Yards, the Second Circuit used a "public benefits" justification for applying the same rule. Yet Kelo also said that the mere pretext of public benefits cannot suffice, when the real purpose is private benefits. In the conflict with the Second Circuit that qualifies Goldstein for possible Supreme Court review, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in July 2007 declined to permit the government to use eminent domain just to benefit a private developer, in Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Corporation.
To uncover government officials' unlawful intent to confer a private benefit, to make the Brooklynites' homes and businesses safe, to safeguard us all from government abuse of eminent domain, the Supreme Court need only instruct the Second Circuit to look at New York politicos' actions. Their actions shout cronyism, and the U.S. Constitution says No.
Mary Campbell Gallagher is business owner, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and a frequent writer on urban legal issues. She has published reviews, essays, and op-eds in publications including *The Nation, The Weekly Standard, Newsday, and Metro New York. Her Manhattan-based business, BarWrite®, offers large-group classes to candidates for the bar examination.*
Posted by lumi at 5:05 AM
A Look Ahead to the June Conferences
SCOTUS Blog [Supreme Court of the United States Blog] adds the Atlantic Yards federal eminent domain case, Goldstein v. Pataki, to its watch list as the Justices consider which cases to hear in the fall:
Before departing for the summer, the Justices will no doubt aim to fill the remainder of the October, November and December docket. Unless the Court opts to hear argument in more than two cases per day during those months, which is a possibility, it would need to grant cert in four additional cases to fill out the fall calendar. (UPDATE: Earlier today, Chief Justice Roberts announced the Court would hear three arguments per day in October and November. As a result, the Court will need to grant 14 cases before the summer recess to fill the fall calendar.)
...
Finally, in a high profile case that did not make our watch list — Goldstein v. Pataki (07-1247) — the Justices will consider an eminent domain challenge by a group of Brooklyn residents to the construction of an arena slated to house the professional basketball franchise currently located in New Jersey. Cert filings in the case are available here.
Posted by lumi at 4:59 AM
June 10, 2008
In dueling briefs, AY eminent domain case ramps up for Supreme Court conference
Atlantic Yards Report
On Thursday, June 12, the justices will meet to decide whether to accept the appeal in the case, known as Goldstein v. Pataki, in which 11 residential and commercial property owners and leaseholders are challenging the state’s plan to use eminent domain to take their properties for Atlantic Yards.
The justices’s decision to accept the case or not should be made public next week. Their decision will be based not on an evaluation of errors in the lower court decisions but on whether they think there are doctrinal differences nationally regading interpretations of the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo v. New London eminent domain case that must be resolved.
The crux of the Brooklyn case (briefs here), which now involves an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief from the libertarian Institute for Justice, can be seen through two lenses. If the government can claim that there are public benefits from the use of eminent domain, the plaintiffs contend, that shouldn't shut off any inquiry into governmental decisionmaking. By contrast, the defendants argue that if evidence of pretextual benefits appear flimsy and eminent domain would produce public benefits, such a case shouldn't proceed.
Depending upon how the US Supremem Court should choose to act, Norman Oder explains the procedure and timeline of the possible outcomes in the rest of the article.
Posted by lumi at 8:05 PM
Unpacking a fib in the ESDC's Supreme Court brief
Atlantic Yards Report
Norman Oder calls deceptive wording in the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) legal brief to the US Supreme Court a "fib," which Webster defines as "a trivial or childish lie."
Just because it's subtle doesn't make it "trivial," especially when people's homes and the powers-of-eminent-domain clause of the Fifth Amendment are at stake.
Judge for yourself:
The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), in its brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court should not hear the Atlantic Yards eminent domain appeal, fibs about its history, using circular logic that suggests a court has defined the agency's job as encouraging projects like Atlantic Yards.
...
[T]here's no connection between the phrases; the encouragement of "maximum participation" by the private sector comes from a law passed in 1968, while the promotion of “large-scale real estate projects" comes from a 2006 decision from a New York State appeals court. The state court's decision simply adopted phrasing from the ESDC's own brief in that case.And where did the phrasing in that earlier brief come from? The ESDC's own mission statement.
As I pointed out in May 2007, it's a neat maneuver, with circular logic. First, the ESDC announces its mission on its web site. It describes its mission in legal papers. A New York State appellate court adopts that language. Now, in legal papers, the ESDC cites the definition as emanating from the court, not itself.
Click here to get the details of what the ESDC said, and when they said it.
Posted by lumi at 5:01 AM
June 9, 2008
Prominent Law Firm Urges Atlantic Yards Development Be Stopped
The NY Sun
By Joseph Goldstein
The public interest law firm that challenged the use of eminent domain in the landmark case Kelo v. City of New London is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to stop Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn.
In a friend-of-the-court brief recently filed in the federal high court, the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice called on the court to hear an appeal brought by a handful of residents who would be ousted by the Atlantic Yards project. The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will hear the case.
...
Lawyers for the Institute for Justice argue that the Supreme Court should overturn the two lower courts and affirm that the use of eminent domain is unconstitutional when the seizure of property is made in "bad faith or for pretextual reasons," such as to benefit a private developer, the brief said.
NoLandGrab: Despite the headline and lead, the amicus brief filed by the Institute for Justice calls on the Supreme Court to hear the case, not stop the project.
Posted by lumi at 5:05 AM
May 27, 2008
The 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America
The National Law Journal
by Michael Moline
Preeta D. Bansal
42, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York
Head of the appellate litigation practice at Skadden, Bansal has been counsel of record in the U.S. Supreme Court for a party or amicus in more than 20 cases at the merits stage and in more than a dozen at petition for certiorari stage. Upholding proposed exercise of eminent domain in 2007, the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a complaint filed by property owners opposing the Atlantic Yards redevelopment project in Brooklyn, N.Y., which included a new stadium for the National Basketball Association's New Jersey Nets. It was the one of the first significant constitutional takings case since Kelo v. New London. Bansal is an adviser to Barack Obama on outreach to Asian-Americans.
NoLandGrab: Atlantic Yards critics and other opponents of eminent domain abuse are likely relieved that Bansal is not advising Obama on property rights policy.
Posted by eric at 10:49 PM
Mayor of Willets Point: The last man standing
AM New York
by David Freedlander
Joseph Ardizzone, the last resident of Willets Point Boulevard, is featured in this article. New York City is threatening to use eminent domain to displace Ardizzone and businesses at Willets Point. The City has failed to improve the area's infrastructure for decades.
The Bloomberg administration is calling for a $3 billion redevelopment of the area, including a million square feet in retail space, a convention center, and a hotel. City officials have threatened to invoke eminent domain to push out reluctant businesses, and of course, the area's lone resident.
The plan is undergoing a land-use review by the City Council.
But the business owners say they are desperate to remain in a place, where there can be near their suppliers, and are looking to Ardizzone to lead the way.
Posted by steve at 5:41 AM
May 24, 2008
New York’s Past Beckons the Future
The New York Times
by Andy Newman
Recently, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority announced that double-decker buses may run on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue after disappearing about 50 years ago. This article takes advantage of the announcement to meditate on some of the different elements that made up New York City in the past that might also make a comeback. The somewhat light-hearted listing includes World's Fairs and Automats. Things get particularly interesting in a item that suggests bringing back the Brooklyn Dodgers.
THE BROOKLYN DODGERS Walter O’Malley picked up his ball team and went west partly because the government refused to use its power of eminent domain to acquire land for him to build a stadium near the railyards on Atlantic Avenue. But the state seems to have no such compunction these days, having begun exercising eminent domain to clear a path for the developer Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards mega-development next door to O’Malley’s would-have-been stadium site. With Atlantic Yards currently mired in economic woes, why not give the Dodgers a chance to come home? Even if half the city boycotts them, they’re still guaranteed to outdraw the Nets.
NoLandGrab: During the ongoing Atlantic Yards fight, project proponents liked to imply that building Atlantic Yards would somehow make up for the loss of the Dodgers. And, although it's not true that the State has exercised eminent domain, it's refreshing to see nostalgia used as a way to perhaps understand the ugly process used to try to make this project happen.
Posted by steve at 5:00 AM
May 20, 2008
SAY WHAT CHUCK??
Though a Forest City September 2005 earnings conference call hardly seems like breaking news, Norman Oder reported yesterday that Forest City Enterprises CEO Charles Ratner told investors that they had been eyeing the Atlantic Yards project.
Chuck Ratner, CEO of FCE, said:
I will confess that it was less than two or three years ago we were sitting around in New York wondering where the next deals were going to come from. We had finished a whole bunch of office and we completed MetroTech and we didn't have the next great site in Brooklyn. That was one of the reasons we got so aggressive and creative, Bruce and his team did in this Atlantic Yards project. We saw that land sitting there for this last 10 years, realizing it would be a great opportunity if somebody could turn it on. We hope we've found a way to do that.
