« Friday Links Delusional Pricing on Classon Avenue »

August 5, 2005

DDD's Next Move: Attack Eminent Domain

Develop Don't Destroy is stepping up efforts to squash future attempts to use eminent domain for commercial development. Although the group's bid to prevent Bruce Ratner from doing just that with his Atlantic Yards project is looking less and less likely as it becomes clear that Bloomberg and Pataki won't take no for an answer, DDD, along with local leaders like Laetitia James, is not giving up. While there's room for considerable debate about the aesthetics and appropriateness of Ratner's design, whether Brooklyn needs an arena, etc., we don't see how the use of eminent domain is justifiable in any way in this case, especially given the fact that there is a reasonable alternative on the table. If used at all, eminent domain should be reserved for extreme cases when all other options have been exhausted. This doesn't pass the sniff test in our opinion, though the Supreme Court might disagree.
Coalition Aims to End Eminent Domain [NY1]




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:52 AM | Comments (19)
Categories: Development

Comments

At this point how much 'eminent domain' would be required? Do we know how many are steadfast in not selling besides Goldstein?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2005 9:35 AM

It is not about "how much". The idea of eminent domain use for private development is wrong.
And even if ther would be only one person it is not right.

Posted by: malymis at August 5, 2005 10:32 AM

Anonymous: The number is very small. And the amount of housing contained in Ratner's complex will more than compensate for that lost through eminent domain. Plus, the number of low and moderate income units in the area will increase significantly. IMO, that's a fair trade.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2005 11:16 AM

I dont get it - whats the difference if its used for private development or public development? I believe that eminent domain should be used judicially but if NY State was building Atlantic Yards why is that better then if Ratner is building it. Seems to me this is just a 'straw-man' for oppossing the development in general and not really a true consitiutional argument by DDD

Posted by: David at August 5, 2005 11:28 AM

Sorry Malymis , it does matter how much. Eminent domain can be abused and we need to be keenly aware of that.
But also too much power can be exercised by too few individuals to block redevelopment.
I've seen many larger apt. buildings occupied by last one or 2 tenants for years stopping a landlord of redeveloping property.
IF (big if) it is determined that large numbers of people and economy of this city will substantially benefit from a large project I don't think a handful of holdouts should block it.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2005 11:33 AM

and then they came for me...

Eminent domain for private gain is a frightening trend. I'm no libertarian, but even I know this is wrong.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at August 5, 2005 11:37 AM

what does "private gain" mean - eminent domain is a governmental process, which requires governmental approval - are you objecting to the fact that a developer will make a profit??? Do you think no "private individuals" make a profit when the Government acts as the developer? Ratner recently built our new Brooklyn courthouse - can there be any development more "public" then a courthouse? - Do you think Ratner made no profit - Do you think that NY housing projects were built only by government workers???

Posted by: David at August 5, 2005 11:52 AM

I think you're a bit confused. I'm not opposed to builders profiting on development, for the government or otherwise. My problem is with the government condemning people's homes to open the land up for private development (with hefty tax abatements and sweetheart deals on the land no less).

Eminent domain was established for the government to condemn "blighted" private property for the public good (e.g. if they needed to build a road, school or hospital on the site). A recent Supreme Court decision (brownstoner wrote about it not too long ago) paved the way for the govenment to seize land even if it's not "blighted," so that a private developer can build on the site. That sets an awful precedent.

Take the Atlantic Yards project for example, a powerful and politically connected developer has convinced the government to condemn private property, so he can build on the site. Scary abuse of governmental power for private gain at the expense of individual homeowners and the rest of us taxpayers. get it?

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at August 5, 2005 12:31 PM

No I dont...1st of all Atlantic Yards is blighted (as far as I'm concerned - albeit with a small number of recently converted expensive condos). Second the use is for the public good - an arena and low-moderate income housing. Finally the "sweathart" incentives are simply to entice a private developer to put up billions of dollars when the Govt is unwilling or unable to put all of it up on its own. I really dont see what the fundamental difference would be if NY City condemed the land and built a new housing project on it. All the S Ct decision did was broaden (to the point of eliminating) the term "public good" - but even if they hadnt done so, a strong argument - and precedent (Lincoln Center, all NYC Housing projects, etc) could support eminent domain in this case. But again please tell me why it would be better(i.e. not abuse) than NYC taking the property for a housing project?

Posted by: David at August 5, 2005 1:45 PM

If you can sell million-dollar condos there, an area is clearly not blighted. The Atlantic Yards are not attractive, but they are an absolutely viable area for incremental development vs. government seizure. Personally, I'm not opposed to development in the area, just this stadium travesty.

Don't believe the hype about affordable housing, it is but a small part of Ratnerville (and is not guaranteed to be permanent). It's a PR gimmick. And an arena is NOT for the public good. Paid sporting events (Ratner owns the team, remember) and thousands of luxury high-rise condos in no way compare to a public hospital or school.

Ratner stands to make an enormous profit, and we will be footing the bill in terms of the environmental impact, traffic, population density, increased subway fares and property taxes. If people can't see this now, they'll definitely see it once its built and then it will be too late.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at August 5, 2005 2:14 PM

oh and comparing the public good of a nonprofit world-class performing arts center like Lincoln Center to a privately owned professional sports arena and housing projects to luxury high rises is beyond ridiculous.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at August 5, 2005 2:21 PM

OK Hillbilly - but back to the original question...how many hold-outs are there still? how many parcels?
We have read that Ratner has purchased or has options on much of it (so that is hardly 'government seizure').And don't forget that owners get paid for the property.
I think it may be that the proposed development/size/scope that is opposed more than
what may be in the end very limited use of eminent domain. People are making it sounds as vast tracts will be acquired that way.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2005 2:24 PM

Judging by David's relentless cheerleading for Ratner on this and many other Ratner-related threads, I think he's got to be on the payroll.
And why does the gov't need to give Ratner "sweetheart" incentives to "entice" him to put up billions of $ when the Extell proposal was for billions more.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2005 2:39 PM

As usual, when someone speaks favorably of Ratner that person is accused of being on Ratner's payroll. This is a common tactic used by Ratner opponents who can't see beyond their tiny circle and entertain the possibility that someone might actually want an arena and high-rise buildings in Brooklyn. Talk about a living in a bubble...

Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2005 3:03 PM

Here is the real issue: a developer is preselected and then asked to bid against himself - how absurd. Is that how you would sell your property, Mr. Hillbilly? The developer creates a phantom organization in his office (build), then he bribes ACORN into supporting the project with Mgt. jobs. He gets the support of Daughtry by paying him off. The developer creates a propaganda rag that parades itself as a newspaper because there really is very little community support, only that which can be purchased. The developer insures that all neighborhood groups most affected are locked out at important meetings.
Even if you support the project, the process has been clumsy. It is backdoor cronyism. The Mayor berates that "useful idiot" Kalikow and the others follow suit (Except for Mr. Pally who has some integrity). The Mayor thinks that he is wearing an imperial crown much like Robert Moses. They both were condescending, believing that they know what is good for everyone. Finally, is it not interesting that all the urban planners who work for CUNY (C as in City) as teachers and make good salaries view the project as having massive flaws. Why is Bloomberg allowing them to teach our kids?
The ends do not justify the means in this case. By the way, a special zone could have been created for affordable housing only, which is what is really needed. But that might not have included the expression of a vanity arena for 1$ to a multi-millionaire with massive political and media connections.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 5, 2005 3:09 PM

It's **Ms.** Hillbilly, and I totally agree with you. This deal stinks to high heaven. I think Bloomberg is shoving this down our throats to compensate for his humiliation in the Jets stadium/NYC2012 debacle.

David makes a good point when he says that the size and scope of the project are objectionable. Whatever happens with Ratnerville, the eminent domain issue will have long-lasting ramifications.

Markowitz, Bloomberg, Kalikow, Pataki and Ratner: power corrupts. and now i HATE Frank Gehry too. what a hack.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at August 5, 2005 3:25 PM

Eminent domain is controversial and should be used only as a last result, but most moderates would agree that the government does have discretion when it comes to fostering economic development, zoning, redistributing wealth, etc., and that there is a time and a place for using eminent domain.

Also, it's perfectly legit to compare the arena to Lincoln Center. LC is primarily visited by the rich--it's not a true public facility like a park. So the comparison is valid.

On a separate note, there's a lot of chatter about affordable housing. This kind of talk is the bain of my existence.... Anyone interested in getting into it with me should visit dailyheights and respond to my post there. Look forward to hearing from you.

Posted by: escap at August 5, 2005 5:04 PM

Let me address this one at a time, I do not know, work for, or receive any benefit from Ratner, I live within walking distance, and I do look forward to the Nets coming and being able to walk to games. I am confident that being able to sell million dollar condos in an area has no bearing on it being blighted - hell where I live they sell million dollar condos across the street from drug spots. You think Lincoln Center is a bad example?? Do you know its history? - Do you know that an entire neighborhood of lower middle-class housing was destroyed to build it - not a handful of recent arrivals but a WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD that existed for years. And while you may not appreciate it but more New Yorkers would consider professional Basketball to be their cultural/entertainment choice than Dance, Opera or Classical Music - so while you might not consider a nearby (i.e. w/in walking distance) arena a public accomodation - many would disagree. Finally , 50% of the housing has been set aside for low/moderate income housing (which the Extell plan does not and accounts for a substantial reason they can pay more) - therefore to simply mischaracterize the project as "luxury" housing is disengenuous and also ignores the fact that in todays world the city is not going to buy up huge tracts of land and build housing - so again this is is partially analogous to a housing project. Therefore the 2 unanswered questions to the anti people is 1.Other then the possibility of Ratner profiting why isnt eminent domain appropriate to provide an arena AND low/moderate housing and 2. HOW many people are REALLY going to be displaced by eminent domain?

Posted by: David at August 5, 2005 5:25 PM

Besides asking how in the world how the nabe's already-clogged streets can handle the traffic from skyscraperville, someone needs to ask Ratner and his political supporters what in the world will happen to his colossus-in-progress when the housing market softens (it's not a matter of "if" anymore).

Best case predictions put a property value decline in full swing a couple years from now, which is about when the fighting will stop on this and groundbreaking will start. Ratner will cut enough corners as it is on his new construction, can you imagine what he'll do if the market for his luxury condos goes dry? Of course in that case he could cry poverty and back out of his moderate-income housing promises (BTW many developers find clever ways to back out of these promises of low/moderate housing - wish the Times or someone would publish some promises vs. actuals from developers to show this)

Also it doesn't take a village to see through the jobs promises of this. Temporary construction jobs (by out of area contractors no doubt) don't count. Neither do the building managment/ maintenance jobs he will farm out to his managment companies. Oh, but there's always those high-paying hotdog vendor positions...

There is a grave danger of brooklyn's hoop dreams winding up in a half-built, congestion-filled crap pile if we dont' watch out

Posted by: Brooklyner at August 6, 2005 4:01 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions