The PPW Bike-Lane Lawsuit is a Reality
The lawsuit over the Prospect Park West bike lane that’s been threatened for about a month has now been filed, and it asserts that the city acted “arbitrarily” in installing the lane and that it should be removed. Streetsblog, which has a link so you can download the filing in its entirety (PDF here), says…
The lawsuit over the Prospect Park West bike lane that’s been threatened for about a month has now been filed, and it asserts that the city acted “arbitrarily” in installing the lane and that it should be removed. Streetsblog, which has a link so you can download the filing in its entirety (PDF here), says the following about the meat and potatoes of the suit: “It argues that DOT acted in an ‘arbitrary and capricious’ manner, with conclusions made irrationally or in bad faith. It argues that the bike lane did not properly go through the necessary processes given the landmarked status of the Park Slope neighborhood and Prospect Park. And finally, it argues that an environmental review was necessary to assess the impact of the lane on the historic character of the area.” The Times’ story on the lawsuit, meanwhile, notes the political connections of the group behind the filing, who have “close ties to Iris Weinshall, the city’s transportation commissioner from 2000 to 2007 and the wife of Senator Charles E. Schumer” and that they’ve “produced e-mail correspondence…[seeking] to portray…an effort by the Transportation Department to coordinate criticism of the lane’s opponents.” A DOT spokesman tells the newspaper that the data it has released on how the lane has made Prospect Park West safer is legit. The lawsuit names the DOT and, separately, its commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, as respondents.
Lawsuit Seeks to Erase Bike Lane in New York City [NY Times]
Opponents Sue City Over Prospect Park West Bike Lane [Streetsblog]
Lawsuit Filed Over Prospect Park West Bike Lane [PS Patch]
ProfRobert — my point was that there is an everyday definition of “frivolous” that these jokers embody. Something can be seriously stupid, but still fulfill the low threshold of the law.
@zinka: I stand corrected, thank you. Substitute in “West Side Stadium” for “Atlantic Yards.”
@tybur: Well, if you’re going to pick your own definitions, then sure, you can characterize anything in any way you like. But that doesn’t change the fact that “frivolous” has an objectively real definition in the law, specifically (and I’m paraphrasing here), a lawsuit that has no colorable basis in fact or law, or on a reasonable extension of the law. Nothing on the face of the Petition suggests that is the case, but since neither you are nor I am an expert on what the law requires as part of the process of approving something like the PPW bike lane, saying that the suit is or is not frivolous as a matter of law or fact is simply ridiculous. I’m very comfortable saying, “I don’t know.” Own your ignorance!
What I gather from your post is that you object to a minority attempting to defeat what you perceive as the majority’s desire for the bike lane. That’s a legitimate objection, but what you’re really complaining about is that the landmarks and environmental laws may *permit* a minority of self-interested people to defeat the wishes of the majority of the community. Your issue is with the law, not with the application, so write your Councilmember.
The design is totally fine, it looks fine if not attractive, and it’s easier and safer to cross the street now. I’m not a rabid pro-bicycle type either; I often find them as much a menace to pedestrians as cars. But I call it as I see it and this lawsuit was filed by a few privileged people who live on PPW who are all put out that the bike lane interferes with parking their car. Entirely frivolous.
Wow, over 100 replies to this.
What amazes me about this debate is the anti-bike lane crowd was no where to be found when this whole thing was being proposed a couple years ago. If this is such a crisis where people are throwing a tantrum over it you’d think they’d have been showing up to CB6 meetings way back when it was being planned.
ProfRobert…. Here’s a definition:
friv·o·lous
adj \ˈfri-və-ləs\
1
a : of little weight or importance b : having no sound basis (as in fact or law)
2
a : lacking in seriousness b : marked by unbecoming levity
So, if this lawsuit doesn’t *technically* fulfill the legal definition of “frivolous,” it still certainly fulfills the other three. And it is clearly a waste of my tax dollars to have to defend against these NIMBYs for a community initiated project.
Bloomberg’s administration had nothing to do with the approvals of Atlantic Yards (though it did offer some subsidies). The entire administrative/approval process was done by ESDC, a state agency.
Why are so many people convinced that Bloomberg’s administration dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s for the PPW bike lane, while at the same time that it cut corners to push AY through? Is it really so incredible to think that DOT’s process of creating the bike lane short-circuited applicable legal requirements? The legal issue isn’t “community input,” but whether certain, technical legal requirements apply, and if they apply, whether they were met. I’m not a municipal law expert, so I can’t say whether plaintiffs have a sound case or not — but I’m also pretty sure that no one posting here has that expertise either, so labeling the suit as “frivolous” is itself an ignorant and frivolous position to take (and if there is someone here who knows this area of the law, then I’d welcome that person’s insights).
quote:
All of this so that a few self-entitled rich yuppies will have parking spaces?
im pretty sure the people opposing the bike lane and behind the lawsuit are yuppies anymore… gruppies yes, yuppies, no.
*rob*
All of this so that a few self-entitled rich yuppies will have parking spaces?