« Steuben Glass: Myrtle Gets Fancy Dust Off Those Rusty Trowels (Just One Last Time) »

March 14, 2007

Eminent Domain and the Verrazano Bridge

Given that eminent domain is on everyone's mind these days, we were interested to come across this video about the history of the Verrazano Bridge, which began construction in 1959 and was finished in 1963. As it turns out, over 800 homes were destroyed and 7,000 people displaced to make way for the bridge. We wonder how much public outcry at the time, which was towards the end of Robert Moses' reign.
Verrazano Bridge a Brief History [YouTube]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/715

Comments

there's slight diffrence between a bridge and private condos with splash of affordable housing

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 9:10 AM

Well in both cases your house is gone but in one the Govt will only compensate you the actual market value, not 2x market value.

Posted by: David at March 14, 2007 9:21 AM

Not really - there wasn't a housing crisis in 1959. It wasn't until the revision of the zoning code in 1964 that the housing crisis began again, as it suddenly became almost impossible to build high density housing.

This of course led to Rent Stabilization less than a decade later, which of course only made the problem worse.

Now, here we are 40 years after the worst zoning rules in the developed world and the housing crisis is insane.

The public today needs a rapid infusion of housing far more than the city needed a bridge to Staten Island.

And don't talk about affordable housing - there will be no affordable housing until the supply of housing is close to the demand. It has nothing to do with pricing.

Posted by: Eryximachus at March 14, 2007 9:21 AM

Regarding The Bridge, you asked:

"We wonder how much public outcry at the time, which was towards the end of Robert Moses' reign."

Some of the best writing about The Bridge came from Gay Talese who wrote a terrific piece addressing all the issues and the impact of The Bridge on Bay Ridge. I think it was originally published in Esquire, and it was included in a collection of his writings called "Fame and Obscurity."

The title of the artice was "The Bridge."

Posted by: Narrows-minded at March 14, 2007 9:44 AM

David, allow me to screw your wife and I'll compensate you at 2X the market value.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 10:18 AM

Unfortunately, I am unable to access your video... I will look up that Gay Talese article, which sounds very interesting.

I remember that time very clearly in 1963, though not from the perspective of being a home owner, more like a excited teenager and participant in the party that was the ribbon cutting and the connecting of Staten Island to NYC.

People were extremely excited about the whole thing, though some of the older Islanders complained about the influx of new residents and enormous amount of development it brought. The development was disruptive to the bucolic life there, beautiful
woodlands and, trees and established neighborhoods with attractive old housing stock. By the way, there was an active farming community in SI post WW II and the area which became the Fresh Kills landfill inhabited part of what used to be truck farms there.

But I don’t remember any controversy about the value of the project. Staten Island had been very isolated and connected to NJ by 3 bridges but to the rest of NYC only by the ferry. The bridge opened the borough commercially to the rest of the city and the rest of the city -- Brooklyn especially—to SI for housing. The building of the Verrazano was obviously a public project of major proportions which has paid for itself years and years ago and is a huge source of income and has led to enormous economic growth.

Re eminent domain, the difficulty in its use comes with our understanding of the “public good” and who decides. I don’t think that there is (was) much disagreement on the public value of the Verrazano as a major piece of public transportation infrastructure;
obviously the understanding of the public good in use of eminent domain with AY has been much more controversial.

Posted by: donatella at March 14, 2007 10:19 AM

Most of the outcry against the bridge came from the Bay Ridge side. It wasn't that the locals were against the bridge per se, but the fact that Moses seemed to choose the route that would obliterate the most homes and cut the neighborhood up (much like he did w/the Cross Bronx Expressway a few years prior): running the highway (basically) right up Ft. Hamilton Parkway instead of around the edge of the neighborhood, by Shore Road. In the end, the neighborhood survived (unlike the South Bronx), although those displaced didn't really get all they were owed for their homes. And, most ended up in Staten Island.
I'm waiting for Kevin from Forgotten NY to weigh in, as the the approaches were built basically outside of his front door.

Posted by: Wallis at March 14, 2007 10:40 AM

Anon 10:18 - if you knew my wife, you'd know that there is no way you could afford such a proposition -

Posted by: David at March 14, 2007 11:09 AM

Oh come on...surely he has 20 bucks lying around somewhere.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 11:15 AM

donatella, you wrote:

"I will look up that Gay Talese article, which sounds very interesting."

I did a quick google search after my previous post. Gay Talese's story is actually a book, not a mere magazine article. I read it quite a while ago and recall truly enjoying it.

It's available through Amazon and other on-line book venues.

Posted by: Narrows-minded at March 14, 2007 11:18 AM

>>I'm waiting for Kevin from Forgotten NY to weigh in, as the the approaches were built basically outside of his front door.<<<

I was too little to pay attention to the controversy but yes, they leveled everything across the street from me (6th Ave and 83rd Street)

I do remember stories that they cleared the buildings out a good 3 years before construction started, so there was block after block of empty lots for quite awhile.

