No Land Grab

Posted by eric at 10:47 AM

September 12, 2011

Law professor Somin: in Atlantic Yards and Columbia eminent domain cases, "the [NY Court of Appeals] broke dubious new ground"

Atlantic Yards Report

Last February, libertarian law professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University, at a conference at Fordham Law School, called the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case in state court and the subsequent case challenging Columbia University's expansion "among the worst I've ever seen."

A law review article based on his presentation will be published in the October 2011 of the Fordham Urban Law Journal, titled Let There Be Blight: Blight Condemnations in New York after Goldstein and Kaur. (In several places, Somin cites an article I co-authored.)

(The AY case is known as Goldstein vs. New York State Urban Development Corporation and the Columbia case is known as Kaur vs. New York State Urban Development Corporation.)

Somin's argument:

the New York Court of Appeals erred badly, by allowing highly abusive blight condemnations and defining pretextual takings so narrowly as to essentially read the concept out of existence.

The "extraordinarily broad definition of “blight,” he allows, is not out of line with that of other states that define blight expansively though "odds with the text of the New York Constitution, which allows blight condemnations only in 'substandard and insanitary areas.'"

He also points to three areas in which the court failed to consider evidence and thus "broke dubious new ground":

• evidence that the blight studies were predetermined
• evidence that the firm conducting the blight studies, AKRF, had a conflict of interest, given that it had been concurrently and consecutively paid by Columbia and Forest City, respectively
• evidence that the parties seeking the land had contributed to the blight

article

Posted by eric at 11:36 AM

Let there be Blight — My New Article on Blight Condemnations in New York

The Volokh Conspiracy
by Ilya Somin

My new article, “Let There Be Blight: Blight Condemnations in New York after Goldstein and Kaur” is now available on SSRN. It critiques the New York Court of Appeals’ recent controversial blight takings decisions in the Atlantic Yards and Columbia University eminent domain cases. It was part of a Fordham Urban Law Journal symposium on Eminent Domain in New York. Here is the abstract:

The New York Court of Appeals’ two recent blight condemnation decisions are the most widely publicized and controversial property rights rulings since the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London. In Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., and Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., the Court of Appeals set new lows in allowing extremely dubious “blight” condemnations. This Article argues that the New York Court of Appeals erred badly by allowing highly abusive blight condemnations and defining pretextual takings so narrowly as to essentially read the concept out of existence.

article

Posted by eric at 11:29 AM

September 4, 2011

Screening: The Garden (2008, USA, 80 min.)

Wednesday, September 7, 2011, 6–8:30 pm

BMW Guggenheim Lab

NoLandGrab readers would do well to check out this free screening of The Garden, in many ways the City of Angels version of Battle for Brooklyn.

Located in the heart of South Central Los Angeles, a lush 14-acre community garden (the largest urban farm in the United States) began as a form of healing after the devastating riots in 1992. Led by South Central farmers, it grew into an oasis where an economically depressed community could grow its own food and foster a sense of belonging. But when the owner of the land, a wealthy developer, decides to sell, the mostly Latin American farmers must organize and confront City Hall. Scott Hamilton Kennedy’s Academy Award–nominated documentary exposes the ensuing struggle, revealing the fault lines in American society and raising questions about equality and justice for the poorest and most vulnerable among us.

Filmmaker Q&A will follow screening

6 pm open seating
6:15 pm screening

Directions

link

Posted by eric at 9:26 PM

August 26, 2011

The Resurrection of Seneca Village

The Huffington Post
by Alan Singer

In 1857, Seneca Village, an African-American community in Manhattan was erased from history. About a century later in the 1950s, a Parks Department gardener found a graveyard around 85th Street. The New Yorker magazine reported it was "filled with the bones of tramps and squatters." Today, the village and its former inhabitants are being resurrected by a team of archaeologists from Barnard College-Columbia University and City College (CUNY).
...

In 1853, the New York state legislature set aside land for the construction of Central Park and authorized the use of "eminent domain" to confiscate private property between 59th and 106th Streets (later extended to 110th Street) for public purposes. The residents of Seneca Village received final eviction notices during the summer of 1856. Although property holders were compensated, many protested in the courts. An article in the New York Times reported, "The policemen find it difficult to persuade them out of the idea which has possessed their simple minds, that the sole object of the authorities in making the Park is to procure their expulsion from the homes which they occupy." After eviction, the community was never reestablished.
...

Madeline Landry (Barnard) examined the language used by the local press to justify eminent domain and expulsion of Seneca Village residents from their homes and reported that it was remarkably similar to language used to justify the demolition of homes and businesses in the recent Atlantic Yards controversy in Brooklyn.

article

NoLandGrab: The principal difference, of course, being that the former was razed for a public park, while the latter is all about Bruce Ratner's private profit.

Posted by eric at 10:58 AM

August 18, 2011

No Predicting 'Common Sense' Court Open to Dissenting Voices

New York Law Journal
by Joel Stashenko

A review of the unpredictable nature of the past year's decisions by New York State's highest court contains a reference to one of the previous year's very predictable decisions.

But none of the Court's cases in 2010-2011 produced the high-profile rulings of the previous year, when the judges ruled that landlords could not charge market-rate rents where they had accepted a city tax break; updated the definition of a "blighted" area to approve the seizure of private land for the controversial Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn; determined that the state's judges had been unconstitutionally denied a raise; and decided that the governor has the authority to fill a lieutenant governor vacancy.

Judge Lippman said in an interview that he was "very proud" of his Court's body of work over the past year.

"To me, it's a common-sense Court," Judge Lippman said.

article

NoLandGrab: Yeah, nothing says "common sense" like allowing "blight" to be defined as whatever a developer says it is. Very proud indeed.

Posted by eric at 12:37 PM

July 29, 2011

Rio, come kick a ball around with us the 30th of July!

International Alliance of Inhabitants

On the day of the World Cup draw, the Popular Committee of the World Cup and Olympics will have a public action in defense of “The People's Cup.” A march for the People's Cup will begin gathering at the Largo do Machado at 10am and will move towards the Marina da Goria where the draw is taking place.

While the 20 million dollar party for choosing the qualifying groups for the 2014 World Cup is happening on the 30th of July in Rio de Janeiro, thousands of the city's residents are being removed from their homes in preparation for the tournament, street vendors are prevented from working and the vast majority of the population will not have enough money to pay for tickets to the World Cup. The Popular Committee of the World Cup and Olympics will detail these and other processes in a collective interview for the press on the 29th of July.
...

The 2014 World Cup will impact 12 Brazilian cities. These are municipalities in which the majority of people do not have access to sewerage and in which a high percentage of people live in favelas.
...

According to authorities, forced removals are expected to affect around 12.5 thousand people in Rio de Janeiro but the evidence suggests that the number of removals undertaken for the mega-events will be around 30 thousand.

link

Posted by eric at 3:48 PM

July 26, 2011

Appeals Court Rejects Dallas Developer’s Claim That Book About Eminent Domain Defamed Him

Author and Publisher Protected by First Amendment

Institute for Justice

In an important victory for the First Amendment, a unanimous Texas Fifth Court of Appeals has handed a major defeat to Dallas developer H. Walker Royall in his defamation lawsuit against the author and publisher of Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land. In November 2009, a Dallas trial court issued a blanket denial of Carla Main and Encounter Books’ claims that the book is protected by the First Amendment, prompting the appeal.

Late yesterday, the Dallas appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and held that Royall failed to produce evidence that anything in Bulldozed defames him in any way. The opinion [PDF] reaffirms that criticism of public projects is protected by the First Amendment, and that developers who are involved in those projects cannot hide behind defamation law to escape criticism over their role.

“Walker Royall has failed in his attempt to use this frivolous defamation lawsuit as a weapon to silence his critics,” said Dana Berliner, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, the nonprofit public interest law firm that is defending Main and her publisher. “The appeals court has exposed the frivolity of Royall’s lawsuit, holding that Royall failed to prove that a single word of Bulldozed defames him.”

Published in 2007, Bulldozed chronicles events in Freeport, Texas, where Royall signed a development agreement to have the city take land owned by Western Seafood—a generations-old shrimping business—and give that land to Royall’s development company for a luxury yacht marina.

link

NoLandGrab: Here's a link to some of our past coverage of the Freeport land grab.

Posted by eric at 12:03 PM

July 21, 2011

The Ten States That Restrict Personal Freedom (And Those That Protect It) Read more: The Ten States That Restrict Personal Freedom (And Those That Protect It)

24/7 Wall St.
by Douglas A. McIntyre, Charles B. Stockdale, Michael B. Sauter

Can you guess the identity of the least-free of these United States?

1. New York

> Fiscal freedom: -0.471 (lowest)
> Regulatory freedom: -0.90 (11th lowest)
> Personal freedom: -0.191 (3rd lowest)
> Net Migration (2000-2009): -8.9%

New York is the least free state in the country. According to the report, this is because it has the lowest rated economic freedom and the third lowest rated personal freedom in the country. The state has the highest taxes in the nation, with above average property, selective sales, individual income, and corporate income tax rates. Government spending on “public welfare, hospitals, electric power, transit, and employee retirement” is all well above the national averages. The state also has the second greatest debt as a percentage of the state’s economy in the country, behind only Alaska. The state is not much better when it comes to personal liberty. New York has among the strictest gun laws in the country, motorists are highly regulated, home schools are highly regulated, and cigarette taxes are the highest in the country — currently $4.35 a pack. Eminent domain “abuse is rampant and unchecked,” such as last year’s case involving the expansion of Columbia University and the Atlantic Yards program in Brooklyn.

article

NoLandGrab: Don't get us wrong — we're all for gun control, regulating drivers and cigarette taxes. It's the land-grabbing we have a problem with.

Posted by eric at 12:01 PM

July 13, 2011

IJ Scores Major First Amendment Victory For St. Louis Property Owner Protesting Eminent Domain Abuse

Institute for Justice

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today handed down a major First Amendment victory for the right to protest government abuse. The case is a victory for a St. Louis housing activist who grew so fed up with the government’s abuse of eminent domain that he painted an enormous protest message on the side of one of his buildings facing the interstate calling for the end of eminent domain abuse. The city had required him to either remove the mural or get a permit to display his protest, but then it refused to issue him a permit when he applied.

Jim Roos runs a nonprofit housing ministry, which works to provide housing for low-income residents of south St. Louis. Roos became a vocal critic of the city’s use of eminent domain for private development after the city took away several of his housing ministry’s buildings not for a public use, but for private development projects.

Roos refused to remove his protest and so he joined with the Institute for Justice to fight for his First Amendment rights. And today the 8th Circuit handed him a victory, holding emphatically that government isn’t allowed to restrict speech based on its message. The court struck down the St. Louis sign regulations that the city had tried to use to silence this anti-eminent-domain activist.

link

Posted by eric at 6:16 PM

July 11, 2011

The Great Basketball Swindle

A riveting new documentary takes on New York's shameful eminent domain abuse

Reason.com
by Damon W. Root

At its best, Battle for Brooklyn illustrates the scope of these mounting outrages while capturing Goldstein’s shock and anger as he slowly realizes that the deck is truly stacked against him. But since the film clocks in at a lean 93-minutes, several other significant aspects of the story were only briefly addressed or left on the cutting room floor.

One such weakness is Battle for Brooklyn’s treatment of the atrocious November 2009 decision by New York’s Court of Appeals—the state’s highest court—upholding the use of eminent domain. While there is a great scene showing Goldstein anxiously checking his computer for news of the ruling, the only real summary the audience receives is that “we lost.”

Unfortunately, that’s not the half of it. In its 6-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals actually admitted that the state’s blight determination might be bogus and then went ahead and upheld it anyway. “It may be that the bar has now been set too low—that what will now pass as ‘blight,’ as that expression has come to be understood and used by political appointees to public corporations relying upon studies paid for by developers, should not be permitted to constitute a predicate for the invasion of property rights and the razing of homes and businesses,” the majority declared. “But any such limitation upon the sovereign power of eminent domain as it has come to be defined in the urban renewal context is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts.”

article

NoLandGrab: And — surprise, surprise — New Yorkers are still waiting for our esteemed state legislature to rein in eminent domain abuse. Don't hold your breath.

Posted by eric at 12:35 PM

July 6, 2011

Hockey arena site forces day-care center to find new home

Allentown Morning Call
by Elizabeth Murphy

Surely the Allentown Phantoms would never renege on their rent obligations. Right?

Olgie Moreno-Prosper says it's bad enough she has to move her Allentown day-care center to make way for a proposed hockey arena. Now she has to overcome the frustration of zoning bureaucracy to find a new home.

New Generation Learning Center, which tends 75 mostly inner-city children from 6 a.m. to midnight Monday through Friday, is a tenant of 42 N. Seventh St. The building stands on what will practically be center ice if the city successfully builds a new home for the American Hockey League Phantoms, the Philadelphia Flyers' minor league team that now plays in Glens Falls, N.Y.

With Allentown threatening to acquire properties for the project through eminent domain, building owner Marian Rush said she has a contract to sell the building to the city for an undisclosed amount.

Moreno-Prosper, director of New Generation, wants to keep the day care center in the same vicinity and has a potential new home on the second and third floors of 515 Linden St. But that requires city approval because the building is outside the central business district and is zoned high-density residential.
...

Moreno-Prosper called the zoning process frustrating.

"We are moving because they are asking us to but they are putting us through this to move," she said, noting that she does understand the separation of the city and the zoning board.

article

NoLandGrab: If only she were relocating her basketball team rather than her daycare center, the city would've overrode the zoning for her.

Posted by eric at 11:07 AM

July 4, 2011

From the NoLandGrab archives: Eminent Domination Without Representation

Eleven score and ten fifteen years ago today (230 235 yrs.), 56 property/business owners declared that they were fed up with King George III of England and his failure to act in the best interests of his citizen-subjects.

At the risk of being labeled "screamers" and "kooks," these 56 men volunteered to represent their communities and publicly executed a radical and politically risky move. They pledged their lives and fortunes to fight against what was essentially a "done deal:" the arbitrary rule of law and the manipulation of legislatures to serve the purposes of a despotic power.

On this anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we offer you a transcript of the document (after the jump), so that you may ponder the contemporary significance of the usurpations of a despot who refused to allow local citizens to determine issues that directly affected their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

As you consider the "Declaration of the thirteen united States of America," your thoughts may drift towards more recent events concerning a major land-use headache in Central Brooklyn (where, coincidentally, the first major battle of the War for Independence was fought): * NY State's takeover, with Mayor Bloomberg's consent, of local zoning, land use and environmental review (in other words, putting an arena and 16 towers at an already congested intersection — economic, health and quality-of-life concerns be damned), * Eminent domain seizures without legislative oversight (no legislators get to vote if the project is under NY State jurisdiction), * Manipulations of the rule of law to serve the purpose of the politically connected (i.e. "emergency" demolitions, the inevitable finding of "blight" to justify private property condemnation), * Approval of the largest single-source development project in the history of NYC placed in the hands of un-elected representatives of the three most powerful men in Albany, * The spending of our tax dollars on Bruce Ratner's private development, with taxes generated by the project earmarked to the servicing of Bruce Ratner's mortgage on the property, * Government officials ignoring the petitions of redress by their subjects/citizens.

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock

Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5 New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Source: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Posted by eric at 11:22 AM

June 7, 2011

Businesses opposed to Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project dragged to court

NY Daily News
by Erin Durkin

The state has dragged two Atlantic Ave. business owners into court to force them to let developer Bruce Ratner onto their property for construction work on his Atlantic Yards project.

The businesses are resisting, saying they fear property damage - but Ratner warns that shutting him out could delay the opening of the new Barclays Center arena.

OK, and how is that the property owners' problem?

Drew Tressler, president of Global Exhibition Services, which has been making museum and trade show exhibits at the Atlantic Ave. shop for 35 years, said he won't allow the developer to install underground steel cables known as tie-backs. He's afraid it could damage his building.

"Our building is concrete, and I really don't know what long-term effect the drilling will have on it. Concrete is brittle," he said.

Tressler said he's already dealing with noise and congestion from the project and he doesn't need any more headaches. He added the work could block him from renovating the building with new plumbing or a subbasement.

"I don't understand this," he said. "It's certainly not going to help me....I think it would bother any business owner."

The state is also suing Storage Mart, whose owners could not be reached for comment.
...

Ratner executive Thomas Bonacuso said the work is necessary to finish the Carlton Ave. bridge - which legal agreements say must be done before the arena can open.

"Delay in completion of work would also prevent the arena from opening on schedule" in fall 2012, Bonacuso wrote.

"The results would be devastating," he added, adding it would cost the developer "many millions of dollars."

article

NoLandGrab: Maybe Forest City should have thought about that before they ignored working on the bridge for a couple years once they tore it down.

Related coverage...

Curbed, Revenge of the Megaprojects

Today in Atlantic Yards opposition, the state has taken two Atlantic Avenue businesses to court because they've refused to let Bruce Ratner onto their properties for arena-related construction. One store owner has denied the developer's request to put in underground steel cables because he's worried about building damage. The developer, meanwhile, says the opposition could delay the arena opening. An argument we're sure will work well on the businesses' owners, since their properties are in line for state seizure when it's time for AY's next phase.

The Real Deal, Still more Atlantic Yards holdouts crimping Bruce Ratner's style

Joshua Rikon, an attorney for Global Exhibition Services, said eminent domain laws don't cover the kind of access the state is demanding and that the move reflects "poor planning" on Ratner's part.

Posted by eric at 1:36 PM

May 25, 2011

In NY, a "condemnor can condemn a Kasha Knish": more criticisms of eminent domain in New York and suggested reforms

Atlantic Yards Report

The latest issue of the Albany Government Law Review, published by Albany Law School, concerns Eminent Domain: Public Use, Just Compensation, & "The Social Compact", with several articles that touch on the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case.

And, as scholars indicated in a recent conference at Fordham Law School, few think that decision was wise, or that the legal regime in New York inspires confidence.

Probably the quote of the issue comes from attorney Michael Rikon, who represents condemnees (including Atlantic Yards opponent Daniel Goldstein) and suggests:

It is an aphorism in criminal law that a good prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” With regards to condemnations in New York, it can fairly be said that in New York, a condemnor can condemn a Kasha Knish.

Commentators in the issue propose numerous reforms to right the balance in New York--reforms that likely would be opposed by supporters of the status quo.

One commentator suggests that decisions to condemn made by elected officials should be given deference, but that decisions made by appointees and others not directly accountable should face a higher burden. That would impact projects like Atlantic Yards.

Read on for Norman Oder's in-depth coverage.

article

Posted by eric at 1:38 PM

May 10, 2011

Packaging Public Land, The City’s Role in Private Development

Urban Magazine
by Claudia Huerta

It’s hard not to notice all the construction going on in New York City. Yet where the average passerby sees only cranes and the hands of private developers reshaping the city, planners, policy-makers and political insiders see the increasingly powerful role of the city’s arms-length organization, the Economic Development Corporation (EDC).
...

EDC is different from other city agencies in some important ways. For instance, when city-owned properties are sold, the names of the bidders and their projects are not revealed to the public. It is only after EDC selects a developer that the community is informed of the developer’s plans. Unsurprisingly, this process has raised the ire of many New York City communities and made it the target of a public backlash, as was the case in the recent Willets Point and Atlantic Yards development proposals pushed by EDC.

Having many different funding sources gives EDC a lot of power. Add to that its unique semi-public, semi-private status and it is a recipe reminiscent of Robert Moses’ Triborough Bridge Authority, which built countless bridges, tunnels and highways throughout the city with impunity from the 1940s to the 1960s despite much public disapproval.

article

Posted by eric at 12:19 PM

City seeks developers for Willets Point revamp

Grand plans inch forward for 62-acre Queens that's been the subject of a lengthy legal battle between the city and some of the local businesses that would be displaced.

Crain's NY Business
by Amanda Fung

The city moved another step forward Monday with its hotly contested plans to redevelop Willets Point, Queens. The city's Economic Development Corp. issued a request for proposal seeking a developer to build out the first portion of the 62-acre site, a parcel of land located next to Citi Field.

With Atlantic Yards, by contrast, the developer was selected before the project was announced. In fact, it was the developer who selected the project.

“We think this is premature,” said Michael Gerrard, senior counsel of Arnold & Porter, who represents 10 businesses that have been fighting for years to halt the Willets Point redevelopment. Some of Mr. Gerrard's clients are actually located in the first phase, he noted. “The project is still in legal limbo due to continuing uncertainty over whether the city will receive approval for the Van Wyck ramps that are essential to the project, which was approved as a whole, not something that could be broken into chunks or phases.”

article

Posted by eric at 11:07 AM

April 13, 2011

Congress considers bill restricting eminent domain for economic development; Institute for Justice backs bill, professor warns against it

Atlantic Yards Report

Will Congress reform eminent domain? Yesterday the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on H.R. 1433, the "Private Property Rights Protection Act," which would prohibit states or political subdivisions to exercise eminent domain (or allow such exercise) over property to be used for economic development.

It drew both strong support and harsh criticism from a split panel of witnesses.

This reprises a similar bill passed by the House of Representatives in reaction to the Supreme Court's controversial 2005 Kelo v. New London decision, which upheld eminent domain for economic development.

(The previous vote was 376-38, indicating bipartisan consensus; it's likely the Republican-dominated House would still support the bill, though perhaps without such consensus. The Senate, Democratic then and now, never voted.)

However, it would not have any effect on agencies pursuing eminent domain under the justification of blight removal, as in the state of New York.
...

Dana Berliner, Senior Attorney for the Institute of Justice, testified [PDF] that, after the Kelo decision, "the floodgates opened," as the rate of eminent domain abuse tripled. One of her five examples:

Last year, the New York Court of Appeals--the state's highest court--allowed the condemnation of perfectly fine homes and businesses for two separate projects. First, a new baksetball arena and residential and office towers in Brooklyn, and then for the expansion of Columbia University--an elite, private institution--into Harlem.

Note that the justification in both cases was blight, not economic development, though there's obviously conceptual overlap.

Berliner observed that, while some states have reformed their laws, "it remains a major problem in many other states," with New York the worst state in the country, "and it has gotten even worse since Kelo." (There's broad consensus on that.)

article

Posted by eric at 8:51 AM

April 12, 2011

House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution Hearing on H.R. 1433: “Private Property Rights Protection Act”

Institute for Justice Media Advisory

The House heard testimony today on a bill aimed at reining in eminent domain.

In an increasingly partisan nation, one issue unites Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives: reforming eminent domain laws to end the use of public power for private gain. A bipartisan bill being considered in Congress right now would greatly discourage this abuse of power by stripping federal funding from any municipality that condemns private property for private development. This would finally provide some federal protection for the property rights of all Americans, especially the poorest and most-vulnerable, from the alliance of land-hungry developers and tax-hungry government officials.

H.R. 1433 (the “Private Property Rights Protection Act”) cosponsored by Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Maxine Waters (D-CA), prohibits states and municipalities from using eminent domain for private development if they have received federal economic development funds. It also prohibits the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development, which is defined as taking private property and transferring it to another private person to increase tax revenue, jobs or general economic growth. A nearly identical bill that was introduced immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Kelo v. City of New London passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 376-38, with the Senate never voting on passage.

Importantly, the bill would still allow eminent domain for traditional public uses like public utilities, roads and post offices, and would also allow local officials to remove properties that pose an immediate threat to public health and safety and put abandoned property to productive use.

link

Posted by eric at 11:20 PM

April 7, 2011

Seeking balance over blight, academics suggest new standards, dropping underutilization, and tougher look at projects with more % of private benefits

This is Part 3 of a three-part series (Part 1, Part 2) on Fordham Law School's eminent domain symposium in February.

Atlantic Yards Report

Is there a reasonable compromise that would preserve the use of eminent domain as a tool for government while preventing dubious tactics like claiming underutilization--or cracks in the sidewalk--equal blight?

And shouldn't courts play some role in scrutinizing blight, especially for certain projects, ones which promise a greater ratio of private than public benefits?

In an intriguing paper titled The Use and Abuse of Blight in Eminent Domain, attorney (and part-time Columbia academic) Martin E. Gold and Lynne B. Sagalyn of Columbia Business School (and the book Times Square Roulette), set out a hierarchy of eminent domain projects, from those with clear public benefits to those with more private benefits.

Those at the bottom of the hierarchy deserve the most scrutiny, and thus a closer examination of blight findings. They mention Atlantic Yards as falling somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy and criticize some of the definitions used in the AY eminent domain case, notably underutilization.

Need for review

They make a strong case for redefinition, arguing that "effectively there is no review of blight findings in New York" and--as others have contended--the courts have abdicated their role in policing eminent domain.

So "thoughtfully crafted, objective and measurable, standards for the determination of blight" are needed:

If blight is to continue to be a condition and cornerstone for condemnations for renewal or economic development undertakings, it needs serious alteration; otherwise it will continue to serve more as an expensive foil for projects sought by developers and government officials, than as a screen filtering out lands that should be left alone.

article

Posted by eric at 11:27 AM

April 6, 2011

AY eminent domain decision "among the worst I've ever seen," says law prof; former NJ Public Advocate says NY court abdicated role in policing blight

This is Part 2 of a three-part series (Part 1) on Fordham Law School's eminent domain symposium in February.

Appellate Division Justice James Catterson was not the only person at a symposium February 11 to slam the New York Court of Appeals' decision in the Columbia (Kaur) and predecessor Atlantic Yards (Goldstein) cases.

So too did several academics, including some longstanding critics of eminent domain and others who, while recognizing the importance of the tool, agree that jurisprudence in New York has gotten out of hand. They spoke at Taking New York: The Opportunities, Challenges, and Dangers Posed by the Use of Eminent Domain in New York, a symposium at Fordham Law School.

In other words, instead of "junk lawsuits" and "frivolous litigation," as then-Daily News columnist Errol Louis dismissed Atlantic Yards legal filings, or "contrived lawsuits," in the words of academic Bruce Berg, maybe we should be talking about "junk judicial decisions."

After all, the former Public Advocate in New Jersey--a self-described "ACLU civil liberties lawyer"--declared that "the New York Court of Appeals basically abdicated any meaningful role for the judiciary in determining whether a blight designation even passed the laugh test."

And, though the court has indicated that the legislature should step in, panelists expressed little hope that the notoriously dysfunctional New York legislature would act to reform eminent domain laws.

In other words, even though the U.S. Supreme Court wouldn't hear the appeal in the case challenging the condemnation for the Columbia University expansion, a good number of legal experts agree that New York is an outlier.

Need to get your blood boiling? Read on.

article

Posted by eric at 11:14 AM

April 5, 2011

Justice Catterson says of Court of Appeals opinion in AY eminent domain case, "I don't know what it means"; rues that his critique was "an epic fail"

This is Part 1 of a three-part series on Fordham Law School's eminent domain symposium in February.

Atlantic Yards Report

James Catterson, an Associate Justice of the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, has been the most conspicuous judicial critic of eminent domain jurisprudence in New York, writing the plurality opinion, later reversed, denying the state's effort to condemn land for the Columbia University expansion, and penning a scorching concurrence in the case upholding dismissal of challenge to the Atlantic Yards environmental review.

Nor has Catterson shied away from public, pungent criticism of the Court of Appeals' decision in the Columbia and predecessor Atlantic Yards cases, calling it confusingly opaque. He spoke at Taking New York: The Opportunities, Challenges, and Dangers Posed by the Use of Eminent Domain in New York, a symposium February 11 sponsored by Fordham Law School.'

The overview

In opening remarks lasting a little more than half an hour, the bow-tied Catterson--brisk, earthy, self-deprecating--offered what he termed a "Cook's tour" of the history of eminent domain.

Then, in the final minutes, he spoke about the November 2009 Atlantic Yards decision, Goldstein, et al., v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation, and the Columbia case, Parminder Kaur, et al., v. New York State Urban Development Corporation.

Read on for Catterson's worthwhile words of wisdom.

article

Posted by eric at 4:23 PM

April 3, 2011

In St. Louis, a protest sign meets government arrogance

The Washington Post
By George Will

New York courts have refused to rein in eminent domain abuse. Now comes a story where the issue is not even allowed to be mentioned.

A dialectic of judicial deference and political arrogance is on display in St. Louis. When excessively deferential courts permit governmental arrogance, additional arrogance results as government explores the limits of judicial deference. As Jim Roos knows.

He formed a nonprofit housing and community development corporation that provides residences for people with low incomes. Several times its properties have been seized by the city government, using “blight” as an excuse for transferring property to developers who can pay more taxes to the seizing government.

The Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision legitimized this. It permits governments to cite “blight” — a notoriously elastic concept, sometimes denoting nothing more than chipped paint or cracked sidewalks — to justify seizing property for the “public use” of enriching those governments.

Roos responded by painting on the side of one of his buildings a large mural — a slash through a red circle containing the words “End Eminent Domain Abuse.” The government that had provoked him declared his sign “illegal” and demanded that he seek a permit for it. He did. Then the government denied the permit.

The St. Louis sign code puts the burden on the citizen to justify his or her speech rather than on the government to justify limiting speech. And the code exempts certain kinds of signs from requiring permits. These include works of art, flags of nations, states or cities, and symbols or crests of religious, fraternal or professional organizations. And, of course, the government exempted political signs. So the exempted categories are defined by the signs’ content.

link

Posted by steve at 10:11 PM

March 30, 2011

Out of the City's Domain

Willets Point United

As we commented yesterday, Judge Joan Madden has thrown the city a curve ball by issuing her order to show cause against that effort to segment the Willets Point project and avoid proper review of the Van Wyck ramps. In doing so, Madden explicitly rejected the city's argument that this entire dispute could be rolled into the eminent domain challenge.

We anticipate that EDC will try to make this case when they submit papers to the judge in response to her order. We know exactly why the city is trying to use the ED gambit-they are on stronger legal ground-given how the NY State courts have ruled on condemnation challenges-in this arena then in the environmental arena where its case is much weaker.

article

Posted by eric at 11:59 AM

March 29, 2011

City's Willets Point plans hit legal pothole

Judge asks authorities why she shouldn't reverse her earlier dismissal of lawsuit to block the redevelopment after city skirts restrictions.

Crain's NY Business
by Erik Engquist

Joan Madden didn't do Atlantic Yards opponents any favors, but she's at least threatening to toss a wrench in the city's Willets Point land grab.

The city's bid to redevelop Willets Point, Queens, hit a pothole Tuesday when a judge ordered the Bloomberg administration to show why she shouldn't revoke the go-ahead she granted last summer.

State Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden had ruled that the project could proceed because the city promised not to condemn any land until it had approval for new Van Wyck Expressway ramps, which it had deemed essential to the project. But when state and federal approval of the ramps proved elusive, the city split the project into two phases and moved ahead with condemnations, arguing that the ramps were not required for Phase I.

But the administration failed to make that argument to the judge.

According to Michael Gerrard, the attorney for Willets Point property owners who object to the city's plan, the judge signed an order directing the city to explain why her order dismissing his lawsuit should not be vacated.

City lawyers will prepare a brief, the property owners will write a response, and the judge will hear oral argument in open court July 20.

article

Related coverage...

City Hall, Imminent Domain: Willets Point opponents looking to avoid fate of the Atlantic Yards, Columbia University expansion

An interesting look at the legal strategy of Willets Point property owners.

By next summer, the dilapidated jumble of auto shops in Willets Point should be starting to transform into a slick new development featuring mixed-income housing, a hotel and a convention center.

But first the city must take on a small band of business owners trying to hold onto their property in the Queens neighborhood, and while recent experience shows that the city has the upper hand in securing the land for the project, the group is eager to learn from recent economic development fights.

Two other redevelopment projects in the city, Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn and Columbia University's expansion in Manhattan, recently reaffirmed the right of government to take private property in New York and turn it over to private developers.

As the city takes its first step toward using eminent domain in Willets Point, opponents are looking carefully at the legal battles over those two projects, as a guide for which strategies to follow and which to avoid.

One major problem:

Yet in the end, what will shape the outcome is not broad support but the courts. And in New York, where the laws are notoriously permissive, the courts broadly support eminent domain.

NoLandGrab: Especially for other people's houses.

Posted by eric at 11:32 PM

March 18, 2011

HOSPITAL BRIBERY CHARGES: Willets sticks with Lipsky

YourNabe.com
by Connor Adams Sheets

You have to hand it to the Willets Point United crew — they're far more loyal than Richard Lipsky has ever been. Or Forest City Ratner, for that matter.

Willets Point United was keeping Lipsky’s services as of Monday, bucking the trend of cutting ties with him set by many of his other clients and associates. The group paid Lipsky $57,500 in 2010, according to lobbying records.

“The allegations have nothing whatsoever to do with Willets Point, and we consider that Dr. Lipsky has done a most effective job on behalf of WPU to expose the severe negative impacts of the proposed Willets Point development,” the group said in a lengthy statement on its website. “WPU is motivated, indefatigable, and inspired by Dr. Lipsky’s contact with federal enforcement agencies.”

Forest City Ratner Cos., the developer of the controversial Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, a flashpoint in the national eminent domain debate, hired Lipsky, effectively barring him from being able to work on behalf of project opponents.

Joe DePlasco, a spokesman for the developer, said Lipsky worked for Forest City Ratner as a consultant for about five years before he was terminated last week.

“He actually worked on issues related to youth and sports. His background is in sports. He has a doctorate in sports psychology or something like that,” DePlasco said. “He was a consultant, so he wasn’t directly employed.”

Hmm. We'll have to go back and re-read all of Lipsky's "Daniel Does Destroy" blog posts attacking Atlantic Yards critics to try to find the youth and sports angle.

Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside), an outspoken opponent of the $3 billion plan to redevelop Willets Point, spoke at that same protest. He said Friday he was “very surprised” to hear that the lobbyist worked on both sides of the eminent domain issue.

“I wouldn’t have expected Lipsky to be involved, but it’s symptomatic of the system,” he said. “How the hell can you be involved in helping the Willets Point owners fight the misuse of eminent domain and yet you’re supporting the misuse of eminent domain by Ratner at Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn?”

Indeed.

article

Posted by eric at 11:21 AM

March 9, 2011

Adventures in Brooklyn

Scenes in the City

On the way out, I made a point to pass the Atlantic Yards, a point of interest since seeing the Civilian's In the Footprint, and I thought about the conversation I had with my dad after having seen it. I told him one thing that had frustrated me about the show was that they never really fully explained the details of eminent domain, but went through a lot of trouble convincing us that it was being abused. I asked my dad (a real estate attorney, so, you know, he knows about stuff) what he thought of the fact that even though it's a private developer, they're using the fact that the project is creating affordable housing and jobs to validate the use of eminent domain. He shrugged and said, "That seems about right." The comment didn't really contain any sympathy for the residents who had been who had been pushed out, but nor was it in defense of the government or the developers. It was just an observation that it seemed to him what had happened had been a valid use of eminent domain. The memory made me think fondly of my dad, about how he values logic and consistency - so much so that I think he might favor it over any moral or political ideal. Our politics don't always align, but I like that, I can respect that. I'm comforted by that.

link

NoLandGrab: Her dad kinda sounds like Greg David.

Posted by eric at 12:03 PM

March 7, 2011

Willets Pointman

The Neighborhood Retail Alliance

Lip$ky: "My Atlantic Yards shilling is for the kid$$$$!"

Lisberg also points out what he implies might be a conflict owing to our work on Atlantic Yards: "The city wants to create jobs in a forlorn section of Queens by shutting down the businesses that have been there for decades. Sound weird? How’s this: The chief lobbyist against using eminent domain on those businesses in Queens also works for a developer using eminent domain on homes in Brooklyn."

Now, we dealt with this issue six years ago-emphasizing the importance of the Nets coming to Brooklyn:

"From the Alliance's perspective the most salient reason to join hands with FCRC, Build and Acorn is the bringing of the Nets to Brooklyn with a brand new arena. When the Alliance's Richard Lipsky was an up and comer plying his basketball wares all over the city, Brooklyn was a mecca for all BBall pilgrims. It still is, and the love for the game is beyond what even we would have imagined when we first began to evaluate the AY proposal.

The Brooklyn Nets are going to galvanize the entire borough and the team and its ownership is going to play a major role in working along with the youth leaders of Brooklyn in their tireless and unacknowledged efforts on behalf of the kids. That is why the support has been so unequivocal from these community folks."

link

Related coverage...

Atlantic Yards Report, Daily News pokes at Lipsky contradiction on eminent domain; also, FCR may have hired him for youth sports, but he's been a zealous advocate

Daily News columnist Adam Lisberg yesterday took a swipe at lobbyist Richard Lipsky for some seeming inconsistency: vigorous advocacy against projects involving eminent domain like Willets Point and Columbia University, while working for Bruce Ratner on Atlantic Yards.

Lisberg writes:

At the same time, though, developer Bruce Ratner's companies are paying Lipsky $3,500 a month for "information and advice" on Atlantic Yards, the controversial project to bring apartments and the Nets basketball team to Brooklyn.

The first phase of Atlantic Yards alone required the state to condemn 15 privately owned properties.

Eminent domain allows government to seize a private owner's property to serve the greater public good — if you consider a basketball stadium or a shopping center to be a public good.

Lipsky said he's usually against it, but the Nets arena and its benefits for neighborhood kids make it worthwhile in Brooklyn.
...

If Lipsky was hired strictly for youth sports programs, he sure hasn't let that stop him from extolling Atlantic Yards for multiple reasons.

NoLandGrab: And let's not forget that Lip$ky, the dogged advocate for neighborhood retail, has also been a paid lobbyist for Bruce Ratner's East River Plaza big-box mall, home to such mom-and-pop operations as Target, Costco, Best Buy, Old Navy and Marshall's. Must be because the "Brooklyn Nets are going to galvanize" East Harlem. It's for the kid$$$$!

Posted by eric at 9:52 AM

March 3, 2011

Willets Point Property Owners Vow to Continue Legal Challenge Against City

WNYC.org
by Richard Yeh

Property owners in Willets Point, Queens, under threat of losing their land by eminent domain as the city makes way for a redevelopment of the area, vowed to reopen a legal case they lost last year.

At an emotionally charged public hearing in Flushing Wednesday, property owners and their attorneys said the city has reneged on a legally binding promise not to take over land without state and federal approval for new highway ramps to alleviate traffic in the area.
...

In addition to the ramps issue, many business and property owners criticized the city’s plan to acquire privately owned property by eminent domain, if necessary, for what they say is a private project. Janice Serrone said property owners like her have not gotten a fair shake from the city in the long neglected neighborhood.

"The developers are going to get a 30-year tax abatement, meanwhile we've been paying taxes for 30 years and have gotten absolutely no services," said Serrone. "Give us our streets and sewers and we'll continue to pay our taxes and develop what rightfully belongs to us."

article

Posted by eric at 11:16 AM

March 2, 2011

Greg David: Willets Point Truther

The Neighborhood Retail Alliance

You just have to love it when Atlantic Yards enablers — one paid for his shilling, the other just doin' it for free — turn on each other.

In yesterday's Crain's web edition, commentator Greg Davis purports to set the record straight on Willets Point with an article inaptly titled. "Important Truths about Willets Point." As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once remarked, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts. So, in the service of a bit of cognitive dissonance for David-someone who has demonstrated little concern or regard for any one's constitutional property rights in NYC-we offer a rebuttal.

article

NoLandGrab: Usually, the enemy of our enemy is our friend — but the mercenary (and incredibly sanctimonious) Lipsky is still our enemy.

Posted by eric at 10:15 PM

Important truths about Willets Point

Crain's NY Business
by Greg David

One place you surely won't get the truth about eminent domain abuse is from Greg David, who's even b.s.-ed his own daughter about it.

It may appear Wednesday at a public hearing that there is considerable opposition to the Bloomberg administration's plan to clean up and redevelop the hazard waste site known as Willets Point, Queens. Don't be deceived. Tomorrow is the end game of a decades-long effort to make Willets Point a generator of jobs and business activity. Also don't forget that the last-ditch efforts of the few holdout businesses have extracted a steep cost: preventing the city's economy from being as prosperous as it could be.
...

The opposition has been greatly overstated. In a 2007 survey, Hunter College researchers found exactly one resident in the area. At the time, there were 225 businesses, mostly auto parts and repair business. They employed 1,300 people. Most of the major businesses in the area have reached agreements with the city to relocate elsewhere, mostly to nearby College Point. The numbers of remaining businesses and workers is much smaller today.

Meanwhile, opponents keep inventing strategies to derail the city. For a while, it was the idea that planned highway ramps somehow violated the environmental impact statement. A judge dismissed the claim summarily. Another complaint is that eminent domain is being wrongly applied. New York's highest court has rejected that line of reasoning at both Atlantic Yards and Columbia University's West Harlem plan, and the U.S. Supreme has refused to consider the cases. Case closed.

article

NoLandGrab: Yes, Greg, a government that can take land from whomever it wants whenever it wants — that's got to be good for business, right?

Posted by eric at 12:20 PM

February 28, 2011

Concern for Underclass as the City Progresses on Its Willets Point Plan

The New York Times
by Dan Bilefsky

Two years ago, as the mayor attended the Mets’ home opener at the new Citi Field, Adrien Nicolescue, an auto mechanic from Romania, joined a procession of honking garbage trucks to protest the city’s plans to condemn the nearby Willets Point area and build a $3 billion project of apartments, office buildings, stores, restaurants and a hotel.

But as his comrades geared up for another showdown with the mayor at a public hearing on the project scheduled for Wednesday, Mr. Nicolescue decided to pack up and leave. “I am going home, back to Romania,” he said, standing on the same pothole-pocked corner of Willets Point where he has been drawing in customers for windshield repairs for 36 years.

Willets Point, in Queens, is a 61-acre expanse of junkyards and auto-repair shops so squalid that local business owners compare it to Iraq. “I don’t want to leave,” Mr. Nicolescue said, “but I have nowhere to go."
...

Whatever the challenges, some are determined to stay. Michael Rikon, a lawyer representing 82 businesses that have refused to leave, said that he was preparing to file a lawsuit against the city, claiming that the project flouted environmental laws. But he acknowledged that history and precedent were not on his side.

In November 2009, the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, ruled that the state could take businesses and private property for the $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. Legal experts said that decision reaffirmed New York’s right to use eminent domain even as many state legislatures have been moving in the opposite direction.

article

Related coverage...

Atlantic Yards Report, If 29 developers are interested in Willets Point, why not the Vanderbilt Yard? Also, no Times scrutiny for Pinsky's projections

Two things jump out from a New York Times article today headlined Concern for Underclass as the City Progresses on Its Willets Point Plan:

Seth W. Pinsky, president of the corporation, said in an interview that the project would create 5,300 new jobs, provide affordable housing and generate $25 billion in investment over the next 30 years. He said that 29 developers had already expressed interest, and that the city would choose finalists this spring.

But opponents of the Bloomberg plan counter that the project is speculative and environmentally unsound.

Contrast with AY

First, if 29 developers have expressed interest in Willets Point, would a similarly large number have jumped at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard and/or the entire Atlantic Yards site?

But the MTA didn't reopen its RFP after Forest City Ratner in 2009 asked to renegotate the Vanderbilt Yard deal, and MTA board member Jeff Kay claimed, "But there is no other market. No one else has come forward with a credible proposal at this time, and we should take advantage of that.”

Optimistic projections

Second, Pinsky should not with any certainty claim such definitive numbers about jobs, housing and investment. Nor should the Times transcribe his claims without a glimmer of doubt.

Posted by eric at 11:22 AM

February 23, 2011

BLIGHTED AREA? NOT AT ALL!

Welcome to Harlem

Damon Bae’s commercial laundry on Third Avenue in East Harlem may never be mistaken for the kind of glamorous businesses found near Wall Street, Times Square or Madison Avenue, but it is a thriving concern in this neighborhood of three- and four-story buildings and vacant lots.

The laundry, Fancy Cleaners, serves the five dry cleaning stores Mr. Bae owns in Manhattan, and the small retail dry-cleaning operation he opened inside the laundry has attracted customers from Harlem and beyond in the five years since he moved here from Murray Hill.

“I didn’t expect such a huge volume,” Mr. Bae said. “There aren’t many residential buildings nearby. But you offer a good price, and people will find you. You should see the line on Saturdays. I’ve even got people coming from the Bronx.”

But Mr. Bae, and more than a half-dozen other small-business owners in this neighborhood bound by Second and Third Avenues, from 125th to 127th Streets, are waging an uphill fight to hold onto their property. The Bloomberg administration has so far moved successfully in the courts to condemn six acres on behalf of a big developer for a $700 million East Harlem Media, Entertainment and Cultural Center.

“I think that the city is going to take away our properties and businesses so they can make another developer with deeper pockets a lot of money,” Mr. Bae said.
...

Many of the business owners knew that a large stretch of the area was included in a 150-block urban renewal effort that was approved in 1968 but never quite materialized. But property owned by at least three of the businessmen was not included in the renewal zone, at least not until 2008, when the Bloomberg administration added those parcels to the mix.

At the time, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg hailed the creation of jobs and housing, and the city justified taking the private property by declaring the area “blighted” — a description that Mr. Bae and the other business owners found galling.

The city owned most of the land, allowing it to sit fallow for decades while turning down Mr. Bae and other business owners who wanted to buy parcels to expand their operations.

“It’s artificially manufactured blight,” Mr. Bae said.
...

The battle against eminent domain in East Harlem has received less attention than similar disputes at Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, Willets Point in Queens and the Columbia University expansion in West Harlem. But in each case, longtime businesses were pushed out to make way for large developments.

Jacob Toledo, the owner of Cycle Therapy, runs the city’s largest motorcycle dealership in a refurbished five-story building on East 127th Street. Rows of new and used Triumph, BMW, Honda and Yamaha motorcycles and scooters line the neat shop, while the smell of oil hangs in the air. Mr. Toledo says he may be forced to close his business permanently if the city takes his land.

article

NoLandGrab: Besides everything else thats egregious about this situation, how can you countenance any project that would put a company as creatively named as "Cycle Therapy" out of business.

Posted by eric at 10:19 PM

February 18, 2011

Atlantic Yards

Land Use Prof Blog
by Jessica Owley

Perhaps I am late to the game on this one, but I just saw the trailer for a documentary about the Atlantic Yards controversy. The movie, called Battle of Brooklyn, tells the story of Brooklyn's use of eminent domain to build a sports arena. I am a big fan of eminent domain (hmm.. not sure if that is the right way to put it), but will likely see this movie that appears to focus on the protesters.

The main protester that the film follows actually agreed to a $3 million settlement and moved out. I wonder if they include that tidbit.

link

NoLandGrab: Yeah, just a little late. Here's part of the comment we posted, which, oddly, appears to have been removed:

Daniel Goldstein received a $3 million settlement after fighting the project for six years, and only after the state had already taken his home. The "tidbit" you condescendingly refer to came when the judge handling the condemnation insisted that he and the state and developer Forest City Ratner reach an accommodation before leaving his chambers. Forest City insisted on a gag order -- wanting to strip him of his Constitutional right to speak out against the Atlantic Yards project -- as a condition of the settlement, but he told them that he would rather end up with nothing than be stripped of his rights and dignity. And of course, his home, because of the development rights accorded to Forest City Ratner by the State of New York, was worth far more than $3 million to the developer.

Posted by eric at 10:24 AM

February 16, 2011

ALI-ABA

Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter

We are heading to Florida on Thursday to screen the film at a conference on Eminent Domain.

http://ownerscounsel.blogspot.com/2011/02/battle-of-brooklyn-eminent-domain.html

The film is very close to completion and we hope to launch it at a major festival this spring/summer

Thanks again for your support

link

Posted by eric at 10:38 AM

February 14, 2011

Corporatism masquerading as Liberty

Credit Writedowns
by Edward Harrison

An examination of faux-Libertarianism, corporatism and kleptocracy inevitably finds its way to Prospect Heights, Brooklyn.

There are lots of other examples of corporatism at work in the U.S. legal system regarding property rights in particular. My November 2009 post "New York to use eminent domain to build a basketball stadium" showed the New York State Court of Appeals ruling that the Atlantic Yards basketball project can go forward as planned, dislocating the residents in the Brooklyn, NY area where the stadium is to be built. The decision means that government can evict you from your own home, seize your property, and give you what it believes is a fair price without your consent to build a sports arena, ostensibly for the public good but certainly for state and private profit.

This and other cases like it are occurring because of the decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. If a state or local government deems a private project – funded by private monies and profiting private enterprises – to be in the public interest, it can seize your property to allow this project to occur. In the New London case, residents were evicted to make way for a luxury hotel and up-scale condos, from which private developers would profit handsomely. Kelo was an outrageous example of cronyism completely at odds with the ethos of the Dartmouth College Case of 1819. Because of Kelo, government can now abuse its power to enrich specific private interests. That’s corporatism at work.

Corporatism has nothing to do with liberty. It is all about power and coercion. It’s about favouring the big guy over the little guy, the more well-connected over the less well-connected, the insider over the outsider. And in society that means favouring large, incumbent businesses over smaller businesses, new entrants or individuals.

article

Posted by eric at 10:27 AM

February 10, 2011

Fordham Law School Conference on Eminent Domain in New York

Lawkipedia
by Ilya Somin

This Friday, I will be speaking at an academic conference on eminent domain in New York at Fordham Law School, 140 W. 62nd Street. The event is sponsored by the Fordham Urban Law Journal. My panel will be at 10 AM, and I will be speaking about the New York Court of Appeals controversial recent blight condemnation decisions in the Atlantic Yards and Columbia cases.

The conference will also include presentations by many well-known property scholars, including Michael Heller, Lynne Sagalyn, Chris Serkin, and my colleague Steve Eagle.

link

More info via the Fordham School of Law.

Posted by eric at 10:35 AM

February 6, 2011

Blighted Area? These Business Owners Beg to Differ

New York Times
By Charles Bagli

Damon Bae, the owner of a commercial laundry, is discovering firsthand what New Yorkers have learned from the Atlantic Yards fight: Your property is not safe once the government decides that it's better for a well-connected developer to have it.

But Mr. Bae, and more than a half-dozen other small-business owners in this neighborhood bound by Second and Third Avenues, from 125th to 127th Streets, are waging an uphill fight to hold onto their property. The Bloomberg administration has so far moved successfully in the courts to condemn six acres on behalf of a big developer for a $700 million East Harlem Media, Entertainment and Cultural Center.

“I think that the city is going to take away our properties and businesses so they can make another developer with deeper pockets a lot of money,” Mr. Bae said.

...

Many of the business owners knew that a large stretch of the area was included in a 150-block urban renewal effort that was approved in 1968 but never quite materialized. But property owned by at least three of the businessmen was not included in the renewal zone, at least not until 2008, when the Bloomberg administration added those parcels to the mix.

At the time, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg hailed the creation of jobs and housing, and the city justified taking the private property by declaring the area “blighted” — a description that Mr. Bae and the other business owners found galling.

The city owned most of the land, allowing it to sit fallow for decades while turning down Mr. Bae and other business owners who wanted to buy parcels to expand their operations.

“It’s artificially manufactured blight,” Mr. Bae said.

link

Posted by steve at 7:58 PM

February 3, 2011

City to Seize Land in Queens

Eminent-Domain Proceedings Set for Property Holdouts at Willets Point Project

The Wall Street Journal
by Eliot Brown

New York City is moving to seize property from landowners in Willets Point.

Seeking to kick-start a massive Queens real-estate development project conceived in the boom years, the Bloomberg administration is moving to seize a portion of the site from private property owners.

Next week, the city plans to initiate the eminent-domain process on holdout owners who own property in the first 20-acre phase of the 62-acre project. The city also is planning to solicit bids from developers in the spring, according to city officials.

Known as Willets Point, the development site by Citi Field is slated to ultimately contain more than eight million square feet, with more than 5,000 apartments, a hotel and more than 1.7 million square feet of retail space.

The site currently is filled with junkyards and auto-repair shops, along with some larger industrial properties. The City Council in 2008 approved the use of eminent domain to acquire parcels from holdouts.

The property owners are expected to litigate to block the city action, although New York state laws give the government broad powers to use eminent domain. Similar recent development projects, like the new basketball arena being built at Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn, have survived court challenges.
...

Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who represents business owners at the site, says that the eminent domain action was "an absolute disgrace."

article

NoLandGrab: The mercenary Lipsky, like a broken clock, is occasionally right. But he sure sang a different tune when Daniel Goldstein refused to sell to Lipsky's client, Bruce Ratner.

Related coverage...

Curbed, City Ready to Drop an Iron Fist on the Iron Triangle

The Bernie Madoff fallout may have plunged the Mets into financial chaos, but the real fireworks in Queens are about to kick off across the street from the team's stadium. The city is getting ready to start the controversial process of separating property owners from their property at Willets Point, the self-contained village of junkyards and auto-repair shops known as the Iron Triangle.
...

The Journal reports that next week Team Bloomberg will initiate eminent domain proceedings against nine holdouts, with more to come in the future. It's expected that the property owners will fight the government in court, but if you've been paying attention to how these things have gone as of late (Atlantic Yards, Columbia expansion, etc.), let's just say that the Mets stand a better chance of winning the World Series than some guy does of keeping his scrap heap behind the outfield.

Queens Crap, Here comes the Bloomberg steamroller

Crain's NY Business, City plans to seize Willets Point land

Posted by eric at 11:01 AM

January 24, 2011

Eminently Legal Destruction

The Neighborhood Retail Alliance

Poor Richard Lipsky. He appears to be suffering from amnesia, forgetting about his love of eminent domain for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project (and hatred of opponents), for which he served as a paid consultant, before turning opponent himself, as a paid consultant for eminent domain victims of the Columbia University expansion and Willets Point land grab.

In yesterday's NY Post, the paper had an article about the fact that property owners in NY State have absolutely no protection from the depredations of those elected officials who want to take away their property.
...

And in our view, the Court of Appeals in this state is an ass-but it is the legislature's failure to remedy the state of eminent domain law in New York that is the real scandal. With the state's highest court taking the, "see no evil," approach, justice for landowners here is truly blind, and will remain so unless the legislature acts-as it has in so many other states in the post-Kelo era.

link

NoLandGrab: Obviously, Lipsky's Atlantic Yards consulting contract has expired.

Posted by eric at 8:50 AM

January 23, 2011

Post, belatedly, notices Judge Catterson's complaint about no judicial oversight of eminent-domain proceedings; why not put EB-5 on the agenda?

Atlantic Yards

In an article headlined Wrong from blight: Judge rips land grab, the New York Post reports three months late:

In a little-noticed ruling that could pack a punch for property owners, a judge has blasted the city for abusing eminent domain in its bid to seize buildings in East Harlem -- yet says there's nothing he can do about it.

In a searing statement, Justice James Catterson of the state Appellate Division accused the city of falsely claiming "blight" as a ploy to transfer private property to developers.

But New York's lower courts are powerless to stop it, said Catterson, thanks to prior rulings from the state Court of Appeals on eminent-domain cases related to Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards development and Columbia University's West Harlem expansion.

"In my view, the record amply demonstrates that the [East Harlem] neighborhood in question is not blighted . . . and that the justification of under-utilization is nothing but a canard to aid in the transfer of private property to a developer," Catterson said of the city's argument that it can grab two blocks between 125th and 127th streets along Third Avenue because the area is economically depressed.

Unfortunately for the rights of the citizens affected by the proposed condemnation, recent rulings . . . have made plain there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent-domain proceedings," the justice wrote.

Catterson and a panel of four other Appellate Division justices dismissed the matter of Uptown Holdings vs. New York City on Oct. 12, 2010...

Previous notice

Actually, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn noticed in October, and so did others watching Atlantic Yards, including this blog.

Catterson is known for the plurality opinion temporarily blocking eminent domain in the Columbia University expansion and also a searing concurrence, which read like a dissent, in the case challenging the Atlantic Yards environmental review.

On the agenda: EB-5?

This Post article suggests that newspaper can put issues on the agenda when someone decides it's important, whether or not it's "old news."

By the same token, couldn't the Post cover Forest City Ratner's astonishing effort to raise money from Chinese millionaires seeking green cards under the EB-5 immigration program, and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz's lies in service to that effort?

link

Posted by steve at 11:29 AM

January 13, 2011

Land grab in New York

Charleston (SC) Post & Courier

Columbia University, a private institution in New York City, got a green light from the U.S. Supreme Court last month to begin seizing private property in its neighborhood, using a state agency to do the dirty work. Too bad.

The outcome is a setback for property rights. But it is business as usual in New York, a state that recognizes few limits on its powers to condemn one person's property for the benefit of another. The Supreme Court was wrong to pass up a chance to stop this sort of theft.

A number of states, including South Carolina, hastened to pass laws sharply narrowing the reach of eminent domain after the Supreme Court ruled in Connecticut's controversial Kelo case, in 2007, that a city could take private land from one owner and hand it over to another if it were fighting "blight."

Unfortunately, a number of states have left the door open to abuse of their property condemnation powers by failing to give a clear and limiting definition to "blight." New York is one.
...

The decision dismissed the finding of a lower court that the official definition of "blight" used by the state could apply to "virtually every neighborhood in the five boroughs" of New York City.

Instead, the appeals court applied the same broad definition of "blight" under which it had allowed a state agency to condemn the large Atlantic Yards property in Brooklyn for the benefit of a private developer.

article

NoLandGrab: For the record, Kelo was decided in 2005, not 2007.

Posted by eric at 9:59 AM

January 4, 2011

The Bloomberg Era, Part Two

Nathan Kensinger Photography

Forced Change
December 31, 2010 - At the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, this multi-part photo essay examines how New York City's built environment has changed over the past 10 years, and what the future of New York's skyline might be. Part one of this essay can be seen here.

On January 1st 2010, Michael Bloomberg was sworn into office for a nearly unprecedented third term as the Mayor of New York City. Bloomberg, the 23rd richest person in the world, is only the fourth mayor in the city's history to serve a third term in office, and accomplished that goal by running "the most expensive self-financed political campaign in U.S. history," according to the Huffington Post. During his tenure, Mayor Bloomberg has "amassed so much power and respect that he seems more a Medici than a mayor," according to The New Yorker. He has used his power and wealth to enact an agenda of post-9/11 development that has radically changed the city's landscape. As described in part one of this photo essay, "not since Robert Moses has a single individual presided over such a large-scale transformation of New York City's built environment."

Like Robert Moses, the legendary Power Broker, Mayor Bloomberg currently exerts a stranglehold of power over New York City. In 2009, New York Magazine bluntly declared "Mike Bloomberg owns this town," and "in the past seven years Michael Bloomberg has become the only powerful figure in New York who really matters.... The mayor is not a dictator... but Bloomberg gets what he wants more than any mayor in modern memory." Also like Robert Moses, who was called New York's Master Builder, much of Mayor Bloomberg's work has focused on constructing a new version of the city. In 2009, Bloomberg drew comparisons between his accomplishments and Robert Moses', telling The New Yorker that "we’ve done more in the last seven years than—I don’t know if it’s fair to say more than Moses did, but I hope history will show the things we did made a lot more sense." Unfortunately, the parallels between Bloomberg and Moses also include the use of controversial methods to force development projects through, often at the expense of New York's unique fabric of small neighborhoods.

One of the most controversial tools Mayor Bloomberg has utilized in his quest to transform New York City is eminent domain, a practice whereby the state seizes private property to clear the way for an impending development meant for civic and public improvement. This was a favorite tool of Robert Moses, "who rammed highways through dense urban neighborhoods with a 'meat-ax' and became the un stoppable engine of 'slum clearance'," according to Metropolis Magazine. Moses' methods were often vilified, but he created the infrastructure for present day New York City, building highways, bridges, tunnels, parks and institutional landmarks like the Lincoln Center and the United Nations that have been freely used by countless millions of people. Michael Bloomberg, on the other hand, has approved the use of eminent domain for private development projects that include luxury residences and retail shops, college campus facilities and a sports arena. When completed, none of these developments will be open to the general public. They include several neighborhoods documented on this website: Willets Point (aka The Iron Triangle), Manhattanville and the Atlantic Yards.

article

Posted by eric at 1:28 PM

January 2, 2011

Prospect Heights bar, across the street from blight, now colonizes TriBeCa

Atlantic Yards Report

In October, cataloging non-blight on Vanderbilt Avenue, I mentioned, among others, Weather Up at Dean Street, immediately across the street from the staging/construction zone slated to be a massive surface parking lot.

Weather Up is "now colonizing TriBeca," in the words of PaperMag. Blight, the justification for eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards site, is supposed to arrest development. It didn't arrest the original Weather Up, nor the spinoff.

Such colonization, in fact, appears to be the opposite force of blight.

link

Posted by steve at 7:26 PM

December 15, 2010

Of Mandates and Minarets

The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

A post about the recent Virginia ruling challenging provisions of federal healthcare legislation circles its way back to eminent domain abuse.

One cannot count on the Supreme Court to concur with Judge Hudson’s ruling, nor to recognize how inadequate his reasoning is. The Court is not governed by reason, either. Witness its concurrences with the legality of eminent domain in the Kelo case, recently in the Atlantic Yards case, and most recently in the Columbia University case, all of which sanctioned the taking of private property for the benefit of private interests in conjunction with local governments’ claims of reviving “blighted” areas to generate greater tax revenues than they got from existing property owners.

In the latter case, for example, the Empire State Development Corporation coerced or intimidated New York City property owners into selling their economically viable property and then allowed the abandoned property to become “blighted,” in order to compel the last holdouts to sell out or see their property arbitrarily condemned. Columbia University, not a litigant in the case but which wanted the land to expand on, was merely the government’s silent partner in the taking.

article

Posted by eric at 9:35 AM

December 13, 2010

There Goes Manhattanville: Supreme Court Turns Down Columbia Expansion Case

NY Observer
by Matt Chaban

The kleptocracy is alive and well in the good ol' US of A.

Nick Sprayregen knew the chances were slim that the Supreme Court would hear his case against the state and, by extension Columbia University, yet still, the owner of Tuck-It-Away self-storage held out hope.

"It was a shocking decision, even with the chance of the court taking the case being one percent," Sprayregen told The Observer by phone today. He was referring to the odds that all cases face in being heard by the court, though he believed his had a good chance, both on merit and import, given the particulars of his suit and the dearth of opinions from the high court since it decided the landmark Kelo case five years ago, which basically rewrote the rules around eminent domain.

"I though we've put together, in terms of facts, about the strongest case anyone could," Sprayregen continued. "What the state and Columbia have done to collude on this is horrifying. We really thought they'd take a look at this. It strikes fear in me for others about how anyone else could put together a stronger case. We spent six years on this. How anyone else will mount a stronger challenge to eminent domain, I don't know."

article

Posted by eric at 10:47 PM

Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal in Columbia eminent domain case

Atlantic Yards Report

Justice denied is... justice denied.

The effort to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal on the eminent domain ruling in the Columbia University expansion has been denied, without comment.

Thus the court passes for now on the opportunity to clarify the meaning and legacy of its controversial 5-4 Kelo vs. New London decision in 2005.

While the federal appellate court hearing an appeal in the Atlantic Yards litigation interpreted Kelo quite narrowly, denying the challenge, courts in other states have used language in Kelo to more closely examine the actions of governmental agencies pursuing eminent domain.

The Supreme Court also passes on an opportunity to pronounce on eminent domain law as practiced in New York State, seen as an outlier among states, given that all challenges start in the state's appellate division, with no opportunity for testimony under oath, further evidence-gathering, or cross-examination.

link

Related coverage...

Bloomberg, Columbia's Expansion Allowed by U.S. Supreme Court in Eminent Domain Case

Columbia University can move ahead with plans for a $6.3 billion expansion of its Manhattan campus after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by neighboring businesses whose property may be taken over by eminent domain.

The justices today refused to question findings by a state development agency, Empire State Development Corp., that the area is blighted and that the Columbia expansion has a legitimate public purpose. The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, upheld the plan in June.

AP via The Washington Post, High court won't block Columbia expansion plan

Posted by eric at 10:58 AM

December 11, 2010

Will the Supreme Court Hear the Columbia University Eminent Domain Case?

Reason
By Damon W. Root

Cato Institute legal scholar Ilya Shapiro highlights a big feature story from The Columbia Daily Spectator, Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, on New York’s controversial decision to use eminent domain on behalf of the elite private university. As Shapiro notes, the Supreme Court is discussing today whether or not to hear property owner Nick Sprayregen’s lawsuit challenging the eminent domain taking, and a decision is expected as early as Monday.

At least four justices will have to vote yes if the full Court is going to take the case. Unfortunately, the liberal bloc will likely vote no. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer both joined Justice John Paul Stevens’ disgraceful majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), so there’s little reason to think they’re interested in limiting or overturning that unfortunate eminent domain precedent now. As for the new faces, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has her own dubious record when it comes to protecting property rights in the Empire State, and as a self-professed fan of judicial restraint, Justice Elena Kagan may not want to subject New York’s practices to much judicial scrutiny.

But that still leaves five possible yeses. Justice Clarence Thomas will definitely want another shot at curbing eminent domain abuse. His Kelo dissent predicted exactly the sort of government malfeasance we’re now witnessing in both the Columbia and Atlantic Yards cases in New York. Justice Antonin Scalia also dissented in Kelo, though it’s possible his sense of judicial restraint will prompt him to let the 2005 precedent stand. Let’s hope not.

link

Posted by steve at 9:05 AM

Columbia University Expansion Project

Biersdorf & Associates

The Conflict: After announcing the project in 2003, Columbia University threatened “eminent domain” and quickly and amicably acquired all but 2 properties contained within the project’s footprint. Negotiations could not be reached with these owners, so In 2008, the State hired consultant AKRF to conduct a blight study. AKRF evaluated each of the 67 lots in the neighborhood and determined that there were high enough instances of physically poor conditions, emptied properties, and underdevelopment to label the area “blighted”. In New York, the blight designation provides government with the necessary means to use eminent domain to acquire property.

Is the property really blighted? The concept of “blight” is a controversial term at the heart of this case and other similar cases in New York. Because New York’s statutory definition of “blight” is so vague, government agencies can easily obtain a “blight” designation in order to use eminent domain to acquire property. Norman Siegel, civil rights attorney for Sprayregen and Sing said it best when he stated, “nobody really knows what it (blight) is”. He further emphasizes that understanding the inherent flaws in the blight law is essential—mainly that blight is a vague tool crafted to be whatever government wants it to be.

...

Unfortunately, New York is one of only seven states that have not passed post-Kelo reform aimed at curbing eminent domain abuse. Several New York lawmakers have attempted to do so, but failed after receiving opposition from the Bloomberg administration. Until New York passes eminent domain legislation addressing “blight” and the right to take, this type of abuse will continue.

link

Posted by steve at 8:47 AM

December 10, 2010

Columbia eminent domain case: One of the Supreme Court "Petitions to Watch"

The Eminent Domain Law Blog

SCOTUSblog has included the Columbia University eminent domain case Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, dba Empire State Development Corporation, Docket 10-402 in this week's edition of "Petitions to Watch." The petition for certiorari filed by these Harlem property owners will be included among the many the Court will consider when the Justices conference tomorrow, December 10. The Justices' decisions to grant or deny will be released on Monday, December 13.

This case concerns the proposed expansion of Columbia University into a Harlem neighborhood by way of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the same agency that enabled Forest City Ratner to take private homes and businesses for the Atlantic Yards arena and multi-use redevelopment.

article

Posted by eric at 7:16 AM

December 9, 2010

A Musical Comedy About the Atlantic Yards Case? Yep. That’s New York For You.

Gideon's Trumpet

The New York Times reports that some creative folks in Brooklyn have produced a musical comedy about the Goldstein v. Pataki controversy, a.k.a. the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards redevelopment project in which the courts have permitted the taking and displacememt of a Brooklyn neighborhood in order to facilitate the plans of Bruce Ratner, a mega-developer. It’s called In the Footprint: The Battle Over Atlantic Yards. The inspiration for this musical was the eminent domain case in which the state agency (ESDC) took an entire Brooklyn neighborhood by eminent domain, displaced its occupants, and turned the land over to good ol’ Bruce so he can build a new stadium for the Nets so they can move from New Jersey to Brooklyn.

The plans for the project also include a whole bunch of high rises — all for Ratner’s private gain. That’s what is called “public use” in America, at least if you listen to the New York state and federal courts, and to the New York Times which has a conflict of interest because the midtown Manhattan building in which its operations are housed sits on land that was taken by eminent domain from its rightful owners, razed, and then turned over to — guess who? The selfsame Bruce Ratner who built a high rise buiding housing the Times. Surprise, surprise! What a coincidence. As for us, we call this sort of stuff kleptocracy.

article

Posted by eric at 4:16 PM

December 8, 2010

LA Version Coming Soon

Curbed LA
by Neal Broverman

Speaking of eminent domain: The Architect's Newspaper reviews "In the Footprint: The Battle Over Atlantic Yards," a stage retelling of the epic Brooklyn development battle, a review which ends by pointing out how the unlucky Brooklyn Dodgers had a better shot at winning the World Series (there was a segue) than Atlantic Yards does at including affordable housing. Suggestion: a prequel on the building of Dodgers Stadium and Chavez Ravine?

link

NoLandGrab: Yup, a land grab figured in the Dodgers' move to Los Angeles, too.

Posted by eric at 10:20 PM

In effort to get Supreme Court to hear Columbia eminent domain case, AY precedent and New York practices seen as outliers favoring condemnors

Atlantic Yards Report

The Columbia University expansion case should reach a reckoning this week at the U.S. Supreme Court, which, if in the unlikely case it accepts the appeal, could place a check on eminent domain as practiced in New York State.

As I wrote in September, after seeing a surprising Appellate Division victory overturned unanimously by the state Court of Appeals, which relied on its Atlantic Yards decision, Tuck-It-Away owner Nick Sprayregen and the Kaur/Singh family are trying to get to the Supreme Court.

On his Inverse Condemnation blog, land use attorney Robert Thomas has posted the entire set of briefs in the petition for certiorari (Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp.) at the United States Supreme Court.

Will cert be granted?

The justices will meet December 10 to consider a number of cases and are expected to announce December 13 which cases they will accept (aka "grant certiorari").

It's always a long shot to get a case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiffs in the federal Atlantic Yards eminent domain case were rejected in June 2008, though one justice, the conservative Samuel Alito stated that he would've granted the petition.

As I wrote at the time, a decision to reject does not mean that the cases below were decided correctly, just that the appeal didn't present enough issues of law--conflicts in the interpretation of the Supreme Court's highly contested 6/23/05 Kelo v. New London decision--to merit review.

However, with some two-and-a-half years for additional cases that seemingly clash with Kelo to emerge, the petitioners in the Columbia case have a somewhat better shot.

article

Posted by eric at 10:44 AM

December 6, 2010

Institute for Justice Press Release: U.S. Supreme Court Decides Whether to Hear New York Eminent Domain Abuse Case

On Friday, December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether to take Nick Sprayregen’s appeal and protect his family’s property. You have probably never heard of Nick Sprayregen, but his legal challenge has the potential to impact the lives of ordinary Americans more than most cases seeking U.S. Supreme Court consideration.

It is exactly because he is such an ordinary American that his experience should be taken to heart, because unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes some specific action on his behalf and stops the actions of a politically powerful private interest, the fate of his family business could be the fate of your home, your family business or any other property you and your family own.

Even though Nick worked hard his whole life, he now stands to lose what is rightfully his because of government’s use of eminent domain for someone else’s private gain.

The politicians and judges in New York, where he lives, have turned their backs on his constitutional rights. Now, the fate of his property and his family’s future lies in the hands of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. If they do not take his case and reject their infamous Kelo ruling from five years ago, Nick Sprayregen will be the latest American to lose his private property and constitutional rights, but he won’t be the last.

In 1980, Nick’s father created a self-storage business in West Harlem called Tuck-it-Away. Self-storage back then was a new idea in the region and their business thrived. Nick joined the family business, ultimately taking it over after his father retired and expanding it to more than a dozen locations beyond their West Harlem headquarters. For Nick, his business represents a secure little corner of the world that is his own—a hard-earned possession he hopes some day to pass on to his children.

In 2004, however, his American Dream started to turn into an American nightmare. Columbia University—a private institution—began its efforts to expand its research facilities—which generate millions of dollars in private profits for the school each year. Columbia has convinced the Empire State Development Corporation to help it expand the private university’s facilities onto the very land where Nick’s business now stands. While New York’s Appellate Division invalidated the taking on the grounds that it (and the “blight” designation it was based on) was nothing more than a land-grab designed to advance Columbia’s private interests, the Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) reversed that decision, holding that the state’s courts were not allowed to second-guess the government’s decision to seize private property.

link

Posted by eric at 10:30 PM

November 8, 2010

Urban Renewal’s Human Costs

A history of postwar Manhattan developments shows the pitfalls of mass planning.

City Journal
by Anthony Paletta

An otherwise insightful review of a new book about New York City's post-war embrace of large-scale "urban renewal" projects jumps to one faulty conclusion about the present-day versions.

Fortunately, enthusiasm for such large-scale efforts eventually declined as urban renewal’s human costs became apparent—and very apparently a miserable symbol of democratic decision-making in the Cold War. Yet similar impulses endure. While it is harder today to remove residents, there seem to be few obstacles to forcing out local businesses—whether from the site of Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn or in the Bloomberg administration’s Willets Point redevelopment proposal. The lure of massive redesigns has diminished but not vanished.

As Daniel Goldstein will attest, and the court records will show, it ain't that hard at all to remove residents, either.

article

Posted by eric at 10:29 AM

October 15, 2010

More on the Most Recent Abdication of Judicial Responsibility on Eminent Domain

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn

DDDB has a press release from the East Harlem Alliance of Responsible Merchants, regarding a NYS Supreme Court's decision this week to allow the seizure of private property on 125th Street.

EAST HARLEM ALLIANCE OF RESPONSIBLE MERCHANTS LAWSUIT DISMISSED BY COURT

(New York, NY – October 14, 2010) – The NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the dismissal of all claims made by EHARM in their fight against the East Harlem M/E/C LLC. East 125th Street project; despite the misuse of municipal might, power, and procedure to take private, productive commercial property and hand it over to a secretly selected development group, beset by trouble.
...

We are responsible owners," said Fancy Dry Cleaner's Damon Bae, one of the property owners who filed the Petition and a spokesman for the group. "We maintained our land and grew our businesses over the past decades, but we are also being victimized by the City. The City neglects its own property, and then cries 'blight' so it can take our property and give it to some politically connected developer."

"What all this points to is that a rich guy can pay his way to hire the government to seize private land so that he can make more money", said Bae. "Say for example that you had a single-family house in a large parcel of land that was passed down from generation to generation in what all of a sudden became the next up and coming neighborhood. A large developer with deep pockets can now come in, make significant payments to a few very well connected individuals, hire the government to call your house "underutilized" (since after all, you are only one family occupying a large parcel of land only for yourself, while a large condo building can be built that can house 100 families) and have your house condemned. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

link

NoLandGrab: That, sadly, is pretty much the way things are in New York State today.

Posted by eric at 11:42 AM

October 14, 2010

New York Appellate Judge James Catterson: “there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent domain proceedings”

Reason Hit & Run
by Damon Root

All of which brings us to yesterday’s unanimous appellate court ruling in Matter of Uptown Holdings v. City of New York. As befits a lower court, the judges consider themselves bound by the precedents set by the state’s highest court. What does that mean in practice? Here’s the entirety of Judge James Catterson’s depressing and all-too-accurate concurring opinion:

In my view, the record amply demonstrates that the neighborhood in question is not blighted, that whatever blight exists is due to the actions of the City and/or is located far outside the project area, and that the justification of under-utilization is nothing but a canard to aid in the transfer of private property to a developer. Unfortunately for the rights of the citizens affected by the proposed condemnation, the recent rulings of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. (2009) and Matter of Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. (2010), have made plain that there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent domain proceedings. Thus, I am compelled to concur with the majority.

As I noted in a column last month, the victimized property owners in the Columbia University case have now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review New York’s actions (the Court refused to hear the Atlantic Yards case in 2008). Judge Catterson’s opinion is yet more evidence why the Supreme Court needs to start paying attention to New York’s eminent domain abuse.

article

Posted by eric at 10:40 AM

October 13, 2010

Justice Catterson, forced to defer to the condemnors, concludes that "there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent domain proceedings"

Atlantic Yards Report

A law review article I co-authored this spring with Amy Lavine argues that judges have become too deferential to condemning agencies and don't examine eminent domain sufficiently:

The courts have repeatedly used the principle of legislative deference to pass on the difficult issues—such as whether an arena is really a public good, whether private developers should be able to dictate that public good, the meaning of “blight,” and when a project changes so much as to require reapproval.

A judge reinforces the argument

Yesterday (as per DDDB), Appellate Division Justice James Catterson let loose with a blistering coda to that argument, concurring reluctantly in a decision upholding eminent domain:

In my view, the record amply demonstrates that the neighborhood in question is not blighted, that whatever blight exists is due to the actions of the City and/or is located far outside the project area, and that the justification of under-utilization is nothing but a canard to aid in the transfer of private property to a developer. Unfortunately for the rights of the citizens affected by the proposed condemnation, the recent rulings of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 13 NY3d 511 [the Atlantic Yards case] and Matter of Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 15 NY3d 235, [the Columbia University case] (2010), have made plain that there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent domain proceedings. Thus, I am compelled to concur with the majority.

Catterson background

Catterson is noted for some forceful opinions in cases related to the two above.

article

NolandGrab: Again we ask — can someone tell us under what circumstances New York State can't seize property through its power of eminent domain?

Posted by eric at 11:53 AM

October 12, 2010

NY Appellate Judge: "there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent domain proceedings"

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn

It's official — the answer to the question "when can't New York State take your home or business for any reason it dreams up" is "never."

From DDDB, in full.

It is truly a sad (and despicable and dangerous) state of affairs when New York's judicial branch admits that it has explicitly turned itself into a bystander when it comes to the 5th Amendment (perhaps the SCOTUS will have something else to say about this soon).

The following is a concurring opinion in a unanimous Appellate Division ruling against property owners challenging New York City's use of eminent domain for private gain in East Harlem:

Decided on October 12, 2010
Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

In re Uptown Holdings, LLC, et al., Petitioners,
v
City of New York, et al., Respondents.

...CATTERSON, J. (concurring)
In my view, the record amply demonstrates that the neighborhood in question is not blighted, that whatever blight exists is due to the actions of the City and/or is located far outside the project area, and that the justification of under-utilization is nothing but a canard to aid in the transfer of private property to a developer. Unfortunately for the rights of the citizens affected by the proposed condemnation, the recent rulings of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 13 NY3d 511, 893 N.Y.S.2d 472, 921 N.E.2d 164 (2009) and Matter of Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 15 NY3d 235, —- N.E.2d —— (2010), have made plain that there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent domain proceedings. Thus, I am compelled to concur with the majority.
(Emphasis added.)

It should be noted that Catterson's concurrence is a none too subtle mega-tweak of New York state's highest court.

The question is begged: if New York courts aren't going to do their job when it comes to powerful interests taking New Yorkers' homes and businesses, and New York's elected officials are happy to pretend this isn't a problem, what is a New Yorker supposed to do?

link

Posted by eric at 9:03 PM

October 10, 2010

Eminent Domain And The 2010 NY Gubernatorial Race

Ground Report
By Richard Cooper

This article by the former Chair of the Libertarian Party of New York assesses the candidates for New York Governor by their stances on eminent domain. Included are these facts originally found on Norman Oder's Atlantic Yards Report regarding front-runner Andrew Cuomo:

According to Oder, Cuomo was asked by Senator Carl Perkins to review the bonds underlying the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn which includes the Nets basketball arena. He did not respond. Oder reports that developer Bruce Ratner contributed $5,000 and the law firm representing the project contributed $52,900.

link

Posted by steve at 8:48 AM

October 7, 2010

Bettina Johae’s EMINENT DOMAIN, NYC

The Brooklyn Rail

Bettina Johae’s project, “eminent domain, nyc” (2010), investigates the use of eminent domain—for public and for private use—in New York City over the past centuries: from the creation of Central Park and the forming of New York’s streets in the 19th century, via the vast condemnations during the Robert Moses era for highways, railways, parks, office buildings, universities, cultural and convention centers, and public and private housing projects to more recent and future projects, such as the New York Times building, the Bank of America Tower, the Atlantic Yards project, Willets Point, and the Columbia University expansion. The project—which was produced as part of the VLA Art & Law residency—so far consists of a series of 10 postcards and a map of eminent domain from the 19th century to today.

link

NoLandGrab: Dear Daniel, Bet you wish you were here. XOXO, Bruce

Posted by eric at 9:38 AM

September 28, 2010

The Litigious Legacy of Kelo

The Wall Street Journal, Editorial

Even in the best of circumstances, it is contentious when the government uses eminent domain to take someone's property. When Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy became the deciding vote in the 2005 Kelo decision—which allowed governments to seize private property for economic development—he guaranteed that contentiousness would be raised to a whole new level. In a Texas appeals court in Dallas today, we can see the high costs of Mr. Kennedy's concurrence.

Today the court will hear an argument that a defamation case should be tossed. This case involves a book that was itself the product of a contentious eminent domain battle. In other words, we now have what any sensible person should have expected from Kelo's cavalier approach to the expropriation of private property for economic purposes: an explosion of litigation, neighbor set against neighbor—and taxpayers on the hook for millions in legal fees and project costs.

The defamation suit at issue was brought by a developer against Carla Main and Encounter Books, respectively, the author and publisher of "Bulldozed: 'Kelo,' Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land." The book tells the story of Freeport, a small Texas town whose Economic Development Corporation (EDC) tried to take land from a citizen who didn't want to sell as part of a plan for a new marina. Defending Ms. Main and Encounter is the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm based in Arlington, Va.

Freeport's original plan called for a private marina, with the city working in partnership with Dallas developer H. Walker Royall. When Wright Gore, owner of a local shrimping business, refused to sell land the city wanted, Freeport initiated eminent domain proceedings against him.

The defamation suits are an aftershock, brought by Mr. Royall in response to the bad press he was getting. He complains that when he signed on, the project was not controversial because Mr. Gore had not refused to sell.

When asked in a phone call what he most objects to, he says it is the portrait of him as a developer who wants to "steal somebody else's property and wants to silence anyone who wants to talk about it."

article

NoLandGrab: And his plan for disproving that characterization is... suing anyone who wants to talk about it? Poor, maligned real estate developers.

Posted by eric at 1:15 PM

September 27, 2010

Petition asking Supreme Court to hear challenge to eminent domain for Columbia argues that Court of Appeals failed to address Kelo

Atlantic Yards Report

As plaintiff Nick Sprayregen of Tuck-It-Away Storage pledged, he'd go to the U.S. Supreme Court to fight the state's pursuit of eminent domain in the Columbia University.

Now, after seeing a surprising Appellate Division victory overturned unanimously by the state Court of Appeals, which relied on its Atlantic Yards decision, Sprayregen and the Kaur/Singh family that owns a gas station on the project site have filed their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (below), the request for the court to hear the case.

It's always a long shot--fewer than 1% of petitions are granted--but this petition, authored by attorney Norman Siegel and a host of others, hammers home the state court's failure to address the guidelines seemingly set forth in Justice John Paul Stevens's majority opinion and Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in the 2005 Kelo v. New London case, in which the court upheld eminent domain by a 5-4 margin.

Ignoring Kelo?

The petition states:

In sharp contrast to the situation in Kelo, in which a municipal agency adopted a “carefully considered” development plan which had no preselected private beneficiary, ESDC worked backwards, pre-ordaining Columbia as the beneficiary of its eminent domain power. Having settled on this, ESDC endorsed a plan, developed behind closed doors by Columbia itself, to transfer private property to Columbia in furtherance of the university’s expansion dreams. ESDC then collaborated with Columbia to devise after-the-fact traditional public purposes to justify the takings, and even allowed Columbia to create the very blight-like conditions that ESDC then proposed to remediate.

The use of eminent domain here was thus a fait accompli meant to circumvent any obstacles to the realization of Columbia’s private agenda. A two-judge plurality of New York's appellate court recognized that the takings were unconstitutional under Kelo, and a third judge joined the plurality to hold that the condemnation was invalid because ESDC had violated petitioners’ due process rights. New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals of New York (“Court of Appeals”) nonetheless reversed, upholding ESDC's actions in a 34-page decision that never once mentioned Kelo.

article

Posted by eric at 9:47 AM

September 23, 2010

Really No Hope For Atlantic Yards Opponents

NY Observer
by Matt Chaban

There was something devilishly brilliant to how Daniel Goldstein, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, and a handful of lawsuits nearly brought down the massive $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project. For years, the arena cum condos were held off by one suit after another, first at the federal level, then in the state courts. The legal challenges went on for so long that when the recession hit, it nearly killed the damn thing. (Someone should really write a book about all this.)

Obviously, it didn't work, as the project found a savior in Russia, broke ground in March, and the arena is (maybe) on its way to opening in time for the 2012-2013 basketball season.

Still, there are a few remaining court cases to unwind, and as the indefatigable Norman Oder reports today, two of them have been tossed out by the Brooklyn Supreme Court. On Monday, Justice Abraham Gerges yet again ruled that the state was justified in its use of eminent domain at the Atlantic Yards site. The particulars of the case charged that the Empire State Development Corporation needed to file a new set of Determinations and Findings because the project had changed so much.

As before, Yards opponents could take some small consolation from the judge's decision, in that he essentially said what the state did was a terrible thing, but it not being the judiciary's place to overrule the legislature (and its constitutionally mandated subsidiaries, like the ESDC), there was really nothing he could do about it....

article

Related coverage...

NetsDaily, Arena Critics Lose Again...and Again

Barclays Center construction continues apace with Bruce Ratner telling friends it's on schedule for completion in late spring/early summer 2012. At the same time, the same Brooklyn judge who pushed Daniel Goldstein to sell out back in April dismissed two of the last challenges to the arena on Monday.

Posted by eric at 10:17 AM

September 22, 2010

Gerges dismisses final eminent domain challenge: "alleged additional changes... even if factually true... do not change the public purpose"

Atlantic Yards Report

This case, on the other hand, was the small, final hope for stopping Atlantic Yards through an eminent domain challenge.

So much for charges that the Atlantic Yards Development Agreement--which allows for 25 years, rather than ten, to build the project-- "was intentionally withheld in bad faith."

So much for attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff's assertion that "we now know [the ten-year project timetable] is complete, utter fantasy."

So much for Brinckerhoff's charge that the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) timed release of information to avoid judicial scrutiny.

In a decision that was hardly unexpected, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges on September 20 dismissed a lawsuit--Article 78 Petition to Compel the ESDC to Issue New Determinations and Findings, with three remaining plaintiffs--arguing that the project had changed so much and the public benefits so attenuated that new eminent domain findings should be made.

(This was the final case challenging eminent domain. Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman is still considering a reargument of a case challenging the project timeline.)

Development Agreement not important

Gerges had already rejected most of the arguments in March, in a decision in a case challenging the ESDC's condemnation process.

But the Development Agreement had not been part of that case. No matter. His key paragraph in the new decision:

For the same reasons, the court further finds that the alleged additional changes to the Project that petitioners rely upon in this action, even if factually true, similarly do not change the public purpose to be served by the Project, i.e., to eliminate blight and the blighting influence of the below-grade rail yard and to construct a civil [sic] project. In this regard, it is noted that although the alleged changes to the Project are now discussed in more detail, based upon the assertion that more details have been revealed, the basic premise of the arguments have already been considered and rejected by the court in the Condemnation Decision and adopted herein.

(Emphasis added)

This raises a question: could even more extreme changes, "if factually true," change the public purpose? In other words, if the developer had 100 years to eliminate blight, with no effective penalties, would the public purpose be attenuated?

article

NoLandGrab: Justice isn't just blind in New York State — it's deaf and dumb, too.

Posted by eric at 11:00 AM

Gerges dismisses case claiming state had failed to condemn easement over Spalding Building

Atlantic Yards Report

Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges on September 20 dismissed a claim by Peter Williams Enterprises (PWE) regarding air rights above 24 Sixth Avenue (the Spalding Building), agreeing with the Empire State Development Corporation that PWE released such rights when it sold its own nearby property, the one-story 38 Sixth Avenue and that the exercise of eminent domain "extinguished all easements."

Williams had publicly said that he had brought the claim for money and his attorney asserted that the state had made a "colossal mistake" in not specifying that the easement was subject to eminent domain.

In court arguments on August 6, there was a small twist, suggesting there might be something to PWE's claim. While the ESDC's appraisal to PWE covered the building and the easement, the sums were lumped together in the offer to PWE. But Gerges didn't address that directly.

article

NoLandGrab: With Peter Williams more interested in money than righteousness, this case held zero hope for opponents of Atlantic Yards from the get-go.

Posted by eric at 10:57 AM

September 20, 2010

Atlantic Yards: The Videogame

It was only a matter of time before someone came up with an Atlantic Yards-themed videogame.

Well, almost.

Introducing Nail Household Fighting Against Demolition Squad.

The Wall Street Journal, Fighting Eviction: The Videogame

A new online game lets players join China’s ongoing battle between property developers and homeowners.

Nail Household vs. Demolition Team, released by Mirage Games in August, is set in a cleared pit, empty except for a lone three-story house marked “chai” — the Chinese word for demolition.

The goal? To defend your house against guards and gangsters brandishing knives and bouncing on jackhammers. The characters you can play include a woman in curlers who throws sandals at encroaching attackers, a pot-bellied man who drops dynamite from the roof, and an old man with a shotgun.

When you win a level, the woman appears, pointing a finger at the Forbidden City, the symbolic center of the government’s power. When you lose, the house collapses in a cloud of dust.

The game is the latest example of how chai is bleeding into Chinese pop culture. Earlier this year, Li Chengpeng drew attention for “Avatar: An Epic Nail House Textbook,” which compares the plight of James Cameron’s Na’vi to the people who live in “nail houses,” so named because they stick out of construction sites like a nail out of a plank of wood.
...

Nail Household vs. Demolition Team is popular online, with more than 50,000 comments about it on social-media site Renren.com and more than 10,000 users discussing the game in their online diaries.

But players complain that they can never complete the final “survival” level, where swarms of demolition workers overwhelm the house’s defenders.

“The cruel fact from the game is: Even if you survive the previous six levels, your house will be demolished at the end anyways,” a Twitter user named “windchaos” wrote.

Play the Game, in Chinese

Play the Game, (partially) translated version

NoLandGrab: We've made it to Level Four Five Six the final level. But is it any surprise that "your house will be demolished at the end anyways?"

Image: Mirage Games

Posted by eric at 6:32 PM

September 19, 2010

Staten Island’s Cedar Grove: City Wants the Next Chapter of a 50-Year Eminent Domain Saga to Be Final Dismantling of a 100-Year Old Community

Noticing New York

An article in the Village Voice is the jumping-off spot for this entry about an attempt by the city to exercise eminent domain. It's a twisted tale that begins 50 years ago when land was taken for a project that never happened, and then leased back to the original owners. Now the city wants to again kick this group out for ... what purpose? Blog author Michael D. D. White may not be able to reveal all, but he's raised some interesting questions.

The Village Voice has a new must read article about Staten Island’s small summer community of Cedar Grove (brought to our attention by the Historic Districts Council) that provides much food for thought. See: "Poor Man's Bermuda" in Staten Island? Not anymore, By Elizabeth Dwoskin Sep 15 2010. Though the story concerns itself with a community of just 41 families it manages in microcosm to provide perspective on a superabundance of important issues, far more than arise in a typical public development story: eminent domain, the unreliability of public officials and their vision, parks, privilege, municipal budgeting, and finally historic preservation.

...

At first blush it might seem like a simple story pretty much the way City Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe wants to tell it: That this private community (and club) is on public park land and its residents have been able to be there only because the Parks Department has let them occupy their premises at an exceedingly low rent. Ahem: It ain’t that simple.

link

Posted by steve at 9:03 AM

September 17, 2010

Blight Fight

Why is the city of Montgomery condemning the property of African-Americans along a civil rights trail?

Slate
by Radley Balko

Bruce Ratner's eminent domain-abusing megaproject makes a cameo in a report of abuses that make Atlantic Yards seem downright benign.

When the city of Montgomery, Ala., razed the home of Karen Jones' family last April, there were still photos and family furniture inside. The city says it gave Jones notice the bulldozers were coming, but she says the notices were sent to her deceased grandmother (the home's former owner) and a deceased uncle. The reason given for the demolition was that the front porch wasn't up to code. The city declared her properly "blighted," and destroyed the building, rather than helping Jones and her family fix the porch, or fixing it and sending her a bill. And then Montgomery sent Jones a bill of $1,225, the cost of the demolition. If she doesn't pay, the city will put a lien on the property. If she still doesn't pay, the city can seize the land or sell it at auction.

What happened to Jones isn't unusual. Over the last decade or so, dozens—perhaps hundreds—of homes in Montgomery have been declared blighted and razed in a similar manner. The owners tend to be disproportionately poor and black, and with little means to fight back. And here's the kicker: Many of the homes fall along a federally funded civil rights trail in the neighborhood where Rosa Parks lived. Activists say the weird pattern may not be coincidence. "What's happening in Montgomery is a civil rights crisis," says David Beito, a history professor at the University of Alabama who, as chair of the Alabama State Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, held hearings on the demolitions in April of last year.

Just how many homes have been targeted over the years isn't clear, in part because most of the people targeted haven't the means or the will to fight the condemnations. But some residents believe the number is in the hundreds.
...

Beito calls these actions "eminent domain through the back door." And they're actually more sinister than the take-from-the-poor, give-to-the-rich eminent domain schemes you may have heard of, like the infamous Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case, or the more recent Atlantic Yards project in New York City. Alabama state law actually forbids the use of eminent domain for private development. Instead, Montgomery deems property blighted based on a section of state law that gives code inspectors wide leeway. The owner must then correct the problem to the satisfaction of the inspectors, or the city will do it what it did threatened to do to Jones: Raze the property, bill the owner for the demolition, and then sell the property off to developers if the owner doesn't pay. If you can't afford repairs, you may well lose your home.

This is much worse than eminent domain, which requires the government to pay owners fair market value.

article

Posted by eric at 11:28 AM

September 2, 2010

Law review article: "Urban Redevelopment Policy, Judicial Deference to Unaccountable Agencies, and Reality in Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards Project"

Atlantic Yard Report

Atlantic Yards has survived all court challenges, but some of the wins have been ugly, leaving significant doubts about the capacity of the legal system to oversee such projects. So let the revisionism begin. (Cf. a line from the New York Times on Atlantic Yards.)

In the same issue of The Urban Lawyer that contains a revisionist article on the seminal Berman v. Parker eminent domain case, the author of that article, Amy Lavine, a staff attorney at Albany Law School's Government Law Center, and I collaborate on an article titled "Urban Redevelopment Policy, Judicial Deference to Unaccountable Agencies, and Reality in Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards Project."

The article is embedded at bottom. Lavine did the first draft, and offered me credit because she relied so much on my work. I collaborated significantly on revisions. (Note Lavine's disclosure--unknown to me until this article--that she "provided limited research for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn’s state eminent domain and MTA lawsuits.")

(The quarterly journal is published by the American Bar Association Section of State and Local Government Law, and edited by professors and students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.)

Below I offer some choice excerpts.

Click through for those excerpts, as well as access to the full paper.

article

Posted by eric at 10:27 AM

September 1, 2010

The seminal Berman v. Parker case: "precedent without context," and leading dangerously to cases like Kelo and Goldstein

Atlantic Yards Report

The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 1954 decision in the case known as Berman v. Parker is a foundation of eminent domain jurisprudence, guiding courts to defer to decisions made by legislative authorities and to allow a generous definition of blight.

Of course, there's an enormous contrast between the blight found in 1954 in Washington, DC slums--nearly half the residences relied on outhouses--and the "relatively mild conditions of urban blight" in Prospect Heights, as described last November by the New York Court of Appeals in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case, Goldstein v. Urban Development Corporation (aka Empire State Development Corporation, or ESDC).

That's because successive court decisions expanded and elaborated on the base of Berman.

But what if the unanimously-decided Berman was wrongheaded? If so, and the setting was ignored, that further undermines controversial decisions like the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo vs. New London case and the New York Court of Appeals' 2009 decision in Goldstein vs. ESDC.

Berman and urban renewal

As Amy Lavine, a staff attorney at the Government Law Center in Albany explains in an article for The Urban Lawyer, "Urban Renewal and the Story of Berman v. Parker" (embedded below, as well as excerpted), a closer analysis, plus hindsight, suggest that the court got it wrong, missing the point and ushering some very mixed results.

And, as noted in a footnote at the end of the article, one of the most egregious examples of the spawn of Berman--"precedent without context"--is the Atlantic Yards eminent domain litigation, which just happens to be the subject of another article in that same Urban Lawyer issue, which Lavine wrote with me.

I'll have more on that article, titled "Urban Redevelopment Policy, Judicial Deference to Unaccountable Agencies, and Reality in Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards Project," tomorrow.

article

Related coverage...

Gideon's Trumpet, Two Good Articles on Redevelopment

We found of special interest the factual tidbit that though the Southwest redevelopment project was sold to the Supreme Court as an effort to uplift the poor slum dwellers who — so went the plan — would be provided with low-cost housing renting at $17 per month per room, in fact, after the court approved the plan and allowed the eminent domain takings to proceed, that provision of the plan was dropped. Ten years later, the Wall Street Journal reported that rents in the new, redeveloped Southwest were so high that they inspired a rent strike by affluent tenants.

Posted by eric at 11:06 AM

August 26, 2010

Filing Deadline for Atlantic Yards

Condemnation Law

As many of you already know, there is a filing deadline of September 1st for property owners on the Atlantic Yards Project who wish to pursue an additional damages claim.

New York Eminent Domain Law states that a property owner has 2 years to file a claim for additional damages if a property owner signs the offer for advanced payment. However, a court order was issued requiring claimants for the Atlantic Yards project to file their claim by September 1st, 2010.

If you signed the offer for advanced payment, or if you have yet to receive an offer and wish to pursue an additional damages claim, we advise you act quickly.

link

Posted by eric at 10:45 AM

August 24, 2010

Property Rights, Eminent Domain, and the “Ground Zero Mosque”

The Volokh Conspiracy
by Ilya Somin

A few conservative commentators have advocated using the power of eminent domain to take the land on which the “Ground Zero mosque” is scheduled to be built (see here and here). The idea seems to have originated with New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino.

Legally, such a taking wouldn’t be as simple as Paladino seems to think. If New York state government tries to condemn the land in question, it will have to either admit that the true purpose is to prevent the construction of a Muslim facility, or concoct some other rationale to hide its motives. If the government is honest about its purposes, the proposed taking would almost certainly violate the owners’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, for reasons senior Conspirator Eugene Volokh outlines here.

If, on the other hand, the government tries to put together an alternative justification for the condemnation, it runs into a different problem. Even under the otherwise highly permissive Kelo decision, the Supreme Court has said that “pretextual” takings (condemnations where the officially stated purpose is just a pretext for some other agenda) are forbidden. What exactly counts as a “pretextual” taking after Kelo is a matter of great dispute, one that has divided lower courts (see this excellent article by Daniel Kelly for the details). Nonetheless, there is a good chance that a transparent effort to cloak an effort to suppress unpopular speech or religious observances in some construction project would be viewed with suspicion by courts.
...

As New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg puts it, “The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right.”

There is some irony in the fact that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has eloquently defended the property rights of the “Ground Zero Mosque” owners even though he recently presided over gross abuses of property rights in the Atlantic Yards and Columbia University cases, among others. He strongly supported both of these extraordinarily dubious takings. Still, Bloomberg’s hypocrisy doesn’t make him any less right about the Ground Zero controversy.

article

Posted by eric at 10:38 AM

August 23, 2010

Todd Triplett just needs a little cash, that’s all

The Brooklyn Paper
by Aaron Short

Todd Triplett is about to open a new art space in Fort Greene, a second try for the would-be dance impresario three years after his original venue, Amber Art Space, was closed down and seized by the city.

Triplett has found a location — a former parking garage on Atlantic Avenue — to realize his vision of a multipurpose arts and performance space for Prospect Heights and Fort Greene that he is calling “Free Candy.”
...

Free Candy is similar to Triplett’s prior effort, Amber Art Space — though he hopes it won’t end the same way.

In 2007, the city took over Amber a mere four weeks before its opening, claiming that the neighborhood around it was blighted and the building was needed as part of the BAM Cultural District plan.

Triplett and his partners had poured $1.2 million into that space, hoping to open a three-story music club on Ashland Place. But the city wanted to build a 187-unit condominium tower on the site, smashing Triplett’s dreams.

The building was never built.

“Basically, they’ve created the blight,” said Triplett. “I’ve moved on. I don’t have any anger. I just want to do it. What’s so hard about supporting the arts? Let’s just go.”

article

To support Todd Triplett's "Free Candy" project via Kickstarter, click here.

Posted by eric at 10:32 AM

August 22, 2010

Judge won't block Willets Point redevelopment

State Supreme Court judge rejects group's attempt to halt project on environmental grounds.

Crain's NY Business
by Daniel Massey

The same judge who gave the first legal pass to the deeply flawed Atlantic Yards Environmental Impact Statement has done the same for the deeply flawed Willets Point Environmental Impact Statement.

A state Supreme Court judge has denied an attempt by Willets Point's lone resident and nearly two dozen local land and business owners to win an injunction halting the redevelopment of Willets Point, Queens.

The group's members had argued that the environmental review conducted by the city failed to “take a hard look at the environmental impacts” on regional highways, emergency response services and area water supplies, among other complaints.

They had sought an order annulling the environmental review of the project and the City Council and Planning Commission's approvals, as well as an injunction barring the city from continuing with the development until it complied with proper environmental procedures.

But State Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden denied the request, ruling against the Willets Point group on all of its claims—which ranged from questioning the environmental review to contending the office of the deputy mayor for economic development did not have the authority to be the lead agency on the project.
...

Jerry Antonocci, owner of Crown Container owner, one of the businesses that filed suit, promised the group would persevere in their attempt to stop the development.

“I'm sure we're going to appeal the decision,” he said. "We just got out of the first inning. It ain't over. We're not giving up.”

article

Posted by eric at 12:18 PM

August 17, 2010

Kickstarter: Free Candy

The Local [Fort Greene/Clinton Hill]
by Alexander Abad-Santos

Todd Triplett has 45 days to raise $16,560 more to bring Free Candy, a multi-use art space, to Clinton Hill.

Mr. Triplett, 34, who holds a master’s from Pratt, originally planned to open a music and arts space in Fort Greene in 2007 but was served a notice of eminent domain by the city just weeks before opening to make way for a housing tower and dance space as part of the BAM Cultural District. That project was put on hold because of the downturn in the housing market.

Mr. Triplett has found a new space, and he hopes he’ll achieve his dream with the help of community donations through Kickstarter. Mr. Triplett is still keeping the venue’s location secret, but so far he’s raised $3,440 of his $20,000 goal, which comes with an October 1st deadline. If he raises the funds, Triplett hopes to have Free Candy running by the end of the year.

The Local recently spoke with Mr. Triplett about his project. Here’s the condensed interview:
...

Between 2005 and 2007 I was building a space called the Amber Arts Music Space. It was in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, about a block away from BAM on Ashland and Fulton. We were about four weeks from opening and we had gotten all our various licenses, and we were just putting the finishing touches on the building. We received a letter from eminent domain from the city; basically saying they were replacing the building with a condominium and ironically, an arts space at the base of the condominium.

So we fought and eventually let it go. The building actually still stands like the day we left it. That was basically three years ago.

article

Click here to help back Mr. Triplett's project.

Posted by eric at 2:04 PM

August 8, 2010

The New Yorker's Kaz An Nou review: is the issue a "morale boost" or the bogus nature of blight?

Atlantic Yards Report

Here's another reminder how the ESDC, tool of developer Bruce Ratner, falsely portrayed an up-and-coming neighborhood as "blighted."

From the New Yorker's review of Kaz An Nou, the new-ish restaurant on Sixth Avenue between Bergen and Dean Streets, a half-block from the Atlantic Yards footprint:

If any neighborhood is in need of a morale boost, it’s the stretch between Flatbush and Vanderbilt Avenues, bordering the Atlantic Yards site. The last tenant took a multimillion-dollar payout, Forest City Ratner’s heavy equipment has moved in, and Freddy’s Bar has served its last beer. Just south of the buildings awaiting demolition, though, Kaz An Nou seems determined to bring a bit of Caribbean color and hope. (Its proximity to the Atlantic Yards wrecking ball has caused some concern, but the owners think they’re safe, thanks to the Seventy-eighth Precinct station house next door.)

This is just a little odd. The neighborhood near the Atlantic Yards site is doing pretty well. After all, new restaurants and pubs keep opening on Vanderbilt Avenue bordering the site.

Unfortunately, the concern regarding the proximity to the wrecking ball is misplaced; the issue is not whether the building itself is in danger of condemnation--it's not--but whether arena crowds or the market for a sports bar (or something else arena-related) would make it uncomfortable for this neighborhood spot.

The real issue, as I pointed out in March and May, when the Brooklyn Paper and the Times, respectively, wrote about the restaurant, is how exactly the state could get away with calling the AY site blighted when such restaurateurs remained undeterred.

link

Posted by steve at 11:51 AM

August 4, 2010

another - almost worse - brooklyn eminent domain story

Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter

Todd Triplett posted the following comment to a recent update of ours and asked that I spread the word about his situation. I believe he is correct in thinking that the community interested in our film will also be interested in his story.
...

Here is what Todd had to say.

Hello. My name is Todd Triplett. I'm the founder of FREE CANDY, a mixed-use arts space opening here in Clinton Hill, BK. 3 years ago, I lost my previous location, Amber Art & Music Space to eminent domain (not related to Atlantic Yards...but close). Despite losing everything from the previous circumstance, I've held tight to the dream and am now raising money via Kickstarter for my new space, FREE CANDY. Please check out my page and my story and share with your supporters. I'd greatly appreciate any support you can provide.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/862772420/want-some-free-candy

link

NoLandGrab: We covered this egregious land grab three years ago.

Posted by eric at 11:09 PM

July 23, 2010

Carl Paladino: I'd Use Eminent Domain To Block Ground Zero Mosque

NY Daily News
by Celeste Katz

New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino has dreamed up a novel new use for eminent domain: religious bigotry!

If elected governor, WNY's Carl Paladino vows in a new radio ad that he'd use the eminent domain laws to stop the construction of a controversial Islamic center/mosque near Ground Zero.

(I'm not sure he could actually do that, by the way, but I'm looking into it.)

It's New York State. You can use eminent domain for anything, as long as you're rich and powerful enough to get away with it. Just ask Bruce Ratner.

Paladino says sure he can, and instead of a mosque, the site should be a war memorial.
...

It's notable from a political standpoint that Paladino is going after Cuomo here, leaving out that other Republican guy who wants to be governor, Rick Lazio.

Cuomo and Lazio have tangled on the topic, with Lazio doing most of the tangling.

Lazio spokesman Barney Keller replied to my inquiry about Paladino: “Since Rick Lazio called on Andrew Cuomo to do his job several weeks ago and look into the funding stream of the Cordoba Mosque voices of opposition have emerged from coast to coast.”

Also weighing in on this one: Libertarian gubernatorial hopeful Warren Redlich, who's dumping on the "knee-jerk" Paladino idea as a "plan to waste money and abuse property rights through eminent domain."

article

NoLandGrab: We had to look it up, too — "WNY" stands for "Western New York," not "Wing Nut Yokel."

Posted by eric at 11:20 AM

July 7, 2010

I’ll Take Manhattanville

Many states have clamped down on eminent domain. Recent court cases signal that New York won't be following their lead.

Architectural Record
by Stephen Zacks

Seizing another person’s land is a pretty strong-armed way of doing business. Property owners have often challenged eminent domain in courts, and lawmakers in many states have tried to limit its use. Recent decisions in New York show that the state won’t hesitate to apply the broadest interpretation of the law to make mega-developments happen.

On June 24, the New York Court of Appeals—the state’s highest court—ruled that the state could use eminent domain to acquire property for a Columbia University expansion in West Harlem. The decision overturned a rare December 3 rejection by a lower court. The landowners fighting to keep their property intend to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision comes seven months after another controversial eminent domain ruling: On November 24, the same Court of Appeals upheld the use of eminent domain for the $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn. The massive, mixed-use project is now under construction.

Stoking the Debate

These recent decisions have reignited a long-running debate over the uses of eminent domain. Should we be afraid of Beijing or Shanghai-style condemnations of property to promote urban redevelopment?

article

Posted by eric at 10:19 AM

June 25, 2010

NY's Highest Court Upholds Columbia University Expansion Plan

WNYC Radio
by Matthew Schuerman

The state's highest court has unanimously rejected a lawsuit by two West Harlem businesses that challenged Columbia University's $6.3 billion expansion plan. The university controls the overwhelming majority of the 17 acres where it wants to build a third campus, and has already begun digging sewage trenches and demolishing buildings. The Court of Appeals decision will allow the university to proceed more confidently while also putting to rest a decision from an appeals court that sided in favor of the property owners.
...

Nick Sprayregen, the owner of a self-storage company that was one of the two plaintiffs, said he is considering taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. "It means that entities such as Columbia or a developer can bring on their own blight into a neighborhood and then benefit from it," Sprayregen said. "It really has far-reaching consequences and none of it is positive."

link

Additional coverage...

Joshing Politics, NY Top Court Fails On Eminent Domain Yet Again

Allowing a wealthy developer to take the homes of a neighborhood to profit from condos and a basketball arena under the guise of community development was bad enough. Now New York's top court, the Court of Appeals, is bending for the will of an economic giant and against small businesses that stand in their way. We are talking of course, about the private Columbia University, the largest land owner in Uptown Manhattan versus the few business owners that stand in their way of a major campus expansion.

To be clear, nothing is standing in the way of Columbia's major campus expansion. The properties owned by the Singhs and Nick Sprayregen stand only in the way of a contiguous expansion.

Instead of claiming the arguments shown above, the Court should come clean, and admit to what's really behind all this. When push comes to shove, the rich are given deference over those that are not. Campaign donations from those that can afford it are used to unfairly sway those that are elected to serve the people. Ultimately, the judges fall in line and make flimsy excuses for allowing this shameful practice to continue.

AP, NY's top court upholds Columbia expansion plan

Three businesses in the project zone sued. They claimed collusion between the school and state agency, arguing that findings of blight were based on vermin, garbage and mold in buildings Columbia owned. Attorney Normal Siegel argued the university should not be rewarded for that with the forced sale of others' property.

Siegel said he expects his clients to seek a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We respectfully disagree with the reasons, the analysis and the conclusion," he said. "At minimum this should be a wakeup call for the people in New York regarding the abuse of eminent domain. It calls out for major legislative reform."

Crain's NY Business, Columbia wins key legal battle on expansion

The Singh and Sprayregen families, who combined own about 9% of the area Columbia wants to redevelop, sued the ESDC to block it from condemning their property. Columbia owns the lion's share of the rest of the land, although the city also owns a portion. The families had alleged, among other charges, that there was no evidence of blight in the neighborhood until Columbia started buying up buildings and letting them fall into disrepair. A finding of blight is necessary for the use of eminent domain. The families also alleged that there was collusion between Columbia and the ESDC, and that they acted in bad faith.

Gotham Gazette, Seizure Power

The ruling is the latest victory for the state and city as they have declared property blighted so that another private owner can develop it for another, purportedly better use. In earlier rulings, the courts also upheld the state’s use of eminent domain in clearing the way for Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards complex in downtown Brooklyn.

Faced with such decisions, some advocates have called for legislation to change the eminent domain law. For more on the issue, see Eminent Domain Changes Seek to Limit State’s Power to Seize Property.

GlobeSt.com, High Court Upholds Columbia Expansion

The business owners, represented by civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, argued that there were no findings of blight in the area before Columbia acquired property there. “Despite the objective data in the record to the contrary, the Appellate Division plurality agreed, stating that there was ‘no evidence whatsoever that Manhattanville was blighted prior to Columbia gaining control over the vast majority of property therein,’” wrote Judge Ciparick. “This argument is unsupported by the record.”

The state’s highest court ruled that the lower court had disregarded the results of a 2003 study conducted by consulting firm Urbitran Associates at the request of the New York City Economic Development Corp., when the university had just begun acquiring property in the area. “Indeed, the Urbitran study unequivocally concluded that there was ‘ample evidence of deterioration of the building stock in the study area’ and that ‘substandard and unsanitary conditions were detected in the area,’” according to Judge Ciparick’s opinion.

NoLandGrab: Let's just be clear that nothing is as "unsupported by the record" as a study commissioned by the New York City Economic Development Corporation.

Posted by eric at 10:00 AM

The Absurdity of Eminent Domain in New York

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn

From the NY Law Journal:

...Judge Robert S. Smith said he agreed with all of the Court's ruling except the part explicitly extending eminent domain consideration to most, if not all, educational and recreational projects.

"Surely this approach will, in some imaginable cases, cause the statute to be unconstitutional as applied: would anyone seriously suggest, for example, that private tennis camps or karate schools ('educational' uses), or private casinos or adult video stores ('recreational' uses), qualify as 'public' uses in the constitutional sense?" Judge Smith wrote in a brief concurring opinion.

Given the Court's ruling today, yes many would seriously suggest this...those many just happen to be powerful government officials and their developer friends. The State's attorney in the Columbia case basically said such uses would be proper.

And this is the road of absurdism the Court has laid out for New Yorkers.

link

Posted by eric at 9:50 AM

Universities and Eminent Domain

The Volokh Conspiracy
by Ilya Somin

In Kaur v. New York Urban Development Corporation, its recent decision upholding the condemnation of property for transfer to Columbia University, the New York Court of Appeals claimed that the use of eminent domain to transfer land to a private university is more defensible than its use to transfer land to commercial corporations, as in the Atlantic Yards case:

Unlike the [New Jersey] Nets basketball franchise [one of the key beneficiaries of the Atlantic Yards takings], Columbia University, though private, operates as a non-profit educational corporation. Thus, the concern that a private enterprise will be profiting through eminent domain is not present. Rather, the purpose of the Project is unquestionably to promote education and academic research while providing public benefits to the local community. Indeed, the advancement of higher education is the quintessential example of a “civic purpose”.... It is fundamental that education and the expansion of knowledge are pivotal government interests.

I think this line of argument is seriously flawed. I tried to explain why in one of my earliest posts on the Columbia University takings back in 2006.
...

Given the Court of Appeals’ ultradeferential approach to blight condemnations, I have no doubt it would have reached the same result even if Columbia were a for-profit corporation. I just wanted to make the point that such judicial abdication does not become more defensible merely because the new owner of the condemned property is a university.

article

Posted by eric at 9:44 AM

New York’s Eminent Domain “Blight” Grows

Commentary
by Jonathan Tobin

The ruling of New York’s Court of Appeals — the state’s highest judicial body — in favor of Columbia University’s bid to have the property of landowners who will not sell their land to the institution condemned is another depressing chapter in the sorry history of the corruption of the use of eminent domain.

While I have no quarrel with the university’s desire to expand the Morningside Heights campus, where I spent my undergraduate years north into Harlem, the idea that it can use its clout with the state to bludgeon those who will not sell to it is repulsive. Moreover, the court decision, which overruled a lower appeals court’s rejection of the use of eminent domain in this case, is especially troubling. Though most of the property owners in the West Harlem area desired by Columbia sold it, some did not. In response, Columbia prevailed upon the State of New York to condemn the recalcitrant owners’ property upon the doubtful premise that it was “blighted,” which mandated its demolition and replacement with more useful (at least to Columbia) projects, which might ultimately generate more tax revenue. The four active warehouses and two bustling gas stations that Columbia wished to flatten to make way for new buildings of its own do not fit that description of “blighted,” though there is no shortage of locations in New York City that do.

Referring to another eminent-domain case in which the Court had recently ruled in favor of the effort to bulldoze businesses and apartments in order to make way for a new basketball arena and other real-estate projects in the Atlantic Yards section of Brooklyn, the decision, which was written by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, claimed that “if we could rule in favor of a basketball arena, surely we could rule for a nonprofit university.”

But in making this point, Judge Ciparick revealed that what is on display in this decision is not the application of a coherent legal principle but rather merely the justification of an act of judicial tyranny. In this way, New York has ratified a procedure by which the powerful, be they the real-estate developers who own the NBA Nets or the trustees of one of America’s most prestigious universities, can simply force small property owners out of their businesses and homes for the sake of the convenience of the wealthy and of those who are better connected to power brokers. This means that the state has the power to label any property as “blighted” in order to create a legal fiction device that allows powerful interests to acquire it without the consent of its owners. This is state-sponsored theft by any definition and the fact that it is practiced on behalf of a “nonprofit university,” as well as an NBA team, does not make it any less odious.

article

Posted by eric at 9:33 AM

Court of Appeals, citing precedent in Atlantic Yards case, overturns lower court ruling blocking eminent domain for Columbia expansion

Atlantic Yards Report

In less than four weeks after a contentious oral argument, the state Court of Appeals brought an unsurprising end to the Cinderella story that was the Columbia University eminent domain case, ruling unanimously--though with a very reluctant concurrence--that the courts should defer to the Empire State Development Corporation in its finding of blight.

As I reported after watching the oral argument in Kaur v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp., the judges--including Atlantic Yards dissenter Robert Smith--felt bound by their decision in the Atlantic Yards case last November, a decision that was glaringly ignored by the two-judge plurality who shortly afterward ruled against the ESDC in the Columbia case.

Wrote Smith:

I concur in the result on constraint of Matter of Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. Corp. The finding of "blight" in this case seems to me strained and pretextual, but it is no more so than the comparable finding in Goldstein. Accepting Goldstein as I must, I agree in substance with all but section VI of the majority opinion.

The decision, I wrote, would hinge on how seriously the court took allegations of bad faith by the ESDC and biased methodology by its consultants. Answer: not much.

The court ignored a memo from an ESDC lawyer, as cited by property owners' attorney Norman Siegel, that stated, We are going to manufacture support for condemnation.
...

Appeal coming

According to the Observer, Nick Sprayregen, who owns Tuck-It-Away storage company and has spent more than $2 million on legal cases--more than twice as much as has been spent in the Atlantic Yards cases--vowed to appeal.

"This decision, if not overturned, will allow eminent domain abuse in New York to become even worse than it is now," he wrote. "In effect, this court is sending a clear signal that a blight designation, even is caused by the very developer seeking the use of eminent domain, is acceptable."

article

Posted by eric at 9:24 AM

High Court Overturns Columbia Eminent Domain Ruling; No One's Property is Safe in New York

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn

DDDB trumpets a badly needed call to action.

Back in October the Court of Appeals allowed Ratner and New York State to move forward with eminent domain for Atlantic Yards. In a contrasting decision a Manhattan lower appellate court said Columbia could not use eminent domain to seize businesses in West Harlem. Today the high court ruled that any time government says there is "blight" the court has basically no role whatsover in reviewing that decision, no matter how corrupt or collusive that decision appears on its face.

So the Columbia expansion and Atlantic Yards bogus blight findings have now been given the stamp of approval by the state's high court. And the same court thinks that private arenas and private schools are somehow a public use.

Nonsense.

It is a very sad day for all New Yorkers. There appears to be no judicial review allowed when state actors and their developer friends collude to take homes and businesses from the little guy. Twice now the high court has excused itself from any meaningful review of the government's abuse of this awesome power.

The upsetting rulings leave no doubt for what must be done. Legislative reform must occur if we are going to protect our citizens from eminent domain abuse such as what has occurred in Prospect Heights, West Harlem and elsewhere.

There is such reform afoot. Senator Bill Perkins has a bill that would not allow these kind of bogus blight findings. The bill has made it out of committee and the full Senate must vote on it.

Please call or email Senate Leader John Sampson to tell him that New Yorker's no longer have any protection against eminent domain abuse—not from the Court's and not from the Legislature—and so the Senate must vote on the Perkins bill and must pass it...today. There is no more time to wait.

Call Senator Sampson at: (518) 455-2788
Email Senator Sampson at: sampson@senate.state.ny.us

Until this bill passes, everyone New Yorker's home or business is vulnerable to government seizure if a developer covets it.

link

Posted by eric at 8:59 AM

June 24, 2010

PRESS RELEASE: New York’s High Court Slams Door On Property Owners in the Empire State

INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, www.ij.org

If you own a piece of property in New York State, you won’t like today’s ruling by the state’s high court.

The New York Court of Appeals—that state’s highest court—today overturned a lower court’s ruling that had blocked the New York State Urban Development Corporation from using eminent domain to take property away from a group of small-business owners in upper Manhattan and turn it over to Columbia University for private development. Today’s decision comes on the heels of the court’s decision last year in Goldstein v. Urban Development Corporation, which allowed homes and businesses in Brooklyn to be turned over to wealthy developer Bruce Ratner to build luxury condominiums and a basketball arena.

“Once again, New York’s courts have completely ignored the abuse of power by government bureaucrats and politically connected developers,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. IJ litigates nationwide against eminent domain abuse and filed a brief with the Court in favor of Harlem property owners. “The sad truth is that, in New York, the government not only can hand your property over to private developers for no better reason than that it likes them more than it likes you, but it does so on an alarmingly regular basis.” Last year, IJ catalogued the staggering rate at which properties are taken for private use in the Empire State in a report, Building Empires, Destroying Homes, available at www.ij.org/BuildingEmpires.

According to another report by the Institute for Justice on eminent domain abuse in New York, titled Empire State Eminent Domain: Robin Hood in Reverse, eminent domain abuse disproportionately targets those who are less well-off and less educated, as well as ethnic and racial minorities—populations least able to fight back and thus most in need of protection from abuse. In New York, more than elsewhere in the country, this means taking from the poor to give to the rich. A copy of that report is available at: http://www.ij.org/3045.

A lower court had previously refused to allow the condemnations to go forward, noting that the state agency’s assertion that it was taking the properties to eliminate “blight” was clearly nothing but a pretext for using government power to further Columbia’s pre-existing expansion plans. In today’s ruling, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, Judge Carmen Ciparick wrote that the lower court should not have looked so closely at the agency’s blight findings, which should be “entitled to deference by the judiciary.”

“In other words, the court is saying that judges shouldn’t judge,” said IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor.

Associate Judge Robert S. Smith concurred in the result, noting that he was bound by the court’s earlier decision in the Goldstein case. “The finding of ‘blight’ in this case seems to me strained and pretextual,” Judge Smith wrote, “but it is no more so than the comparable finding in Goldstein.”

“No one taking a fair look at the state’s finding of ‘blight’—which is based on a report that was commissioned years after Columbia decided it wanted these properties—could think it is anything but a pretext for handing over these properties to another private owner,” explained Robert McNamara, an Institute for Justice staff attorney. “This isn’t judicial ‘deference.’ It’s judicial blindness.”

The New York opinion comes only one day after the fifth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. That opinion—which allowed the government to condemn homes in the name of “economic development”—spurred a national backlash, leading to legislative changes and court decisions providing property owners with greater protection in 43 states. Political and judicial leaders in New York, however, have refused to reform their eminent domain laws, which are among the worst in the nation. More information on the post-Kelo backlash is available at: www.ij.org/KeloAt5.

“New York remains one of only seven states that has failed to provide any legislative reform of eminent domain, and it is the only state whose highest court has allowed private property to be taken for private use since the Kelo decision,” explained Christina Walsh, IJ’s director of activism and coalitions. “Every state high court to hear an eminent domain case since Kelo has applied greater judicial scrutiny—every state, that is, except New York. The New York Court of Appeals is the only state high court that gives complete and abject deference to the actions of condemning agencies, no matter how suspicious.”

“Today’s decision confirms what we already knew: Judicial review of eminent domain in New York is fundamentally broken,” concluded McNamara. “Unless the Legislature takes meaningful steps to protect property rights, New York property owners will find themselves out in the cold—in some cases all too literally.”

Posted by lumi at 5:01 PM

NY Top Court OKs Columbia's West Harlem Expansion

NY Observer
by Eliot Brown

Rest easy, New York's powerful, wealthy, politically connected developers (and private universities)! The state's highest court has reversed the Appellate Division's moment of temporary sanity, and reaffirmed that no one's property is safe in New York if somebody richer lays an eye on it.

For Nick Sprayregen, the owner of a set of West Harlem warehouses in the footprint of a 17-acre expansion planned by Columbia University, there was a brief glimmer of hope earlier this year. The landlord, to the surprise of most everyone watching, won a state appellate court case that challenged the state's use of eminent domain to take his property for Columbia's campus, with a judge writing a blistering opinion that excoriated the state agency leading the process. Contrary to most precedents, it seemed possible that Mr. Sprayregen might actually stave off a land-taking and defeat the university.

Today, the narrative returned to its expected track.

New York's top court Thursday morning issued a decision that overturned the lower court's decision, ruling that eminent domain could indeed proceed.

The Court of Appeals, in a 7-0 decision, found that the Manhattan appellate court was improper in ruling for Mr. Sprayregen, as precedent clearly is on the side of the state, the area is indeed blighted, and the courts generally are deferential to the state agency.
...

Even the member of the court who is most skeptical of the use of eminent domain, Robert Smith, approved, issuing a concurring opinion. Mr. Smith was the lone dissenter in a case that challenged the use of eminent domain to build a basketball arena and housing in Brooklyn, brought by Daniel Goldstein and other landowners.

"The finding of 'blight' in this case seems to me strained and pretextual, but it is no more so than the comparable finding in Goldstein," Mr. Smith wrote. "Accepting Goldstein as I must, I agree in substance with all but section VI of the majority opinion."

article

Related coverage...

Columbia Spectator, Court OK'S Manhattanville expansion

In a blow to opponents of Columbia’s Manhattanville expansion, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that eminent domain can be used to obtain private properties in the area.

The opinion, written by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, overturned the December 2009 ruling by the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in which Justice James Catterson had stated that the Empire State Development Corporation’s finding of blight in Manhattanville was made “in bad faith,” and that the expansion of an “elite” private university did not constitute a public use, as required by eminent domain law. Ciparick dismissed that ruling in harsh terms.

The expansion of a private university can serve the public good, Ciparick wrote: “The indisputably public purpose of education is particularly vital for New York City and the State to maintain their respective statuses as global centers of higher education and academic research,” the ruling reads. “The purpose of the Project is unquestionably to promote education and academic research while providing public benefits to the local community. Indeed, the advancement of higher education is the quintessential example of a ‘civic purpose.’”

The two remaining private property holdouts in the 17-acre expansion zone—Tuck-it-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen and gas station owners Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur—had also argued that ESDC’s decision to hire consulting firm Allee King Rosen and Fleming to conduct a blight study constituted “collusion,” since AKRF was also a consultant for Columbia. That was one of the primary bases on which the Appellate Division had condemned eminent domain, but the Court of Appeals defended ESDC, noting that it hired a second, independent consultant, Earth Tech, to replicate the study, and Earth Tech also found the area blighted.

“Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, Earth Tech did not merely review and rubber stamp AKRF’s study, but conducted its own independent research and gathered separate data and photographs of the area before arriving at its own conclusions,” Ciparick wrote. “Further, unlike AKRF, Earth Tech had never previously been affiliated with or employed by Columbia. Simply put, petitioners' argument that ESDC acted in 'bad faith' or pretextually is unsubstantiated by the record.”

NoLandGrab: Wait, you mean the ESDC's other paid consultant conducted its own "independent research" (even taking photographs!) and found the same "blight" the ESDC hired it to find, completely independently of AKRF? Well, that settles it.

Reason Hit & Run, New York's Highest Court Upholds Columbia University's Eminent Domain Abuse

New York’s Court of Appeals—the state’s highest court—issued its decision today in the Columbia University eminent domain case, upholding the state’s controversial land grab on behalf of the elite private university. Exactly as it did in last year’s disastrous Atlantic Yards ruling, the Court of Appeals shirked its judicial responsibility and ruled that the Empire State Development Corporation’s flawed and pretextual blight findings “were rationally based and entitled to deference.” So much for an independent judiciary that stands up for constitutional rights.

New York Law Journal, Breaking News: In Eminent Domain Case, High Court Puts Columbia Expansion Back on Track

The Court also held that under §6260(d) of the Urban Development Corporation Act, the development corporation is empowered to acquire property for a range of projects, including "educational, cultural, recreational" and for other purposes.

The potential public good of the Columbia project is "at least as compelling in its civic dimension" as the Atlantic Yards construction given the go-ahead in Goldstein, the Court held today.

NoLandGrab: That's not setting the bar very high, is it?

The New York Times, Court Upholds Columbia Campus Expansion Plan

The ruling cited a decision in a similar eminent-domain case last year involving the Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn, where the state was condemning property on behalf of a developer who planned to build a basketball arena for the Nets and up to 6,000 apartments. “We ruled for Atlantic Yards, and if we could rule in favor of a basketball arena, surely we could rule for a nonprofit university,” the court said Thursday in its decision, which was written by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick.

NLG: That's kind of the whole point, isn't it?

The complete 34-page decision can be found here. [PDF]

Posted by eric at 1:18 PM

BQE planners take Heights off the hit list

The Brooklyn Paper
by Gary Buiso

Eminent domain is off the table for BQE renovation in Brooklyn Heights. But it's still on the table for less fancy neighborhoods — and, of course, for big private real estate development projects.

State officials have slammed the brakes on a controversial plan to eviscerate part of historic Brooklyn Heights in order to modernize the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, conceding on Wednesday night that the shocking scheme is untenable.

A week after our exclusive report that the state was considering condemning buildings in the northern part of the neighborhood as part of a long-term project to widen the roadway, the Department of Transportation announced that it would simply need to buy too many homes and businesses near Willow and Middagh streets.

When they finally did a ground survey, state inspectors discovered that 300-400 residential units and 80 commercial properties would need to be condemned, admitted Peter King, a project manager overseeing the $300-million first phase of the renovation of the BQE between Atlantic Avenue and Sands Street.

“You cannot talk about an alternative that runs roughshod in a neighborhood, regardless of what benefits you might have,” King told a stakeholders group that met at St. Francis College on Remsen Street.

Apparently you can, however, if the benefits inure mostly to a private developer.

But just because homes in the northern heights have been saved, doesn’t mean that eminent domain is off the table.

That’s because other possible scenarios to cure the aging highway include lower-impact designs that would involve little new construction and no property takings, but also three tunnel alignments that would involve property takings at the south end of the tube, at Kane Street in Cobble Hill, and at the northern portal at North Portland Avenue in Fort Greene.

“Depending on what we do, there may need to be takings,” King said. “Eminent domain is a tool, but taking away property is a very serious issue.”

article

NoLandGrab: We're not advocating for the use of eminent domain, least of all for a highway that cuts through a dense, vibrant urban neighborhood. But only in New York is eminent domain verboten for a highway project but just peachy for a basketball arena and 16 privately owned high rises.

Posted by eric at 10:10 AM

June 23, 2010

Court of Appeals' Atlantic Yards decision gets singled out in IJ's post-Kelo report

Atlantic Yards Report

The libertarian Institute for Justice has issued a report titled Five Years After Kelo: The Sweeping Backlash Against One of the Supreme Court’s Most-Despised Decisions.

And, not surprisingly, New York is singled out as not having made any reforms, with the November 2009 Atlantic Yards case, Goldstein vs. Empire State Development Corporation, singled out:

There is one significant exception to this good news for property owners in state courts—New York. The Court of Appeals (New York’s highest court) seems stuck in the days when courts routinely ignored evidence of eminent domain abuse, refusing to give the facts any real scrutiny at all. This latest ruling from the court, which completely ignores the fundamental role of the courts in properly interpreting essential constitutional rights, tells the whole story:

It may be that the bar has now been set too low—that what will now pass as “blight,” as that expression has come to be understood and used by political appointees to public corporations relying upon studies paid for by developers, should not be permitted to constitute a predicate for the invasion of property rights and the razing of homes and businesses. But any such limitation upon the sovereign power of eminent domain as it has come to be defined in the urban renewal context is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts.

The Court of Appeals does have a chance to redeem itself in another challenge to a completely trumped-up claim of blight, combined with concealment of relevant evidence, in another case currently pending before it. New Yorkers can only hope the Court of Appeals will remove its head from the sand before reaching its final decision.

The latter is the case involving the Columbia University expansion; a decision is expected in a few weeks.

link

Posted by eric at 10:50 PM

June 15, 2010

Bites of Heights

BQE could chomp posh B'klyn nabe

NY Post
by Rich Calder

The abject unpopularity of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards land grab will apparently make the use of eminent domain harder in New York, even for traditional purposes like roads.

It’s highway robbery!

Some 30 to 50 buildings along the pricey Brooklyn waterfront -- including multimillion-dollar historic brownstones in Brooklyn Heights -- could be demolished by the state to modernize and revamp the crumbling Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, officials confirmed yesterday.

The state Department of Transportation is reviewing many ways to widen lanes, lengthen ramps and renovate a section of the decrepit roadway between Atlantic Avenue and Sands Street, including the two-level portion that runs under the Brooklyn Heights Promenade -- and one controversial possibility would use eminent domain to seize property.
...

DOT Spokesman Adam Levin said the plan is among many being considered – including one calling for less extensive renovations and another to run a tunnel under Brooklyn Heights. He said the agency plans to take a hard look at all these options before resorting to a “worst-case scenario” of taking people’s homes.

“We are well aware of all the controversy caused by Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn,” he said.

article

Posted by eric at 10:00 AM

June 14, 2010

Will Development Agreement get its day in court? Unlikely, as Justice Friedman moves case back to condemnation judge who already dismissed issue

Atlantic Yard Report

It looks like the belatedly-released Atlantic Yards Development Agreement--which signals significantly relaxed deadlines for the project--won't get its day in court, after all.

In a brief, five-page decision in the case known as Peter Williams Enterprises, et al., vs. New York State Urban Development Corporation (aka Empire State Development Corporation, or ESDC), state Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman essentially rejected a challenge by property owners that the Atlantic Yards project has changed so much that the ESDC should be forced to issue a new Determination & Findings to proceed with eminent domain.

Friedman did not formally reject the case, because she didn't examine the Development Agreement or get to the merits.

Instead, she moved it from New York County (Manhattan) to Kings County, as the ESDC had requested. In Kings County, Justice Abraham Gerges, who handles condemnations, already rejected similar arguments when rejecting a direct challenge from property owners to the condemnations.

The decision was dated May 26 and filed June 1, but I only learned about it last week. I asked the attorney for the petitioners, Matthew Brinckerhoff, for a comment, but didn't get one.

Development Agreement still at issue in separate case

Friedman is still considering a request by two groups of petitioners--organized by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and BrooklynSpeaks--to consider the Development Agreement in revisiting her March 10 ruling that the ESDC's ten-year timeframe for Atlantic Yards was reasonable.

In her ruling, Friedman disagreed that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to reflect the burden of a 25-year project on communities was necessary. Nor would she annul the 2009 Modified General Project Plan, or MGPP.

But she refused to let the Development Agreement--released in January a week after oral argument--to be added to the case, known as Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), et al., vs. Empire State Development Corporation and Forest City Ratner Companies.

She's still considering the request for reargument, but such motions, like appeals, are generally more of a long shot than new cases, as was the Williams case.

article

Posted by eric at 12:48 PM

Doblin: To build a tunnel, you need tunnel vision

Bergen Record
by Alfred P. Doblin

Congratulations, Bruce Ratner. You've replaced Robert Moses as the poster child for the ruthlessly efficient deployment of eminent domain.

This month, The New York Times reported that more than 3,000 occupants of buildings in the way of the ARC Tunnel and deep-station project will be displaced. Maybe Bruce Ratner, the developer of the long-delayed Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, can offer the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey some tips on moving that process along.

article

Posted by eric at 12:33 PM

June 12, 2010

Highway robbery! State is mulling taking Heights homes for BQE repair

The Brooklyn Paper
by Gary Buiso

Classic brownstones and other homes in historic Brooklyn Heights may be demolished by the state as part of the long-overdue effort to shore up and modernize the aging Brooklyn–Queens Expressway revealed this week.

State transportation planners are currently considering several ways to impliment a $300-million reconstruction project of the triple-canitlever portion of the BQE under the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, plus other portions between Sands Street and Atlantic Avenue — but one scenario calls for homes to be taken near Willow and Middagh streets to accommodate the wider highway.

Peter King, project manager with the Department of Transportation, called the possibility of an eminent domain taking unlikely, but confirmed that it is being considered.

“It is well-established that the public sector has the authority to acquire properties for public purposes,” he said. “It would be premature to rule out anything, and a violation of process to start discounting things,” he said.

article

NoLandGrab: Actually, it's now well established that the public sector has the authority to acquire property for any purpose, including but not limited to taking your home so a rich real estate developer and his Russian billionaire savior can build a private arena for a horrible basketball team for which we also get to foot most of the bill.

Posted by eric at 8:58 AM

June 8, 2010

Second look at Columbia eminent domain argument, with FAQ; will bad faith claim be the key? Also, law professors debate public use, land assembly

Atlantic Yards Report

Norman Oder updates his observations of the Kaur v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp. case.

After watching the newly-posted webcast of the June 1 oral argument in the eminent domain case (Kaur v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp.) at the Court of Appeals regarding the Columbia University expansion, I've expanded and amended my original post, which was based solely on an audio file.

The 40-minute argument is well worth watching. Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) attorney John Casolaro, cerebral and persistent, seemed aggrieved when he had to defend weaker positions. The property owners' attorney, Norman Siegel, was about as passionate as you can get in the relatively restrained confines of an appellate court.

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, with the help of a few colleagues, did a good job ensuring that the major issues are highlighted. (The Atlantic Yards oral argument got bogged down in places, by contrast.)

And Judge Robert Smith, the dissenter in the AY case (Goldstein v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp.), more than once played devil's advocate, challenging Siegel to convince him to vote to overturn the very recent precedent, set last November nine days before the Appellate Division, in a split decision, ruled against the ESDC.

Read the rest of this post which covers highlights from the hearing, the lack of coverage by New York City's three major daily papers, and a debate about eminent domain.

link

Posted by steve at 9:08 AM

Overriding Broad Public Use in the Face of Bad Faith Blight: In re Parminder Kaur and Redeveloping Eminent Domain in New York State

Albany Government Law Review Fireplace
By Robert Barrows

Here is a look at the eminent case recently heard by the New York State Court of Appeals. The ESDC is trying to claim Manhattanville is blighted so as to justify the use of eminent domain, but ESDC claims of blight seem to have been manufactured, not so differently from the ESDC claiming blight in a Prospect Heights neighborhood that has million-dollar condos.

The conclusion indicates that the Court could rule against the ESDC if it considers the Kaskel exception where "“the physical conditions of an area might be such that it would be irrational and baseless to call it substandard or insanitary.”

The taking of Manhattanville appears to be, on its face, manufactured and so ostentatious that the Kaskel exception could come into play. Much of the ire of the First Department’s opinion was directed at the ESDC’s process for making its determination and the court placed strong importance on timing and procedure in the exercise of eminent domain – a theme that perhaps will continue on appeal. More importantly, given the current public outrage and uncertainty surrounding the law of eminent domain, employing a long invoked exception that places a check against engineered pretenses to justify a taking would perhaps be a sensible solution. With In re Parminder Kaur v. N.Y.S. Development Corp., the use of the hypothetical exception illustrated in Kaskel may be justified.

link

Posted by steve at 8:42 AM

June 4, 2010

Columbia Oral Argument Recap - Blight, Civic Purpose, And Bad Faith

Inverse Condemnation

We've been busy filing an appellate brief and drafting another, so until now, haven't had the chance to post up links about Tuesday's New York Court of Appeals oral argument in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

We live blogged the arguments, following along on the court's video webcast. The court usually posts an archived video of oral arguments, which we expect next week.

link

Posted by eric at 12:14 PM

June 2, 2010

Columbia eminent domain case draws heated arguments, frequent references to Atlantic Yards cases

Atlantic Yards Report

Norman Oder provides the blow-by-blow of yesterday's argument in the New York State Court of Appeals over the Columbia University eminent domain case.

In the highly contested 40-minute oral argument yesterday in the Columbia University eminent domain case, attorneys significantly reprised arguments in the briefs, with frequent references to the Atlantic Yards case the Court of Appeals decided last November.

I didn’t make it to Albany and none of the city’s three daily newspapers sent a reporter. That’s dismaying, given that the Appellate Division’s surprising and contested rejection of the Empire State Development Corporation’s eminent domain findings was big news last December.

The bottom line of the argument is unclear, given there are various strands of argument. In other words, if the court upholds the ESDC on its finding of blight--as is not unlikely, given its decision in the AY case--it could find other reasons to block Columbia.

article

Related coverage...

Columbia Spectator, Court of Appeals grills state on M'ville blight, civic purpose of expansion

After more than six years of buildup, the fate of eminent domain in Manhattanville came down to 45 minutes in a small courtroom in Albany.

On Tuesday, the seven judges of the New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, heard oral arguments on whether the state should be allowed to invoke eminent domain—the process of seizing private properties for a “civic purpose” in exchange for market-rate compensation—on Columbia’s behalf. The University plans to build a 17-acre campus in West Harlem, but two business owners, who represent about 9 percent of the land in the expansion zone, have refused to sell their properties.

Former New York Civil Liberties Union director Norman Siegel argued on behalf of Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen and gas station owners Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur, and attorney John Casolaro represented the Empire State Development Corporation, the body that approved eminent domain for the project in December 2008.

Sprayregen, Singh, and Kaur challenged that approval in court in January 2009, and last December, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division declared eminent domain in Manhattanville illegal in a 3-2 decision, which ESDC immediately appealed.

That brought the fight to the Court of Appeals, where Siegel called on the judges to uphold the Appellate Division ruling on several bases: one, that ESDC declared the neighborhood “blighted” in “bad faith” and based on faulty methodology; two, that there was “collusion” between ESDC and Columbia, because ESDC hired a company to conduct a blight study when that company was also a contractor for the University; three, that the expansion of a private university does not constitute a “civic purpose”; and four, that Sprayregen’s due process rights were violated when ESDC refused to turn over certain documents requested under the Freedom of Information Law in time for them to be included in the record for this case.

AP via Victoria Advocate, NY top court considers Columbia expansion plan

A state redevelopment agency urged New York's top court on Tuesday to approve its use of eminent domain so Columbia University can expand its Ivy League campus over 17 acres in West Harlem.

At oral arguments, Empire State Development Corp. attorney John Casolaro said the Court of Appeals should overturn a divided lower court and conclude this constitutes an appropriate civic project for educational purposes where the state can take land, even when the land goes to a private, not-for-profit institution.

"The Legislature has indicated this is a proper public purpose," Casolaro said.

NoLandGrab: Casolaro meant, of course, that the unelected, unaccountable ESDC had made that determination (surprise, surprise) — not the Legislature.

Bwog, Manhattanville Goes To NY Court of Appeals

This is kinda-sorta-maybe-it!

As you may recall, December brought a major obstacle to Columbia’s dreams of expansion: the New York State Supreme Court decided 3-2 that that state could not use eminent domain to secure parts of West Harlem for Manhattanville. The Empire State Development Corporation, the only major defendant in December’s case, has appealed the decision with the Columbia administration’s support.
...

In November, the New York Court of Appeals gave the uber-fraught Atlantic Yards a 6-1 approval of use of eminent domain, but the Atlantic Yards project did not stumble in the NY Supreme Court like Manhattanville has.

A decision is expected this summer, which could mean this month and could also mean three months from now.

Crain's NY Business, Court date set for Columbia eminent domain case

Last November, the same judges that will hear the Columbia case ruled that eminent domain could be used to clear the Atlantic Yards site in Brooklyn so that developer Forest City Ratner could build a huge mixed-use project there.

However, experts say the Atlantic Yards decision doesn't guarantee a similar outcome because there are numerous differences between the two cases. For starters, the opponents of Columbia using eminent domain won in the lower court, unlike their counterparts in the Atlantic Yards case. Last December, in a strongly worded opinion, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division said it would be unconstitutional to use eminent domain to benefit “a private, elite education institution.”

“You are never the favorite when you are seeking a reversal,” said Scott Mollen, a partner at law firm Herrick Feinstein, who isn't involved in the case.

Posted by eric at 10:00 AM

June 1, 2010

Columbia eminent domain appeal today in Albany; Atlantic Yards decision invoked regularly; will Court of Appeals revise NY's role as national outlier?

Atlantic Yards Report

The eminent domain case involving the Columbia University expansion--a $6.28 billion, 17-acre project in West Harlem's Manhattanville--will be heard this afternoon at 2 pm (webcast) before the Court of Appeals in Albany.

It may seem like an uphill battle for the appellant Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), which--shockingly--lost a split decision (a two-judge plurality, a concurrence on other grounds, and a two-judge dissent) last December, before the Appellate Division, the intermediate court where all eminent domain cases begin.

But it's probably more of an uphill battle for the winners, property owners represented by attorney Norman Siegel, since Justice James Catterson, author of the plurality opinion, glaringly failed to grapple with the Court of Appeals' ruling just nine days earlier in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case.

In the latter, the court 6-1 upheld the use of eminent domain, saying that when there were reasonable differences of opinion on blight judges had to defer to agencies like the ESDC.

So in legal papers the ESDC argues that the Columbia case is essentially like the Atlantic Yards case (Goldstein vs. New York State Urban Development Corporation, aka ESDC), and the Columbia plaintiffs (Tuck-It-Away, a company owned by Nick Sprayregen, and a gas station owned by Parminder Kaur and family members) say it's not, in part because the AY site includes part of a previously-designated urban renewal area as well as a railyard, considered to be de facto blight.

(Of course the plaintiffs in the AY case were all from outside those zones.)

article

Columbia Spectator, M'ville property owners prepare for eminent domain hearing

Posted by lumi at 6:47 AM

May 31, 2010

Own Property in New York State?

You’d Better Pay Attention to Tuesday’s High Court Argument on Eminent Domain Abuse

Institute for Justice

If you own a piece of property in New York, you’d better pay close attention to an oral argument taking place on Tuesday, June 1 at 2 p.m. in Albany before New York’s high court.

This case—Kaur v. Empire State Development Corporation—may well decide if powerful private interests can team up with the government to take away your home, your small business, your farm or your factory through eminent domain for someone else’s private gain.

It is called eminent domain abuse and it is a plague that has wreaked havoc across the Empire State for decades. Tuesday’s court argument will decide whether Columbia University—a private institution—may direct the government’s power of eminent domain to take property away from its neighbors for the university’s private use and profit. Columbia seeks to take the property of neighbors Nick Sprayregen and Amanjit Kaur to expand its campus. If Columbia were a public university, this would be a public use. But Columbia is a private university and, as such, the takings are for private gain.

Immediately following the 2 p.m. oral argument, which is expected to last for about one hour, property owners, their advocates and supporters will hold a press conference outside of the court to answer questions and explain why property rights must be respected in the state. The press conference will take place at Academy Park, 20 Eagle Street in Albany, directly across the street from the front of the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.

Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), said, “This is the kind of abuse of government power on behalf of powerful private interests the Framers of the Constitution sought to prevent when they drafted the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and required that private property could only be taken for a public use. Taking someone’s land for a private institution like Columbia for its private use and profit is not a public use.” The Institute for Justice, which represented the homeowners in the infamous eminent domain abuse case Kelo v. City of New London, is the nation’s leading advocate against eminent domain for private gain.
...

Just last year, the Court of Appeals refused to stop the use of eminent domain for an arena for the NBA Nets and private development project in Brooklyn. It now has an opportunity to redeem itself in this decision.

link

Posted by eric at 10:06 AM

May 27, 2010

China Land Snatch!

National Bibliographic

"Private" property in China is about as tenuous a proposition as straight talk from Brett Yormark. How bad is China's landgrabbing? The author calls Atlantic Yards "child's play" by comparison.

This story today in the Times is a good reminder of what unchecked capitalism abetted by local and state government (free market / police state) looks like in China. If anyone holds the illusion that the economic boom in China benefits all of its citizens, take a look at what's happening in the Laogucheng neighborhood of Beijing where all of its residents are being forcibly and often violently evicted from their homes before they are razed to make way for development. One woman, Tang Fuzhen, actually resorted to self-immolation as armed thugs broke into her home to expel her and her family. What's more, this is merely one headline catching example out of hundreds of such occurrences all over China. It highlights the gritty, leading edge of the real estate boom in China that seems likely to lead to massive inflation in addition to massive human rights violations. The silver-lining is that protests from average citizens, law professor, and others have finally made some headway with the legislative affairs office of the State Council, with cabinet members calling for local governments to hold developers responsible for "vicious incidents" and to "publicize 'reasonable' standards of compensation."

article

NoLandGrab: At least the Chinese get a silver lining. Albany lawmakers, unlike China's State Council, haven't lifted a finger to rein in developers.

Posted by eric at 10:50 PM

May 22, 2010

Eminent Domania: Eminent Domain Battle

Fox New York
By Kathy Carvajal

Click through to view this piece on eminent domain abuse. Atlantic Yards is included as a an of example of how a vague definition of blight was used to allow the use of eminent domain.

From Brooklyn to Long Branch, New Jersey, attorneys representing private citizens have been challenging a state's right to take control of a property for public use.

Historically, few challenges were made to the eminent domain law as it involved the creation of railways, expanded public facilites, etc. But in recent years there has been an increase in legal challenges to the law when 'blight' is used as the primary reason by the state for a takeover.

On Friday, Good Day NY spoke with Attorney Bill Ward who has represented property owners in Long Branch.

"The eminent domain process is subect to abuse. Where the controversy comes in is in redevelopment projects under the Local Redevelopment Housing Law (in NJ) that says certain areas of a city are blighted," Ward told co-host Rosanna Scotto.

"What I would like to see is the state legislature tighten the definition of blighted and eminent domain."

In 2005, following a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the states in an eminent domain case, more than 30 reformed their eminent domain laws.

link

Posted by steve at 4:16 PM

June 1: Get on the Bus to Albany for Columbia Eminent Domain Argument

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn

From our friends in Harlem and at the Institute for Justice, you are invited to take the bus to Albany, please see details and registration information below:

On June 1, the New York Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Tuck-it-Away v. New York State Urban Development Corporation. Columbia University (a private, for-profit entity) wants to expand into Harlem, and take everything in its path. They asked the state to use eminent domain to take Nick Sprayregen's storage business, but the New York Appellate Division said NO. Columbia appealed to the state's highest court...the same court that rubber-stamped the seizure of properties for the Atlantic Yards project for Bruce Ratner and his billionaire Russian business partner Mikhail Prokhorov. That court will hear the case on June 1. Oral arguments begin at 2pm.

Join the Institute for Justice, Coalition to Preserve Community and property owners and activists from across New York City and State on June 1 to show your support for Nick. Help us tell the court and the media that New Yorkers oppose eminent domain for private gain. We will have a free bus leaving Harlem at 8:30am for Albany. Free lunch will also be provided for those riding our bus. Please join us!

link

Posted by steve at 9:27 AM

May 17, 2010

Tues, May 18. Oral Argument on Eminent Domain Related Atlantic Yards Case

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn

Legal arguments in the following lawsuit will take place Tuesday, May 18th, at 2:30 PM in Manhattan. Keep in mind, when timing your arrival, that there is a security check to go through.

Details:

PETER WILLIAMS vs. NYS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP
Tuesday, May 18.
2:30 PM
New York County Supreme Court
60 Centre Street [Map]
Room 335
Manhattan

Oral argument on Article 78 lawsuit seeking to compel the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to make new Eminent Domain Procedure Law (204) findings and determinations.

A number of property owners and tenants in the footprint brought this lawsuit in January 2010 arguing that the eminent domain takings were based on a 2006 approved plan that no longer exists. If the property seizures are going to occur, they must be for the drastically altered current plan—a basketball arena and one building—not for the project originally conceived with the promise of 2,250 affordable housing units, 16 towers and 10,000 jobs. The case argues that the ESDC must make new findings and determinations under the States's Eminent Domain Procedure Law.

link

Posted by eric at 11:05 AM

May 11, 2010

Albanian Village Needs Help Fighting Gov’t Land Grab

Develop Don't Destroy Accursed Mountains via Only The Blog Knows Brooklyn

Sure, Albania's a little bit outside of our usual purview, but news of this land grab comes from Catherine Bohne, proprietress of Park Slope's Community Bookstore. Plus, they've got a cool flag.

The Valbona Valley where I’ve been half-living is traditionally one of the toughest places in Europe - they don’t call these the Accursed Mountains for nothing! Perhaps in order to survive the people have become both adapted to the land AND fiercely protective of each other — really GOOD to each other. And to me! Now the local government - which, like most government in Albania, is very corrupt – is moving to grab land in Valbona. And the Selimaj, my adopted family, are standing up to them. This really is the little guy fighting against huge forces. Will you help?

Landgrabbers, apparently, are not exclusive to New York State's allegedly representative democracy. They're perfectly at home in Albania's formerly Communist parliamentary democracy, too.

Here are the two videos I made so far which summarize the situation – I was up all night making the last one, so I’m sort of blotto right now, and I think the videos will be clearer than I will be.

Valbona Land Grab – Part 1 (5/9/10)

Valbona Land Grab – Part 2 (5/10/10)

This land grab promises no hoops, but it will offer ping pong! And a community benefits agreements — which will deliver basketball ping pong before affordable housing running water.

The Komun has published reports to various foreign investors promising over 80 infrastructure projects to benefit the people of Margegaj Komun and Valbona specifically, including really important things like bringing running water to the houses of Valbona village. They were supposed to start work this summer. They haven’t. Instead, they’re rushing to build this tourism complex (with Ping Pong) which (you may have noticed) employs mainly members of the Head of the Komun’s family (who live in Shoshan, not Valbona).

In all seriousness, click thru to learn how you can help the Selimaj fight the good fight.

Posted by eric at 11:14 PM

EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!...

Courier-Life Newspapers via NYPost.com, Last holdouts face eviction to make room for 'Willoughby Square Park'

There are dozens of tenants left in the city-acquired properties on Albee Square between Willoughby and Fulton streets, some of whom allege that the city isn’t helping them find new homes.

“They keep telling us that they’ll help us get a place, or that they’ll pay us to move out — but they lied,” said Ray Ahamed, a 14-year resident of one of the properties. “Some people have been living here for 50 or more years. My family will have a hard time finding a place to go.”

Ahamed added that he was given a July deadline to get out — a date not confirmed by the city.
...

“What’s the worst-case scenario? We’re not sure,” said an HPD official, who asked not to be named.

Posted by eric at 10:50 PM

De Blasio: Eminent Domain Is Needed

GlobeSt.com
by Ian Ritter

NYC Public Advobdicate Bill de Blasio has apparently forgotten that the only need for eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards footprint is to clear the way for a basketball arena.

Certain projects that provide affordable housing to residents here are in the best interest of the city and require the need for eminent domain, said Bill de Blasio, New York City’s public advocate, speaking at a breakfast put on by non-profit association ABNY. He specifically pointed to the controversial mixed-use Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn being built by developer Bruce Ratner, which bought out a number of residences and building in the area and was the center of a contentious legal battle.

“I do think there’s a place for eminent domain,” de Blasio said, explaining that he is a “pro development progressive.” “When appropriate you do maximize height and density to maximize affordable housing.”

article

NoLandGrab: The "non-profit" ABNY is run by a real estate magnate, with assistance from a former senior advisor to the chairman and CEO of the Empire State Development Corporation and ex-flack for stellar governors Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson. De Blasio, no doubt, is starting to line up donors for his 2013 run for mayor.

Related coverage...

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, Developers' Advocate Bill de Blasio: Eminent Domain Was Needed for Atlantic Yards Housing

A "pro-development progressive" would realize that Atlantic Yards and the use of eminent domain for it, is all about the developer's profit.
...

Worse is this: affordable housing could be accomplished over the Vanderbilt Rail Yards in a high density and highrise community without the use of eminent domain at all. And when eminent domain is continuously used for private benefit, the eventual backlash will be such that it will be difficult to use it when it is actually crucial for a public purpose.

Atlantic Yards Report, Public Advocate de Blasio defends eminent domain for Atlantic Yards; he's apparently forgotten his "no more subsidies" position

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, who issues daily press releases but did not see fit to attend or comment on the Atlantic Yards groundbreaking in March, now concludes he's happy with the project, at least according to a speech before the business-friendly Association for a Better New York (ABNY).
...

No more subsidies?

During the campaign last August, de Blasio said in a debate, "But no more subsidies. That project has gotten all the subsidy it deserves. And they either have to figure out a way to make it work or we should pull the plug."

As I wrote, de Blasio came a little late to "no more subsidies," given his silence when the developer gained more than $100 million by renegotiating the Vanderbilt Yard deal with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).

Beyond that, when the Empire State Development Corporation a few weeks later announced new concessions to developer Forest City Ratner, de Blasio was silent.

Posted by eric at 8:40 PM

May 10, 2010

Year in review: Uncertainty for Manhattanville

The Empire State Development Corporation appealed in January to the New York State Court of Appeals, which will hear the eminent domain case on June 1.

Columbia Spectator
by Kim Kirschenbaum

The University’s Manhattanville expansion plan faced a setback this year after a state court declared eminent domain for the project illegal in December. This surprise ruling, which will send the case to New York’s highest court in June, has significantly raised the stakes of this protracted legal battle.

The New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division declared in December in a 3-2 decision that eminent domain—the process by which the state can seize private property for “public use” in exchange for market-rate compensation—in the 17-acre expansion zone is illegal, dealing a blow to the University’s long-term plans. It was an unexpected victory for Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen and gas station owners Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur, the last private landowners in the expansion area who have not struck deals with the University.

The Empire State Development Corporation—the state body that approved eminent domain for the project in December 2008—appealed the decision in January to the New York State Court of Appeals, which will hear the case on June 1.

In the interim between the December ruling and the June appeal, the plaintiffs and respondents have been exchanging legal briefs. These briefs have honed in on, among other things, previous eminent domain cases whose legal precedents could be a bellwether for the upcoming case. Of particular interest is the November 2009 Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation case, in which the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards commercial development in Brooklyn.

article

Posted by eric at 9:47 AM

May 9, 2010

The Week in Crime: Dodge City

The Local (NY Times Blog) By Chris Prentice

The "Dodge" in the headline refers to a brand of automobile, but the dodge we're thinking of is the one where the Empire State Development Corporation, the tool of developer Bruce Ratner, claims Atlantic Yards will alleviate blight including crime in the area of the development when Ratner's nearby malls are the crime magnets responsible for the problem.

April 27: A woman’s purse was stolen around 9:15 p.m. while she was dining at Chuck E. Cheese on Flatbush Avenue. She lost personal papers, money and an iPhone, with a total worth of more than $700.

April 30: Some $8,000 worth of jewelry was stolen from Sterling Gallery on Atlantic Avenue around 4 p.m. The unknown thief snatched a display case from the store and fled.

May 1: A woman shopping at Target at 6:10 p.m. said her purse was taken from her shopping cart when she bent down to look at some nail polish.

link

Posted by steve at 7:19 AM

May 7, 2010

Atlantic Yards-- Roll Out the Dough, Land Grab to Go

Deep QT
by Carola Von Hoffmannstahl-Solomonoff

I love the smell of eminent domain abuse in the morning. It smells like land grabs and taxpayers being soaked. A truly fragrant blast of the stuff is wafting up from Brooklyn, where developer Forest City Ratner and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) have cleared the last man standing in the footprint of the behemoth Atlantic Yards project. Eminent domain was used to acquire much of that footprint. Until becoming a footprint, the area was a neighborhood in Prospect Heights. Atlantic Yards, which is being heavily backed by New York taxpayers, will include an arena (Barclays Center) to showcase the sad sack New Jersey Nets. Though the sacks currently belong to a group headed by Bruce Ratner (of Forest City You Know Who) a murky Russian plutocrat is in the process of becoming majority owner. The cash infusion to Atlantic Yards is sorely needed by Ratner.

Despite all this, Ms. Von Hoffmannstahl-Solomonoff seems to think that Daniel Goldstein should have been dragged from his building in handcuffs, with less money than he paid for his home.

I definitely agreed with the need to oppose the ESDC/Ratner use of eminent domain. Still do. What I have a hard time getting behind is Dan Goldstein's three million dollar deal. And after all my partisan writing, forwarding, and expanding, I feel some final words are warranted.

Dan has lots of reasons for taking the 3 mil. To paraphrase a few: He was going to be evicted anyway, it was sensible to get what he could. What would he achieve by being a martyr? At one point he was outrageously low-balled for his property, so squeezing ESDC and Ratner for a high-ball was justified. Though he agreed to resign as DDDB spokesperson, he didn't surrender his right to speak against Atlantic Yards. And so on and so forth. Dan's loyal supporters are also doing some splainin'. Saying Dan was only doing the responsible thing for his family. And the 3 mil is less than it seems, given the tax bite, the legal bills for the non-DDDB attorney who represented Dan in the settlement negotiations, and how expensive it will be for Dan to get another place in NYC. (Personally, I think the last excuse should be dropped. It's bound to grate with all the folks who somehow manage to find something for under a mil.)

I Want To Believe. But the words three million dollars three million dollars three million dollars keep beating in my brain. No matter how I twist it, the amount seems a little-- dare I say it?-- greedy. Which wouldn't be a big thing (we're all human) if the greed of Forest City Ratner and ESDC hadn't been such a DDDB theme-- and if Dan Goldstein weren't working so hard to paint himself as totally free of impure motives. As said, a lot of Dan's supporters are helping him paint. The pro-Ratner crowd is making with the jeers. (Bertha Lewis of ACORN did a bile dump almost immediately.) But anger and disappointment is also being expressed by people who are against Atlantic Yards and expected Dan Goldstein to be unflaggingly noble.

article

NoLandGrab: Luckily for critics of Daniel Goldstein's settlement that none of them have ever had to walk a mile in his shoes. And for the record, we know of no one involved on the front lines of the Atlantic Yards opposition — and we count ourselves among them — who believes that Daniel Goldstein owes anything to anyone.

Posted by eric at 9:08 AM

Columbia's Day of Reckoning?

The Neighborhood Retail Alliance

Everybody's favorite hired gun, Richard Lipsky (eminent domain at Columbia and Willets Point, where he's on the payroll of property owners = bad, eminent domain for Atlantic Yards, where he was on the payroll of developer Bruce Ratner = good), opines on the coming NY Court of Appeals case.

If the higher court allows the lower court ruling to stand, it will send a chill down the spine of the EDC condemners-and that's especially true if any upholding decision looks at the blight issue with care. The role of the city's neglect in the blighting of Willets Point could well lead to the trashing of any ED effort on the Iron Triangle. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

In our view, an adverse Appeals Court decision against NY State would be the icing on the cake.

article

Posted by eric at 8:57 AM

May 6, 2010

It's game over for Nets Arena holdout Goldstein

The Brooklyn Blog [NYPost.com]
by Rich Calder

A Post photog ambushed Daniel Goldstein and his daughter yesterday, on their allegedly "residents only" private street.

Daniel Goldstein, the longtime Atlantic Yards project holdout who last month accepted a $3 million settlement from developer Bruce Ratner that allows an NBA arena to be built, freaked out today outside his now-former Prospect Heights home after the Post photographed him watching movers pack his belongings into two large vans.

Goldstein, while holding his young daughter Sita in a baby carrier, got so furious that he yelled, "It’s a private street! Get off, or I’ll call the cops," said photographer Benny Stumbo. However, Stumbo said he had already gotten permission to shoot in front of the soon-to-be demolished condo complex at 636 Pacific Street from a security guard watching the fenced-up block for Ratner.

Alleged "security" guard.

Meanwhile, Ratner may have a new main nemisis.

As the Post web site first reported yesterday, real estate mogul Peter Williams says he owns air rights above part of the site of the planned Nets arena and that the project can’t be completed until the issue is settled.

He filed a suit accusing the state of failing to address his air rights when condemning property for the project, but says he’s ready to sell to Ratner or anyone for the right price.

Williams told the Post he was contacted by project opponents who are in the process of raising money to buy the air rights before Ratner can. He declined to give his asking price but said he’d "prefer" to sell to the opponents because he considers Ratner a "bully."

The opponents, he said, could then take over the court challege. If the court sides with Williams or the opponents, it could take up to two years for the state to be able to condemn the air rights and clear the way for the project -- time that Ratner doesn’t have.

article

Posted by eric at 12:54 PM

MOVING TRUCKS PACK UP THE LAST REMAINS OF ATLANTIC YARDS

The Brooklyn Ink
by Todd Stone

While the headline is all wrong — "Atlantic Yards" is still just a trade name, as well as a euphemism for "worst land-grabbing, subsidy-bloated, mega-development boondoggle ever" — this article captures the essence of footprint moving day.

At the intersection of Dean Street and 6th Avenue yesterday, a U-Haul truck was parked outside of what used to be Freddy’s, a legendary Prospect Heights bar that served its last round of drinks over the weekend, after more than 70 years in business.

Freddy’s is among the last of the tenants of Atlantic Yards to pack up and leave – to make way for the much-protested construction of a basketball stadium for the New Jersey Nets, made possible by state laws of eminent domain.

It was moving day yesterday, and with an air of acceptance, mixed with nostalgia, a group of about six – mostly former employees of the bar – removed large pieces of furniture from inside. One former employee named Michael walked out of the bar and into the heavy midday heat with a large monkey on his back made of wood.

“We’ve got to keep that,” one of the guys said to Michael as he passed.

Michael used to live just three doors down from Freddy’s on Dean Street, in a brownstone building also condemned for the Atlantic Yards project. He moved out in February, but his next-door neighbors, at 481 Dean Street, stayed on until they were discovered still living there on Monday, as reported by the the NY Post.

“I’ve seen them going in and out [of the their home] all along,” he said, as if to convey that it was no secret to him that they were still living there. The fact that they were still there certainly didn’t seem to bother him; if anything, he seemed impressed.
...

While talking outside, a security man told [Forest City Ratner Community Liaison Bill] Murphy that there are people on the roof, gesturing to the building where Goldstein still lives. Realizing it was Goldstein’s building, Murphy said, “Don’t worry. It’s probably just Daniel Goldstein and his friends documenting the place.”

article

NoLandGrab: All the commotion must've distracted the security man, allowing the NY Post to sneak in and ambush Goldstein on Forest City Ratner's allegedly private street.

Posted by eric at 12:46 PM

For Columbia Expansion Appeal, State Looks to Atlantic Yards

NY Observer
by Eliot Brown

Columbia University's proposed 17-acre expansion is set for a test June 1, when the state's top court is scheduled to hear arguments on the use of eminent domain, a power that was ruled unconstitutional by a state appellate court in December in a humiliating blow for the Ivy League school and the state. (The scathing court decision labeled the state's argument that the area was blighted as "mere sophistry.")

Seeking to reverse the decision, the state's lawyers are arguing that the appellate court was far off-base, and ignored precedent set by the top court in November for the use of eminent domain for Atlantic Yards, the $4.9 billion housing and basketball arena project in Brooklyn.

Both sides--the state's development agency (funded by Columbia for this case), and landowners Nick Sprayregen and Gurnam Singh--have now submitted their briefs, and here's a look.

article

Posted by eric at 12:37 PM

Atlantic Yards Project: Another Brooklyn Holdout Emerges

Housing Watch
by Lisa Selin Davis

Out of the rubble -- literally -- of the Atlantic Yards construction zone, another family has emerged. A woman named Aisha Ahmed, whose ex-husband bought 481 Dean St. in 1988, is asking for $170,000 more than she has been offered -- or $85,000 for each child -- to vacate her property. We don't know what the previous offer was, nor do we know if the property has been officially sold, since no records have been found.

We do know that the state, the developers, and probably even the members of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, the organization that Goldstein led (until he retired as spokesperson after receiving his settlement) were unaware of the Ahmed family's presence. They are described as "elusive" and perhaps the building is in bad enough shape that it fits the definition of blight that Forest City Ratner, AY's developer, fought so hard to establish.

article

NoLandGrab: The "elusive" Ahmed family ingeniously concealed themselves by being the only people on the block with a light on, which can be seen in this photo (second building to the left of Freddy's), taken last Friday night by Tracy Collins.

And as the photo (also by Collins, click to enlarge) to the right shows, 481 Dean Street, the second building from the left, is hardly in "bad enough shape" to fit any objective definition of blight (that is, one not dreamed up by the Empire State Developmenter Corporation and Forest City Ratner), which Housing News would have known had they bothered to go round and look, or had they even just Googled "481 Dean Street," like we did.

Posted by eric at 12:18 PM

Another look at the Peter Williams case: did easement come with building and could it be sold to opponents?

Atlantic Yards Report

WNYC reports on the case brought by Peter Williams Enterprises (PWE):

He says the state took his property by eminent domain but forgot about air rights he acquired above an adjacent building nine years ago.
...Forest City Ratner says Williams never owned the air rights but instead a light and view easement that he forfeited when he gave up his building.

The lawsuit says that PWE was conveyed "certain property above the plane" of 24 Sixth Avenue, including, as noted in the underlying document, "the right and interest of light and air."

So that's property, but it isn't "air rights" in the sense of the right to build.

Does easement go with building?

It's plausible that a property owner would lose the benefit of an easement when that property is sold; as described in FindLaw, some easements typically remain with the property while others do not.

With the former, the "easement essentially becomes part of the legal description." However, as Williams's lawsuit states, the easement was never described in eminent domain proceeding.

And another twist

The New York Post reports:

Williams told the Post he was contacted by project opponents who are in the process of raising money to buy the air rights before Ratner can. He declined to give his asking price but said he’d "prefer" to sell to the opponents because he considers Ratner a "bully."

article

Related coverage...

WNYC Radio, Atlantic Yards Project Hit With Another Legal Challenge

A former Prospect Heights property owner says he still owns air rights over a small parcel where the Atlantic Yards arena is being built.

AP, Air-rights lawsuit seeks to derail Nets arena

Another lawsuit has been filed aimed at halting the Brooklyn development that includes a new arena for basketball's Nets.

Gothamist, Atlantic Yards Faces "Air Rights" Hurdle

Bruce Ratner must have exhaled a sigh of relief when outspoken nemesis Daniel Goldstein finally agreed to vacate the last apartment in the footprint of his multi-billion dollar Atlantic Yards site last month, giving way for the humongous project to begin construction. But just because no one is physically in his way anymore doesn't mean Ratner doesn't have to contend with more ethereal concerns!

Can't Stop The Bleeding, Final Atlantic Yard Holdout To Ratner : You Paid For The Ground, Now Cough Up For The Air

While Bruce Ratner was finally successfully in paying Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn’s Daniel Goldstein to leave his Brooklyn home, another local resident is presenting a separate challenge to plans to build a new Nets arena.

Posted by eric at 10:36 AM

May 5, 2010

Atlantic Yards holdout Peter Williams claims developer Bruce Ratner doesn't own air rights

NY Daily News
by Erin Durkin

Just when developer Bruce Ratner thought he'd grabbed all the land he needed for his Atlantic Yards project, a property owner is staking one last claim - to the air above the site.

Peter Williams insists he still owns the air rights over a Sixth Ave. lot - and says the state forgot to condemn it when they used eminent domain to seize the rest of the site.

He sued the state Tuesday, charging the Empire State Development Corp. is trying to "steal" his property and "intends to proceed as if it owns property it plainly does not.

"They screwed up," Williams said.
...

The state took possession of the Sixth Ave. building where Williams' grown children lived on March 1 - but never filed to condemn the air rights he owns over the former condo building next door.

"I have something of value that they're not paying me for," he said. "They're trying to run me over with a steamroller."

Williams came to own the air rights over the building next door in 2001, in return for letting the owner route an emergency exit through his property.

But other property owners at the project site can't follow Williams into court looking for a payday: Their air rights were taken by the state along with their land.

Without Williams' air rights, Ratner can't build anything taller than four stories at the site. He also can't claim the "vacant possession" of the project site he needs before turning over ownership of the NBA's New Jersey Nets to Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov. The Nets are slated to move into the Barclays Center arena in 2012.

article

Related coverage...

The Real Deal, AY air rights the latest hurdle for Ratner

A former Prospect Heights property owner is claiming to own the air rights to a part of the site where Bruce Ratner plans to build his new Nets arena and is suing the state for trying to "steal" it.
...

If the court rules in Williams' favor, a state condemnation of his air rights could take up to two years -- time that could devastate the project.

Curbed, The Last Last Holdouts

Bruce Ratner thought he had cleared out the last Atlantic Yards holdout when he struck a $3 million deal with Daniel Goldstein, but it turns out Goldstein has competition for the "last holdout" title.

NY Post, Air-rights suit hits Nets plan

Posted by eric at 10:42 AM

Noticing New York on the Goldstein settlement: the bargain the state enabled Ratner, bad public policy on free speech, and the ongoing battle

Atlantic Yards Report

Michael D.D. White has written a must-read on his Noticing New York blog, arguing that Forest City Ratner received a huge bargain (given the enormous development rights enabled by the state) when it settled with Daniel Goldstein for $3 million, that the developer will seek continuing advantage in the Atlantic Yards fight, that the state inappropriately assited Forest City Ratner in trying to muzzle Goldstein, and that the reporting on the settlement disserved the public.

I mostly agree, with a few amendments. As I wrote 4/30/08, regarding Ratner's purchases of other apartments in Goldstein's building:

While it looks like the developer was being generous, the enormous increase in development rights made it worthwhile--even if he had to pay, which he doesn’t.

In that case, Ratner was directly reimbursed by city taxpayers for the land purchases. In Goldstein's case, there's no more money in that specific kitty--but the developer has since found new ways to gain public concessions, and surely will continue to do so.

article

Posted by eric at 9:25 AM

May 4, 2010

In last-minute lawsuit, owner of easement in arena block seeks to preclude claim of vacant possession; his goal is money, not to stop arena

Atlantic Yards Report

Peter Williams, who owned an industrial building-turned-home (occupied by his two adult children, and a third person) in the Atlantic Yards arena block, settled weeks ago with Forest City Ratner.

Now he's brought an unusual lawsuit claiming that the state made a "colossal mistake" in not pursuing eminent domain for the easement bordering and above the Spalding Building at Sixth Avenue and Pacific Street. He acquired the easement in 2001 and owned adjacent 38 Sixth Avenue.

This could stop the Empire State Development Corporation and Forest City Ratner from claiming they have achieved "vacant possession" of the arena block when current occupants leave by Saturday.

The easement prevents anything more than four stories from being built at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Pacific Street--presumably precluding an arena.

Doh! Stupid easements!

Though the lawsuit raises the spectre of requiring a whole new process under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), Williams, a former plaintiff in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain cases, has not displayed a particular ideological bent. Rather, he's publicly said he's in it for the money.

article

NoLandGrab: What's a few million when you could be a hero to millions? Don't forget, Ratner had your son thrown in jail — for taking one of Ratner's spycams off your own building!

Posted by eric at 10:55 PM

Bklyn arena opponent sues state for allegedly screwing up condemnation proceedings

The Brooklyn Blog [NYPost.com]
by Rich Calder

Hold the shovels. Again.

A real-estate mogul says he owns some "air rights" above the site of the planned Nets arena in Brooklyn — and that the billion-dollar project can’t be completed until he settles the issue with the developer.

Peter Williams — who has already received a money settlement from developer Bruce Ratner for handing over property he owned at the arena site — today filed a scathing lawsuit accusing the state of fowling up the project’s controversial condemnation process and trying to "steal" his air rights.

Or as Bruce Ratner and his lackeys at the ESDC like to call them, "err rights."

It alleges the state colossally blundered by never condemning air rights Williams has owned since 2001 above and around 24 Sixth Avenue in Prospect Heights when it previously condemned other land owned by project holdouts.
...

If the court sides with Williams, it could take up to two years for the state to be able to "condemn" the air rights and clear the way for the project — time that Ratner doesn’t have.

The project nearly fell apart over earlier legal delays, and Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov’s anticipated purchase of the Nets from Ratner is contingent on all the property being free and clear of any hurdles.

Wlliams said he filed the suit because he believes the state "screwed up" and he considers Ratner "a bully." He declined to say how much of a settlement he’s seeking but is open to one.

"I’m not a martyr like Daniel Goldstein," he said, referring to the leader of the project opposition group who last month ended a six-year holdout on his condo by agreeing to a $3 million settlement.

The suit raises the issue of whether air rights should be considered a separate property lot.

article

NoLandGrab: While Governor Paterson is threatening to furlough state employees, it sounds like ESDC attorneys will be working overtime.

Queens Crap, "New York State's Colossal Mistake"

This is the footprint of the Atlantic Yards project (in yellow).

The red outline shows a large piece of property that, according to opponents, the state forgot to condemn, which means the entire project is now in really serious jeopardy, if not dead.

And that payment that Bruce Ratner is making to Daniel Goldstein to get him out by Friday is really just a lot of money down the toilet now from Ratner's perspective, because Goldstein really was never the last obstacle. Actually, the last obstacle is the state's own stupidity.

How wonderfully ironic yet completely appropriate is this?

NoLandGrab: It's a actually a tiny lot adjacent to that red parcel (and air space above it), but it might well be large enough to cause Bruce Ratner and the ESDC a monumental (and, might we add, well deserved) headache.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Forgotten Land & People at Atlantic Yards?

Small blunders could be causing some big problems for the Atlantic Yards project.

Two unexpected events have recently arisen inside the footprint of Forest City Ratner’s proposed $4.9 billion development near Downtown Brooklyn, which project shall feature a basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets.

Forgotten Parcel Not Codemned?

A piece of property about the size of a standard one-bedroom apartment in the footprint of the Atlantic Yards site was never officially condemned, says attorney Matthew Brinckheroff in an action filed in Kings County Supreme Court on behalf of the property’s owner.
...

“Last week we wrote them and said, ‘You made a mistake,’” Brinckerhoff told the Eagle Tuesday. “ESDC [the state’s Empire State Development Corporation] said, ‘That’s not a piece of property; we already condemned it, even though we didn’t,’ and basically told us to go jump in a lake. So instead of jumping in a lake, we sued.”
...

Brinckerhoff pointed out that in the UDC’s 2006 documents, they clearly state that in the “event of any inconsistency between the street addresses and the tax blocks and lots, the block and lot information shall control.”

He said that under state law, UDC must now hold a public hearing to consider condemnation of this lot and issue its results.

Posted by eric at 8:21 PM

Atlantic Yards: Property Owner Files Legal Action Based on New York State’s "Colossal Mistake"

Seeks to Prevent New York State From Claiming Right to Property It Forgot to Condemn for Forest City Ratner’s Basketball Arena

New York State Does Not Own All The Real Estate Interests In the Arena Block Of The Atlantic Yards Project

Peter Williams Enterprises, Inc. Press Release via Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn

New York, NY— On Tuesday, Peter Williams Enterprises, Inc. (“PWE”), a company owned by Peter Williams, filed an action in New York State Court seeking a declaration of its ownership of a tax lot on the block where Forest City Ratner plans to build an arena for its professional basketball team.

PWE owns the property located at 24 Sixth Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, specifically, the entirety of Block 1127, Lot 7501 (“Lot 7501”). Unlike the other lots located at 24 Sixth Avenue (Lots 1001-1021), which were condemned by the New York State Urban Development Corp (the “UDC”), and recently leased to a Forest City Ratner affiliate, the UDC did not condemn Lot 7501.

Indeed, the UDC did not identify Lot 7501 in either its Notice of Public Hearing, pursuant to Article 2 of the EDPL, dated July 24, 2006 (the “Notice”), or its Determination and Findings, pursuant to EDPL § 204, dated December 8, 2006 (the “Determination”). Both the Notice and the Determination identified the property subject to acquisition by condemnation by block and lot. Both listed Lots 1001-1021as the only lots UDC sought to acquire located at 24 Sixth Avenue. Both expressly provided that the “street addresses are included for ease of reference only,” and that in the “event of any inconsistency between the street addresses and the tax blocks and lots, the block and lot information shall control.” Because Lot 7501 was never identified, it cannot be, and has not been, taken eminent domain.

In the Complaint, PWE’s attorney, Matthew Brinckerhoff of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, explained that: “If defendants want to acquire title to Lot 7501, they must do so through legal means. The UDC must follow the procedures set forth in the EDPL; it must hold a public hearing to consider condemnation of Lot 7501 and thereafter issue the predicate findings and determination. It cannot simply take that which it does not own.”

The Complaint and other documents establishing PWE’s claim can be obtained on request from mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com.

link

NoLandGrab: Oops?

Posted by eric at 8:06 PM

“$hhh!” A Thieving Developer Wants Daniel Goldstein Quiet About Its Misdeeds, Meaning the Atlantic Yards Fight Ain’t Over

Noticing New York

Michael D.D. White examines Forest City Ratner's headlong attempt to muzzle Daniel Goldstein.

After nearly seven years of fighting to stay in his home Mr. Goldstein, already stripped of his home ownership and facing imminent eviction as eminent domain was being wielded against him to build the basketball arena that is proposed to be owned by Forest City Ratner and a Russian close-to-the-Kremlin oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov, agreed to the compensation figure he would receive. That compensation turns out to amount to far less than that value of his property’s development rights and therefore far less than the value of what was taken from him, far less than the value of what we think he should have been entitled to. More on this further in.

The thing that was so odd in this process and about which the media yet failed to report is how important it was to Forest City Ratner to attempt to deprive Daniel Goldstein of his right to speak out against the project. Because of the way it was negotiated, with Daniel Goldstein stoutly refusing to give up his free speech rights, we will never know the exact dollar value Forest City Ratner put on his unrelinquished rights. We would have been thrilled if Mr. Goldstein had played the negotiations in a way that teased out that precise figure before he rejected it but had he been so clever he could have run the risk of appearing unprincipled and insincere to the judge.* Nevertheless, the fact that Forest City Ratner pressed hard to deprive him of his rights, enlisting the weight of the state and Judge Gerges in the negotiations to do so, has to be viewed as highly significant and startling.

(* Mr. Goldstein did find himself in a bit of an ironic PR box: It seems the more principled one is, the more altruistically principled people want you to be. Some thought Mr. Goldstein should have taken none of the compensation that was offered late in the game and should have been led out of his apartment in chain gang-style with the rest of his family.)

article

NoLandGrab: If Daniel Goldstein was in it for the money, then Forest City must've been in it for the stupidity. Claiming losses of $6.7 million per month while unable to take vacant possession, wouldn't it have made sense for them to offer him $6 million or $7 million on March 1st, the day that Justice Abe Gerges handed title over to New York State.

Posted by eric at 7:49 PM

May 3, 2010

Precedent uncertain for eminent domain lawsuit

The Court of Appeals will soon re-examine whether the state can, on Columbia’s behalf, seize private property for the “public good” in exchange for market-rate compensation.

Columbia Spectator
by Maggie Astor

Columbia’s Manhattanville expansion plan seemed to be approaching the finish line, but last December, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division threw a wrench in the plans, deeming the use of eminent domain for the project illegal.

On June 1, the Court of Appeals—the highest court in New York—will re-examine whether the state can, on Columbia’s behalf, seize private property for the “public good” in exchange for market-rate compensation. The fate of eminent domain could determine the fate of the expansion.

Many players hoping to predict the outcome have turned to the November 2009 Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation case, in which the Court of Appeals upheld the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards commercial development in Brooklyn.

To some, the link seems clear: If the Court of Appeals forbade eminent domain in Manhattanville, they argue, it would violate its own precedent. But the plaintiffs here say the legal issues and the projects on the whole are very different.

article

NoLandGrab: Alternatively, the Court of Appeals could come to their senses, admit they totally f*cked up, and actually protect New York State's citizens from the abuses of government.

Posted by eric at 9:45 AM

April 29, 2010

Gut Instinct: So Long, Fred

JOSH BERNSTEIN blows a goodbye kiss to Freddy’s

New York Press
by Joshua M. Bernstein

BY THE TIME many of you read this, the end will have come for Prospect Heights dive Freddy’s. Its destruction has been destined for seven years, ever since developer Bruce Ratner announced plans to bulldoze swaths of the central Brooklyn neighborhood and build luxury skyscrapers and a stadium housing the New Jersey Nets, which, happily, just completed one of the losingest campaigns in NBA history.

Sure, the lawsuits, rallies and hamfisted eminent domain gave residents and businesses dwelling in the Atlantic Yards footprint a kernel of David-versus-Goliath hope, but really: Ratner had billions of reasons to shoehorn this project into the neighborhood, doling out political donations like Halloween candy, soliciting sweetheart tax breaks and and enlisting the slobbering boosterism of Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. “Please, come on out and support your Nets, Brooklyn,” I can hear him beg, as local interest flags after another 12–70 season.

But the pleasure I’ll take in watching Marty drown his sorrows in Junior’s cheesecake is trumped by the sadness I feel at Freddy’s closure. This quirky, curios-strewn tavern, where you could catch a banjo player one night, before building dioramas the next and participating in a spelling bee, will serve its final pint on April 30. After seven years of fighting, and staring down the wrecking ball, Freddy’s owners’ resignedly accepted a settlement from Ratner.

article

Posted by eric at 11:06 AM

April 28, 2010

Farewell to Freddy's! Beloved watering hole near Yards closes for good on Friday

Courier-Life Publications
by Stephen Brown

Follow the link for some interesting Freddy's history.

Hipsters, old-timers, and barflies will raise their glasses at Freddy’s Bar for the last time on Friday — making a final toast to a Prohibition-era watering hole, but one man won’t be there: the man whose name is on the awning.

Freddy Chadderton, who sold the bar to its current owner in 1996, lives on Long Island — but at age 82, he isn’t looking back at his salad days.

“I had a good run,” he told us this week.

But Chadderton is one of the few people connected with this bar that isn’t crying at least a bit in his beer this week, recalling a neighborhood joint that apparently has to be torn down so that Bruce Ratner can build a basketball arena.

article

Posted by eric at 11:15 AM

At panel on eminent domain, Siegel describes abuses, proposes reforms; defender of status quo ignores problems raised in Columbia and AY cases

Atlantic Yards Report

For those of us who have seen civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, victorious so far in the effort to block eminent domain for the Columbia University expansion, speak on panels or testify before an oversight hearing, most of his critique yesterday on "The Use (or Misuse) of Eminent Domain in NYC" at New York Law School (video) was not unfamiliar.

Siegel made some compelling points about eminent domain abuses, but more intriguing was the respondent, land use use attorney Ross Moskowitz, who offered a full defense of the status quo, warning of abuses--notably, the potential for holdouts to distort the process--while ignoring the problems raised in both the Columbia and Atlantic Yards cases.

article

Posted by eric at 9:51 AM

April 27, 2010

EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!...

The New York Times, Eager to Rebuild Willets Point, City Faces Legal Fight From Property Owners

It is one of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s signature projects — the sweeping transformation of Willets Point, a slice of Queens that has long been among the city’s most neglected pieces of real estate. And a little over a year ago, it seemed like a done deal.

The City Council approved the proposal, which would sweep aside the car-repair shops, junkyards and small factories in the shadow of Citi Field to make room for 5,500 apartments, parks, office buildings, stores, restaurants and a hotel.

Many of the largest property owners agreed to sell to the city, and the city could use eminent domain to force out those who refused.

But a convergence of a Park Avenue lawyer known for toppling big projects, a sawdust maker bent on keeping the family business where it has been for decades, and a pair of highway ramps that exist only on paper threatens to doom Mr. Bloomberg’s grand vision.

Posted by eric at 1:58 PM

April 26, 2010

Last Atlantic Yards holdout agrees to leave

ABC 7
Darla Miles reporting

Here's a local TV news story from last week that eluded our normally trusty search efforts.

link

Posted by eric at 4:46 PM

Despite FCR's announced demolition plans, building at 752 Pacific may become developer's construction headquarters

Atlantic Yards Report

Though Forest City Ratner executive Maryanne Gilmartin has said in court papers that the developer plans to demolish the building long owned by Henry Weinstein at 752 Pacific Street for parking, another court document suggests that the six-story building, renovated into office space, more likely will serve as offices during the construction phase of the arena.

That makes sense on two levels. First, it would be an expensive and lengthy process to demolish such a staunch building.

(Gilmartin, in paragraph 37 of the affidavit below that's part of the Order to Show Cause, says it would take "several months to perform the work necessary to prepare for an actual demolition" of 636 Pacific Street, the taller but much narrower warehouse-turned-condo building where Daniel Goldstein lives, and approximately five months for the actual demolition.)

Second, Forest City Ratner will be demolishing the similarly staunch Spalding Building, now home to project offices, at Sixth Avenue and Pacific Street, thus leaving a significant gap.

(Photo taken December 2008 by Tracy Collins)

article

Posted by eric at 10:49 AM

The denunciation of the ESDC's condemnation push that was never resolved, but surely influenced the Goldstein settlement

Atlantic Yards Report

Why did Forest City Ratner settle with Daniel Goldstein last Wednesday for $3 million? The most obvious reasons were to save the alleged $6.7 million monthly cost of delay it alleged, and to pave the way for Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov's purchase of the Nets, which was depending on vacant possession of the site.

Another reason--and a reason for Goldstein to settle--was that Kings County Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges pushed for a settlement. He didn't want to adjudicate the case, nor preside over an eviction that could easily have become a media event.

Given the Empire State Developmeny Corporation's initial and ridiculous lowball appraisal of his apartment, Goldstein had to calculate his vulnerability to pursuing the case and getting a check that was worth far less than a replacement apartment.

That said, it would have been of significant interest had the case continued, because, at least according to a response from Goldstein's attorney, the ESDC was way out of line.

Click through to learn why.

article

Posted by eric at 10:36 AM

Greg David of Crain's gets it very wrong: "New Yorkers, through their political process" decided "Atlantic Yards was in the best interest of the city"

Atlantic Yards Report

In a column headlined An eminent name in domain debate, Crain's New York Business editorial director Greg David defends eminent domain for Atlantic Yards while, astonishingly, neglecting to acknowledge how local elected officials were ignored.
...

I always tell that story to my class on the New York City economy when we study commercial development issues. Then I explain how the indomitable Brooklyn gadfly Daniel Goldstein—who last week finally gave up his long fight to stop the Atlantic Yards project—convinced me the mayor was right.

Historically, eminent domain allowed governments to seize land for public purposes such as roads, schools, parks and airports. In Kelo, the Supreme Court said it was constitutional for states and cities to take private property on behalf of private interests for a public purpose such as improving the economy.

The complications are obvious. The government is putting the interests of one private party, in this case Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner, above those of another, in this case some existing Brooklyn residents and businesses.

Critics of the Kelo decision say that the doctrine is unfair and creates opportunities for abuse by powerful interests and that developers like Forest City can and should use their resources to buy out the other parties.

But Mr. Goldstein wasn't interested in the money. He grudgingly sold his condo last week only because his choice was to accept a $3 million offer today and move out in two weeks or wait two months for a court to evict him and award him less money. He could have gotten much more months ago, maybe years ago.

He didn't do that because his mission was to impose his vision of what was best for Brooklyn, even though New Yorkers, through their political process, had decided that Atlantic Yards was in the best interest of the city.

Without eminent domain, he would have succeeded.

Hold on. Goldstein was reacting to the developer's vision, one the city supported from the start. There was no political process, no role for the City Council, no role for any local elected officials. In fact, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Dan Doctoroff told the New York Observer in December 2007:

“I am a huge believer in the ULURP process. I think it makes sense. It allows the issues to be aired in an appropriate way. If it happened again, and the state were to ask if I would encourage them to take Atlantic Yards through the ULURP process, I would say yes.”

The project was approved by the board of the unelected ESDC and the state funding was upheld by the Public Authorities Control Board--the "three men in a room": the governor, Assembly Speaker, and Senate Majority Leader.

Goldstein's comment

Goldstein wrote in response:

Mr. David, your argument almost made some sense until the very end. I wasn't trying to "impose my vision on what was best for Brooklyn even though New Yorkers, through their political process, had decided that Atlantic Yards was in the best interest of the city."

There WAS no political process. Not a single elected official ever voted on Atlantic Yards. ULURP and NYC's zoning laws were overridden, and the unaccountable, unelected ESDC and MTA made all the key decisions. New Yorkers had no political process to make any decisions about Atlantic Yards.

That is the fundamental problem with Atlantic Yards that so many have been shouting and fighting about all this time.

Furthermore, all of the benefits of Atlantic Yards, including the arena and the housing, could have been built without using eminent domain, without taking my home. All of them. But that wouldn't have been the huge gift to Forest City Ratner that the use of eminent domain has been.

So while I and many others certainly have ideas of what would be good for Brooklyn and what urban planning ideas could work and wouldn't work, I didn't impose my vision on some publicly and politically approved project. I resisted, along with thousands of others and numerous politicians, the imposed vision of one developer.

article

Posted by eric at 10:03 AM

An eminent name in domain debate

Crain's NY Business
by Greg David

The former Crain's editor swings and misses — yet again — at the use (and abuse) of eminent domain.

In the aftermath of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision on eminent domain—the famous Kelo v. City of New London case—I tried to explain my uncertain views on the topic in a Dec. 5 column:

“The once-esoteric legal doctrine of eminent domain has put me in the middle of an unusual lobbying blitz. On one side are people who support important development projects like Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn or the expansion of Columbia University, both of which will need to involve eminent domain. On the other is my daughter, who has taken up the issue as part of her American government class and is sure eminent domain needs to be outlawed. More and more, I think my daughter is right.”

At 9:30 that Monday morning, my phone rang. “Hold for Mayor Bloomberg.” Then came the voice, unmistakable and firm. “I couldn't disagree with you more,'' the mayor said. “Without eminent domain, we will get nothing accomplished in this city!”

I always tell that story to my class on the New York City economy when we study commercial development issues. Then I explain how the indomitable Brooklyn gadfly Daniel Goldstein—who last week finally gave up his long fight to stop the Atlantic Yards project—convinced me the mayor was right.

article

NoLandGrab: We'll leave it to Norman Oder to dissect this column and its one giant factual error. However, we've written before about how Mr. David never really questioned the abuse of eminent domain, only pretending to do so to avoid a family squabble. In fact, we challenge Mr. David to produce one example of his wrestling with the issue since that December 5, 2005 column.

Historically, eminent domain allowed governments to seize land for public purposes such as roads, schools, parks and airports. In Kelo, the Supreme Court said it was constitutional for states and cities to take private property on behalf of private interests for a public purpose such as improving the economy.

The complications are obvious. The government is putting the interests of one private party, in this case Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner, above those of another, in this case some existing Brooklyn residents and businesses.

Critics of the Kelo decision say that the doctrine is unfair and creates opportunities for abuse by powerful interests and that developers like Forest City can and should use their resources to buy out the other parties.

But Mr. Goldstein wasn't interested in the money. He grudgingly sold his condo last week only because his choice was to accept a $3 million offer today and move out in two weeks or wait two months for a court to evict him and award him less money. He could have gotten much more months ago, maybe years ago.

He didn't do that because his mission was to impose his vision of what was best for Brooklyn, even though New Yorkers, through their political process, had decided that Atlantic Yards was in the best interest of the city.

Without eminent domain, he would have succeeded.

Posted by eric at 9:30 AM

April 23, 2010

After 6 years against Atlantic Yards, Daniel Goldstein takes the money and leaves

NY Daily News
by Juan Gonzalez

A must-read from a Daily News columnist who gets it.

Back in 2005, Jim Stuckey, a top aide to real estate mogul Bruce Ratner, gave me a tour of the Atlantic Yards site.

Stuckey proudly pointed to the architectural model in his office, to the new Nets arena, to the 16 high-rise housing towers - most of them market-rate - and to the retail shopping complex.

"Where is Dan Goldstein's apartment on your site?" I asked.

Stuckey placed his finger in the middle of the arena's footprint.

"Then you have a problem," I said. "Until you get Goldstein out, you can't build - and that won't be easy."

article

Additional coverage...

Atlantic Yards Report, Daily News columnist Gonzalez: DDDB "ignited a much-needed public debate over what kind of city New York wants to become"

New York Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez, in a sympathetic column headlined After 6 years against Atlantic Yards, Daniel Goldstein takes the money and leaves, connects Daniel Goldstein to Jane Jacobs:

Goldstein, a Web designer, was refusing to move. Only two years earlier, he had bought a new condo in the neighborhood for $590,000. He had this wild-eyed idea that the people of a community should be consulted before the government condemns their property to make a rich developer even richer.

Goldstein was a tireless organizer of his neighbors in Prospect Heights. He urged them to resist Ratner and his powerful backers, Mayor Bloomberg, former Govs. George Pataki and Eliot Spitzer and Gov. Paterson.

The group those neighbors founded, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, became an amazing grassroots movement.

Back in the 1960s, a little old lady named Jane Jacobs fought Robert Moses, when the legendary masterbuilder sought to bulldoze the Lower Manhattan Expressway through the heart of our city. Now a computer nerd named Goldstein and his group waged their own David-and-Goliath battle against the new masterbuilders.

Posted by eric at 10:37 AM

Brutally weird City Room post suggests neighborhoods with development fights as potential homes for Goldstein

Atlantic Yards Report

A notably trivial post on the New York Times's City Room blog, headlined For Developers’ Foe, Suggestions for the Next Battleground, whimsically suggests that Atlantic Yards opponent Daniel Goldstein might want to move into a development fight elsewhere, such as Manhattanville; New London, CT; and New York University.

The post is so sloppy that, regarding Willets Point, Queens, it claims that "[t]he city headed off an eminent-domain squabble." It hasn't, as a glance at the Willets Point United site would show.

link

Posted by eric at 9:31 AM

April 22, 2010

Last Atlantic Yards Holdout Agrees to Move

Fox 5 New York
Carolyn Gusoff reporting

Daniel Goldstein sure doesn't sound like a man who's been gagged.

Daniel Goldstein waged an epic battle against the huge Atlantic yards project that will swallow up his Prospect Heights home. The battle ended Wednesday with a settlement. He'll get nearly $2.5 million more than he paid for his condo.

But he doesn't sound like man who will be cashing a check for $3 million.

"I have to be thankful that I'm not being completely screwed," he said Thursday. He said his lawyers will get a lot of that money.

link

Posted by eric at 11:14 PM

Last Night's Winner: The Almighty Dollar

Deadspin

Why is it always the sports blogs and writers who see through the hype? We reprint Deadspin's incisive analysis in full.

In sports, everyone is a winner—some people just win better than others. Like Daniel Goldstein, the last man standing between the Nets and their shiny Brooklyn arena, who just got $3 million to sit down. That stinks.

Goldstein is the founder of "Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn," a rag-tag band of community organizers who opposed the idea of dropping an ugly basketball arena on top of the busiest intersection in Brooklyn. His house also sits on the land that New Jersey Nets owner/scummy real estate tycoon Bruce Ratner needs to fulfill his terrible, terrible dream. Goldstein bought his condo for $590,000. The developer offered him $510,000 to get lost. He sued everyone he could to stay put. Ratner, the mayor, the city, the state, they guy who invented concrete. He became a major thorn in their side—but he lost. A lot.

So with his house seized under eminent domain and the state making plans to evict him, Goldstein is taking the money and packing it in. For $3 million, he is moving out, stepping down as DDDB's spokesman and agreeing in writing to not "actively oppose the project." He had no choice really—his lost cause was truly lost—but at least his fight to stop this swindle wasn't a total negative for him.

And this is an awful, awful swindle. Ratner convinced those in power that a downtown basketball arena was a good idea by hiring Frank Gehry to design a massive complex of offices, apartments, and shops that would rise and glitter above the court. Then Gehry was fired and most—perhaps all—of the buildings except for the arena will never be constructed. (The only thing Brooklyn needs less than a new arena is more empty condos.) The construction will clog one of the most highly-congested areas of New York City, with a giant eyesore that will distort already troubled traffic patterns. Worst of all, it is being paid for by tax-free government bonds—a nice assist for the billionaire Ratner—and built on land seized by the state to give to a private real estate developer. Even George Will (not exactly a well-known defender of the little guy) agrees that this is a terrible abuse of eminent domain that takes from the public to benefit private wealth. Nothing about the Atlantic Yards project can be considered a good thing, unless you're one of business people or politicians who will profit from it.

Nobody wants this. Yet it can't be stopped, because the rich always win.

Goldstein wins too, because at least he will be able buy a new house and hopefully erase most of his legal bills. (He also met his wife while protesting the project, so that's nice.) Ratner wins because that's one less bump to steamroll on his road to dumping this sorry idea on the lap of Mikhail Prokhorov. Mayor Mike Bloomberg wins because he'll get to stand at the ribbon cuttings and brag about the handful of "jobs" he created, although I'm sure he would never leave Manhattan just to watch a basketball game. Jay-Z wins because he's still Jay-Z and now he doesn't have to try and convince his buddy LeBron to move to Newark.

Everyone wins ... except Brooklyn. More traffic, more crowds, more noise, more corruption ... and they now have to root for the Nets. That may be the saddest part of all.

article

Posted by eric at 11:06 PM

Daniel Goldstein, Shabnam Merchant and The Fight Against Corrupt Development

COUNTDOWN TO MAIN STREET

Daniel Goldstein and Shabnam Merchant, leaders of the fight against the corrupt development proposed by Forest City Ratner at the Atlantic Yards, negotiated a settlement to leave their apartment quickly. This has been reported in the press as "selling their home." They did not sell their apartment: it was seized by eminent domain. They were able to negotiate the terms of their leaving. They have been leaders in an historic fight, which has helped many of us to understand how developers pull off these deals to steal people's homes and change our cities without our consent. The Development Don't Destroy Brooklyn website has helped to expose every detail of how the process unfolded. This is a great contribution to all of us.

link

Related coverage...

Reason Hit & Run, Eminent Domain Abuse Finally Forces Daniel Goldstein Out

Much like the news that Freddy's Bar is closing at the end of the month, this is sad but not really shocking. These folks were up against an atrocious Supreme Court precedent, the state and city of New York, and a corrupt and politically-connected real estate tycoon. Thanks to their long battle, this shameless case of eminent domain abuse got some of the scrutiny that it deserves.

Field of Schemes, Atlantic Yards opponent takes $3m to vacate site

That whole Zimbabwe sanctions thing notwithstanding, the path to construction of the Nets' new arena in Brooklyn seems to be getting smoother of late. First, Freddy's Bar, which has been a main gathering point for arena opponents and even installed chains last year so patrons could help it resist eviction, announced it was moving to a new location, though owners promised to continue to fight the project. And then yesterday, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn leader Dan Goldstein agreed to take $3 million from developer Forest City Ratner in exchange for vacating his condo apartment by May 7.

Gothamist, Goldstein: "I Refused to Accept Any Kind of Gag Order"

Despite accepting $3 million in exchange for moving out of the Atlantic Yards, longtime Bruce Ratner enemy and last Atlantic Yards holdout Daniel Goldstein insists he is not giving up the fight. "I've not been silenced, and I am not leaving DDDB as it transitions into a new phase of fighting Atlantic Yards," he said in a press release sent out this morning. He claims that at yesterday's hearing with the Empire State Development Corporation, he had no idea he would be offered a settlement, and did not have a press statement ready. However, "Forest City Ratner saw it as a big press event and sent out a press release immediately," which Goldstein says led to biased reporting.

Cleveland Plain Dealer, Forest City reaches settlement with vocal opponent of Atlantic Yards project

The most vocal opponent of a Forest City Ratner Cos. project in Brooklyn has settled with the developer, the New York arm of Cleveland's Forest City Enterprises Inc.

WCBS-TV, B'klyn Arena Holdout: 'I Don't Feel Like A Winner'

Activist Daniel Goldstein isn't popping any champagne corks Thursday even though, as the last holdout, he's getting $3 million to move out of his Brooklyn condo to make way for the controversial Atlantic Yards project.
...

Goldstein fought a five-year battle to stop the project. But since it's going forward he says he's doesn't feel like a winner.

"Ratner's a winner. He's got control of 22 acres in the heart of Brooklyn that he got cheaply on a no-bid deal that makes him a winner," added Ratner. "It's abuse of eminent domain. It's abuse of billions in tax subsidies."

Gideon's Trumpet, The Atlantic Yards Settlement - Lowball Thwarted, or a Big Score Made?

The moral also seems to be that sometimes it may be cheaper to pay off a determined holdout, than to go to the mat with him. It would be interesting to learn what this caper has cost both the city and the redeveloper, considering the cost of litigation and delay.

NJ.com, Come May, will prospective Nets owner Mikhail Prokhorov be playing the lotto?

There’s a rumor circulating that Daniel Goldstein’s phone rang as soon as he received his lovely ($3M) parting gift from Ratner Inc. On the line was Brett Yormark, asking him if he wanted to buy a suite. We can officially confirm this rumor as “not necessarily true, but sounds really plausible.”

The Brooklyn Ink, VARYING OPINIONS ON GOLDSTEIN’S HOLDOUT AND PAYOUT

Websites and blogs dedicated to opposing the Atlantic Yards project have published myriad opinions on Daniel Goldstein’s $3 million payout to vacate his apartment.

The following items, which we include solely as part of the Atlantic Yards record, fall into the following categories: Daniel Goldstein was in it for the money (patently absurd); OMG, Daniel Goldstein made a mint (not really, and let's remember how much it was worth to Ratner to settle); Daniel Goldstein shouldn't have settled (moronic — the state already owned his home); Daniel Goldstein should move to another neighborhood threatened by eminent domain (just plain dopey). Proceed at your own risk.

BOCOCA Land, $3 Million? When Do You Want Us Out?

Housing Watch, Brooklyn Development: Atlantic Yards' Last Holdout Gets Monster Settlement

NetsAreScorching, BARCLAYS CENTER FINALLY WITHIN REACH…I HOPE…

Culture Monster [LA Times blog], Yet another chapter in the Atlantic Yards saga

NY Post.com Real Estate blog, New York State not such a great negotiator

Cobble HIll Blog, Open Thread – Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn or What Would You Do with the Money?

City Room, For Developers’ Foe, Suggestions for the Next Battleground

Posted by eric at 10:05 PM

Last Atlantic Yards holdout sells his condo for $3 million

NY Post
by Rich Calder

Goldstein, the most public face of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, the group that nearly broke the project's back through mounting litigation, reached the deal yesterday to sell his three-bedroom Prospect Heights apartment to Ratner.

Goldstein paid $590,000 for the condo in 2003 -- only months before Ratner revealed his Atlantic Yards project, which besides an 18,000 seat arena is set to include 16 skyscrapers of residential and commercial space.

Ratner, who purchased the Nets in 2003 and used his pitch of bringing the team to Brooklyn to help get approval for his 22-acre project, is awaiting NBA approval to sell a majority stake in the team to Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov.

GlobeSt.com, Atlantic Yards Holdouts Reach Agreements

Earlier this week, another prominent holdout, Freddy’s Bar and Back Room, announced that it too had reached an agreement to relocate from the project’s footprint. In a statement, manager Donald O’Finn says, “The owner of Freddy’s has had to consider those employed at Freddy’s as well as his own situation, needing employment and food on the table. He made a difficult decision to pull out in such a way as to keep the contents of the bar and move it into another location. If we wait for condemnation we might sacrifice too much.”

Queens Crap, Atlantic Yards opponent accepts settlement

So who the hell is the winner here?

• Daniel and his family lost their home as well as 7 years of their lives fighting against this project. Sure they have money, but after paying the lawyer, paying taxes, and finding a comparable home, there really won't be much profit made.

• Forest City Ratner has lost many millions of dollars and their project has been drastically downsized.

• ACORN pretty much has lost everything.

• The MTA is in dire financial straits in part because they accepted a low ball offer from Ratner for the right to build above their train yard.

• The City (meaning us) is left with a boondoggle project that we will be forced to pay for one way or another over the next few decades. There is more likely to be acres of parking lots than affordable housing and the best case scenario gives us a shitty basketball team, a bunch of permanent but part time minimum wage jobs, and a huge a traffic headache in return for allowing the destruction of a neighborhood that was actually doing fine without intervention.

• Worst of all, we still have the country's worst eminent domain laws on the books, which will continue to be used on the little guy by corrupt developers and politicians. Hopefully, awareness of the work done by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn and other groups fighting this abuse will lead to an eventual change in the law.

THESE BASTARDS, Cheap Blogging Crutch - 4.21.10

It's a Nice Neighborhood, But it Could be Making More Money
The Atlantic Yards project, the ~$4 billion eminent domain "development" that's about to gut my neighborhood, just cut a check to the last holdout, Daniel Goldstein, general in the war against bullshit. And that, as a decidedly lame fictional character once said, is that.

Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter, Daniel's statement on yesterday's deal

Yesterday I met Dan at court to follow up his eviction hearing. When I got there I found that after a long negotiation he had made an agreement to leave his condo 10 days earlier than the ESDC wanted in order to receive a reasonable financial settlement- rather than the low ball offer he was proffered. As he was at court as a tenant being forced from the home he had previously owned he wasn't thinking of it as a DDDB press day. As such, when FCR released a statement after the court hearing he was inundated with press calls and unable to get a statement out until late last night.

mole333's blog [The Daily Gotham], Ratner's Plans Progress: Statement From Daniel Goldstein, Victim of Eminent Domain Abuse

Since Bruce Ratner and his businesses, Forest City Ratner (which he officially runs) and the Empire State Development Corporation (which he seems to unoffically own) have been using the court settlment reached by Daniel Goldstein and the ESDC that finally forces him out of his apartment for their own PR purposes, and since they are misrepresenting the situation to pretend eminent domain abuse wasn't used to force Mr. Goldstein and his family out of their home, Mr. Goldstein has released the following statement....

The Local [Fort Greene/Clinton Hill], The Day: Atlantic Yards Aftermath

This morning, Mr. Goldstein released a statement about the settlement via DDDB, saying that he has not given up his First Amendment rights to protest, and that Forest City Ratner created a media circus by promptly sending out a press release as soon as the settlement was agreed upon, which he did not expect to happen yesterday.

Posted by eric at 10:03 AM

$3 Million Deal Ends a Holdout in Brooklyn

The New York Times
by Charles V. Bagli

The Times put the settlement story on its front page.

For the past six years, Daniel Goldstein has been at the center of just about every rally, house party, concert and lawsuit opposed to the $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project near Downtown Brooklyn.

He wielded a bullhorn and had a lightning-fast e-mail response to every incursion by the developer Bruce C. Ratner on the 22-acre project site at Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues. As the project advanced, and every one of his neighbors abandoned his building on Pacific Street, Mr. Goldstein remained with his wife and child, vowing never to be dislodged from their seventh-floor condominium.

But on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Goldstein, the last residential holdout in Mr. Ratner’s way, agreed to walk away from his apartment by May 7 for $3 million. Mr. Goldstein, 40, also agreed to step down as spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the main group opposing Atlantic Yards. And he said he would withdraw from any litigation and not “actively oppose the project,” although he said he held on to his First Amendment rights.

“There’s no end to the criticism and opposition to the project,” Mr. Goldstein vowed.

Still, the settlement marked the end of a David-versus-Goliath fight that has captivated Brooklyn for years — or, depending on one’s position on the issue, thwarted its progress. Councilwoman Letitia James, a longtime ally of Mr. Goldstein’s, said that some opponents of Atlantic Yards “will obviously be disappointed, but not dissuaded” from fighting the project.

article

Related coverage...

Atlantic Yards Report, Bertha Lewis, described simply as "housing advocate," disses Goldstein; Times ignores ACORN bailout

From the New York Times's front-page article, $3 Million Deal Ends a Holdout in Brooklyn:

Bertha Lewis, a housing advocate who supported the project, bid Mr. Goldstein “good riddance.”

“Low- and moderate-income people had to wait years for housing while he obstructed the Atlantic Yards project,” she said.

Hold on. Affordable housing depends on subsidies, not this project; that's why the Development Agreement, which the Times has chosen to ignore, offers the option to cite an Affordable Housing Subsidy Unavailability.

And since when is Bertha Lewis merely a "housing advocate"? She represented ACORN when it signed the Affordable Housing Memorandum of Understanding with Forest City Ratner. And FCR later bailed out ACORN with a $1.5 million grant/loan.

NoLandGrab: Bertha Lewis is not merely a "housing advocate" — she's also full of crap. Bruce Ratner has owned perfectly habitable buildings in the Atlantic Yards footprint for years, but hasn't housed anyone. He could have been building housing for low- and moderate-income people on property he controls in the footprint, but he only cares about building a basketball arena so he can unload the Nets. Daniel Goldstein's building, of course, sits near center court of the planned arena, not in the way of any housing. And where was Bertha when Bruce Ratner evicted several homeless families from their footprint shelter on Martin Luther King day? Some "housing advocate."

Atlantic Yards Report, What has the Atlantic Yards fight been about?

From the New York Times's coverage today, $3 Million Deal Ends a Holdout in Brooklyn:

Mr. [Daniel Goldstein] Goldstein helped build a coalition of 21 groups that said the project’s high-rises and density would overwhelm the neighborhood and make its clogged streets virtually impassable.

From Mr. Goldstein, 3/12/10: What Is Atlantic Yards? A Complete Failure of Democracy:

The sad and depraved history of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project was celebrated yesterday with a ceremonial groundbreaking attended by the elected officials most responsible for greasing its skids. It is nothing to celebrate.

What have they made happen? A bait and switch of epic proportions and a failure of democracy, mixed with corruption, notable even in New York State. Each branch of government--judicial, executive and legislative--has passed the buck to the other. None have acting responsibly or with principle or courage to stop the largest project proposed in Brooklyn's history, which has trampled on too many rights.

The project--entirely dependent upon massive and unaccounted taxpayer subsidies, eminent domain abuse, a giveaway of city streets, a no-bid sweetheart MTA deal, a complete override of all local zoning and numerous zoning regulations--never came before the city council or the state legislature for a vote. No elected official ever voted on the project. The results are a symptom of this.

Posted by eric at 9:16 AM

April 21, 2010

Daniel Goldstein agrees to sell, Round IV

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Goldstein, Foe of Ratner, To Leave Apartment In $3 Million Deal

Goldstein said the fight against Atlantic Yards as such is not over and that the development should not have been proposed in the first place. However, he says, “my main priority now is finding a new place to live for myself and my family.”

Gawker, Last Pure Man in Brooklyn Sells Out

Sellout news! Daniel Goldstein, the last Brooklyn guy who'd refused to sell his homes to make way for the massive and inevitable Atlantic Yards project, is selling his condo to the developer for $3 million—more than five times what he paid for it just seven years ago.
...

Goldstein fought the good fight and we're not knocking him one bit; we would have sold out long before bidding hit the $3 million mark. If nothing else, idealism can be used for economic gain!

set speed aka onehansonplace.com, Daniel Goldstein strikes it rich

The last holdout in the Atlantic Yards fight against Ratner cashes in with $3MM. Well-deserved, since his sweat equity was worth so much more than anyone else's. Wonder where he's going to move to.

The Star-Ledger, Deals with holdouts clear way for Nets' Atlantic Yards arena development, report says

The Local [Fort Greene/Clinton Hill], Atlantic Yards Holdout Agrees to Move

Journalism Now, Can everyone be bought?

NoLandGrab: Funny question, considering the source. If more journalists had dug more deeply into the crooked Atlantic Yards, especially in the mainstream media, Daniel Goldstein would not have been compelled to sell.

Posted by eric at 10:25 PM

DDDB's Goldstein settles for $3M (or less after attorney's fees), agrees to leave May 7, will take a step back from anti-AY activism

Atlantic Yards Report

Norman Oder kicks off round three of the coverage of today's biggest real estate news.

After hours of negotiations following some brief but charged arguments in Kings County Supreme Court today, Daniel Goldstein, the spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn agreed to accept $3 million from Forest City Ratner--far more than the original low-ball $510,000 offer for his three-bedroom condo--in exchange for leaving by May 7 and reducing his prominent role in the Atlantic Yards opposition.

"The agreement today was in part about the value of my apartment, but more so it was about them, ESDC [Empire State Development Corporation], wanting me out quickly," Goldstein said. "They paid to get me out quickly."

Goldstein and his family are the last remaining occupants of a 31-unit building at 636 Pacific Street, in the heart of the arena block. His neighbors also made deals as a group in 2004, taking a significant profit (thanks to public funds reimbursing Forest City Ratner) and agreeing to a gag order.

"I cannot retain the title of spokesman," said Goldstein, who has long been DDDB's most prominent public face and activist, calling attention to "failure of democracy" with the project. "I can do whatever else I want, and it is stipulated that I can maintain my First Amendment rights."

After the settlement made by Freddy's Bar & Backroom, it's an acknowledgment by a vocal opponent of the inevitability of the arena, if not the project as a whole, and the power of the state in eminent domain cases in New York. The courts had already rejected eminent domain lawsuits and transferred title to the ESDC.
...

Was the settlement fair? From the perspective of Forest City Ratner, which claimed delay was costing them $6.7 million a month, it was surely worth the cost, given that they are tamping down a vocal opponent and weakening DDDB.

Beyond that, he agreed to leave faster than had been previously requested and much faster than in most eminent domain cases.

According to a legal motion filed earlier this month, Forest City Ratner claimed it had spent $280 million to buy property for Atlantic yards; unmentioned was that city taxpayers had contributed $131 million.

From the perspective of the ESDC, whose eminent domain counsel was funded by FCR and which worked hand-in-glove with the developer, surely it's worth it.

article

Posted by eric at 7:30 PM

Foe of Brooklyn arena project agrees to leave

AP

Here's round two of stories about what it was worth to Bruce Ratner to convince Daniel Goldstein to sell him his home.

The last holdout in a long-running battle with the developer of an NBA arena in Brooklyn has agreed to sell his home on the site.

Daniel Goldstein and his family agreed in court Wednesday to leave their condo by May 7 in a settlement with the developer, Forest City Ratner Cos.
...

Goldstein founded Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, which has filed several lawsuits seeking to block the Atlantic Yards development and has been the project's most vocal critic for years.

article

More coverage...

Bergen Record, Holdouts' deal clears way for Nets arena in Brooklyn

The Nets’ Barclays Center Basketball Arena drew a critical step closer to a 2012 opening date Thursday, when long-time opponent Daniel Goldstein accepted a $3 million offer on his three-bedroom condominium.

The offer is almost six times the amount offered to Goldstein at the start of several hours of separate negotiations among Goldstein, New York State officials and Forest City Enterprises executives. Judge Abraham Gerges of New York Supreme Court — the equivalent of New Jersey Superior Court — oversaw the negotiations.
...

The windfall did not change Goldstein’s opinion of the $5 billion multi-use project.

“It’s an illegitimate project that never should have gone forward,” Goldstein said. “And it still shouldn’t.”

Daily Intel [NYMag.com], Dan Goldstein, Atlantic Yards’ Last Holdout, Steps Aside for $3 Million

Daniel Goldstein was one of the last seven holdouts in the way of the $4.9 billion dollar project, even though he had technically already been evicted and was being forced to sell by a court ruling upholding the state's right to seize the land under him by eminent domain. As of this morning, he was the only person left living on Pacific Street in Prospect Heights.

NY1, Forest City Ratner Pays Millions To Have Atlantic Yards Residents Relocate

Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner said today it reached a monetary agreement to have the remaining residents relocate from the area of the multimillion-dollar high-rise and sports arena project in Downtown Brooklyn.

Crain's NY Business, Last Atlantic Yards holdout grabs golden goodbye

“I’m not pleased that I’m leaving my apartment; I’m not pleased that the development is going forward,” said Mr. Goldstein, who lives in the three-bedroom apartment with his wife and young daughter. “But there was nothing more I could possibly do to fight this project.”
...

On Wednesday morning, there was a hearing before a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge to set an eviction date for those still in the footprint to vacate. Mr. Goldstein says the judge asked the parties to see if they could strike a deal and three hours later the agreement, which requires him to leave by May 7, was struck.

“I’m not an idiot. I knew this was going to happen,” said Mr. Goldstein. “I just wanted to get a price that I thought was fair.”

He said if he continued to fight, he would just rack up more legal fees and then might only be awarded what the courts decided was fair value. Even though he lost the battle, Mr. Goldstein says he doesn’t have regrets about his stance.

“I feel good that I fought for so long and that we had the presence that we had,” he said.

Gothamist, Update: Holdout No More! Goldstein Will Move for $3 Million

The long-time chief critic of Bruce Ratner and the Atlantic Yards project agreed today to a $3 million deal to move out of his home.

The Brooklyn Ink, AND DANIEL HAS MADE HIS CHOICE WORTHY OF $3 MILLION

The Awl, Founder of Anti-Atlantic Yards Group Is Last NYC Real Estate Winner!

Posted by eric at 6:26 PM

EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!...

The Columbia Spectator, Eminent domain appeal set for June

On June 1, at the New York State Court of Appeals in Albany, the Empire State Development Corporation will appeal the surprise December court ruling that declared the use of eminent domain for Columbia’s Manhattanville expansion illegal, according to the Court of Appeals website.

In January, ESDC—the state body that approved, in December 2008, the use of eminent domain for the University’s Manhattanville project—formally appealed the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division decision of December 2009, which argued that the expansion of a private university does not constitute a “public use,” as required under eminent domain law.
...

The two parties have exchanged legal briefs during the several months since ESDC filed its formal appeal. As the appellant, ESDC filed a brief on March 9, and the respondents will file their own brief on April 23. The respondents include Norman Siegel and David Smith, who represent Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen and gas station owners Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur, the only remaining private property owners in the expansion area who have not struck land deals with the University. ESDC will have a final opportunity to respond to the brief on May 10, before oral arguments are heard in Albany on June 1.

“We’re looking forward to the argument before the Court of Appeals,” Siegel said. “We feel strongly that the Appellant Division’s decision should be affirmed. This is an important case challenging the Empire State Development Corporation.”

But the Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of eminent domain in the recent past, which some say could be indicative of its upcoming ruling on Manhattanville.

“ESDC believes that the decision of the Appellate Division with respect to the Columbia Project is inconsistent with established law, as most recently articulated by the Court of Appeals in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., and we expect that it will be reversed,” Elizabeth Mitchell, public affairs officer for ESDC, said in an email, referring to the recent Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn.

But Smith said that there is reason to remain optimistic, pointing to the extensive legal research he and Siegel have been doing in preparation for the case.

“Any time you have an appeal of this magnitude, you are endeavoring to do the best job that you can,” Smith said. “We have built a huge record that contains thousands of documents that show the collusion between Columbia and the people who did the blight studies, as well as Columbia and the ESDC.”

...and the Garden State doesn't.

AP via 1010WINS, Appeals Court Reverses New Jersey Eminent Domain Ruling

A New Jersey court has dealt a setback to a shore city's efforts to redevelop its downtown area in the latest chapter in one of the state's longest-running eminent domain disputes.

In a ruling released Friday, a three-judge panel held that the city of Long Branch has not demonstrated that a downtown area it designated as blighted in 1996 is in need of redevelopment.

Property owners sued the city, but a lower court ruled in favor of Long Branch in 2007 and the city filed condemnation proceedings against the properties in 2008.

The Rev. Kevin Brown, whose Lighthouse Mission has been in the middle of the affected area since 1990, said he was "elated" by the decision.

"I knew what they were doing and I knew what they were doing was wrong," he said. "I had to decide to pack up and get out of the way or stick it through, and decided I would stick it through."

New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog, Eminent domain won't happen on Long Branch Broadway Corridor

Here the court arrived at a conclusion similar to the decision in City of Long Branch v. Anzalone, and City of Long Branch v. Brower, which both involved the MTOTSA neighborhood. The appellate panel, led by one of the judges who heard the Anzalone case and two who did not, invited Long Branch to revisit the blight issue and attempt to meet “the substantial, credible evidence” standard for proof of blight.
...

The city will not be able to prove blight under this standard. Why not dismiss outright? That’s the law.
...

This does not mean that redevelopment is dead, but it does means that eminent domain abuse, as practiced by some municipalities on behalf of politically connected developers, will not be tolerated. Municipalities will have to be more creative in their redevelopment efforts. This will force real negotiations for acquisition of properties.

Posted by eric at 1:10 PM

Goldstein is now, officially, the last Yards holdout

The Brooklyn Paper
by Andy Campbell

The Atlantic Yards project’s most-outspoken opponent is now officially the last holdout.

Daniel Goldstein, who lives in a Pacific Street condo that’s been condemned by the state and will be torn down by developer Bruce Ratner to make way for his $1-billion Barclays Center arena, earned that status after the developer inked deals this week with seven other residents of the project footprint, who have accepted a relocation deal.

“We have successfully worked to find comparable or better housing for every family in the footprint except one,” said MaryAnne Gilmartin, the Forest City Ratner executive in charge of Atlantic Yards. Gilmartin’s statement did not mention Goldstein by name.

article

NoLandGrab: Forest City Ratner obviously hasn't been trying very hard. Though they're crying that they're losing $6.7 million a month because they haven't been able to take possession of all the condemned property, the offer on the table for Daniel Goldstein's home is less than what he paid for it seven years ago, and less than half what some other people in his building were paid. It doesn't take a very smart businessperson to figure out that paying another $500,000 for Goldstein's condo will save them several million dollars, but no one's ever accused Forest City of being smart businesspeople — they're just very smart subsidy collectors.

Related coverage...

Brownstoner, ESDC Seeks Final Evictions Today

Based on a post on Atlantic Yards Report, however, [Goldstein's] recalcitrance could have more to do with practicality than principle at this point: He's still being low-balled on the value of his own apartment ($395 per square foot compared to a market average of $475 in Prospect Heights) and has only been offered apartments in two buildings so far. The final screwing in a screwed up process.

Posted by eric at 11:41 AM

Daniel Goldstein and his family are the last residents fighting Atlantic Yards eviction battle

NY Daily News
by Ben Chapman and Erin Durkin

And then there was one.

Daniel Goldstein and his family are now the only residents fighting eviction from the Atlantic Yards site after seven other families agreed to leave by next month.

Goldstein said he'll challenge a motion to kick him, his wife and 1-year-old daughter out of their Pacific St. condo by May 17.

Meanwhile, the last of the seven other families signed an agreement Tuesday with developer Bruce Ratner to leave by May 7.
...

Elizabeth Nazario, 36, who was packing up the Pacific St. apartment she shares with two teenage sons Tuesday in preparation for a move to Sunset Park, said she's happy with the deal. "I don't have any problems with it," she said. "I'm very comfortable with moving."

But neighbor Wanda Candelario, 51, said she didn't want to leave - noting her special needs daughter's school and doctors are nearby. "I'm not very happy," she said. "[But] they told me I had to go."
...

Lawyer Mike Rikon, who represents Goldstein and the storage company, said it was rare to seek evictions so soon after property is condemned - and charged that officials are trying to punish Goldstein for his vocal opposition to the project.

"I've been practicing eminent domain law exclusively for 41 years and I've never seen this," Rikon said. "There is no question it's vindictive and mean."

article

Posted by eric at 11:34 AM

Hearing at 9:30 am on "writ of assistance" sought by ESDC to compel Goldstein family and two businesses to leave

Atlantic Yards Report

Daniel Goldstein and his family are the last residential tenants facing eviction in the Atlantic Yards footprint, as the others have settled, according a statement issued by Forest City Ratner yesterday and picked up by the New York Daily News and the Brooklyn Paper.

The seven households either will get apartments in “the first new residential building at Atlantic Yards” or, on average,$80,000, plus $5,000 to assist with relocation, according to a statement from FCR executive MaryAnne Gilmartin.

Hearing this morning

That leaves Goldstein and two businesses--Pack It Away Storage and Henry Weinstein's office building and adjacent lots--to challenge the Empire State Development Corporation's motion at the condemnation hearing this morning.

It will be held before state Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges at Kings County Supreme Court, 320 Jay Street, 17th Floor, beginning at 9:30 am (and there's usually a considerable wait to get through security).

Accelerated schedule

The ESDC seeks a "writ of assistance" to compel the remaining condemnees to leave the Atlantic Yards footprint by May 17 under threat of eviction.

That's a rather accelerated schedule for eminent domain cases, given that Gerges's opinion was issued March 1, and, as I reported yesterday, the state has both low-balled Goldstein on the value of his condo and shown him apartments that are both much more expensive and with some serious drawbacks.

article

Posted by eric at 10:55 AM

April 20, 2010

ESDC/FCR say eviction delay past May 17 would "cripple" Atlantic Yards, but claims of continued losses and jeopardized benefits seem overblown

Atlantic Yards Report

On the eve of a crucial court hearing regarding the fate of condemnees still in the Atlantic Yards footprint, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and Forest City Ratner (FCR) are arguing that the failure to evict those occupants by May 17 would cause "enormous harm" and significant financial losses to the developer.

It is unclear how many of the six households (15 people) and three businesses yet to reach agreements with the developer will resist the condemnation, but a response to those legal arguments--likely stating that this is unusually swift for a condemnation cast--will be filed tomorrow, before a 10 a.m. hearing before state Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges at Supreme Court in Brooklyn, 320 Jay Street.

According to my preliminary analysis, several ESDC/FCR claims overstate the damage anticipated, emphasize the costs without acknowledging significant subsidies, and fail to provide sufficient detail to establish the argument for speed.

(Also see my coverage of FCR's claims regarding Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn's legal strategy and alternative condos offered project opponent Daniel Goldstein. Note that, beyond those totaled above, some other businesses and residents remain in the footprint, but have reached agreements to leave.)

ESDC affidavit

ESDC attorney Charles Webb summarizes the argument made in an affidavit from the developer:

Delay in achieving vacant possession would halt work on the Project, causing enormous harm by (i) prolonging the time in which FCRC must carry the real property and the Project's overhead without generating income, which costs FCRC $6,700,000 per month, (b) prolonging the Nets basketball team's operating losses of approximately $35 million a per year arising from its New Jersey location, and (c) jeopardizing the delivery of 2,250 affordable housing units, and significant public amenities, including a new transit entrance and eight acres of publicly accessible open space.

article

NoLandGrab: The ESDC's and Forest City's claims about financial hardship are completely undermined by their penny-wise, pound-foolish obstinacy when it comes to buying out Daniel Goldstein...

Atlantic Yards Report, After low-balling Goldstein on condo value, ESDC (via consultant) suggests comparable condos from lawsuit-plagued complex

Maybe it is getting a little personal.

Not only have the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and its real estate consultants low-balled Atlantic Yards uber-opponent Daniel Goldstein regarding the value of his Pacific Street condominium, the only alternative apartments it has shown him are either part of a lawsuit-plagued complex or very close to the Atlantic Yards construction zone.

And while the ESDC's consultant provided a list of only five condos, a simple search of a real estate web site turns up dozens of potential purchases in Prospect Heights and adjacent neighborhoods.

The alternative apartments are listed in an affidavit that's part of an ESDC package of legal papers aiming to convince state Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges to evict all condemnees from the Atlantic Yards footprint by May 17. A hearing will be held Wednesday at 10 a.m. at Supreme Court in Brooklyn, 320 Jay Street.

Standoff

Goldstein, the spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), and his family are the last remaining occupants of a 31-unit condo building at 636 Pacific Street, a former warehouse converted in 2002.

The condo is in a crucial spot on the arena block, and Forest City Ratner, which is funding the condemnations, wants him out of there as soon as possible so his building can be demolished for construction.

So it would be in the interest of the state and FCR to ease his departure as quickly as possible, with an offer closer to market price and a longer list of alternatives. That hasn't happened.

NLG: Here's hoping that their mean-spirited parsimony costs Forest City many millions more.

Posted by eric at 11:41 AM

Curtain to fall on last Atlantic Yards holdouts

Expected court order to seal the fate of the remaining 35 residents and businesses; Freddie's [sic] Bar on Dean Street, host of many an anti-project party, to close April 30.

Crain's NY Business
by Theresa Agovino

By May 17, all the people that live in or run businesses in the Atlantic Yards' footprint will be evicted, if the Empire State Development Corp. has its way.

On Wednesday, the ESDC will ask Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge Abraham Gerges to sign an order that will remove all occupants in the area where Forest City Ratner is slated to build a massive commercial, residential and retail project anchored by an 18,000-seat arena for the Nets on a 22-acre site. There are currently 32 residential occupants and 3 businesses remaining on the property acquired by the ESDC. Freddie's [sic] Bar on Dean Street, which hosted countless protests against the project over the last several years, will finally close its doors on April 30.

An ESDC spokeswoman said that the agency couldn't predict what date the judge would set or whether he would make a decision on Wednesday. However, she said that the agency didn't believe the date would be significantly later than May 17.

article

NoLandGrab: Forest City Ratner is "slated" to build an arena — it's anybody's guess as to the rest of it. And is it that hard for Crain's and Theresa Agovino to spell "Freddy's" correctly, a bar that's been around since Prohibition and which has figured prominently in the six-and-a-half-year-old Atlantic Yards saga?

Posted by eric at 11:11 AM

Last call for Brooklyn's Freddy's Bar as it bows to Atlantic Yards

NY Daily News
by Erin Durkin

Call off the sheriff.

Atlantic Yards holdout Freddy's Bar, facing eviction to make way for developer Bruce Ratner's megaproject in Brooklyn, will shut its doors at the end of the month and reopen at a new location, its manager said Monday.

Patrons had vowed to chain themselves to the bar and force law enforcement to physically eject them, but now they say they'll go peacefully.

"I love this fight, but ... I'm sick of this sword of Damocles thing," manager Donald O'Finn said. "I want to get on with it."

article

Additional coverage...

The Brooklyn Paper, Freddy’s Bar, eminent domain poster child, to close on April 30

The bar will serve its last tear-filled beer on April 30.

The announcement signals a much-less colorful conclusion for the beloved dive, which has spent the last few years as a jocular, though no less serious, foil to the developer. Through the seven-year Atlantic Yards saga, Freddy’s earned plenty of media coverage for a welter of stunts, including taking Brooklyn Lager off the menu after the Williamsburg-based brewery signed a deal with Ratner; decapitating effigies of eminent domain and banks with a guillotine covered in Pabst Blue Ribbon labels; and having barflies don oversized masks and give interviews as key “villains” like Ratner, Borough President Markowitz and Mayor Bloomberg.
...

O’Finn added that “Freddy’s Next Bar” will continue to oppose Ratner’s mega-project.

“As far we’re concerned we’re not through — we’re just moving to another corner of the ring!” he said.

Grub Street, Freddy’s Bar Gives Up the Fight, Will Move to New Location

Amid a few parting shots at developer Bruce Ratner, O’Finn reveals that within two or three months, the doomed bar will hopefully open at a new address (still not locked down) on Fourth Avenue near Union Street.

Battle of Brooklyn via Kickstarter, Freddy’s

Yesterday it was announced that Freddy's Bar is moving. For the last few months the fighting Freddy's have been doing yeoman's work in bringing attention to the situation. While there were no shortage of people willing to chain themselves to the bar in order to save it, the responsibility of throwing all of the bartenders out of work was a bit much to bear. They struck a deal to save the bar by moving it to a new location.

Reason Hit & Run, Last Call at Freddy's Bar

Freddy’s, the great Brooklyn bar that has been fighting the good fight against New York’s eminent domain abuse in the Atlantic Yards case, will be closing its doors at the end of the month, with April 30th set as the last day of business.
...

Bad news, but hardly shocking, given that Freddy’s, homeowner Daniel Goldstein, and the other heroic resisters were battling the combined forces of New York state, New York City, the Borough of Brooklyn, the Empire State Development Corporation, and politically-connected developer Bruce Ratner.

The Local [Fort Greene/Clinton Hill], The Day: Freddy’s Closes, Hot Bird Opens

Only the Blog Knows Brooklyn, Freddy’s Bar Moving to Park Slope’s 4th Avenue

Posted by eric at 10:16 AM

April 19, 2010

No sleep at 752 Pacific: ESDC tries to take possession by cutting lock; Weinstein replies in kind; then tenants and subtenants show up

Atlantic Yards Report

It's been a wild and woolly few days at 752 Pacific Street in Prospect Heights, where, not long after property owner Henry Weinstein got his tenants and subtenants evicted on April 15, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) tried to take control of the property that night and those tenants also returned today.

A changed lock

Late on the night of April 15, Weinstein told me, he passed by the building and was surprised to see half the lights on the sixth floor illuminated. He'd shut off the circuit breakers, so he thought a timer might be at work.

The locks were secure. The next day, however, he couldn't get into the building.

"Unbeknowsnt to me, someone had cut off my lock and replaced it," Weinstein said. That was the ESDC, whose counsel told him that the agency, not Weinstein owned the building.

On Saturday, April 17, Weinstein spoke with an employee of Grubb Ellis, the managing agent, who told him that a guard and been hired and, if he wanted to get into the building, he could get a key when the workweek began.

Weinstein said no, that he had legal possession of the building. So, on Sunday, he cut off the new locks and installed his own--after first showing the 77th Precinct the paperwork that indicated he had possession.
...

ESDC position

ESDC spokeswoman Elizabeth Mitchell told me, "It is our position that ESDC was within its rights to have the locks changed at 752 Pacific on April 16th as ESDC became the owner of the property as of March 1st. Yesterday Mr. Weinstein broke the lock at 752 Pacific Street and replaced it with his own. For the time being ESDC will not seek to change the locks again. ESDC's motion for a writ of assistance as to 752 Pacific Street, among other properties, will be heard this Wednesday before Justice Gerges. We will apprise Justice Gerges at that time of what has recently transpired with respect to the property."

The ESDC wants Gerges to set May 17 as a final date to compel condemnees to leave the footprint, though a few, including Weinstein, are expected to oppose it.

article

NoLandGrab: The ESDC's predilection for acting in bad faith is matched only by its predilection to act like a sullen teenager. "For the time being ESDC will not seek to change the locks again?" That's an actual statement from a state agency? Good grief.

Posted by eric at 10:21 PM

Unable to wait and protest condemnation, Freddy's plans to close on Dean Street after April 30 and move to a new location

Atlantic Yards Report

Despite a media-friendly plan announced last December to install "chains of justice" so bar-goers could chain themselves to the bar to resist condemnation, Freddy's Bar & Backroom, the much-lauded Prospect Heights dive bar and no-cover eclectic art space, will close for relocation after a April 30 event and celebration, and prepare for relocation.

Patrons and supporters of Freddy's will laud the spirit of resistance--fighting a government and developer with far bigger resources--but must confront a fundamental hurdle.

"Unfortunately, in order to assure our capacity to keep Freddy's alive in another location, and keep people employed," manager Donald O'Finn said, "we have to move the contents of the bar in a particular timely fashion to 'lock down' the next space, and thus we will not be facing an eviction situation in which a protest by chaining ourselves could happen."
...

"The owner of Freddy's has had to consider those employed at Freddy's as well as his own situation, no one being billionaires here, needing employment and food on the table, he made a difficult decision to pull out in such a way as to keep the contents of the bar and move it into another location," O'Finn explained. "If we wait for condemnation we might sacrifice too much."

Presumably the settlement offer was deemed sufficient, or at least a good start. The Empire State Development Corporation has asked a judge to set a May 17 deadline for condemnees to leave, though some are expected to resist that at a hearing in Kings County Supreme Court on April 21.

article

Posted by eric at 8:14 PM

Freddy's Bar is not closing, it's moving

Here's the full statement issued today by Freddy's Bar & Backroom manager Donald O'Finn.

Freddy's Bar is not closing, it's moving.

We are presently in negotiations with a landlord who is not a billionaire at 4th Ave and Union Street.

We will be having a Victory party on April 30th to celebrate what the little guy has been able to do in fighting a billionaire and the corrupt government agency that he controls. We feel we have dealt fatal blows to Ratner's organization. The nets will not be sold to an international criminal, because the NBA can't afford to be associated with organized crime.

Freddy's Bar is not giving up the fight, we stand in solidarity with Prokhorov's sanctions-busting victims in Zimbabwe, and with the people of Yonkers who are paying the price for a Ratner bribery scandal. We will continuing to stand against the corruption that has dominated our lives for the last 7 years, and are looking forward to moving out from under this sword of Damocles.

Forest City Ratner will leave Brooklyn a thousand years before Freddy's Bar does. . . they have missed mortgage payments on their Metrotech Center, and the Yonkers and Zimbabwe sanctions busting scandals are criminal acts. The question is will they run out of money first, or face prosecution first. I am sure that both will happen.

The move is about the employees, and the business. We're little guys. We can't run our business into the ground as Ratner has and still survive. We have a lot of mouths to feed and we are not billionaires. The move is strategic. Very soon "Freddy's Next Bar" will be standing tall, and Ratner will be in rubble, with no stadium, and hopefully with justice and karma finding him. This is a guy who closed a family homeless shelter in the dead of winter.

In order to assure our capacity to keep Freddy's alive in a another location, and keep people employed... we have to move the contents of the bar in a particular timely fashion to "Lock down' the next space, and thus we will not be facing an eviction situation in which a protest by chaining ourselves could happen. The Chains ("The Chains of Justice") have served their purpose...to raise awareness of corruption, and they will move with us, forever installed on that bar as a symbol of a united community and that community's power for affecting change.

The owner of Freddy's has had to consider those employed at Freddy's as well as his own situation, needing employment and food on the table. He made a difficult decision to pull out in such a way as to keep the contents of the bar and move it into another location. If we wait for condemnation we might sacrifice too much. I can't yet confirm the location since everything is moving very fast, and it is not locked down yet, but the area we are hoping to secure is on 4th Ave near Union Street.

We hope to open this new space as soon as possible, 2 or 3 months hopefully. The email address will not change... nor the web address.

Freddy's has been the culmination of everything I am and everything I ever wanted in a bar.

I could not be prouder of Freddy's, it's community, and it's accomplishments.

Freddy's is not an address, it is an idea.

I'll See you at "FREDDY'S NEXT BAR"...the first one is on me!

Posted by eric at 6:40 PM

Freddy’s Bar an Atlantic Yards Holdout No Longer

NY Observer
by Eliot Brown

Photo: Amy Greer/NoLandGrab

Freddy's Bar & Backroom, the unofficial clubhouse of the Atlantic Yards resistance movement, has been forced to throw in the towel in order to survive.

It seems the "chains of justice" will not be necessary.

Freddy's, the insurgent dive bar in the footprint of the Brooklyn Nets arena-to-be, is set to close at the end of the month. According to an announcement sent out Monday by manager Donald O'Finn, the bar will forgo a confrontation with a sheriff and a demolition crew, and will move to an undisclosed new location near Fourth Avenue and Union Street.

This contrasts with earlier statements made by bar diehards who promised to stand until the bitter end—installing "chains of justice" with handcuffs to the bar—but now the inevitability of the property takings, apparently, has set in.
...

The bar and its clientele have been virulent critics of the planned arena and related Atlantic Yards development, acting as a ground zero of opposition, posting various news articles of developer Bruce Ratner's troubles throughout the years. The bar even stopped carrying beer from the Brooklyn Brewery after its owner made clear his support for the Atlantic Yards project.

article

Related coverage...

Fork in the Road [Village Voice blog], Freddy's Fight Comes to an End: The Bar Will Close May 1st, BUT Will Relocate to New Space This Summer

Following a fake eviction notice from its landlord last month, Freddy's Backroom & Bar is now really and truly being kicked out of its Dean Street space at the end of the month. Freddy's will open its doors in Prospect Heights for the last time on May 1st (with a victory party being held April 30), but manager Donald O'Finn promises that the bar is not dead: it's moving to new digs on Fourth Avenue and Union Street.

"Freddy's has been the culmination of everything I am and that I always wanted in a bar," says O'Finn, who helped lead the effort to stop Bruce Ratner's development project in order to save his bar, as well as his neighbors' homes and businesses. "We made a lot of progress in the fight against eminent domain and did a lot of harm to The Atlantic Yards Project... And we are proud of that."

Eater, Freddy's Bar, Defeated by Atlantic Yards, Plans Relocation

After a December eminent domain ruling in favor of Bruce Ratner, the man behind the giant 22 acre Atlantic Yards development, the owners of well known Brooklyn dive within the footprint o' death, Freddy's Bar, prepared for a massive fight against the bulldozers. They dug their heels in, called out the media, and promised they would chain themselves to the bar before letting it get leveled for this massive entertainment complex.

Not so much anymore.

Curbed, Atlantic Yards, the Sword of Damocles

After trying Bruce Ratner bobbleheads, a PBR guillotine, and the old Chains of Justice, anti-Atlantic Yards agitator Freddy's Bar is moving. The bar's owners report they're in negotiations with a landlord at Fourth Avenue and Union Street and hope to reopen in two or three months, avoiding eviction from their current spot. The owners are "looking forward to moving out from under this sword of Damocles," but to keep the anti-AY sentiment alive, they're taking the Chains of Justice with them, "forever installed on that bar as a symbol of a united community."

The Brooklyn Ink, FREDDY’S FINDS A NEW LOCATION

Freddy’s Bar, one of the most vocal opponents of the Atlantic Yards project, will be moving to new digs in the Gowanus/Park Slope area at Fourth Avenue and Union Street. Bar loyalists had earlier threatened to chain themselves to the establishment at Dean Street and Sixth Avenue to prevent destruction of the watering hole in the name of making room for the impending Brooklyn Nets complex, the Observer reports.

Cobble Hill Blog, Freddy’s Bar & Backroom Moving to Fourth and Union

Barflies, freaks, misfits and malcontents rejoice! The evil forces of “Eminent Domain” will not kill the legendary Freddy’s Bar & Backroom which sits in the footprint of the Atlantic Yards development project. The bar announced today that they’ll moving to a new location at Fourth Avenue and Union Street in Park Slope.

Resistance 3.0, Freddy's Bar Closing and Opening New Location

Our last show at Freddy's went great so we inquired about another gig. This is the response we got...

I have good news & bad news.
The bad news is..... Freddy’s last day of business @ this address will be April 30th, so all bookings after that date unfortunately have to be canceled, I am very sorry.
Good news.....We are not closing, we are moving!
& we will re-open! Better than new!
We will continue to do live music and events and have the best party in town.

Posted by eric at 6:20 PM

April 15, 2010

Justice Gerges visits the footprint to look at AY site properties (and encounters an eviction unrelated to the case before him)

Atlantic Yards Report

Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges took a walk this morning around the Atlantic Yards footprint, visiting the properties that face condemnation, a requirement in any such case.

It was scheduled before a hearing was set April 21 in Kings County Supreme Court regarding timing issues. The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) will argue that Gerges should require occupants to vacate their properties no later than May 17; lawyers for the condemnees will resist that as premature.

Presumably the visit will help Gerges assess valuation issues as well as the legitimacy of the ESDC's argument for urgency in the process.

article

Posted by eric at 11:59 PM

Detailing Columbia University's Eminent Domain Abuse

Reason Hit & Run
by Damon Root

Armin Rosen, a Columbia University student journalist and senior editor at The Current, the university’s “journal of contemporary politics, cultural, & Jewish affairs,” has a long and highly detailed account of Columbia’s eminent domain abuse in its attempt to control the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattanville, where the university wants to build a fancy new research campus.
...

There’s plenty more ugliness to the story, including overwhelming evidence that the Empire State Development Corporation (the state agency which wields the power of eminent domain) actively colluded with Columbia in order to produce the very conditions that would then allow the state to seize property on the university’s behalf. Thankfully, New York’s courts have actually been paying attention. In a sharp ruling last December, the state’s Supreme Court Appellate Division condemned Columbia and the ESDC’s actions in no uncertain terms.
...

The next step is the state’s highest court, which I'm sad to say recently gave the thumbs up to eminent domain abuse in the Atlantic Yards case. Perhaps this time they’ll get it right.

article

Posted by eric at 11:20 PM

In Boston, the mayor criticizes "developer's blight" and threatens eminent domain

Atlantic Yards Report

Remember how Vornado's Steve Roth explained the strategy of sitting on a property in Manhattan to hasten blight and extract more concessions?

Well, now he's meeting his match--a mayor who's willing to take the wheel rather than let the developer drive.
...

Chances of that happening with Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards site? Very unlikely.

link

Posted by eric at 11:16 PM

Mayor Battles Vornado in Boston

The Wall Street Journal
by Christina S.N. Lewis

Here's an unlikely twist — the mayor of a big U.S. city using the threat of eminent domain against (mega)developer blight!

Real-estate mogul Steven Roth is widely respected as the chairman and driving force behind Vornado Realty Trust.

But not in Boston.

The city's mayor, Thomas Menino, sent a scathing letter to Mr. Roth last month in which he threatened to have the city seize a major development site from a Vornado-led group for failing to build there in a timely way.

The mayor's threat represents a new front in the use of "eminent domain," a legal process under which private owners can be forced to sell their property to a city or state to make way for a project in the public interest. The tactic is often viewed as a bane to small, private owners and a boon to cities and developers. But in this case, Boston is threatening to use the process to force a developer to build—and being hailed by the public for it.

Roth has admitted publicly letting past project sites lie fallow in order to force cities to up their subsidy offers.

The New York Observer quoted Mr. Roth as saying at a lecture at Columbia University, "Why did I do nothing? Because I was thinking in my own awkward way that the more the building was a blight, the more the governments would want this to be redeveloped, the more help they would give us when the time came."

Mr. Roth also said that he was waiting for the "price to go up a lot" before he built, according to the article.
...

The controversy doesn't appear to have hurt Mayor Menino. He turned a former political liability into a gain, and the public and local businesses are now backing his unconventional approach.

article

NoLandGrab: Here's hoping that Menino is sincere, and that this isn't all some charade to further line Vornado's pockets. In fairness to the Boston mayor, it does sound like he's serious.

Posted by eric at 12:56 PM

Home at The Atlantic Yards

Dossier
by Katherine Krause

After years of lawsuits, protests and fighting it looks like Bruce Ratner’s mega real-estate plan Atlantic Yards is actually going to happen. It will be the second largest construction project in NYC, after the World Trade Center. The courts ruled that eminent domain, which is typically used in cases of highways or airports, could be used to take away private citizens homes and businesses so that we could have more condos and the Brooklyn Nets. Alexa Williams and Sean Ilnesher are among the last people left who have been trying to stay in their house, despite the mail not being delivered, cameras being placed on their property and their electric being shut off. To illustrate why they want to stay in their building, which will soon be turned into a parking lot, they painted a mural this weekend with simply the word “home.” The video after the jump is a sweet and up-lifting documentation of a sad moment for both them and for Brooklyn.

Untitled from katherinekrause on Vimeo.

link

Posted by eric at 12:31 PM

479 Dean now vacant

Photo by Tracy Collins, via flickr Atlantic Yards Photo Pool.

Posted by lumi at 5:43 AM

April 14, 2010

A mural inside the footprint offers a simple statement: "home"

Atlantic Yards Report

DDDB points to a new mural at 38 6th Avenue, a former industrial building turned residence that would be demolished for the Barclays Center arena.

And who are the residents? Alexa is Alexa Williams, an artist who lives in the building, sandwiched between Freddy's Bar & Backroom (to the south) and the Spalding Building, used by Forest City Ratner for offices and to house the Community Liaison Office, to the north.

The owner of 38 Sixth Avenue is a firm controlled by her father, Peter Williams Enterprises, the lead petitioner in the pending case asking that the Empire State Development Corporation be compelled to issue a new Determination & Findings to pursue eminent domain. A hearing is scheduled for May 12.

Sean is Sean Ilnseher, a location manager for television shows.

link

Posted by eric at 11:02 PM

April 13, 2010

ESDC pushes for eviction order by April 21; lawyer for some condemnees says timeline is unlikely, given judge's desire to avoid role of sheriff

Atlantic Yards Report

After yesterday's hearing on the case challenging the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) 2006 Determination & Findings to pursue eminent domain, I also inquired about a hearing April 9 before Kings County Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges regarding the condemnation process.

Bottom line: the ESDC wants to get an eviction order after an oral argument in court on Wednesday, April 21; attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff thinks it's unlikely.
...

What happened April 9

Brinckheroff said that the lawyers discussed "very specific details of the valuation process," including the provision of advance payments, which are necessary in order for people to seek new premises even though they may no longer have title to their property.

ESDC lawyer Charles Webb, according to Brinckerhoff, said such payments would be available within two weeks of fulfilling certain conditions.

"They also presented an order to show cause," said Brinckerhoff. "They want to make a motion requesting an order allowing them to get the sheriff to evict everybody. That was made returnable for argument on April 21."

Soon or later?

That could lead to a writ of assistance, essentially an order of eviction issued by the court. "There's a very strong argument that it's incredibly premature," Brinckerhoff said. "Normally that's a process that takes many, many months."

The ESDC's justification, he said, is that "the developer is losing something like $7 million a month" on carrying the property. (He later said he wasn't certain of the figure; I haven't seen the document yet.)

article

NoLandGrab: If that's the case, than the ESDC and Forest City Ratner could solve the problem by making reasonable compensation proposals to the property owners, rather than the ridiculous low-ball offers they've put forth.

It's actually somewhat comical that the state and city have been profligate with Ratner, but now that only a handful of property owners remain, and they're this close to completing site assemblage, they open their wallets — and moths fly out.

Posted by eric at 2:09 PM

April 8, 2010

April 12, 9:30 AM. Oral Argument in Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Related Case

Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn

Legal arguments in the following lawsuit will take place on Monday, April 12th, at 9:30 AM in Manhattan.

PETER WILLIAMS vs. NYS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP
9:30 AM
New York County Supreme Court
80 Centre Street [Map]
Manhattan

Oral argument on Article 78 lawsuit seeking to compel the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) to make new Eminent Domain Procedure Law (204) findings and determinations.

A number of property owners and tenants in the footprint brought this lawsuit in January 2010 arguing that the eminent domain takings were based on a 2006 approved plan that no longer exists. If the property seizures are going to occur, they must be for the drastically altered current plan—a basketball arena and one building—not for the project originally conceived with the promise of 2,250 affordable housing units, 16 towers and 10,000 jobs. The case argues that the ESDC must make new findings and determinations under the States's Eminent Domain Procedure Law.

link

Posted by eric at 10:26 AM

April 4, 2010

In profile of Justice Stevens, another reflection by author of Kelo opinion that it was settled law but lousy policy

Atlantic Yards Report

One flaw in a 3/22/10 New Yorker profile of soon-to-retire Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, headlined After Stevens: What will the Supreme Court be like without its liberal leader?, was a failure to mention Stevens's controversial opinion in the 2005 Kelo v. New London eminent domain case, which prompted most states (though not New York) to pass laws tightening the practice of eminent domain.

Today's New York Times profile of Stevens, headlined At 89, Stevens Contemplates Law, and How to Leave It, partially remedies the situation:

Often, he added, the law requires a certain result, as in the court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed local governments to use the power of eminent domain to take private property for business development.

“The Kelo case was one of my most unpopular opinions, and that was one where I thought the law really was pretty well settled on the particular point,” he said.

Asked if he would have answered the question presented in the case differently had he instead been a legislator, Justice Stevens said probably yes.

“One of the nice things about this job is that you don’t have to make those decisions,” he added. “Very often you think, in this particular spot I don’t have to be deciding the really hard case about what should be done. Which is one of the reasons why the function is really quite different from what people often assume.”
...

The question, then, is why legislators have not acted more prudently.

article

Posted by eric at 10:28 PM

April 2, 2010

Banks, Basketball, and Property Rights

Through eminent domain, the future home of the NBA laughing-stock Nets will soon be the former home of proud Brooklyners.

Pajamas Media
by Scott Bullock

Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock represented the plaintiffs in the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case.

On March 11, Barclays Capital took out a full-page ad in the front section of the Wall Street Journal to declare that it is “proud” to celebrate the groundbreaking for the new Barclays Center in the Prospect Heights section of Brooklyn. If Barclays had even a modicum of respect for private property rights and the free market, it would be deeply ashamed.

The future home of the NBA laughing-stock Nets will soon be the former home of proud Brooklyners. These folks are losing their homes and businesses through eminent domain for a basketball court and other private development projects of billionaire developer Bruce Ratner.

Ratner did not have much difficulty courting virtually the entire New York political establishment to his side. All he had to do was claim that a sports arena and luxury residences would generate more tax revenue than neighborhood pubs and modest condos. With the promise of extra taxes, officials became all too eager to declare this up-and-coming neighborhood “blighted” and condemn the properties on Ratner’s behalf. Ratner also succeeded in hiring the scandal-ridden ACORN to provide political cover for the development project by loaning the group $1 million and giving it $500,000 outright. And because the Nets have been hemorrhaging money, Ratner also partnered with Mikhail Prokhorov, the unscrupulous billionaire Russian playboy, who now owns a share in the Nets and in the arena.

Is this what Barclays meant by the “teamwork and excellence” mentioned in its ad?

article

NoLandGrab: Two minor corrections — there's no way in hell that Bruce Ratner is a billionaire, and ACORN was already bought off prior to the million-dollar loan and half-million-dollar "grant."

Posted by eric at 11:49 AM

April 1, 2010

EMINENT DOMAINIA: Chinese Farmer And Son Light Themselves on Fire To Protest Land Sale, And The Shanghai Bulldozers Pause For Just Two Hours

Business Insider
by Joe Weisenthal

Moral amnesia is one of those signs of a telltale bubble that doesn't show up in official statistics.

When people become indifferent or ignorant about actual human suffering, that might be all you need to know.

So it is with that in mind that we present this Shanghai Daily piece (with key parts bolded by us) that's just chock full of moral amnesia in real-estate crazy China.

Behold:

Farmer Tao and his 92-year-old father set themselves on fire when a 100-strong team led by a township chief set out to tear down their home and their pig farm.

The farmers had found the compensation they were being offered far too low.

The son died and the father was injured - but, according to Beijing Times, that did little to distract the team from their destructive mission.

Yes, the incident caused a two-hour delay, but the home and the farm were pulled down while the remains of the victim were still lying nearby.
...

One report suggests that officials there wanted to have the demolition completed before April 1, when a new relocation law would make forced relocation more difficult. This is likely an exaggeration of their respect for law.

That a villager chose to end his life in such a violent way can only dramatize the futility of any resistance.

article

Posted by eric at 11:03 AM

March 19, 2010

IF YOU CAN’T DEFINE IT, YOU CAN’T USE IT: PART 2, MY NEIGHBORHOOD, BLIGHT OR WRONG?

Affordable Housing Institute: US
by David A. Smith

The second in a two-part series on the spurious use of "blight" to justify eminent domain takings.

As we saw yesterday, using as our text a protracted City Journal editorial essay by Nicole Gelinas, when eminent domain is used for economic development (ED4ED) with a private developer as the implementing party, the potential for mischief is simply enormous – because the law of economic gravity creates political pressure that disenfranchises the economically disadvantaged.
...

When the state tries to crowbar a small property holder off his land, the contest is unequal, and the politically weaker are at an enormous disadvantage.

This is a civil-rights problem, both in its abstract sense and in racial or ethnic terms, because when power is unequal, it is normally the racially disadvantaged who lose, which is why Justice Thomas so articulately dissented in Kelo.
...

The same power dynamics are at work in the cases being contested today, such as the billion-dollar Brooklyn struggle over Atlantic Yards.
...

In the twenty-first century, things are different because of the information revolution. The combination of the Freedom Of Information Act and the internet has enabled citizen journalism, neutralizing the previous power imbalance of the media, to the point where Norman Oder, an individual with no credentials other than a burning desire to uncover the truth, can out-investigate the (conflicted) New York Times with reporting worthy of a Pulitzer.

article

NoLandGrab: To be fair, Oder had decades of experience as a journalist, and some coursework in the law, to go along with his doggedness.

Posted by eric at 10:59 AM

March 18, 2010

IF YOU CAN’T DEFINE IT, YOU CAN’T USE IT: PART 1, THE BLIGHT-LINE TEST

Affordable Housing Institute: US
by David A. Smith

This must-read Part 1 of a two-part series examines the use of eminent domain for purposes of economic development or urban renewal and its reliance on the murky definition of "blight." It includes a fascinating explanation of the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case Berman vs. Parker, a ruling that, in the ensuing half-century-plus, has been bastardized to justify just about any property condemnation. Compare the conditions outlined in Berman to conditions today in Prospect Heights to see just how twisted blight definitions have become.

Indeed, what seems an intractable policy problem – when is ED4ED (eminent domain for economic development) permissible, and when must it be prohibited? – can be reduced to a problem of boundary –what is blight? In turn, the entire problem, over which so many hours of legal wrestling have been held, can be solved easily – the fuzzy boundary has to be construed against the party with power, so either define blight objectively and observably, or eliminate it as a valid reason.

To see why, we must descend the rabbit hole of current jurisprudence, in particular the way ‘blight’ has been redefined out of all observable meaning (Part 1 of this post), and then resurface elsewhere to see how ED4ED is requisite for urban improvement (Part 2), and hence how to reconcile the competing pressures.
...

Under Berman, a Supreme Court enraptured with the promise of economic development allowed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Authority to demolish and rebuild a large chunk of southwestern Washington, based on the finding of ‘blight’, which in the 1954 decision was concluded to exist because:

“64.3% of the dwellings were beyond repair, 18.4% needed major repairs, only 17.3% were satisfactory; 57.8% of the dwellings had outside toilets, 60.3% had no baths, 29.6% lacked electricity, 82.2% had no wash basins or laundry tubs, 83.8% lacked central heating.”

I think anyone today would agree that even in 1954, properties without indoor plumbing, central heating, or running water, constituted blight. Indeed, under today’s laws – absent in 1954 – those buildings could be condemned as unsanitary.

article

NoLandGrab: Fast forward 56 years, and now "blight" means you might have a couple feathery cracks in your sidewalk or your pristine home is built to less than 60% of its allowable size. Oh, and Bruce Ratner has designs on it.

Posted by eric at 12:28 PM

March 13, 2010

Land grabbers

World Magazine

On Dec. 27, 2009, Brooklyn staged a revolt. Standing next to a 9-foot-tall guillotine made of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans, the manager of Freddy's Bar and Backroom read a screed from a scroll. He excoriated a developer who is using eminent domain to claim private property in the surrounding neighborhood, then stood aside as an executioner with a hood and a scythe read a death sentence: "Eminent domain, you are hereby condemned, having become a thief and a traitor." Spectators cried, "Off with its head!" as the guillotine blade fell and a head (or more precisely, a white ball with "Eminent Domain Theft" painted in red letters) rolled.

The message was clear: Don't mess with a neighborhood dive bar, or with New Yorkers who have saved to buy their own homes in a city where two-thirds of the population still rents. Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC) is planning to put a $4 billion development project where Freddy's Bar and Backroom now stands. FCRC predicts that the Atlantic Yards development project will generate $5.6 billion in new tax revenues over the next three decades—but homeowners and bar-goers believe it will just seize their homes and gut their neighborhood.

link

Posted by steve at 7:19 AM

Atlantic Yards Ground Breaking

WNYC Radio's Brian Lehrer Show

Nicoles Gelinas joined Brian Lehrer Friday morning to discuss the Atlantic Yards groundbreaking and the abuse of eminent domain.

link

Related coverage...

Atlantic Yards Report, On Brian Lehrer: the Manhattan Institute's Gelinas vs. AY on eminent domain, blight, and affordable housing (and Ratner as a creature of the state)

Yesterday, WNYC talk show host Brian Lehrer opened up a segment on Atlantic Yards by suggesting that listeners might be surprised that opponents of eminent domain for Atlantic Yards are not just political liberals but are joined by conservatives like his guest, Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute.

Actually, he had it backwards--as a caller pointed out. Conservatives have long been opposed to eminent domain, while liberals--leading the narrow 5-4 Supreme Court majority in the controversial 2005 Kelo v. New London eminent domain case--have been much more willing to defer to state power.

The curious thing is that, in New York, where the balance tilts enormously to the state, those who might be politically liberal in general have found themselves opposing particularly egregious cases of eminent domain and thus aligned themselves with those on the right.

"It’s not unusual to see strange bedfellows, if you realize the common ground is distrust of government power," former New York Civil Liberties Union director Norman Siegel, who's challenged the Columbia University expansion, said in December.

Posted by eric at 12:46 AM

March 9, 2010

Campaigning for Governor

WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show

Another Republican candidate for Governor, former Congressman Rick Lazio, hems and haws about Atlantic Yards and eminent domain on yesterday's Brian Lehrer Show.

The brief "yes or no" question begins around the 16:20 mark.

Lehrer: "Do you support eminent domain for Atlantic Yards?"

Lazio: "Uh, hffff, uh, I, I, I, I say yes, but a qualified yes, and I need to look at that plan more carefully to make sure that this is being done in a way that is..., that doesn't undermine the historic neighborhood...."

link

NoLandGrab: We would hope that after "careful" review, Mr. Lazio's "qualified yes" might become an unqualified no.

Posted by eric at 12:47 PM

Redlich Condemns Atlantic Yards Decision

Redlich for Governor

Libertarian (and Republican) gubernatorial candidate Warren Redlich draws a stark contrast with equivocating sitting Governor David Paterson when it comes to Atlantic Yards.

Governor candidate Warren Redlich condemned the latest Atlantic Yards court decision. Justice Abraham Gerges upheld the seizure of homes and businesses so that developer Bruce Ratner can build apartments, office space and a sports arena in Brooklyn.

In Redlich’s view, Atlantic Yards is a symptom of the state’s problems: “Politicians reward and protect insiders, like we keep seeing in the Capitol. Eminent domain can be used, sparingly, when government takes private property for public purposes such as a road. But the Kelo decision and projects like Atlantic Yards grossly abuse eminent domain to benefit private developers connected with political leaders.”

While other states have acted to curb eminent domain abuse, New York’s legislators and governors have done nothing. New York taxpayers fund the violation of property rights in such cases as Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn and West Harlem in Manhattan, for the benefit of developers. Redlich would amend eminent domain laws to protect property owners.

Redlich also calls for abolishing the involved state agencies, including the Empire State Development Corporation and others. Eliminating “economic development” spending would save approximately $3 billion in the state budget.

link

Posted by eric at 12:40 PM

March 8, 2010

Census of Places that Matter, art opening, and the (upcoming) "vanished site" of Freddy's

Atlantic Yards Report

Someone asked me if Freddy's Bar & Backroom, fated for demolition after a court approved eminent domain, could be landmarked, and the answer is, of course, no: it's not a building of particularly architectural merit inside or out and, if the terra cotta Ward Bakery couldn't be landmarked, Freddy's sure can't.

But Freddy's, which in its Backroom last night held an opening for an art retrospective over 13 years, does deserve a spot--anyone can enter it--in the Census of Places that Matter, the very democratic list published as part of the Place Matters project created by the cultural organization City Lore and the Municipal Art Society, a design/planning organization.
...

I checked the Census to see if any place in the AY footprint had been entered. Freddy's was absent, but someone had written up 24 Sixth Avenue:

This was the former factory of the Spalding Company, where they used to make spaldeens, the pink rubber balls that were an iconic presence in urban America. Everywhere kids used to play games like stickball with spaldeens. Anyone who grew up in New York up to the mid-80s probably remembers them. There's a Spalding banner painted around the building along with words like football, basketball, etc.

That banner was removed when the building was renovated into loft condos earlier this decade--and now the sturdy handsome building is also slated for the wrecking ball.

article

Posted by eric at 10:50 AM

It’s time so seize the eminent domain debate in Massachusetts

MYSouthEnd.com
by Shirley Kressel

Sound familiar?

Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that has taken no action to restrain eminent domain-the government’s ability to seize property rights with due monetary compensation but without the owner’s consent-after the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision finding eminent domain for private use constitutional. It seems self-evident that forcibly taking property from one owner and giving it to another for financial gain is unfair-even un-American; yet, our legislature seems reluctant to take up the Court’s suggestion that states may enact their own restrictions. The reason is a lingering-but mistaken-belief that eminent domain is an indispensable tool for economic development and tax base enhancement.

But the opposite is true. The evidence has been clear since 1964, when Martin Anderson, then with MIT/Harvard’s Joint Center for Urban Studies, published a book titled The Federal Bulldozer, an analysis of the economic impacts of eminent domain as used in urban renewal. He provided clear documentation that in the years since private-benefit eminent domain became government policy in 1949, it had cost the taxpayers hugely more than it produced, and boded to remain a liability for the foreseeable future. Indeed, Boston is today still pock-marked with several hundred acres of land taken, cleared and held tax-exempt by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, land where people and businesses would have supported vibrant community life and paid taxes for these forty or fifty years. Eminent domain drove out residents, broke up communities, and decimated the small-business base.
...

It’s only logical that eminent domain-like other unfair public subsidies-would have negative effects. First, this kind of government intervention props up bad business plans and encourages overblown, risky projects that would be weeded out by the private markets, often leaving the city to clean up a big mess. Aside from the empty lots scarring the city, Filenes, Columbus Center and North Point are three recent grandiose local plans that were given all sorts of land, regulatory and tax favors, only to collapse of their own overreaching weight. Pfizer, the corporation for which the City of New London seized and destroyed Suzette Kelo’s home and neighborhood, recently decided "nevermind," and moved out of town altogether, showing again, as the Wall Street Journal reported, "the futility of eminent domain as corporate welfare." Read Nicole Gelinas’s City Journal story of the Atlantic Yards project in New York, where decay and disinvestment are the result of "a half-decade’s worth of government-created uncertainty, which stopped genuine private investment in its tracks."

article

NoLandGrab: Why is it that the most "liberal" states, like New York and Massachusetts, give rogues like Bruce Ratner the longest leash?

Posted by eric at 9:28 AM

March 6, 2010

Blogs Jump the Gun On Evictions

These two blog entries incorrectly state that eviction notices have been delivered to businesses and residents living in the Atlantic Yards footprint. Check out the comments section in each to read the corrections.

Village Voice, Freddy's Gets Evicted, Vows to Return
By Chantal Martineau

The crew at Freddy's has been trying to keep their minds off the Atlantic Yards project that promises to destroy their bar, focusing instead on an upcoming retrospective of its artists, set to open this Sunday. But earlier this week, what appears to be the last appeal obstructing the eminent domain seizures was denied, and the project was given the green light. Then, yesterday, Freddy's Bar & Back Room got the notice it had been bracing for: the premises must be vacated within 30 days.

Brooklyn Born, Signs ahead: Atlantic Yards ready to steamroll over brooklynites

Several blogs are posting that residents in the way of eminent domain abuse aka "Atlantic Yards" ave been given 30 day eviction notices in the wake of a judge's clearing the project to proceed.

Posted by steve at 6:05 AM

March 3, 2010

Billionaires vs. Brooklyn's Best Bar: Eminent Domain Abuse & The Atlantic Yards Project

reason.tv via YouTube

Must-see TV.

link

Posted by eric at 2:14 PM

Nets arena groundbreaking set for next week after court ruling

Field of Schemes

It's not quite all over but the shouting, but just about: A New York state judge approved a court petition by the state (over landholder objections) to use eminent domain to seize land for the Nets' planned Brooklyn arena on Monday, clearing the way for construction to begin. Street closings are set to begin next Monday, with a ceremonial groundbreaking on March 11; as for evicting the remaining residents and businesses occupying buildings marked for demolition, the state Empire State Development Corporation says it "anticipates an orderly relocation taking place over the course of the next few months."

Barring a surprise injunction in one of the other remaining lawsuits, then, it looks like the Atlantic Yards project, or at least the Barclays Center piece of it, will be opening in Fall 2012 as planned — not as planned originally, mind you, but if you keep making enough predictions, one of them will be right.

article

Related coverage...

Gothamist, Atlantic Yards Developer Will Break Ground On March 11

Regulars at Freddy's Bar, who have already built a PBR guillotine and chained themselves to the bar to protest the pending demolition of their watering hole, said they won't give up without a fight. "There's chains on the bar and a lot of people will be buying handcuffs," said project opponent Steve de Seve. It's unclear if they'll also try to use those handcuffs to arrest Ratner, as they planned to do last month.

The Brooklyn Paper, Ratner to break ground next week!

Bruce Ratner will officially break ground on his $1-billion Barclays Center on March 11, days after a crucial judicial ruling in his favor and slightly more than seven years after the project was first announced.

The ceremony in Prospect Heights will likely include Mayor Bloomberg and Atlantic Yards cheerleader-in-chief, Borough President Markowitz, wielding the ceremonial shovels.

If all goes as planned, the event will be the so-called “end of the beginning” of a project that was unveiled in 2003 and mired in delays and controversy since.

The Local [Fort Greene/Clinton Hill], The Day: a Groundbreaking and an Emmy Nomination

Atlantic Yards is once again on our minds, with the news that developer Bruce C. Ratner plans to break ground on March 11.

Posted by eric at 12:45 PM

March 2, 2010

Atlantic Yards Land Grab: The Morning After

Here's a round-up of today's headlines related to yesterday's court decision transferring title to several private properties in the Atlantic Yards footprint to the Empire State Development Corporation — a placeholder for developer Forest City Ratner.

GlobeSt.com, Judge Okays Atlantic Yards Land Seizures

"The Atlantic Yards project has had a long and tortuous history, including numerous court challenges in several forums," a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge wrote Monday. Justice Abraham Gerges made this observation in the course of turning back one of these challenges; he ruled Monday in favor of the state in its December 2009 petition to seize properties within the footprint of the $5-billion Brooklyn mega-project.

Runnin' Scared, Atlantic Yards is a Go: Streets Close March 8, Evictions Expected Soon

​Get those shackles ready, Freddy's: Judge Abraham Gerges has denied what appears to be the last big appeal of the eminent domain seizures for the Atlantic Yards project.

Sever