Today in AY: FCR Rally Panned; Amicus Brief Filed

You can feed people a large amount of crap in a short amount of time, but the longer it goes on the harder it gets. People stop swallowing it.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 9:09 AM

An anti-AY post by Gabby? I don't believe it!

Actually, it's quite clear that the supreme court will NOT hear this case. The court already addressed the issue of eminent domain with Kelo. Besides, the court agrees to hear less than 2% of requested cases, so the odds of winning the lottery are better than trying to block AY with this strategy.

But that is the way of DDDB and the other "community" groups. They live in a fantasy world of theory and are deterred by neither the impossible odds nor the longest losing streak in history.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 9:34 AM

Agreed but at least start building SOMETHING there. It's horribly ugly.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 9:39 AM

BxGrl - ED is not abortion (ED is specifically listed in the constitution, the right to privacy is not) and even so - the SCt doesnt hear abortion cases every 3years especially those with the EXACT same fact pattern.

This is simply a delay tactic.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 10:25 AM

"what- I don't always agree with you but you are so right. do you think Ratner ever intended to build the AY at all? Didn't it just start out as an arena?"

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 10:31 AM

The Supreme Court petition briefs are all here:

http://www.dddb.net/php/reading/legal/eminentdomain

You can decide on your own if there is an important issue at stake being well argued by both sides. Without reading the briefs the above comments are nothing more than uninformed, comment section blogjecture.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 11:00 AM

bxgl, do you honestly equate such important issues as abortion, human rights, gay marriage, etc. with use of eminent domain? ha! ha! do a nexus database search for the past six months and see how many stories about eminent domain turn up as compared to genuine issues like global warming, price of oil, the war in iraq, etc. There is, has never been, and never will be an "uproar" over eminent domain loud enough to make the supreme court hear this case. and please don't mention the flurry of legislation that resulted from kelo - that is most definitely not enough to advance the case that we are discussing here.

11:00, one can read the briefs until the end of all days, but that still won't make the supreme court hear this case. That, my friend, is reality, not blogjecture.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 11:20 AM

11:00 - it is 1000% irrelevant if their are "important issues" at stake - the question is whether the SCt is going to hear the case - there are important issues in virtually every case that is petitioned to the SCt (even if just to the litigants) - but the SCt only hears a tiny fraction.

The SCt will wait (years or forever) to see how the Kelo case is interpreted by lower courts and then if interpretations end up conflicting or if the decisions unforseen issues - maybe the issue will be revisited. But this case does not change the manner in which the SCt handles hearing cases, and unless there was some major interpretive problem, the SCt. does not hear the same case year after year. And no well written brief is going to change that.

The uninformed here is you.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 11:25 AM

bxgirl - you clearly know nothing about supreme court practice and, the what, you also clearly are clueless on this score. unless the plaintiffs can say while this case is different from kelo (and they can't), cert will be denied straight up, probably within months. the conservative supremes want to preserve the power of the states (which have tons of latitude with eminent domain), and minimize activist courts from legislating from the bench. that's why they did what they did in kelo, despite that property rights were concerned, and there isn't anything compelling enough or different enough about AY for them to make a breach from such recent precedent.

i agree that AY is far from a done deal, but its death is far more likely to come from a a blow from the invisible hand of capitalism than from the supremes' musty old gavel.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 11:31 AM

Nice summation, Johnny. That is why Ratner is rich and we're here debating the merits of a done deal.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 12:57 PM

"unless the plaintiffs can say while this case is different from kelo (and they can't)"

they can, and do.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 1:24 PM

Oh, it's a done deal.

As in, "stick a fork in it, it's done."

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 1:37 PM

Care to elaborate, 1:24?

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 1:40 PM

Most people do not know how the Supreme Court really works. I know I don't. It would be nice for someone to be allowed to ask questions and get informed answers without the snarky remarks regarding the questioner's intelligence. You never know if you don't ask, but you never ask if you are going to be raked over the coals for it. That's why there are so many uniformed people in this country, city and borough. Who needs the spite, venom and condescension?

If anyone has any formative info in how the Supreme Court might or might not operate re this case, I'd be interested in knowing.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 2:03 PM

2:03,

See 11:25 and 11:31.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 2:38 PM

"I also do not judge how important an issue is by how many hits it gets on a search engine. If that's how you do all your research, you have a very poor approach to thinking."

If there is legitimate outrage, people will make themselves heard and the media will follow suit. Hence, it is a fair measure and it shows that your claims of ED outrage are a fantasy.

"And by the way there was an uproar and several states in fact did change their eminent domain laws in response. Read a newspaper, will you?"

Now look whose reading comprehension is in question. I clearly commented on this at 11:20 because I knew this would be your predictable response. Still, the important question to ask is, will this increase the chances of the SC hearing the case? And the answer to that, of course, is NO.

"I can only think that you're one and the same with 11:31"

But of course! Another predictable response. So predictable that the anti-AY crowd uses it in nearly every single post. But I am not 11:31. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but there are actually more than a few people who want AY to happen.

Now I'll sit back and wait for you to accuse me and the others of working for FCR.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 2:48 PM

"When the affordable housing component went from integrated into each development into the fictitious "last stage" of AY (right, we didn't see THAT coming), this went from proposed public good to theoretical public good."

Ironically, there is virtually no "affordable" housing in the AY footprint, except for the smattering of rent-controlled apartments. There's no way a "low income" family can afford a market-rate apartment in Prospect Heights. Ratner's plan, as imperfect as it may be, is one of the few chances this will actually occur here. The anti-AY crowd didn't give a hang about developing affordable housing in this area until Ratner came along.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 6:00 PM

well since the Supreme Court has been exposed as the hoax and sham that it is already, if there is any question whether they should take this case all Ratner has to do is pony up some graft money (our tax $$) behind the scenes and they'll keep walking. it's just about levels of corruption.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 7:08 PM

The photo kind of reminds me of certain Roman ruins--if I squint.

While this useful and extremely well-built building gets torn down spewing rats and G*d knows what else into the neighborhood, I can't help being annoyed by the thought that it will be nothing but blacktop for parked cars either for 5 years or for much, much longer. We may be looking at a parking lot for 25 years.

All on our dime probably.

FCR seems like a house of cards that couldn't exist but for promises of huge free money.

Posted by: guest at June 9, 2008 8:42 PM

Again, the chances of this court being heard by the supreme court are just about impossible. Even Norman "OCD" Oder admits in his typically-long winded column today that 2% of cases are accepted. This will be yet another failed attempt by DDDB et al.

Posted by: guest at June 10, 2008 12:14 PM

"and, guest at 6:00- how much did you care about affordable housing until you heard there was an arena attached?"

Firstly, I never said Ratner wanted to build affordable housing out of the "goodness of his heart." He's a developer who wants to make money. What I said is that there is virtually no "affordable" housing in the AY footprint, except for the smattering of rent-controlled apartments. Yes, Ratner was compelled to include affordable housing in the plan by pressure from community groups, but since he did take the step to ENGAGE community groups, at least something was worked out on this front. Yes, there's no guarantee the housing will be built, but there is a 100% guarantee that affordable housing WON'T be built in the area without the Ratner plan. Does the anti-AY crowd have a realistic plan to bring affordable housing to the site? Nope. Secondly, I happen to care a LOT about affordable housing in the area. I lived at 521 Dean Street (right behind the Newswalk building) from 1995 to 2001 and paid market-rate rent while supporting my son as a single father. Like many NYers, I spent more than 1/3 of my income on rent back then. I would have LOVED a few affordable rent options in the area. Unfortunately, I was not lucky enough to benefit from rent control like many of the anti-AY types. Since then, I have gained a partner, saved money and bought a house in Crown Heights. But as Brooklyn native and lifelong resident, I care a great deal about what happens here. I've been staring at that hole in the ground for YEARS, probably before you were born. The Ratner plan isn't perfect, and I do believe that opponents have a right to speak their minds, but I personally view his plan as the best chance we've had in years to develop that area. The anti-AY crowd, in my opinion, have no real alternatives.

Posted by: guest at June 10, 2008 3:54 PM