For pics of ongoing construction...

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/verrazanoconstruction/bridge.html

Posted by: Kevin Walsh at March 14, 2007 11:30 AM

Nice 11:15 - you bravely attack my wife behind the annonimity of a web log because you dont like my opinion.
I'd be more then happy to have a 'negotiation' in person with you when you like - just contact Brownstoner directly - he knows how to reach me.

BTW - if she was only $20 I'd be a much happier man, besides its the emotional cost that you pu$$y's would never be able to handle.

Posted by: David at March 14, 2007 11:31 AM

Oh, yeah, no cut and pasting comments in here.

I was too little to pay attention to the controversy but yes, they leveled everything across the street from me (6th Ave and 83rd Street)

I do remember stories that they cleared the buildings out a good 3 years before construction started, so there was block after block of empty lots for quite awhile.

For pics of ongoing construction...

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/STREET%20SCENES/verrazanoconstruction/bridge.html

Posted by: Kevin Walsh at March 14, 2007 11:32 AM

hilarious...at least these opinionists have a sense of humor. Thanks for the laughs. Good luck finding that perfect compromise.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 11:47 AM

David, he said he'd give you 2X the market value, so what are you bitching about?

Posted by: Mike at March 14, 2007 11:51 AM

I'd like to add that this "David" person always springs into action to defend Ratner and Eminent Domain. I find this very strange for an average Joe.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 12:21 PM

Are you people 'slow adults'?

I'm not critisizing anyone for posting anonymously I am critisizing b/c while posting anonymously this person essentially called my wife a $20 hooker - which I promise you he wouldnt have the guts to do in person.

As for my opinions - I know you might find it strange but there are people who support AYs who arent on anyone's payroll. I think on balance it will be a tremendous public benefit and therefore support the limited use of ED in this case.

Maybe if you morons spent less time attacking people personally; screaming the 'sky is falling; maligning your opposition and more time presenting your position with intelligence and facts - they wouldnt have start site prep 2 weeks ago.

Posted by: David at March 14, 2007 12:40 PM

And I find the commentary from these characters very tastless and ugly.

Posted by: anon at March 14, 2007 12:42 PM

I have to agree, humor aside, that attacking David's wife (who knew he had one), is hitting a little bit below the belt.

Posted by: one_of_the_sky_is_falling_moron at March 14, 2007 12:49 PM

"I am critisizing b/c while posting anonymously this person essentially called my wife a $20 hooker"

You take offense at this, and yet you're quick to assign a value to homes that are precious to those who live in them. Jerk. Your wife should be flattered.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 12:57 PM

BTW - if she was only $20 I'd be a much happier man, besides its the emotional cost that you pu$$y's would never be able to handle.

David it's the emotional cost to my home that you rats would never be able to handle.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 1:02 PM

I don't mean to be a pedant, but if the earlier poster was offering $20 for your wife, and if $20 is 2X her market value, that would make your wife a $10 hooker.

Just a clarification....

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 1:08 PM

lmao

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 1:11 PM

This is the best thread ever...!!..incredible how these forums often bring out schoolyard mentality. Given an anonymous forum people just love to regress back to five year olds.....it happens all the time at the brooklynian.com too...love it.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 1:51 PM

So much for the discussion on the Verrazano Bridge.

Posted by: donatella at March 14, 2007 1:58 PM

There was a terrific New York Times piece about a month ago regarding "online flaming" and how anonymity allowed people to state things they never would do in person.

Posted by: supergirl at March 14, 2007 2:03 PM

It must be fascinating material for psychologists and social scientists.... Better than observing people behind glass, or using surveys.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 2:16 PM

Much more interesting than 90% of the crap on here. We ought to be thanking them.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 2:25 PM

Look I'll let my wife do her own negotiating, but clearly the direction of this thread again establishes how intellectually weak and desperate the opposition to AY and the use of ED at that location is.

I also fail to see why it would be so emotionally devestating to leave an apartment you couldnt have owned more then a couple of years max. Its got to pale in comparison to the Verazzano/Bay Ridge situation, where you might be forced out of a home which you may have occupied for decades or even generations. Something tells me the that kind of loss can only be slightly mitigated by the fact that a bridge is being built. Yet the ED opponents fail to address these salient points.

Posted by: David at March 14, 2007 2:32 PM

7,000 people in 800 homes? I don't think so. A bit of under-counting or over-crowding I surmise. Try 800 structures with multiple units or 'homes'. Sunset Park lost two miles of multi-families along 3rd Avenue.

Posted by: tommurphy at March 14, 2007 2:35 PM

"...clearly the direction of this thread again establishes how intellectually weak and desperate the opposition to AY and the use of ED at that location is."

How so? Aside from being nasty and somewhat out of line in my opinion, the earlier posters used your own reasoning against you, and you didn't like the result. That, it seems to me, is a salient point.

