« Brooklyn Hotel Buzz: Boom and Doom So That's What Avalon Myrtle Will Look Like! »
October 17, 2007
Eminent Domain Spreads to Williamsburg Waterfront
How would you feel if you'd been smart enough to buy waterfront property in Williamsburg before Dan Doctoroff knew the difference between Bedford and Broadway only to have your property snatched away from you by the city? Probably something like the two groups of investors who are in the process of getting pushed out by the forces of eminent domain to make way for a possible soccer and softball field. This time around, the city isn't claiming blight; instead it's invoking the concept of public good. The land, which is bounded by Kent Avenue, the East River, North 9th Street and North 10th Street in Williamsburg, is just to the north of the recently-opened East River State Park between North 8th and North 9th streets and lies at the southern end of the proposed Bushwick Inlet Park that the city's had on the drawing boards for the past couple of years; the parcel represents phase 1 of the park project. The grand vision for the park extends north from North 9th Street about six blocks to the far side of the Bushwick Inlet. This is far from a done deal, though, according to The Real Deal, which first reported the ED action: Three land owners in the center of the footprint—TransGas, CitiStorage and the Greenpoint Monitor Museum—aren't taking the city's overtures lying down. "[The land] was donated and we are not giving it up," said Janice Lauletta-Weinmann, president and co-founder of the Greenpoint Monitor Museum, told TRD. "It is a disgrace." One remaining issue to be resolved in the North 9th Street case is price: Typically the city pays a token amount to the owners upfront and then litigates the final amount. The market value is probably somewhere between $100 and $200 per buildable square foot, according to Massey Knakal. It'll be interesting to see what the final price is. Do you think this situation merits the use of eminent domain?
City Takes W'burg Waterfront Properties for Park [The Real Deal] GMAP
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2560
Comments
living in the neighborhood, it'd be great to have a huge waterfront park, but why does the phrase 'industrial gardens' sound terrifying?
Do I want to sit at the beach or eat at the restaurant in full view of something described as 'industrial gardens'??
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 9:44 AM
I think there's a big difference between claiming eminent domain for a city park as opposed to a sports stadium being built by a developer.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 9:48 AM
What an oddly written article. I speak not as a pro- or anti-eminent domain advocate. Public good however is the original intent of eminent domain. Prospect Park could never have been built without it. This looks like a reasonable use of eminent domain, but of course we need more info. Usually the city pays top dollar when it takes property. Why the assumption here that the city will try to screw the owners? I know nothing of the Monitor Museum, but if the city is smart, and the museum is legitimate, I assume something will be worked out to place a musum in the park.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 9:49 AM
Welcom to the damn club....
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 9:55 AM
Oh the untouchable Williamsburg?
"if the city is smart"
Those are big ifs.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 9:56 AM
Look, these property owners don't live here, they're just businessmen, right? So if you rule out the emotion that often comes with displacing people from their homes, the city should be able to offer them a price on the free market (without ED) that should get the deal done. The big reason to use ED here, except in the case of the museum, is for the city to underpay.
Posted by: brownstoner at October 17, 2007 10:02 AM
Just curious- has anyone read The Power Broker?
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 10:06 AM
I am really confused. You are upset because the city is using eminent domain to build a park? That is what it is for. And I am not shedding any tears - the owners will get paid. Next.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 17, 2007 10:07 AM
We like the idea of a park just fine but don't think it merits eminent domain. ED should be reserved for rare and extreme circumstances, in our opinion, not just as a matter of convenience.
Posted by: brownstoner at October 17, 2007 10:11 AM
I wish they would do this in Wallabout
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 10:11 AM
I think you're wrong here brownstoner. The trouble with your scenario is that these guys can hold out for much more than the value of the property because the city has no ability to look for property somewhere else. The courts exist to ensure that the city pays fair market value. The owners know that and the city knows it. Eminent domain has a bad rap in Brooklyn right now because of AY, but it is used all the time to build parks, schools, police precincts, etc. Poor Edwin Litchfield, was a smart property owner and Brooklyn developer. That didn't stop the City of Brooklyn for taking his home when it built Prospect Park. I'm sure he wasn't too happy about it, but ask all the kids at the Third Street playgroud if it was a good idea and I'm sure that the answer would be a resounding "Yes."
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 10:15 AM
I actually think this is almost entirely appropriate. This isn't exactly a thriving corner of Williamsburg. While I'd like to see a fair price negotiated, these owners are basically in it to take the city for a ride -- they know perfectly well that without Bushwick Inlet, the waterfront development is gonna come to naught around here. Since they know the city has pretty much promised everyone to buy this land, it's hard to believe a sale would be anywhere near "fair market value."
Posted by: Zach at October 17, 2007 10:17 AM
"$100 to $200 per buildable square foot"?!?
NOTHING is buildable there, its zoned for park land.
Now what is it worth? What is fair market value?
And this is exactly what eminent domain should be used for - improvement of the public good. Its not some giveaway to private interests in the name of increasing tax revenue (a la Kelo).
These guys (Monitor Museum aside) are trying to hold the city, taxpayers and the neighborhood hostage.
Posted by: WBer at October 17, 2007 10:32 AM
As much as we love this blog, this has to be one of your more idiotic posts. As stated above, eminent domain is not being used to underpay. It is the tool that is used to for these transactions. The stakes are high, and the courts provide the forum. If this isn't a proper use of eminent domain, nothing is. Are we supposed to feel sorry for that fat ass at Trans Gas?
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 10:37 AM
Eminent domain is a joke. What about private property rights? I'm with 'Stoner on this one.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 10:41 AM
So now Brownstoner you are advocating for the abandonment of ALL Eminent Domain use?
You truly have lost it. How do you expect subways, roads, schools, parks etc.. to be built if you cant use ED. And here it is mosty fallow unused land for god sakes.
You seriously had better go back to school and learn something about the constitution, real property law and civics, you are revealing your ignorance more and more.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:08 AM
I'm sure anyone who looks into this a bit will realize that both Central Park and Prospect Park will built utilizing land seized via eminent domain. Contrary to popular belief, the formerly rural sections of this now sprawling metropolis were not necessarily populated by a landed gentry supportive of the expansion of the city. I'm sure quite a few of those folks were as vocal in their discontent as modern NIMBYs are today.
This country has never have had unrestricted private property rights, and this city was built with the use of eminent domain.
I want these same defenders of property rights to explain to me why eminent domain is bad, but zoning restrictions are good. I'd also like to know why the rich who own land should have total rights over their land, but poor schleps have to slave away for months every year paying taxes.
Personally, I feel it's much worse when middle class people who can barely get by in this city have to pay 40% of their income in taxes while the rich who own land get to scream and moan about losing their property (and being fairly compensated) for the greater good. The middle class get nothing for their taxes besides an endless war and a huge, ever increasing underclass dependent upon the state. At least the rich land owners receive cash for their troubles.
Posted by: Polemicist at October 17, 2007 11:18 AM
City should have done this 15 years ago, Oh I guess there was other things to do LIKE HARASS THE BROOKLYN MUSEUM.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:24 AM
I am impressed and delighted that the city is even building a public park! I thought those days were gone -- that the city had decreed that the only way to get "open space" at this point was through private means. Thus, the much-touted "open space" (in fact privately held) courtyards that are part of AY.
I think your post is really off-base. "Reamed"? "screw"? I don't get the vituperation here.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:26 AM
Polemicist--I'm not weeping for the rich either but what about when the poor shleps are the ones having their propoety taken away?
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:29 AM
ED should not be used, period.
That said, the owners should be negotiated with and paid fairly and then the owners of the properties that will benefit from the City park being there on the waterfront should eventually compensate the City pay big-time because those properties will be the ones that benefit the most from this whole thing.
Time and again we see the same pattern:
a city takes properties and/or simply invests tons in taxpayer money, floats bonds, etc. to build up a park or create a civic waterfront and then it is ALWAYS developers who benefit the most by taking advantage of the bordering properties to the new civic improvement.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:32 AM
"ED should be reserved for rare and extreme circumstances, in our opinion, not just as a matter of convenience."
Like, gimme an example of "rare and extreme circumstance" in which you would approve a taking for a public use?
How do you know the owner of the property isn't trying to hold the City up for an outrageous price?
The Constitution says that when property is taken for "public use" there must be "just compensation." What's wrong with that? I understand the argument when the beneficiary of the taking is as much a private entity as the public; but to make a park?
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:34 AM
"it is ALWAYS developers who benefit the most by taking advantage of the bordering properties to the new civic improvement."
So -- the developer in Williamsburg should have no complaint about the taking for a park because he's benefit in the end? /sarcasm
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:37 AM
11:32 - huh?
If the State couldnt use ED (period) then either the owners would not sell OR they'd force the State to pay so much $ that a park would not be feasible.
and fyi as the value of land surrounding public amenities rises, their value is reassessed and taxes are thereby increased.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 11:38 AM
I agree that eminent domain is inappropriate for a sports stadium. Hence, I propose that once Atlantic Yards is built, we seize it via eminent domain and destroy it in order to build something for the public good - like train yards and a condo building with one occupant.
Yes, I read "The Power Broker". Overrated, poorly-written book. But what do you expect from a journalist? A historian would have done a more competent job.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 12:12 PM
Those of you that seem to relish the idea of the use of ED to condemn a developers private, paid-for property, posit this.
Suppose that you are a property owner on the periphery of this new 'industrial park.' The government has condemned only 2-3 feet of your lot...only your building/improvements cover the entire lot. The government would only pay you for the 2-3 feet of wall and space taken from you, NOT for the loss of the entire building or the fact that you have constructively been dispossessed.
Do not think for a second that "just compensation" and the wisdom of the courts will save the day.
This new brand of Eminent Domain is scary and dangerous. Sometimes we have to see beyond the emotion and see what the real issue is. The government can wield this power to take from you whatever it is that "they" feel compelled to take.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 12:26 PM
I think I'm voting for Ron Paul.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 12:29 PM
This is a fantastic use of eminent domain. I wish they'd do it for Domino, too.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 12:52 PM
12:26. That simply isn't true. ED demands that these disputes (which would probably be negotiated out anyway with the threat of ED over the landlord's head) be litigated in court. Do you actually have some caselaw which says the city can talk half a building a leave the otherhalf open to the elements and not provide compensation? Now it is true that governments seize parts of front yards to widen streets and may not thus pay for the whole house, etc. But your example is screwy.
And the government - it is us, after all. After all the New London news (supreme court case which upheld use of ED), many governments have rethought the use of ED.
You know what, this is such a no-brainer I am taking my no brain to another thread.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 17, 2007 12:54 PM
OK, not to go all "lawyer" chick but here's the reason why use of ED in this case is "bad".
Up until a recent Supreme Court decision, municipalities wanting to use ED had to prove blight. Since Kelo v. New London in 2000, the court approved this "public good" business. The problem is that term is incredibly broad. I understand that no one will shed a tear when evil developers are being deprived of their property rights (w/out just compensation, which I think is the point here). But what happens when the city decides that middle-class apartments aren't "good enough" and we should kick people out and build luxury condominiums instead? (That's pretty much what happened in Kelo, btw.) They can justify it by saying that the public good being done is an increased tax base, as well as jobs for all those poor schlepps cleaning the rich peoples' apartments.
Public good doesn't sound so good anymore, huh?
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 12:56 PM
Lawyer chick @ 12:56 - I hope your not practicing law - if you are you better go back and hit the books again, your understanding of ED, the Kelo case and its precedents leaves alot to be desired.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 1:09 PM
To 12:54
A scenario similar to the one described by 12:26 was experienced by property owners abutting the west side highway (south of 14th st) a few years ago.
While I am unsure of the final outcome, the city position was to pay for a market sf price for ONLY the portion that was taken. Not taking into account the actual impact on the properties or residents of those properties.
Caselaw? I am not sure if you are a lawyer, but caselaw is only one source of the law and is not always dispositive. One needs to look at the totality of the facts surrounding the issue and lately, ED is being utilized in a manner that we should all be concerned with.
While you may be a believer in the "neutral" elected court official and the wisdom of the courts, I am not.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 1:45 PM
12:12, what are you smoking?
I'm 315 pages into the Power Brioker and it is a gripping read. Surely not perfect but one of the best and most thoroughly researched nonfiction books I've ever read.
As for eminent domain, this is certainly an appropriate candidate for it.
Under Kelo, literally ANY use is appropriate so long as stamped with approval by the correct state/local powers that be, and the owner is compensated. However, this instance actually fits the traditional meaning of ED.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 1:56 PM
I've actually been involved in some ED work (used to work for the City/State). In general, property owners whose property gets taken in ED get MORE than they would have on the open market, not less. This is because the government not only has to compensate the owners for the land, but also for "fixtures" and they also have to give a stipend for moving expenses - both things that would not be covered in a market transaction. So I really thing that the inference that the property owners would get less than they would on the open market is off-base. The courts have been pretty consistent at making sure that doesn't happen.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 2:09 PM
Talking out of your ass at 1:09:
"Proposed disposition of property "to increase tax and other revenues" held to qualify as "public use" within meaning of takings clause of Federal Constitution's Fifth Amendment."
Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469.
-Lawyer chick
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 2:10 PM
Lawyer Chick
"Up until a recent Supreme Court decision, municipalities wanting to use ED had to prove blight." - not true
"Since Kelo v. New London in 2000, the court approved this "public good" business." - not true 'public good has always been standard
"no one will shed a tear when evil developers are being deprived of their property rights (w/out just compensation, which I think is the point here)." - Not True by consititutional definition, ED REQUIRES just compensation
"what happens when the city decides that middle-class apartments aren't "good enough" and we should kick people out and build luxury condominiums instead? (That's pretty much what happened in Kelo, btw.)" - Not true the Kelo plan involved a Conference center, hotel, retail, office space, public park, research center and small amount of housing
"They can justify it by saying that the public good being done is an increased tax base, as well as jobs for all those poor schlepps cleaning the rich peoples' apartments." - Not true, they can "justify" it anyway they want but a Court still has to hear it and certainly Kelo doesnt articulate that such a taking would meet there balancing test, not to mention that State Law can be more restrictive.
Again if you are a Lawyer, I recommend that your next CLE credits be dedicated to some Real Property and Constitutional Law before you post misinformation again.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 2:27 PM
I rent. It's better.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 2:33 PM
I would love to hear back from Brownstoner. Do you still feel that this is an abuse of eminent domain? Do you think that your posting accurately reflects the story? I really think it could have been written in a way that expressed your opinion without coloring the description of the city's proposal.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 2:43 PM
When I asked about caselaw I was, of course, asking for examples of partial condemnation = partial compensation. Of course if taking one wing of a building allows the other wing to still be used, then that might be appropriate. I understand the "law" involves more. In this case the U.S. constitution allows emminent domain, and many states have statutes outlining the process. While I am a lawyer, this is not my area of the law. I would be surprised, however, if prior to Kelo a property had to be blighted to be condemned. That makes no sense at all. Certainly parks, bridges, streets, schools, fire stations, etc, have been built on land which had a purpose prior to the condemnation. In this sense emminent domain is like taxation. The government takes something of yours in order to provide services and benefit to society as a large. Sucks (always in cases of taxes) if it is yours, but kind of hard to see how society could work without it. We could pay Farmer Brown 3 trillion dollars to build an interstate on her property, but then we wouldn't have money for anything else. And as a public defender I have a certain degree of skepticism of the inherent wisdom of the neutral court, but somehow I think big corporations and developers which have some property they bought as a speculation taken from them for a park will do just fine.
Shoot I said I wasn't going to think about this anymore.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 17, 2007 3:09 PM
Fair enough, 2:43. This post could have been written in a more measured, less emotional voice, to be sure, and in retrospect we might have toned down the closing remark about price, but we stand by our original position that we don't support the use of eminent domain in this case and doubt very much that the city will end up paying what these properties would currently fetch on the open market. All of which is not the same thing as being anti-park or pro-rich developer. Only time will tell, of course.
Posted by: brownstoner at October 17, 2007 3:12 PM
Brownstoner the question is WHY dont you support the use of ED in this case and upon what precedent, belief, history, faith or evidence do you base your conclusion that the owners will not be fairly compensated?
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 3:28 PM
We think the umbrella justification of "public good" is way too broad and makes it far too easy to trample on the idea of property rights. There's no blight (or none that the market wouldn't be taking care of in short order) or particular need for more parkland there, with the State Park to the south and McCarren to the northeast, so as much as a public park may be preferable for us on a selfish level, it lacks the urgency we believe is necessary to justify the taking of private property. It's a slippery slope: Right now we have to walk all the way to Fort Greene park to find some trees and grass--maybe the city should just take some of our neighbors' houses and build a park there. It would suck for the few of them, but just think how great it would be for the rest of us in the area. The public good would be served!
Posted by: brownstoner at October 17, 2007 3:55 PM
I ask again, what is the fair market value for a piece of waterfront property that is zoned for a park? The owners' attorneys are looking for compensation based on a non-existent residential zoning.
CitiStorage and Bayside have grandfathered uses that allow them to continue using the properties for industrial purposes (and maybe even for different than current industrial purposes), but NOT for any new uses (other than a park, of course).
Posted by: WBer at October 17, 2007 4:02 PM
Thank you 3:28. Brownstoner is indeed simply asserting that ED is wrong in this case and that the owners are going to be shorted. Based on what? Sounds like poster upthread has actual experience in this matter and that property owners do just fine financially in eminent domain situations. And he hasn't answered whether he thinks ED was wrong in the case of Prospect Park, nor specified under what circumstances he thinks it *would* be acceptable, except for "extreme circumstances", whatever those might be. Brownstoner says ED should not be a "matter of convenience." That's a strange way to describe building a waterfront park. Convenient? I would say that there are limited opportunities for creating waterfront recreational areas and that the siting at this location is more toward the necessary than the "convenient" end of the spectrum.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 4:11 PM
Actually, even WITH this new city park, the amount of parkland per capita in Greenpoint and Williamsburg will remain FAR below the citywide average.
Also, this area was rezoned as parkland as part of a comprehensive rezoning process - this isn't just the city swooping in and taking someone's property on a whim.
Posted by: WBer at October 17, 2007 4:11 PM
B'stoner - Maybe they should - but clearly you see the difference in taking underutilized Brownfield WATERFRONT property for creating a contiguous waterfront greenway as compared to taking peoples primary residence for a local community park- don't you?
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 4:12 PM
"We think the umbrella justification of "public good" is way too broad and makes it far too easy to trample on the idea of property rights." Well, check out the Constitution, Fifth Amendment, which clearly permits such takings for "public use" (the Framers' phrase) so long as "just compensation" is paid. My understanding is that the City pays, and the Courts insist that it does, compensation that is "just."
What is this "idea" of "property rights" that is trampled on? Property is nothing more than what society says it is. Don't believe me? Check out Benjamin Franklin, one of the Nation's founders, who wrote that the right to property extended to the minimal necessities of life, but that "all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition." Private property is thus permitted to be diminished by taxes, by zoning, by eminent domain, and so on. Property is not an absolute concept, and the Constitution recognizes that it can be taken so long as "due process" is followed and "just compensation" is paid.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 4:15 PM
Brownstoner, it's pretty silly to compare taking people's homes to build a park in Fort Greene to this situation, don't you think? I don't know that much about the history of the various pieces of land that have been put together for this park, but none of it involved taking anyone's home. As for the idea that Brooklyn has plenty of park -- that's just not true and you know it. A waterfront park doesn't just benefit the immediate neighborhood -- it's an asset for a much larger area. Would you argue that the Hudson River Park is unnecessary because of Central Park and Washington Sq. Park and Battery Park? It's long past time for Brooklyn to create EXTENSIVE public access to the waterfront for recreation. To suggest that this park is somehow excessive because the State Park is already there is just dumb. Sorry, you don't strike me as a dumb person, but your argument in this case is really weak.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 4:22 PM
cannot wait. own up the street. this guarantees that views on our shared roof deck will stay! yeah!
and, love the idea of a 50 million mccarren renovation just a few blocks north of me and the new waterfront park just a few blocks west.
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 4:33 PM
Power Broker is an awesome book!
I agree, I am about 250 pages into the book (it is a LONG freaking book), and I absolutely love it.
Deserved the Pulitzer Prize, I wish I would have discovered it about 10 years ago, but I guess it is never too late - even if I can only read a few pages a day, I love it!
Posted by: guest at October 17, 2007 5:36 PM
Jon Brownstoner I am not sure if you actually believe what you are writing or just being provocative to get your hit rate up, but I still can't follow your argument. I guess we COULD have a legal system which favors private ownership of property in the way you suggest, but it is not the one we have right now. I think you posted without thinking and it is time for you to give up your position. Or we will land a park on your house. or get your little doggy. or something like that.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 17, 2007 6:23 PM
We spent a lot of time thinking about all the responses in this thread and reading this post on brooklyn 11211 (http://www.brooklyn11211.com/archive/2007/10/eminent_domain.html) and have to admit that our orginal post was woefully unnuanced...We still think these property owners are getting a raw deal--but, as brooklyn11211 points out, that raw deal really occurred back when the land was rezoned as parkland. it will be pretty interesting to see on what basis they end up getting compensated. we'll try to do more digging on what the arguments on both sides will be as they fight over price.
Posted by: brownstoner at October 18, 2007 7:38 AM
I, for one, am delighted to see the city prioritizing a public park, which will actually benefit the entire public, rather than, say, luxury condominiums or a sports stadium where tickets will cost a hundred bucks a pop.
-Gwen
Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 11:20 AM
Thanks. I've recalled the flying monkeys.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at October 18, 2007 8:55 PM
Maybe I missed something, but as for the Monitor Museum being squeezed out in this deal, looks like the park plan shown in the original post includes a "historic ship" in the northwest entrance to the Inlet.
Could be a coincidence, but looks like they're part of the master plan already.
Posted by: guest at October 18, 2007 10:04 PM
TransGas wants to build a 1000 MW power plant on (or under) the Bayside site. Brodsky (CitiStorage) outbid the Trust for Public Land who was in negotiations for the 4 block parcel way back when, then sold the 2 blocks to the Trust for just shy of what he (& Silverman) paid for all 4- meaning that he got his waterfront parcel practically FREE while ripping off the community- we should have had a 4-block State Park but TPL let the deal get past them. And the Monitor Museum has a commitment from Parks Dept. for the Museum to be located at the Inlet. Considering they have no $$ to build their museum, they might want to reconsider accepting the deal the Parks Dept. wants to offer, but I'm not getting into that discussion.
Brodsky should never have gotten ahold of that parcel, it belongs to the community for a park (as does the other side, which now rises in luxury residential splendor.) The 197(a) plan sited a park there, no luxury high-rise development. Williamsburg/Greenpoint has near the lowest ratio of parks:population in the State. The rezoning could bring 40,000 new residents in the next 10 years. For that property to be a park for the citizens of North Brooklyn is appropriate and fair. Where were you when the TPL deal went south? All's fair in capitalism and real estate? I don't want to live in that world. We need more parks, and the market ain't going to give them to us. Bring on eminent domain.
Posted by: kateyourke at October 23, 2007 10:02 PM
A summary of what I see in these responses is that the property owners will receive "just compensation" and everyone will have a park. Sounds OK now if you can trust the City's commitment to this Park. But look into the future. What is happening here could be a City land grab using the word "Park" to gain public support. What happens when the City does not have adequate funds to build and maintain this Park? Two sites are on highly contaminated land. The City does not only have to pay "just compensation" for the land. They have to clean up these sites as well. WHERE IS THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THIS? Property taxes have already doubled in the area during the last few years and will continue to double for the regular homeowner while the big developers are receiving huge tax breaks. The City is not hiding the fact that it does not have money to build and maintain this Park. At this time a Not For Profit organization of businessmen is being set up to do fundraising from private and corporate sources and foundations to create and maintain this Park. Well if they can't secure this funding what happens to the park? Will parts of the land be sold to developers to support what is left of the park? Will the land be sold to the City's hand picked developers? The City can demap Parkland. WHEN THE CITY CALLS FOR EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE LAND FOR A PARK, THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO APPROPRIATE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN THIS PARK AND NOT DEPEND ON OUR TAXES AND A NEWLY CREATED NOT FOR PROFIT TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN IT. If this does not happen, question the City's commitment to the Park and its use of Eminent Domain for this Park.
Posted by: guest at November 3, 2007 2:31 PM
Thank you Brownstoner. We are in solidarity for the more than 100 forgotten employees of Citi Storage who may loose their jobs. Good Luck against Eminent Domain. The City of New York had the opportunity to purchase this site and other Greenpoint/Williamsburg waterfront sites for a Park but chose not to when the land was legitimately for sale (including the infamous Power Plant site). Now, underhandedly, the City is promising parkland through eminent domain. When the property was available, the City did not care about any park.
Posted by: guest at November 7, 2007 7:14 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.