« Weekend Events Open Thread »

February 27, 2009

Ratner Wins Another Round of Yards Lawsuits

Despite voicing uneasiness with some aspects of the case, an Appeals Court panel did not find enough evidence of improper conduct on the part of the ESDC to rule in favor of the 26 neighborhood groups challenging the Atlantic Yards project on the basis of the project's "sham" environmental review. While the court did not find legal grounds to grant the opposition's petition, it did sympathize with its overall plight:

While we do not agree with petitioners' legal arguments, we understand those arguments to be made largely as proxies for very legitimate concerns as to the effect of a project of such scale upon the face and social fabric of the area in which it is to be put. Those concerns, however, have relatively little to do with the project's legality and nearly everything to do with its socio-economic and aesthetic desirability, matters upon which we may not pass. To the extent that the fate of this multi-billion dollar project remains, in an increasingly forbidding economy, a matter of social and political volition, the controlling judgments as to its merits are the province of the policy-making branches of government, not the courts.

Bruce Ratner joined Mayor Bloomberg in celebrating the victory: “This project has been reviewed as thoroughly as any in the city and not it is time to put these cases behind us and get to work,” he said. An appeal is planned, notes Atlantic Yards Report, though there is a chance that the Court of Appeals could decide not to hear it.
Appellate Court, Despite Some Misgivings, Dismisses EIS Case [AY Report]
Ratner Wins a Big Yards Case [Brooklyn Paper]
Legal Victory for Atlantic Yards Developer [NY Times]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8611

Comments

You misread the dicta - it isnt sympathizing with the petitioners plight, it is saying you have no grounds EXCEPT non-legal (i.e. political) - what they are saying is that THE COURT WILL NOT INTERCEDE - and given the citation to the economic/social aspect it is also giving a nod AGAINST any Eminent Domain objections as well.

Essentially this is a D-O-N-E D-E-A-L -> except of course the Nimbys have succeeded in delaying the project needlessly which results in billions of more subsidies and tax losses, a build out that will take decades and near-term an Arena surrounded by parking lots....Congrats on a job well done!

Posted by: fsrg at February 27, 2009 9:27 AM

Just increases my contempt for the judicial system.

"Those concerns, however, have relatively little to do with the project's legality and nearly everything to do with its socio-economic and aesthetic desirability, matters upon which we may not pass."

Yes, we know that. That's the issue. It's not legal to paint your door white in a landmarked area, but that's clearly not an aesthetic matter. Destroying the fabric of a residential area while spending hundreds of millions of our money, however, is ok.

Posted by: cmu at February 27, 2009 9:27 AM

A couple of tools. Welfare for billionaires.

Posted by: Johnny at February 27, 2009 9:28 AM

cmu - thats why we have elections, judges are not legislatures (at least they arent supposed to be)

Posted by: fsrg at February 27, 2009 9:29 AM

cmu: Your contempt for judges who limit themselves to deciding the law is contemptible.

Posted by: lechacal at February 27, 2009 9:43 AM

I think we can agree that judges interpret the law in attempting to decide it. Isn't that why the Supreme Court writes opinions? And we have all read the stories of judges who have been bought off or involve themselves in cases they should have been removed themselves from because of conflicts.

In cases like these where so much money and cronyism abound, I would be surprised if the judge hadn't found for Ratner. But that doesn't make Ratner or ESDC right or the project a good one. It still s*cks.

Posted by: bxgrl at February 27, 2009 10:14 AM

If it weren't for the NIMBY's the developer would have dug a hole in the ground and would have run out of money since his devlopment was never economically vialble. This project relied on public subsidies in the best of times. It would need even more now. If the City + State are going to spend money to generate construction jobs, I'd much rather they spend it on something like building new schools. We don't need an arena + high end condos. We look stupid enough for having already subsidized the construction of two new baseball stadiums.

Posted by: Boerum Hill at February 27, 2009 10:23 AM

"Destroying the fabric of a residential area"

No, it won't. That's just not true.

Posted by: East New York at February 27, 2009 10:32 AM

Again I ask: Why are taxpayers being asked to pay for a stadium to house a team owned by Ratner?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at February 27, 2009 10:37 AM

Snark, while I don't necessarily agree with it, don't lots of cities subsidize privately-owned sports arenas and stadiums with the hope of bringing businesses, tourists, etc. to the area? I don't think this is anything new.

Posted by: Biff Champion at February 27, 2009 10:43 AM

ENY: The scores of tall buildings would've stood as a stark contrast to the lowrise residential/commercial on both sides (and what was torn down as well.) It would have acted as a barrier between the neighborhoods. The sop to the yay-sayers, greenspace, would've been semi-privatized. I say that pretty much would destroy the fabric.

Don't compare it to what is there or was there, but what could have been developed as an extension of brownstone Brooklym with townhouses and six story contextual buildings - the Unity plan for instance

Posted by: cmu at February 27, 2009 10:48 AM

Please tell me how Shea Stadium and Yankee stadium bring busines + tourists to the area, unless it's for a neaby parking lot. I don't think many fans are going to restaurants or stores. All the busines is capitve to the stadium.

Posted by: Boerum Hill at February 27, 2009 10:51 AM

Boerum Hill, my point isn't whether or not it's effective or not nor am I saying I agree with it. I'm merely pointing out that I don't think the concept of subsidized stadiums is new. To my point, the Yankees are privately owned and wasn't their new stadium subsidized?

Posted by: Biff Champion at February 27, 2009 11:05 AM

"It would have acted as a barrier between the neighborhoods."

Oh yeah, previously, the two neighborhoods were hand-in-hand, singing Cum-by-Yah. That's bull. Besides growing up in Brooklyn and having lost of experience in this area, I LIVED on Dean Street, right behind the Daily News bldg., for several years. There was no unity. Nor was there any developer was stepping forward to build anything. There was just a big train yard down in a hole. For 40 YEARS. That's the way it stayed, and was going to stay until Ratner showed up. The Unity Plan only sprung to live AFTER Ratner emerged. I just can't take it seriously. I don't think Ratner's plan is perfect. Maybe it is a bit too big. Maybe he will get rich on public subsidies. But I'm of the mind that the project MIGHT be a good thing in the end. And I KNOW it won't "destroy" this area, which is just ludicrous. This is an area that is adjacent to Brooklyn's downtown and connected to municipal and suburban transportation links. It's an obvious area in which to put this project.

Posted by: East New York at February 27, 2009 11:05 AM

Just guessing here, but there is a new chief judge on the Court of Appeals - Jon Lippman.

He might want to have a crack at this issue to prove himself.

Then again, he was not known for his 'revolutionary' jurisprudence prior to appointment (he was NY State Chief Administrative Judge for most of his career).

We shall see.

Posted by: Knickerbocker at February 27, 2009 11:08 AM

I agree with East New York. I would love to see anything built over the rail yards.

Posted by: flatbushed at February 27, 2009 11:13 AM

ENY is 1000% right - you COULDNT cut off two neighborhoods from each other (Ft Greene and Prospect Heights) because those two neighborhoods were already completely cut off from each other by function of the railyards, empty lots and Atlantic Avenue. All AY could possibly do is bring these neighborhoods closer together.

As for the "tall buildings" "cutting" off the neighborhood...this is a total red herring.....plenty of neighborhoods have tall buildings right next to low rise and are very desirable places to live (ever been to Brooklyn Heights?)

Posted by: fsrg at February 27, 2009 11:21 AM

Biff, you are right. Municipalities do regularly subsidize large sports stadiums. But do they also subsidize luxury condo construction? And exercise emininent domain to seize private property for the benefit of another private individual? In the current proposal, "Phase I" is a stadium, plus several luxury towers, plus a giant, blacktop parking lot over what is supposed to be "Phase II." Phase II is the "affordable housing" (which can be built "off site") and more modest housing towers (which may not further divide two neighborhoods but in their hulking mass certainly will not bring them together).

Under the current agreement, there is no binding timetable for Phase II. So, our state is essentially giving land and tax subsidies to a private developer to create luxury housing and a giant parking lot in the middle of a gentrifying area.

WHY?

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at February 27, 2009 11:45 AM

Ahhh -- a D-O-N-E D-E-A-L reference.

Maybe some of you kids can remember how this was a D-O-N-E D E-A-L back in 2005.

Good times, good times...

Posted by: SteveFtGreene at February 27, 2009 12:13 PM

I agree with ENY!! Atlantic yard was disneyland before ratner showed up. We should leave it like it is so everyone can enjoy this beatufill area and close knit community. Right!!!!

Posted by: Tonino at February 27, 2009 12:30 PM

I agree with ENY!! Atlantic yard was disneyland before ratner showed up. We should leave it like it is so everyone can enjoy this beatifull area and close knit community. Right!!!!

Posted by: Tonino at February 27, 2009 12:30 PM

Biff - The Chicken speaks for me on this.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at February 27, 2009 12:45 PM

there is plenty of room in the law for these judges to have decided with the plaintiffs. and plenty of room to decide for the state.

they made a political decision, not a legal decision.

Posted by: brokeland at February 27, 2009 1:05 PM

I think the sheer size of AY and its design became the real issue. And calling for eminent domain. I would love to see something great in that area and I agree with ENY that the 2 neighborhoods were certainly not unified. But the big issue is how AY will affect the area. I am not thrilled that public streets will be closed down and set within the project. I don't think that's right.

I don't think AY even begins to address how the arena and the massive housing projects will affect infrastructure and traffic in the area and I think it is morally and ethically wrong to loosen the definition of eminent domain to suit a private developer. Ratner has finessed every advantage to himself while trying to make us beleive it will benefit all of us. I'm not that blind, thanks. And brokeland is right. It was a political decision, not a legal one (we're taking parameters, not legality on this point).

Posted by: bxgrl at February 27, 2009 1:58 PM

Meanwhile, the MTA is in complete budget crisis, handing us service cuts and fare increases ... hmmm ... i wonder if that $100 million dollars they passed up on for this site might have helped out their current situation?

Posted by: werner at February 27, 2009 2:27 PM

Steve right on. I remember the original proposals and all the furor, and how people would say at Freddy's "This bar is going to close in about 6 months."

Posted by: infinitejester at February 27, 2009 2:41 PM

The losing streak continues. Not surprising, given the poorly-qualified "community organizers" behind the opposition.

Posted by: Big Jugs at February 27, 2009 2:45 PM

"Meanwhile, the MTA is in complete budget crisis"

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/26/2009-02-26_albanys_sheldon_silver_leans_toward_okay.html

Posted by: East New York at February 27, 2009 3:15 PM

Steve its a done deal as far as legal challenges, as I indicated it could take decades for the project to actually get partially or fully built. But this decision more or less seals the courthouse door shut to AY opponents - the only redress for opponents is to try and get enough politicians elected to derail the plan through political means.

Posted by: fsrg at February 27, 2009 3:20 PM

Snark/Chicken, again my point is strictly in reference to Snark's comment about subsidizing a stadium - it didn't mention everything else and I absolutely agree with you both that the overall sweetheart deal Ratner has is abominable. My point is minor. It's no biggie, was just commenting strictly on a stadium subsidy, but in the context of everything else you mention, it is a travesty.

Posted by: Biff Champion at February 27, 2009 3:56 PM

hey Boerum Hill you dont think Yankee Stadium brings in tourists and people dont go out in the neighborhood before a game. You obviously have never been to Yankee Stadium (or a sports fan). So you obviously hate public subsidies for a sports team (would BAM exist without public money?).

So why dont you do us a favor Boerum Hill and go to a Yankee game and see how many people are on the streets and then report back to us. This does not mean that i agree with sport subsidies as a whole and that they all make economic sense but one should not speculate on something they no nothing about.

And the judge didnt sympathize with the ruling, only that he understood that he understood that they had concerns. Concerns that had nothing to do with the law suit.

Lets face it, (and i dont agree with giving Ratner the money),but regardless Brooklyn will be so much better with the Barclay Center.

The worst thing about this is the Nets would have had Lebron and NIMBYS stopped it.

Posted by: mule at February 27, 2009 4:04 PM

Biff, my comments appeared to be picking a fight with you. I apologize. I meant my other questions more rhetorically. It's frustrating because on the face of it, Atlantic Yards appears to be a good deal: basketball stadium on top of transit hub, development of ugly rail yards, affordable housing. But the devil is in the details.

Werner, GOOD POINT.

fsrq, the legal door is not shut, although it is closing rapidly. More than ever, I wish DDDB and its allies success. This whole project has been an undemocratic, ill-conceived boondoggle.

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at February 27, 2009 4:14 PM

Brooklyn Chicken, no problem. I didn't see it that way at all. It actually helped me understand where Snark was coming from. Have a great weekend.

Posted by: Biff Champion at February 27, 2009 4:18 PM

Biff,

I am not a fan of the other stadiums being subsidized either. But that is neither here nor there.

Again I will let the Chicken speak for me: "This whole project has been an undemocratic, ill-conceived boondoggle."

Bon weekend!

Posted by: SnarkSlope at February 27, 2009 6:10 PM

an entirely unsurprising result.

hey bit**es: if you don't like it then move to new jersey or similar.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at February 27, 2009 9:31 PM

Hey, losers....
Let it go.
Let it be built, already!!1

Posted by: bobbyd at February 28, 2009 10:17 AM

« Weekend Events Open Thread »

February 27, 2009

Ratner Wins Another Round of Yards Lawsuits

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions