Monday Links

Is it my 80s retro sensibilities kicking in, or does it look like theres a HUGE boombox on that porch?

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 9:05 AM

It's interesting how the AY opponents are attempting to spin this latest development as a victory. In reality, Ratner has won again. Even though he didn't get his wish to have the case heard in May, he nevertheless succeeded in having it heard sooner than originally planned (according to a March 1 article in the NY Post, the case was supposed to have been heard in February, 2009, but is now scheduled for September, 2008).

Nice try, guys, but your losing streak continues.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03012008/news/regionalnews/atlantic_yds__foes_miss_shot_99899.htm

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 9:16 AM

apparently even Victorian houses can be ugly.

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 9:34 AM

It's interesting how AY supporters ignore facts.

there is no spin, 9:16. it's always best to go to the source (rather than the NY Post, that's a nice way of saying the Post "article" is wrong). In this case the source is Forest City Ratner and ESDC attorney briefs:

The Post article is wrong, the argument wasn't scheduled for February 2009, that is misinformation.

Here is the "spin" straight from briefs, which amply illustrate that FCR and ESDC didn't get what they wanted:

ESDC attorney Philip Karmel had argued, "Delay in construction would delay completion of the Project, postponing it significant public benefits. It is thus critically important that the appeal be perfected so as to be argued before this Court's customary summer recess."

FCR attorney Jeffrey Braun had written, "The issue presented by ESDC's cross-motion is straightforward: Is the public interest in the Atlantic Yards project of sufficient importance to compel the parties to brief this appeal on an expedited schedule that will allow this Court to hear the appeal this spring? The answer to this question is, resoundingly, yes."

Braun continued, "Petitioners make no commitments as to when they will perfect this appeal. Instead, all that they say is this: Currently, it is anticipated that the appeal will be perfected approximately three to four months after the Notice of Appeal was filed on January 18, 2008."

(That would be, at the latest, May 18, 2008.)

"Even if this equivocal non-commitment is viewed as a commitment, it would mean that, at the earliest, the appeal would be heard by this Court during its September 2008 term, which is approximately seven months from now," Braun stated. "This case should not be treated in such a lackadaisical manner."

------
So, let's read that together. Plaintiffs planned to file around mid-May. Defendants wanted arguments prior to the summer, and their papers pled for that. The court said plaintiffs have to file in July for September arguments.

Those are the facts. So where is the spin?

(briefing quotations above from:
http://www.atlanticyardsreport.com/2008/02/atlantic-yards-opponents-gain.html)

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 11:44 AM

Please bring on the Atlantic Yards. It will be very very good.

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 11:56 AM

Just because plaitiffs PLANNED to file motions in May does not mean that the hearing would have definitely been held in September (Braun qualified his statement by saying "at the earliest"). Therein lies the spin.

Hence, the original point stands and Ratner wins again. Re: "misinformation", I choose to believe a major newspaper over an anonymous poster quoting a partisan blogger.

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 12:14 PM

Ha! It's not a question of trusting a "major newspaper" or a "partisan blogger," it's a question of reading comprehension. I link in my post to the original documents.

Norman Oder

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 2:07 PM

Yes, and those original documents as quoted above do not disprove the NY Post's statement that the trial was originally set for February 2009. If you or anyone else shows me a court schedule, then I'll concede the point. But using a lawyer's prediction as incontestable proof that the hearing was never set for Feb. 2009 doesn't cut the mustard.

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 2:24 PM

By the way, Oder, how many unique visitors does your blog get each day? 10? 15?

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 2:54 PM

Easy with trashing Norman Oder. I favor Atlantic Yards and generally increased population density yet I find his blog well written, enjoyable and somewhat educational. Atlantic Yards is getting built I think sooner rather than later. Has the delay driven Ratner into an uncomfortable position on the business cycle? Only his accountants know.

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 6:37 PM

D-E-A-D-D-E-A-L

Posted by: guest at March 3, 2008 9:08 PM