No Land Grab

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.

article

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.

article

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, 7pm

Entrance 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.

link

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.

link

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.

article

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, NY

Come 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?

article

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.

article

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.

article

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.

link

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.”

article

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

more info

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.

article

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.

link

Posted by lumi at 4:41 AM

New York City Music Venues

Lucid Culture

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.

article

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.

article

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.

article

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.

article

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.

article

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.

article

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.)

article

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.

article

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.”

article

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.

article

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.

link

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.

link

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!

article

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.

article

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.

article

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.

article

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.

article

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.

link

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:

The city intends to certify the Willets Point and Hunters Point South plans into the land-use process on Monday, setting the stage for a seven-month battle as the projects are scrutinized by the communities, the City Planning Commission and the City Council.

Willets Point business owners have been simmering since last May, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a $3 billion plan that would displace them and remake the hardscrabble blocks near the Mets’ new Citi Field. There, the city would build 5,500 housing units, a hotel, a convention center and 2.2 million square feet of office and retail space.
...
The mayor’s economic development team has decided to press forward on Willets Point, despite many unresolved issues. The 61-acre redevelopment had been scheduled for certification in February, but the city temporarily backed off when City Councilman Hiram Monserrate, D-Queens, withdrew his support. He 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.

“They have now put a real short-term clock on this project,” says Mr. Monserrate. “And that clock begins to tick on Monday.”

article

NoLandGrab: This would be a joke, if the City wasn't dead serious. After decades of failing to deliver basic city services to this neighborhood, New York City is conveniently declaring it "blighted" in order to remove small business owners via eminent domain.

Posted by lumi at 4:47 AM

April 20, 2008

Eliopoulos' personal film digs deep

Asbury Park Press

"GREETINGS FROM Asbury Park," which will have its premiere May 31 at the New Jersey International Film Festival at Rutgers University, is both a personal and a national story, said its filmmaker, Christina Eliopoulos of Eatontown.

Eliopoulos began making a movie in 2001 that was meant to be "an exploration of my family history" in Asbury Park and the changes the city had experienced during the course of 50 years.

But when her great-aunt Angie Hampilos, 92, was told by the city of Asbury Park that her home was in the zone slated for condemnation to make way for redevelopment, the movie took on a larger and more urgent perspective.
...
"The God's honest truth is that I had no idea when I started filming that this issue (of eminent domain) was so massive. But I did more research and I started getting phone calls and letters from people saying, "This is happening in Broo