"I also fail to see why it would be so emotionally devestating to leave an apartment you couldnt have owned more then a couple of years max."

Someone might fail to see why it would be emotionally devastating for you to throw away your father's pocket watch, to sell a table you built with your late brother, or to put down a dog you'd had for a couple of years. In that case the failure is with that person's vision, not with your emotions.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 3:32 PM

@3:41 - so if they were taking this home from you to build a bridge or a road or a publically built housing project (and arena) it would be less upsetting?

I'm sorry if you just want to repeat a mantra - that there is no public good from AY and end the debate there then go ahead...but many people (who arent corrupt or bought) see the public benefit of covering an ugly eyesore, building an arena for Brooklyn, creating more housing both affordable and not so affordable, economic development, construction jobs, etc....

And if there is a public benefit then you have to weigh that against the acknowledged pain of using ED (a legitimate government function according to the constitution). Now in this case we are talking about literally a handful of homeowners (I believe 3 or 4 new residents - and yes being new is a factor) who will be facing ED procedures. Is it bad for them - sure, but IMO compared to the public benefit - it is a legitimate use of ED.

I mean look at the Bridge - you are talking about thousands of people who were forced out through ED and dont you think people made a 'killing' on building the bridge - isnt there a toll on the bridge-isnt someone collecting huge sums of $ from this "public project"? Didnt land owners in SI make a fortune b/c the bridge was built. Wouldnt a tunnel or even a rail tunnel (the original PA NY/NJ mandate) have served us better without having to use ED?

I'm not saying that they shouldnt have build the Bridge, only that ED is a very powerful force that has to be used carefully and the fact that it is "public" builder vs a "private" builder should be of small consequence. Of course it isnt here...simply b/c the opponents dont want it built (under any circumstances) and "ED abuse" mantra fits in well with their current agenda.

Posted by: David at March 14, 2007 4:21 PM

"@3:41 - so if they were taking this home from you to build a bridge or a road or a publically built housing project (and arena) it would be less upsetting?"

Actually, yes, it would be much less upsetting. The state has to have these kind of powers, to be exercised with great discretion. Ordinary citizens who're out to make a buck do not, and should not, have such powers.

"I'm sorry if you just want to repeat a mantra - that there is no public good from AY..."

I doubt that there is a public good, but suppose for the sake of argument that there is public good. In fact, suppose there is an incredible public good of monumental proportions, much like the good to be derived from highways, dams, etc. In that event, the state ought to be behind the project. Of course, I suppose the state is behind the project now, since the state is going to be funding it. But in that case, the taxpayers ought to see the eventual benefits instead of some private developer.

"I'm not saying that they shouldnt have build the Bridge, only that ED is a very powerful force that has to be used carefully and the fact that it is "public" builder vs a "private" builder should be of small consequence.."

This is similar to the argument that the state should farm out the management of prisons to private firms. The results of doing so have been disastrous, largely because the primary concern of the state is to protect the public interest while the primary concern of a private firm is to make money. Why should we expect better results when we turn ED over to private interests?

If Ratner could supply a paramilitary force to 'protect' the citizens of NYC more cost effectively than our current police force, would you be comfortable with that? I mean, what matters is that we have police, right? What difference does it make whether they're public or private?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 5:17 PM

I heard this story long ago. Probably an urban myth:

There was indeed a great hue and cry from apartment owners in Bay Ridge who were living on the planned approach. They were well-organized democrats and they fought hard for ample compensation. They got it, used the money to buy houses in Staten Island, and all became Republicans.

Posted by: ANONYMOUS 3:16 at March 14, 2007 5:50 PM

My mom grew up in Bay Ridge and remembers signining petitions against the bridge. Hey, they tried.

"Apartment owners"? Not around there, back then...in Bay Ridge you rented or owned a house.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 14, 2007 8:12 PM

All you anti-AY flamers, please take your stupid cause to www.atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com and jerk each other off all you want there. I'm so sick and tired of having every decent thread on this site destroyed by your nonsensical arguments! Give it a break already - no one cares!

Now can we please hear more about Bay Ridge and the Verrazano Bridge. Jeesh!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 3:44 AM

The more I head about this development, the more I become convinced that it is a terrible deal for all New Yorkers. We should start from scratch and get it right. No eminent domain abuse, no out-of-porportion development. We don't want Brooklyn to become another mid-town in 30 years.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 7:42 AM

I agree. The scale of this thing is nuts. If we want to provide employment for union tradespeople from Long Island, why don't we just build a pyramid?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 15, 2007 7:43 AM

"Apartment owners" was definitely a slip of the keyboard. While we're at it, "Democrats" should have had capital D.

Posted by: ANONYMOUS 3:16 at March 16, 2007 3:20 AM

« Steuben Glass: Myrtle Gets Fancy Dust Off Those Rusty Trowels (Just One Last Time) »

March 14, 2007

Eminent Domain and the Verrazano Bridge

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions