Council Members Look to Take on Eminent Domain

Pure political theater - City council has ZERO (repeat - ZERO) authority, control or input into STATE property laws surrounding ED.

The Counsel should go back to naming streets for Sonny Carson and STFU.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 9:43 AM

In the end, the only council member who cares about this is Letitia James, the eternal protestor. But 9:43 is right, she and the others have no power over this anyway. They should spend time on things they actually can do, rather than wasting time posturing.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 10:00 AM

I think it is important because to keep this issue in public view because it may still be possible to modify the AY project and strong public opinion - getting the work out on what a dirty deal it is - can do a lot to affect the final outcome.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 10:08 AM

I wish I could believe there is anything that will make them modify the AY project but it is such a steamroller I don't see much hope. But it is important to keep the issue in the public eye. There was a lot of outrage over the Supreme Court decision and I don't think it's going away, nor should it.

There may well come a day when Letitia james is lauded for being the eternal protestor, especially when wal-mart takes your house for their new store. At some point the greater good will be understood to mean protecting property owners' rights, not stripping it away to give to the mall owners.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 10:45 AM

there are many in the council troubled by eminent domain, even Ms. Quinn:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2007/12/21/2007-12-21_politicians_fear_columbia_may_use_eminen.html

what desperately needs to be reformed are NY State's laws concerning what is "blight." Right now anything can be construed to be blight. and w/o reforming those laws, there is no eminent domain reform that will actually have meaning, as long as "blight" is left in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 11:01 AM

11:01 - under Kelo, "blight" is not a requirement to allow an ED transfer

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 11:49 AM

frankly, if Walmart gives me the very over valued prices Ratner 'offered' they can have my house.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:02 PM

Fine for you- there's a lot of other people who would rather keep their homes. It may shock you to learn not everyone is about money.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:09 PM

12:02 took the words out of my mouth. Many of those in the AY footprint who sold made double what their properties were worth. I'd love it if that happened to me. I'd take the money, buy another home and then bank or invest the remainder. Sometimes it pays to be a "victim".

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:10 PM

9:43 got it right on the very first post. Nothing more to say except, who is STFU and why should the City Council name a street for them?

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:19 PM

very intelligent post, 12:19- I wonder if you apply that same attitude to all aspects of your life- if you even have one.

Not everyone cares about the money- if you don't get that concept, you just don't get it. Feel sorry for you- money doesn't buy everything and you can't take it with you. But hey- there is room for human being and the moneygrubbers.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:26 PM

"It may shock you to learn not everyone is about money."

Don't kid yourself, pal. This is America. Almost EVERYONE is about money. It's just a matter of how much money you're talking.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:31 PM

"Feel sorry for you- money doesn't buy everything and you can't take it with you."

Brilliant! What revolutionary thinking! Can I quote you on that?

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:33 PM

you bet- it's certainly more intelligent than the STFU poster, but it would take brains for you to know that

12:31- Almost is the operative word, and sad that you've defined this country by money. I'd like to think we're better than that

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:44 PM

If people care so much about their homes, then why are there only three owners remaining in the footprint? Dan Goldstein, the most visible one, can afford to be morally superior to the rest of the unwashed masses because he's so rich (made a lot of $ with AOL and has a father who is a hedge fund manager). Believe me, if he'd been a cop or a schoolteacher with kids to raise, he'd have taken Ratner's buyout long ago.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:45 PM

everyone/everything might not be about money - but when you recognize that the "homes" facing ED seizure here are all NEW condos having only been occupied for only a few years prior - you have to admit that this is either about money or dedication to some "principal" but NOT about some poor old widower trying to maintain possession of the family homestead with sentimental or historical value.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:48 PM

12:26 - You can't take a condo with you either

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 12:49 PM

ALL IN ALL, WE WILL BE LOSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. END OF STORY.

REGULAR FOLK WILL BE SLAMMED WITH A MASSIVE DEBT THANKS TO A HUGE GOV'T HANDOUT TO THE DEVELOPER.

CITY STREETS AND PROPERTY (WHICH ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE EMPIRE STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) WILL BE HANDED OVER BASICALLY FOR FREE TO THE DEVELOPER.

REMEMBER: 40% OF THIS HUGE AREA IS RAILYARDS FROM THE MTA. THE OTHER 60% IS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND CITY STREETS/SIDEWALKS.

ASIDE FROM THE MASSIVE HANDOUT, THE PROJECT IS ENTIRELY OUT OF SCALE AND NOT SUPPORTABLE BY EVEN INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES.

ASIDE FROM THE CITY PROPERTY RATNER AND CO. IS GETTING FOR FREE, THEY'LL BE GETTING THE ONGOING USE OF THOROUGHFARES FOR AS LONG AS THE COMPANY AND ITS ASSIGNS CONTROL THIS AREA.

PLUS, BECAUSE OF ALL THE TAX BREAKS, THE CITY WILL NOT RECOUP COSTS OR IMPACT THE BUDGET. IT WILL PROBABLY BE A NET LOSS.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 1:09 PM

to all: the point is not if you choose to sell- it's whether or not a private developer should have the right to take your property for his personal, ego-project. It isn't as if ratner had a meager sliver of land to start with- but his testosterone driven ego demanded a humongous, out sized project and the threat of seizure for small property owners, who I am sure you all realize have neither the means or the money to even fight him in ocurt. And he depended on that. If you like bullies, ratner's your man. I wish he would just take the damn viagra and get it off with his wife, instead of telling Brooklyn ot bend over and take it.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 1:14 PM

Not only do I have a life, 12:26, I also have a sense of humor. You want my serious take on the issue? Okay. As 9:43 and 10:00 point out, the Eminent Domain Procedure Law is a state law. When 9:43 states that the City Council has "zero" input, clearly they are using hyperbole (and capitalization). The Council does have influence, but only a little, on an issue that would need to obtain state-wide consensus by both parties in order to accomplish anything.

I don't think 9:43 is incorrect when writing "political theater," or when 10:00 writes "posturing." I would feel more encouraged if a dozen state elected officials from all five boroughs were leading the charge, although I still cannot imagine upstate Republican senators getting on board.

And just for the record, I do think that the law absolutely needs to be revised. I also believe that the State Environmental Qualtity Review Act needs to be revisited. I just don't think that the City Council is the right venue for accomplishing those qoals. Is that better, 12:26? Your pal, 12:19

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 1:20 PM

:-) 1:20-

your new bud, 12:26

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 1:24 PM

Letitia James is not all she's cracked up to be. Ask her about her votes supporting eminent domain, like Hudson Yards in Manhattan. Sure she's against AY, but once it's out of her district, she's not really fighting it.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 1:37 PM

upstate officials had better get involved because ED is happening upstate as well. This is a big election year and the questions that should be asked concern community control of development in their midst and ED. This is a national issue and bravo to Tish James for at least being a fighter. Street theatre has it's audience and they vote!!

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 2:19 PM

What planet are you from, Polemicist? You wouldn't know the people if they came up and slapped you in the face. If only you didn't have such a knee jerk reaction to everything you might get taken seriously osmeday.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 3:23 PM

2:19 - actually they don't vote - at least the ones who enjoy street theater concerning Atlantic Yards (and presumably ED) don't; Since in the last election virtually everyone who was in favor of AY and ED was handily re-elected - even in those races where the officials support of AY was made an issue.

Further - ED is "happening upstate" and everywhere else - because it is one of the most basic and necessary Governmental powers and is in-fact enumerated in the constitution.

This is exactly the longterm danger of the NIMBY fight against AY - the opponents really could care less about ED (or its "abuse") - they just picked up on it because it was a convenient (especially before Kelo) tool to hopefully defeat the arena (main thing they oppose) and the density (secondary concern). However these same NIMBY's push for laws to restrain ED - caring only about themselves (see Letitia James) and AY. Ignoring the fact that by restraining ED they would forever cause other necessary projects (like replacement of the Gowanus, new subway lines, new schools, etc...) to become even more expensive, if not impossible.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 4:25 PM

4:17 wrote "i happen to be one of the anti-AY crowd, and i, as well as thousands of others, have donated time, money and services to the fight."

Please do not exaggerate - there are maybe 75 active hardcore AY opponents and a few hundred others who might have donated a few dollars or attended a rally or 2.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 4:27 PM

"REMEMBER: 40% OF THIS HUGE AREA IS RAILYARDS FROM THE MTA. THE OTHER 60% IS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND CITY STREETS/SIDEWALKS."

You neglect to mention that the vast majority of that 60% is owned by Ratner.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 4:29 PM

"if the DDDB website can be believed (and i believe it can)"

HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA Ha Ha Ha Ha

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 4:45 PM

well since DDDB is a 501c3 registered with the attorney general of the state of new york, and its a group that idiots on this board would love to "get" don't think they'd have good reason not to lie about their funding on their website?

as for the guy way above who wrote that under Kelo "blight" is not required that is true. but under new york state law, nearly all eminent domain actions require a blight finding.

lastly, constitutional rights aren't for sale. whether you are "an old widowder" or a condo owner or whatever.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 4:54 PM

"although i've disagreed with most everything that Polemicist posts, i respect that he/she is willing to show their identity."

Who cares what you think? I don't HAVE to log in, and just because of you, I NEVER will! HA HA!!

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 5:23 PM

"i respect that he/she is willing to show their identity."

Identity?? A contrived Internet pseudonym is not exactly full disclosure, OK? And I'm not sure how a good point would be made more "valid" by attaching a registered "identity" to the observation.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 5:25 PM

his point is if you use a name, you can tell throughout a thread who is posting what. DUH!

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 5:30 PM

I'm with 5:23

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 6:16 PM

4:54 - actually blight is not required for most ED cases in NY - only those made alleging the public benefit is an "economic benefit". (see NY Times Tower) - in reality for the arena at AY -blight probably won't need to be shown.

And actually while the constitutional "right" isn't for sale, what is, is your property - since the Constitution itself puts NO LIMIT on ED, and in fact makes "just compensation" the only requirement for a ED taking.

I however (and am sure many others) would be more willing to contemplate legal and constitutional (state) changes related to ED, if the so called "victims" of the "horror" of ED were actually people who needed protection - rather then new and relatively rich and sophisticated condominium owners whose "loss" ends up being a 150% return on a 2yr investment.

FSRG

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 6:22 PM

Please consider that the issue here is ABUSE of Eminent Domain, not Eminent Domain per se.

And what about all the renters who were dumped out...what about the renters who were in buildings FCR bought? What about the woman who put all that money in starting the daycare center to then get dumped after investing money in the space? What about all the people who were residents in the alternative housing building...they were highly vulnerable? Have they been placed in comparable housing?

To the person who signed at 6:22 as FSRG: UH...150% return on 2-yr investment???! Listen, first of all it's not like all people FCR bought out were condo owners...I think that was, what, one building? AND, hello! Many people were selling elsewhere these last years for 150% of their relatively recent purchase price so this is not an argument.

To the commenter above who mentioned E.D. is in the Constitution...uh...yeah...for the public good...and as it has developed over time, rulings have angled it to be used when a municipal, state or the federal gov't compensates property owners and then takes land for public uses...now, okay, Kelo sanctioned the city taking property and giving it to "some" other owner for the public good where the property would not belong to the public (already bad idea but...okay).

BIG DIFFERENCE WITH THE “IDEA THAT IS ATLANTIC YARDS”:
Land was taken to give to a PRE-DESIGNATED SPECIFIC company, and this specific company INITIATED this process! It WAS NOT some gov't development scheme and FCR some simply bidder. Also, in the case of the arena which will be "publicly owned": the developer gets to use it basically forever for basically nothing so de facto, that land is also being handed over to the private entity for private profit…and the public will foot the bill.

COME ON ALREADY.

THEN, one of the big issues is that ages ago, FCR was already using the THREAT of Eminent Domain...just the THREAT...HELLO! DISGUSTING.

THAT IS HOW they got their hands on a good deal of the properties..."Hey, you, Bud, sell us your property at a little over market (if that!…gag agreements don’t let us know the real numbers), 'cuz we want it...and you'll just lose it in the end otherwise, so sell it to us now."

Yes, FCR does own a good number of buildings in the footprint outside the rail yards now BUT NOT ALL....AND, a noticeable part of the 60% of the area that is not rail yards is CITY STREETS AND SIDEWALKS that are being handed over to FCR.

PLUS, FOR NO REAL REASON BUT TO SCREW AROUND WITH US, THEY'RE CLOSING THE CARLTON AVENUE BRIDGE TOMORROW 1/16...SUCH A P.R. MANOEUVRE…such a TROJAN WEDGE into the community.

NOW, the SO-CALLED Environmental Impact Study was a sham. It's like the BS documents your architect gives you for "Scope of Work" because the bank wants to "see something" or the drek the inspector gives you for your $400 to $500. It was nearly a Paste'n'Print job. Please…

PATHETIC.

If you sent the EIS to Germany and just had one person from an architecture firm and one from an engineering/urban planning firm look at it, they would be appalled…shocked that this BS passes for anything. AND…it is really pure BS when you consider this is “planned” as one of the LARGEST urban construction projects in US HISTORY, HELLO!

New York is getting so "third world" it's pathetic.

I lived in one of the largest cities in the so-called "developing world". It underwent helter skelter development and now everyone's paying for it (floods because drainage is horrid...floods with poop and rats, okay...TRAFFIC is unreal!)... It is known as the Traffic Jam of The East.

Already, they'll incrementally increase traffic on Flatbush THIS WEEK with the closing the Carlton Avenue Bridge tomorrow.

This is a TROJAN WEDGE in the neighborhood.

Drivers currently shoot over Carlton from Flatbush to avoid going to the Tillary BQE entrance. They get onto the BQE further up and avoid the congestion of Flatbush-Atlantic.

I won't exactly miss the traffic that this creates on Carlton in Fort Greene.

What I WILL MISS is the main pedestrian passageway between Fort Greene and Prospect Heights/Parks Slope. A Trojan Wedge…plan and simple…no need to close the bridge right now, no matter what BS they’re feeding the press on it…if they’re even bothering…

They're closing the bridge when probably NO work will go on with it for ages. They'll just be using it:

1) as a PR move to make it seem like “something” is happening;

2) as an incremental way of trying to dull the community, making people rearrange their lives and try to get used to the inconvenience, community displacement, etc. little by little;

3) as a private little parking lot and staging area for themselves.

The CARLTON AVENUE BRIDGE should NOT BE CLOSED now and NOT FOR 3 YEARS as proposed (!!!) so these fools can sit around and do nothing with it and then, maybe build a parking lot platform over the area. During any necessary closing, the minimum requirement should be that a PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE is be built.

REGARDING INCREASE IN TRAFFIC:
Ratner's mall has increased big-rig traffic in FG massively. ALSO, ALREADY we have tons of 53-foot and 42-foot big rig trucks barreling through the neighborhood and up Lafayette when this is clearly not allowed as a truck route.

THEY TURNING MUCH OF FORT GREENE into a truck route. Check out the Dept of Transportation maps online and you'll see only specific streets are open to trucks and then, only for local deliveries (moving trucks, deliveries to homes an bodegas/stores), NOT huge, massive construction flatbeds and massive trucks trying to get to Target.

This AM I saw the most incredible big rig maneuver in a while: The driver managed to bring the truck (a 53-footer) around all three sides of the Fowler "Square" (actually, it's a triangle where Lafayette and Fulton meet). The driver came down Fulton, did a 120 degree turn to the right up Lafayette and than immediately right onto South Elliot. The truck was LONGER than that entire little block in front of the BBQ restaurant on South Elliot. Ridiculous! All this to get on S. Elliot to shoot across on the way to the Mall loading docks I guess.

RATNER and MARTY are in my Hall of Shame.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 6:51 PM

I hear Ratner just got a sweet deal to build your Hall of Shame in Prime Brooklyn Heights.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 8:37 PM

Without Eminent Domain it would be impossible to build anything in a city. All development would have to move to the far reaches of urban life so as not to offend anyone in the community. And, to keep the last parcel holder from extorting any project anyone had in mind. It is an absolutely essential tool for community against individual property owners that would stand in the way. Take the money, move to a nice neighborhood forget Flatbush and Atlantic, home sweet home.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 10:16 PM

6:51, you must be friends with Montrose Morris. Such a long-winded post (that I'm sure no one read).

Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:27 PM

first blight is required in NY State for the ESDC to use eminent domain for a so-called "Land Use Improvement Project" which is what AY, except for the arena, is designated as.

any time ESDC uses eminent domain, they have to show blight.
thats what they are doing with AY and up in West Harlem

as for this guy:
"Without Eminent Domain it would be impossible to build anything in a city. All development would have to move to the far reaches of urban life so as not to offend anyone in the community."

thats a bunch of BS muncipality talking points. its nonsense. there is plenty being built all around the city without eminent domain, I'd say that 99% of it is being built without emient domain or eminent domain abuse. know how? its called Re-Zoning.

Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 8:32 PM