What's news about that, other than that it totally contradicts the delusion that Atlantic Yards started with a phone call from Borough President Marty Markowitz to Bruce Ratner?
This nugget is part of the mounting evidence that Atlantic Yards is a developer-driven project with only one developer in mind, Forest City. It also buttresses the claim by property owners who have held out against Ratner and NY State that any public benefits are incidental, perhaps even illusory.
Posted by lumi at 4:51 AM
May 19, 2008
More evidence about AY as a developer-driven project
Atlantic Yards Report
If judges were as probing as Norman Oder, we might be getting a little discovery by now.
More than a year ago, on 2/27/07, I wrote about how, despite claims by Forest City Ratner's lawyers that the developer did not conceive of Atlantic Yards, evidence suggested otherwise.
Let's look at two pieces of additional evidence, which seem to contradict each other. When the project was announced, a 12/11/03 New York Times article, headlined A Grand Plan in Brooklyn For the Nets' Arena Complex, reported:
Mr. [Bruce] Ratner said his effort began after [Borough President] Mr. [Marty] Markowitz called urging him to buy the Nets and move the team to Brooklyn.The implication is that only upon the sale of the Nets did Ratner begin to consider development at the railyards.
"Next great site in Brooklyn"
But consider some more evidence of a developer-driven project. It's from a 9/9/05 Q2 2005 Forest City Enterprises, Inc. Earnings Conference Call (for sale) that representatives of parent Forest City Enterprises (FCE) had with investment analysts.
Chuck Ratner, CEO of FCE, said:
I will confess that it was less than two or three years ago we were sitting around in New York wondering where the next deals were going to come from. We had finished a whole bunch of office and we completed MetroTech and we didn't have the next great site in Brooklyn. That was one of the reasons we got so aggressive and creative, Bruce and his team did in this Atlantic Yards project. We saw that land sitting there for this last 10 years, realizing it would be a great opportunity if somebody could turn it on. We hope we've found a way to do that.AY appeal
That sequence may be relevant to the pending appeal of the AY eminent domain case at the Supreme Court. (The court is still awaiting briefs on whether to even accept the case for consideration.)
Posted by eric at 8:54 AM
May 13, 2008
Columbia Alumnus David Paterson Takes the Helm in Albany
Columbia Spectator
By Melissa Repko
One of Columbia’s own, David Paterson, CC ’77 and an adjunct professor at the School of International and Public Affairs, was sworn in as governor of New York state on March 17.
All New Yorkers involved with land grabs (grabbers and property owners alike) are holding their breath wondering if the new governor's position may have evolved:
In the future, the chief executive and Columbia alumnus could come in handy for Columbia as it moves toward construction of a new campus. With three Manhattanville business owners still unwilling to make deals with the University, state use of eminent domain—which would allow the government to seize ownership of the private property for the public good if the land is deemed underused—may be necessary.
“I’ve talked to Governor Paterson over the years,” Bollinger said, referring to Paterson’s tenure as a state senator. “I know he is supportive of this project. He has said so publicly. And I believe that were eminent domain to be needed to implement the plan, I believe that he would be supportive.”
Yet Paterson’s stance on eminent domain remains murky. In August 2005, the then-New York state Senate minority leader called for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain at a press conference. He also expressed support for a plan to restrict the use of the policy in the city after Councilwoman Letitia James (D-Brooklyn), whose district includes the area of the proposed Atlantic Yards development, proposed the bill. He has not publicly addressed his views on eminent domain since being sworn in as governor.
Posted by lumi at 5:20 AM
May 9, 2008
A Tale of Two Cities, Only One With Sewers
The New York Times
by Susan Dominus
When Gordhandas Soni, the owner of an Indian food company, agreed to relocate his warehouse and factory to Willets Point, Queens, back in 1990, it never occurred to him to ask about some of the more basic amenities — the sewage system, for example. “You never ask, ‘You have sewers here?’ ” said Mr. Soni, whose business is called House of Spices. “In America, right here, in the heart of New York City? No! It never occurred to me to ask. It would be silly to ask.”
...Now Mr. Soni has banded together with 11 other businesses in Willets Point, filing a suit charging that the city has neglected to repair potholes and provide basic services like sewers and snow plowing, in an effort to devalue the property and ease the path to redevelopment.
Put in the sewers, and fix the potholes, he and his allies contend, and Willets Point will redevelop itself. The city, in reply, concedes that might be true — but because the area is on a flood plain, the city couldn’t provide sewers without removing the businesses, creating an unfortunate but intractable chicken-and-egg situation.
...Even if the city could make him whole, Mr. Soni wonders, why shouldn’t he get some additional compensation for the inconvenience of losing his property? As he put it, why should the city “take away from the small guy like me and give to a billion dollar company just so he can make another billion dollars?”
...Although it’s never easy for American manufacturers to compete with their counterparts in India — especially when it comes to something like an Indian food product — Mr. Soni says that he would be thrilled with his prospects were it not for this major uncertainty hanging over his head, and the threat that the city could invoke eminent domain to take the property.
“I always thought India would be my competition, that India would run me out of business,” he said, watching a machine fill jars with a dark, rich tamarind paste. “I didn’t think it would be New York City.”
Posted by eric at 12:45 PM
May 8, 2008
Second Development-Related Rally in May Expects Hundreds
Brownstoner.com
by Sarah Ryley
Brooklyn is expected to see its second massive development-related rally this month on May 17, when hundreds are expected to march to Albee Square protesting the "lack of community involvement in upcoming development plans," according to a press release from Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE). Last Saturday, hundreds of Brooklynites clashed in a protest and counter-protest over Atlantic Yards. This rally addresses a myriad of other, less publicized effects of Downtown Brooklyn's development boom that have perhaps been overshadowed (pun intended) by the massive arena and high-rise project, or at least its opponents' more forceful media efforts.
Posted by eric at 6:48 PM
McCain on His Judicial Philosophy
RealClearPolitics.com
While the candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination are beating each other up over Jeremiah Wright and spurious gas-tax holidays, the presumptive Republican nominee is speaking out against eminent domain abuse.
The year 2005 also brought the case of Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court. Here was a woman whose home was taken from her because the local government and a few big corporations had designs of their own on the land, and she was getting in the way. There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property. There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may be taken only for "public use." But apparently that standard has been "evolving" too. In the hands of a narrow majority of the court, even the basic right of property doesn't mean what we all thought it meant since the founding of America. A local government seized the private property of an American citizen. It gave that property away to a private developer. And this power play actually got the constitutional "thumbs-up" from five members of the Supreme Court.
Posted by eric at 11:10 AM
Castle Watch Daily land grab coverage
Brooklynites tell city officials: “Time Out!”
Councilmember Letitia James summarized the goal of the protest when she spoke to the crowd:
“I remain steadfast in my opposition to Atlantic Yards. The project has definitively proven itself to be a classic bait and switch. For this reason, the demolitions need to stop, the subsidies need to stop and eminent domain must be taken off the table. It’s time to stop blighting my district. I’m calling on Gov. Paterson to put a halt to the project. Then, my city and state colleagues and I, along with the Governor, can start over with a new plan to develop the rail yards that works for the people of Brooklyn.”
Meanwhile, the project’s developer, Bruce Ratner, now says that the project will not be completed for another decade.
Looking for another “preferred developer” in New London
The latest on that all-important land grab that went all the way to the US Supreme Court because the City of New London's economic redevelopment plan hinged on the ability to seize peoples' homes to make way for new ones:
May 29 is the date New London preferred developer Corcoran Jennings is supposed to have financing to begin construction on the site. So far, there has been no building, none of that revitalization, no increased tax revenue–just dead, vacant land, aside from the transformation of naval building into office space. The plan for new housing looks like it may never happen.
NolandGrab: You can't make this stuff up — New London's legislators went all the way to the US Supreme Court in order to raze an entire neighborhood and now it might end up with persistent blight for years to come. Not only is this shameful and sick, it's a waste all around and, some would say, immoral.
Posted by lumi at 5:53 AM
NY Court of Appeals Doesn’t Want To Hear Atlantic Yards Case
Brooklyn Daily Eagle
By Ryan Thompson
The Eagle expresses low expectations for the remainder of the lawsuits that stand in the way of Bruce Ratner's controversial Atlantic Yards project:
With five lawsuits having now been brought by the opponents of the $4 billion project, the state and federal courts at all levels so far have issued denial after denial, dismissal after dismissal.
The latest court that failed to be persuaded by the plaintiffs was New York state’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. The high court, which includes Brooklyn-born Judge Theodore T. Jones, who was once the administrative judge of the Kings County Supreme Court on Adams Street, denied leave to appeal and granted $100 in court costs to the Empire State Development Corporation, which is largely behind the 22-acre development project.
This means the end of the line for this one particular case, Anderson, et al v. New York State Urban Development Corp., et al. Other appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court and state appellate courts are perhaps just as unlikely to win. They do, however, continue to exist in the legal realm for the time being.
Posted by lumi at 5:50 AM
Tough times call for oracle's return
NY Daily News
By Matthew Lysiak
The Brooklyn oracle is making a comeback.
After a four-month absence, the Park Slope prophet will soon be returning to answer questions at the special antique phone outside Pintchik's hardware store.
"Oracle Returns. Are you ready with a question?" flashed the blinking billboard in large neon red letters outside Pintchik's on Flatbush Ave.
Brooklynites can use some answers.
"Can the oracle tell me if [developer Bruce] Ratner is still going to take my building," said Joseph Pastore, 64, who fears his Dean St. building will fall to the Atlantic Yards project.
NoLandGrab: Maybe others would like to answer Pastore's question. Ask Governor Paterson here.
Posted by lumi at 5:21 AM
May 4, 2008
Yonkers Tax Dollars Payoff for Some; Dashes Hope for Others
Yonkers Tribune
Hezi Aris
NoLandGrab: Yonkers worries that it will get the Bruce Ratner treatment from the "New Main Street Land Development Corporation":
There was a time when developer Bruce Ratner was lauded for paying $100 million to buy out homeowners living within the footprint of his Atlantic Yards arena. Now we learn it was New York City who paid Bruce Ratner to do just that. Bruce Ratner was then touted as generous, even magnanimous, by some. According to the just-released funding agreement between New York City and Forest City Ratner, the $100 million for “land acquisition” that the city set aside in 2006 will reimburse the developer for the private land he bought to assemble the project perimeter.
...
“It is unconscionable and indefensible that the city is giving $100 million of taxpayers’ money to pay for Ratner’s strong-arm real-estate deals,” said Daniel Goldstein, the spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (who was the one resident of 636 Pacific St. who did not take Ratner’s buyout). Are similar prospects in store for Yonkers?When the city announced its $100-million deal-sweetener in 2006, it was listed on budget documents as “land acquisition.”
“Land acquisition” is now the raison d'être for the New Main Street Development Corp.? Say it isn’t so Deputy Mayor Reagan. Tell us it’s simply to be used to daylight the Nepperhan River!
Posted by amy at 10:40 AM
May 2, 2008
Paterson Sympathizes With the Dolans Over M.S.G.
The New York Observer
by Em Whitney
The Observer reports on Governor David Paterson's appearance this morning on WFAN's Boomer & Carton show. While either the reporter's radio reception wasn't too good, or the Guv wasn't speaking in complete sentences, as far as we tell, he got some things right, and some things wrong.
Speaking about Madison Square Garden's fat tax break:
“A lot of these deals that are tried to make sure that basketball, hockey, football and baseball. The arrangements don’t always work that well for the public,” he said.
No they don't. And Atlantic Yards is a classic example of that. But wait, there's more:
“The Brooklyn arena is going forward,” he said. “If there is continuing delay or legal action against the use of eminent domain, which is when the government condemns property and then excises it, which I didn’t think there was very much at the Atlantic Yards ... I still think the Nets will wind up in Brooklyn,” he said.
NoLandGrab: The Governor seems to have forgotten that he called for a state-wide moratorium against the use of eminent domain in 2005, and we don't recall him equivocating about volume, either. Just as one can't be "a little bit pregnant," you're either against property seizures, or you're not.
Atlantic Yards Report, On eminent domain, Paterson channels.... Gargano?
Norman Oder, in a not-so-flattering comparison, likens the Governor's knowledge of Atlantic Yards eminent domains issues to that of "The Ambassador," also known as former ESDC head (and Reagan-era ambassador to Trinidad & Tobago) Charles Gargano.
Posted by eric at 2:08 PM
Interest groups split after squabble over affordable housing at Willets Point
NY Daily News (Queens Edition)
by John Lauinger
How does the battle over Willets Point differ from the battle over Atlantic Yards? Well, for one thing, ACORN was on the side of those fighting the abuse of eminent domain — or at least they were until 10 days ago.
A Willets Point business association has parted ways with an influential housing advocacy group, claiming it exploited them to wage an affordable housing battle with the city.
The Committee to Save Willets Point, which includes more than 100 small businesses in the so-called Iron Triangle, said they were misled and misrepresented by the nonprofit organization ACORN.
"It has become apparent to our committee that ACORN's goals and ours are not the same, and that it's not useful for us to collaborate in the fight to preserve the livelihoods of the hard-working people of Willets Point," the committee wrote in an April 21 letter to ACORN.
..."They were always trying to put words in our mouths," Olaya said, adding that his members' main concern is to have their businesses relocated.
"If the city wants to negotiate, we want to negotiate," Olaya added, charging that ACORN never told them their line in the sand would be 60% affordable housing or bust.
NoLandGrab: 60%! Is that what ACORN was demanding for Atlantic Yards before they started "negotiating" with Bruce Ratner?
Posted by eric at 10:56 AM
April 30, 2008
Fort Trumbull Housing Plan In Jeopardy
NLDC chief doubts developer will meet deadline for financing
The Day (New London, CT)
by Kevin Dale
Another eminent domain-reliant housing plan, this one at the center of the Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court case, is imperiled by the troubled credit market. This doesn't happen when neighborhoods are allowed to develop organically.
Citing “turmoil” in the national lending market, New London Development Corp. President Michael Joplin said he has “grave doubts” that the Corcoran Jennison company will meet a crucial May 29 deadline to secure financing for its long-delayed Fort Trumbull housing development.
”It's almost impossible, so we have to start dealing with reality,” said Joplin, who broached the “most difficult topic” at Tuesday night's annual meeting of NLDC's full membership in the Crocker House Ballroom.
If Corcoran Jennison doesn't meet the deadline, the Boston-based developer would violate a December extension document in which it agreed to secure a loan and enter a construction contract for an $18.7 million, 80-unit development of rental apartments and townhouses.
The project, whose uncertain groundbreaking could now be delayed months if not years, would represent the first new, ground-up construction since eminent domain cleared portions of the peninsula for redevelopment.
NoLandGrab: The irony is that there was housing on the site, before it was seized by eminent domain and bulldozed to make way for... housing. Which isn't being built any time soon. Did someone say "bait and switch?"
Posted by eric at 3:14 PM
April 29, 2008
Borough President Marshall rips 'crazy' option to split Willets Point plan
NY Daily News
by Frank Lombardi and John Lauinger
Were pretty sure the only thing "crazy" in this story is the person calling a plan that might avoid the use of eminent domain at Willets Point "crazy."
The mammoth Willets Point redevelopment plan could be divided into two stages under an alternative approach being considered by city officials.
But a key backer of the city's Willets Point vision, Queens Borough President Helen Marshall, denounced the piecemeal option as "crazy." Marshall said she believes the option is aimed at averting the controversial use of eminent domain.
..."I don't think it's a secret. What they're trying to do is to avoid the anti-eminent domain spirit that is going around the City Council," Marshall said.
NoLandGrab: OK, we admit it — we've caught that "crazy" "anti-eminent domain spirit," too.
Posted by eric at 11:58 AM
April 24, 2008
An Open Letter to President Bollinger
Columbia Spectator
West Harlem businessman Nick Sprayregen, unable to get a meeting with the man who runs the institution that wants New York State to take his land by eminent domain, resorts to an open letter in the Columbia Spectator.
Dear President Bollinger,
With the recent appointment of a new governor, there is renewed hope among many that the state will finally take strides in amending its abusive eminent domain laws. As such, I publish this open letter with the sincere hope that it will lead to meaningful dialogue between you and me. Over the past nearly four years, the institution that you head, Columbia University, and the family business of which I am president, Tuck-It-Away Self Storage, have been locked in battle. The outcome of this struggle will affect the future direction of many parties—my family, Columbia, and West Harlem. The stakes are huge.
The issue: the threatened use of eminent domain. You have asked the state to condemn any properties in the Manhattanville area of West Harlem that refuse to sell to you. Out of regard for my family, which has owned and operated four commercial properties here for almost 30 years, my answer has always been the same: I will not negotiate while the threat of eminent domain is hung over my head. That is not fair.
During this fight, you and I have never directly communicated, despite my request for a meeting with you. This request was turned down. Instead, it has only been through surrogates—lawyers, lobbyists, and journalists—that we have had any form of contact.
I am adamant in my opposition to the possible use of eminent domain so that Columbia can take others’ private property to help it build a new campus. This is not how eminent domain should be used. Columbia is a private institution of privilege—it is not a fire station, highway or, indeed, a public school.
Posted by eric at 2:26 PM
April 22, 2008
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
The Willets Point group is a coalition of sucessful businesses, who are more capable of wielding political clout than the typical property owner fighting eminent domain abuse. It's no small wonder that there isn't very much support for Mayor Bloomberg's plan to remake Willets Point, after decades of abuse and neglect from the City of New York. There's a demonstration and protest over the Columbia University land grab on Saturday. |
WILLETS POINT, QUEENS
The NY Observer, Nearly 30 City Council Members Call Willets Point Plan 'Unacceptable'
Late last week, when the Bloomberg administration announced it would begin the process of rezoning the neighborhood of Willets Point without a developer, it did so over the objections of the City Council, including Land Use Committee Chair Melinda Katz.
So it can't be a complete surprise that today, a number of critics of the plan, led by Hiram Monserrate, the most vocal opponent, have written a letter protesting the planned redevelopment that says, “This plan is unacceptable, and we wish to inform you that without significant modifications, we will strongly oppose it, leaving no chance of it moving forward.”
MetroNY, Willets point plan called dead on arrival
Just as the Bloomberg administration set its plan for Willets Point in motion yesterday, 29 City Council members declared the mayor’s redevelopment project dead on arrival.
Crain's NY Business, City Council rebuffs Willets Point plan
Charging that the redevelopment of Willets Point would displace more than 250 businesses and provide an inadequate amount of affordable housing, a majority of the City Council today said they opposed the Bloomberg administration’s decision to advance the plan through the land review process.
...
The city says it is in discussions with business owners about relocation and that it will only use eminent domain as a last resort.
NoLandGrab: The joke is that the government always says that it will use eminent domain "as a last resort."
The Campaign for Community-Based Planning, Willets Point and Hunters Point South Plans to be Certified Today
The Willets Point Plan has also been extremely controversial — it involves the taking of many industrial businesses, located along the stretch of Queens waterfront located next to Shea Stadium, by eminent domain. In their place, the City plans to construct an entirely new community, including a convention center, hotels, housing, retail, parks/open space, and a school. According to Crain’s, the area’s Council Member, Hiram Monserrate, “remains opposed, saying he wants the administration to guarantee the inclusion of middle- and low-income housing units, require livable-wage jobs and agree not to use eminent domain to take over properties.”
WEST HARLEM, MANHATTAN
A message from the Coalition to Preserve Community:
COLUMBIA SPENT $2.3 MILLION LAST YEAR TO LOBBY FOR ITS WEST HARLEM EVICTION PLAN THEY CAN BUY THE POLITICIANS, BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE COMMUNITY TO DEAL WITH
Join the Coalition to Preserve Community’s March to Columbia 4/26
JOIN TOGETHER SATURDAY, APR. 26, 08
MEET TO MARCH AT ST. MARY’S CHURCH 12:30PM (521 West 126th Street)
DEMONSTRATION WITH STUDENTS ON THE CAMPUS 1:30PM (116 St campus plaza)IT'S BEEN 40 YEARS SINCE COLUMBIA STUDENTS AND COMMUNITY RESIDENTS STOPPED THE CU GYM IN MORNINGSIDE PARK. LET'S SHOW CU THAT HARLEM IS STILL NOT FOR SALE. NO COLUMBIA EXPANSION IN WEST HARLEM. NO DESTRUCTION OF 125TH STREET. NO FORCED DISPLACEMENT OF BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS. NO DANGEROUS BIOTECH LABS.
FOR MORE INFO ON THE “BATHTUB” CONSTRUCTION, VISIT THIS WEBSITE: www.biohazardonhudson.com
COME OUT. YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
CONTACT US: Call (212) 666-6426, 646-812-5188, or (212) 234-3002 (se habla espanol) or go to www.stopcolumbia.org and sign up to be on our contact list.
Posted by lumi at 4:43 AM
April 21, 2008
Divisive Willets Point plan up for review
Crain's NY Business
Breaking news in our backyard in one of the most serious domain controversies in the nation: