« Weekday Events Open Thread »

May 18, 2009

Appellate Court Rules Against Atlantic Yards Opponents

Bruce Ratner wasted no time announcing his intention to plow ahead with the construction of the Atlantic Yards Arena in the wake of a Court of Appeals ruling in his favor. "This is really the last hurdle that we have and now we can do what our company does best and build an arena and houses," said Ratner on Friday, hours after the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court rejected Goldstein et al's position that the state improperly used eminent domain to seize properties from nine owners who did not want to sell. If Ratner does indeed move ahead with plans to build, the arena the public gets may be substantially different than the glitzy renderings from starchitect Frank Gehry that were used to build public support for the project early on: Ratner has already trimmed the budget for the project by 20 percent and has admitted that he may not use Gehry's design at all. And Ratner can't get going quite yet. The plaintiffs have vowed to appeal to the Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) and there's still pending litigation surrounding the state's environmental impact study. "At a minimum, if we lose every single thing imaginable, it's still going to take them four to six months," said attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff. The delay is particularly important because Forest City Ratner has only until the end of the year to secure its tax-exempt financing for the arena from the state.
Eminent Domain Case is Dismissed Unanimously [AY Report]
Court Rebuffs Yards Opponents as Legal Options Narrow [NY Observer]
Ruling Puts Ratner Closer to Nets' Arena [Newsday]
Appeals Court Dismisses Suit Against Atlantic Yards [NY Times]
Ruling Could put Atlantic Yards Project Back on Track [NY Daily News]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9788

Comments

Wouldn't the opponents agree that something is better than a hole? Suing on the eminent domain issues long after the deed is done is a waste of time & energy. Or, am I missing the covert class/race war implications???

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 18, 2009 9:08 AM

Sorry Dave, but I disagree. A hole, at least allows for the possibility that something worthwhile might be built in the future. The AY dreck would be a blight for generations to come.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at May 18, 2009 9:14 AM

But Bob, don't you agree that no new developer would touch this site given the rancour that is occurring??

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 18, 2009 9:15 AM

I'm with Bob on this one. And stop with the race/class accusations. That is just a fog to cover up the real issues -- no infrastructure planning, a giveaway to a developer, too dense, etc, etc, etc.

Posted by: Schultz at May 18, 2009 9:22 AM

I respectfully reject the premise.

The choice between a taxpayer funded arena and a hole really should be reframed to be a choice between mutually beneficial development and a hole. Then I become a proponent of the project.

Ratner wants to couch his corporate welfare as the develop/don't develop choice because if it's framed as $2 billion of our tax money going to his development for the betterment of his basketball team's balance sheet it becomes a lot less supportable.

Posted by: Johnny at May 18, 2009 9:24 AM

I think interest would be high among many developers who would be interested in smaller, more intelligently designed projects. While ratner and his shills keep crowing about the affordable housing, there is no guarantee he will build it in AY- or at all. The Arena is a logistical nightmare, and the closing of a large section of Pacific St. for inclusion as a courtyard is outrageous.

And the Nets? Meh.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 18, 2009 9:25 AM

i thought atlantic yards was flat out cancelled. what am i missing?

*rob*

Posted by: PitbullNYC at May 18, 2009 9:26 AM

DIBS, that's a pretty silly remark. There's reason for the rancor! It's not random or inherent to the particular site. There are lot of obvious ways to avoid the kind of reaction Ratner has gotten to his terribly, terribly flawed plan to develop an absolutely enormous superblock right up against Brownstone Brooklyn!

If Ratner hadn't been holding all those lots vacant, in the hopes of superblock development, you can be sure they would already have been built on.

Get rid of the superblock approach, and you will see lots of development, even in this economic climate, given the desirability of the location.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at May 18, 2009 9:27 AM

If this falls through and discourages Forest City Ratner-like developers from touching lots like this in the future, then I'd consider it a major win for Brooklyn and the City in general. FCR is the firm that brought us the Atlantic Terminal Mall, the Metrotech Center, the soon-to-be East Harlem Costco, all with minimal to no transparency or due process.

I'm all for some sort of development on the site, just not something that so brazenly circumvents every imaginable public forum, environmental review, etc (and with fabricated "blight" statistics to boot)

Posted by: collin85 at May 18, 2009 9:27 AM

I don't know Dave. I suspect that no new developer would touch the site because of the economic downturn, rather than the present rancor but, with respect, since I value your opinion, I'd personally choose a hole over Ratner's plans. We'll just have to disagree on this issue--and on the word's spelling:-)

Posted by: Bob Marvin at May 18, 2009 9:35 AM

Snarky Bob. LOL. The rancour will get louder once the labour disputes begin.

You're definitely correct on the financing thing. There isn't much money out there available for commercial projects these days and that was probably my larger issue but I didn't phrase it as such.

The covert race/class innuendo was to subvert the What from calling it out as such. I don't actually subsribe to that.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 18, 2009 9:40 AM

"i thought atlantic yards was flat out cancelled. what am i missing?"

you are missing that you were wrong, Atlantic Yards wasn't "flat out cancelled." If it had been, project opponents would still be fighting and litigating it.

as for whether another developer would touch the site: of course they would. that is why Ratneer is holding on during the downturn, it is a great piece of real estate.

Posted by: brokeland at May 18, 2009 9:42 AM

"The covert race/class innuendo was to subvert the What from calling it out as such. I don't actually subsribe to that."

Whatever...

The What

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: Return of The What at May 18, 2009 9:52 AM

On a procedural note this decision is not out of the NY Court of Appeals in Albany (which is the highest court in the State) but the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division 2nd Dept. in Bklyn. Petitioners could seek to re-argue in the 2nd Dept before a panel of 4 different judges, or move for leave to the Court of Appeals to hear the case at the Court's discretion. Either way...its going to be a while.

Posted by: smells at May 18, 2009 9:55 AM

project opponents would still be fighting and litigating it.

should be

project opponents wouldn't still be fighting and litigating it.

Posted by: brokeland at May 18, 2009 10:04 AM

Sounds like abuse of the court system....just to use it as a delaying tactic in hope that may make it economically unfeasable.

Posted by: Petebklyn at May 18, 2009 10:09 AM

Sounds like abuse of the court system....just to use it as a delaying tactic in hope that may make it economically unfeasable.

Posted by: Petebklyn at May 18, 2009 10:09 AM

From what I've read the AY plans were flawed, traffic will be a nightmare, taxpayer money was acquired through suspicious means, and eminent domain was not appropriate.

That being said I'd rather have AY go forward than walk past that giant ugly hole for ten more years.

You guys are admirable holding to your ideals in the midst of this. You remind me of the Lothar of the Clinton Hill People that voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and then wished he didn't after the next eight years nearly dissolved our country.

Posted by: Lothar of the Clinton Hill People at May 18, 2009 10:11 AM

Lothar...I've done some stupid things in my life but I would never admit to voting for Nader if I had done so. :)

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at May 18, 2009 10:16 AM

"Sounds like abuse of the court system"

wrong. try again.

Posted by: brokeland at May 18, 2009 10:19 AM

I don't think of it as a hole, I just enjoy the light values around there.
BTW - rancor & rancour both acceptable.

Posted by: Arkady at May 18, 2009 10:29 AM

Instead of lawyering, opponents need to get political and direct their sights at Gov Paterson. Make him politically responsible for AY. The city and state are bleeding money right now and we're still subsidizing corporations?

As the city and state are looking at ways to shore up their deficits, how about starting with NOT giving away $2 billion in Taxpayer dollars to a wealthy real estate developer.

Instead of the the MTA jacking fares and cutting services, how about they NOT 'giving away' a prime piece of BK real estate. How much of their shortfall could be covered if they were getting Fair Market Value for the site?

Posted by: Colonel Steve Austin at May 18, 2009 10:30 AM

Colonel Steve Austin, the choir says amen!

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at May 18, 2009 10:33 AM

Add my amen to snappy's too!

Posted by: bxgrl at May 18, 2009 10:36 AM

Thank you Colonel Steve! So true.

This actually makes me a little sick to my stomach, so I won't comment much, but I am opposed to this project from every conceivable angle.

To put aside for a moment, if possible given how outrageous, the billions in tax money subsidizing this horrid man's "vision" which has bulldozed forward despite valid community protest and conflicting visions, does anyone actually want an ARENA in this spot? The hellacious traffic, the crowds, the look of it? The loss of such enormous potential...really? THIS is what Brooklyn wants on this spot - the crossroads into the borough? I just don't get it.

Posted by: Nokilissa at May 18, 2009 10:42 AM

And I add a big black church style "Preach it, brothers and sisters" to all of the anti Ratner remarks above.

Why opposed:

Horrendous back room deal
No thought to infrastructure
Not one iota of sense in traffic planning
Shoulda been illegal sale of land by MTA to FCR
Bad design
Race baiting campaign
Tax payer nightmare
Campaign to sell Nets to Brooklyn ala return of Dodgers
Use of eminent domain by private developer
Etc, etc

Posted by: Montrose Morris at May 18, 2009 11:06 AM

the anti crowd pits a real developer against a dream/a fantasy. there is no ready to roll alternative. that area has sucked for years! it's awful. i lived near there. who are you fooling? it's ghetto and train tracks. the anti people messed up by prolonging the building, and now brooklyn is out a gehry. having the stadium there is thrilling. it's the damn city. it can be big and crowded and tall.

this is how things get done. ratner's years of making money and connections and ambitions have gotten him here. he's powerful. it's going to take a powerful person to move mta train tracks and urban blight and turn it into a stadium and apartments. all the effort to stop this guys could have been used to do something productive in the first place. reactive energy is wasted energy. the anti people have all the time in the world to complain and fight but never had enough time to do something new and creative. positive leadership of deeds is the strongest way to change things.

also, if you want low rise living as a guarantee, then you need to move somewhere where development isn't possible.

Posted by: wine lover at May 18, 2009 11:08 AM

So, MM- you don't want AY? :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at May 18, 2009 11:08 AM

Regardless of whether you are for or against AY as proposed, anyone with half a brain could have predicted a protracted legal battle. Between the eminent domain, the scale and density, the lack of public process, the massive subsidies, and the fact that it would be sandwiched between two relatively affluent brownstone neighborhoods, a legal battle was inevitable. Should have been part of the business plan.

While DIBS's point is well-taken that any sizeable development is going to have some opposition, I alse agree with Bob Marvin that size matters. The opposition would have been more marginal and less intense than there would have been for something more in keeping with the adjacent neighborhoods. I suspect that, even today, if AY were scaled back to have less demapping, less intensity and more neighborhood scale developent, opposition would ease.

Posted by: slopefarm at May 18, 2009 11:24 AM

> "now brooklyn is out a gehry."

No tears shed there. Like we really needed a leaky, trendy POS from Gehry to legitimize us as a city.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at May 18, 2009 11:28 AM

I don't even know how to respond, wine lover. Your argument is a bit offensive, a bit defensive, and just sort of weird (i.e. "it's the damn city, get used to it" - and who said anything about a "low rise living guarantee"?)

It's like the "love it or leave it" crowd: "If you don't love America, and don't love everything 'it' does and says, then get the frick out, man!" I'm always left scratching my head with a "Huh?" thought bubble floating above my head.

Well, you just managed the same sort of moment for me. In many ways.

Go have some coffee. Or wine.

Posted by: Nokilissa at May 18, 2009 11:33 AM

"the anti crowd pits a real developer against a dream/a fantasy. there is no ready to roll alternative."

Actually, during the so-called "bidding" process for the AY land by the MTA, the Extell corporation (who aren't exactly little straw men for DDDB) bid an amount that was higher than Ratner's by about $50 million, if I recall correctly.

During the bidding the head of the MTA excused himself, took a call from the Mayor, came back and awarded the bid to Ratner with no explanation as to why the higher bid was rejected.

So Col. Austin is absolutely right - that extra $50m would go a long way in the MTA's budget.

I have to credit the Atlantic Yards project for opening my eyes (I thought I was jaded enough by then, but I was wrong) as to who really runs this city.

Posted by: petunia at May 18, 2009 11:39 AM

"i lived near there. who are you fooling? it's ghetto and train tracks. the anti people messed up by prolonging the building, and now brooklyn is out a gehry. "

And you could move, whinelover. The area was already coming back on its own- how else to explain the expensive coop/condo buildings that were built before Ratner got his panties in a bunch? Ratner could have planned something in scale and intelligent and without the use of eminent domain. Instead he went for I've got a big dick plan.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 18, 2009 11:41 AM

Ratner is a welfare queen. This is the same person who milked the federal gov't out of $114 million in Liberty Bonds, intended for the redevelopment of Lower Manhattan after 9-11, to build the Bank of New York office building and the attached $150 million mall; half the total cost.

I will be mad as hell if this welfare queen gets a single cent of the $787 billion economic stimulus. But i'm sure that's a forgone conclusion. I guess it just goes to show you stupid this stimulus crap is.

Someone earlier was making fun of Nader, I didn't vote for Nader but I did vote for Perot. Nobody wanted to pay attention to his charts and graphs and look where we are now.

Posted by: Colonel Steve Austin at May 18, 2009 12:08 PM

everyone knocks ratner but people dont realize that the hideous monstrosity of atlantic center (the part w/ pathmark) was groundbreaking in its day. It was the first major development in brooklyn since the 1950s. metrotech was also important as it showed that businesses would move to brooklyn.

I am pro-arena but not as sure about the remainder of the development. If it generates foot traffic and integrates the area into its surroundings, then I'd support it. I'm not sure that will happen though.

Nonetheless, everyone likes to say they could build something smaller there, but they really cant. It will cost $500 million or so to prepare the train yard for development. The cost isn't justified for a 2 family house.

Posted by: slick at May 18, 2009 1:02 PM

I don't think anyone was expecting a slew of low density, period looking rowhouses. But on the other hand, not even the very Pro-AY Marty was taken aback by the sheer monstrous size of it. I don't deny Ratner has done some good things for Brooklyn, but I don't credit him with revitalizing the idea that Brooklyn is a great place to do business. That was already happening- he just made it more visible.

Posted by: bxgrl at May 18, 2009 1:38 PM

Slick, please, with all respect, can you explain how it is you arrived at your "pro-arena" position?

(It feels a bit like speaking to a Republican prior to the election for me. Just utterly flummoxed.)

Posted by: Nokilissa at May 18, 2009 2:55 PM

slick:

maybe you ught to read "the geography of nowhere".

the atlantic center is now, and was from the start, an abomnation in an urban envrironment. it is even an abomination in a suburban environment.

hailing it as a transformative event for brooklyn is more than a little sad.

Posted by: bkn4life at May 18, 2009 3:16 PM

Hang in there, folks, because this project will happen. The opponents have won no signficant victories in the legal or political arenas and will always have far, far less money and power than Ratner. If you read their blogs, they all cross-reference one another and put considerable stock in hope rather than reality. A real estate development of this size will take time to build, so what's a few more months of waiting? Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that after spending millions in money and years of time to get this moving, Ratner is simply going to give up? If so, you are all naive beyond description!

Posted by: Big Jugs at May 18, 2009 7:21 PM

no significant victory? really? do you see an arena and 16 skyscrapers there?

Posted by: brokeland at May 18, 2009 8:09 PM

Johnny - do you just cut and paste the same line you read somewhere in every AY thread? tell me - how much tax revenue did the yards produce last year, last 5 years, 10 years?

Bob - i'm surprised to see you so against this. You should talk to some people who lived in your hood during and following the Dodger era. The Dodgers leaving PLG killed that area.

15 years from now the Johnnys of this topic will be hiding.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at May 18, 2009 8:09 PM

Didn't Gore win New York by a landslide? Why would anyone here regret voting for Nader?

Posted by: mgm at May 18, 2009 8:20 PM

If Ratner doesn't break ground by October, he loses his financing and it would be hard to get new financing in today's climate. The arena would be dead; no Brooklyn Nets. So the opponents do not have to "win" in court, they just have to delay him for five more months.

There will be a development of some kind one day on the AY site, hopefully it is better than what FCR proposed. I disagree that the neighborhood is blighted; I lived right across from the AY site on Dean St for a few months and I thought the neighborhood was great. If Bloomberg had some vision for the city, we could see something there that would capitalize on what exists and yet also be profitable for a developer.

Posted by: 146steven at May 18, 2009 9:02 PM

If it wasn't for Ratner's proposal we wouldn't be discussing development at this site at all. All the "wouldn't that be nice" concepts make for nice conversation but they are pure (and as you admit in your post) theory. The arena will go up, the buildings will follow, and the lot of you will move onto something else stylish to ignorantly debate.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at May 18, 2009 11:16 PM

"If it wasn't for Ratner's proposal we wouldn't be discussing development at this site at all."

Wrong. If it weren't for Ratner's proposal development at "this site" would be under way.

Posted by: brokeland at May 19, 2009 12:01 AM

Ok, explain then. Would the developer fairy be sprinkling new project dust here?

Posted by: BrooklynLove at May 19, 2009 6:56 AM

BrooklynLove,

You're comparing the Nets to the DODGERS?

Give me a break.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at May 19, 2009 11:11 AM

BTW, the Dodgers were never actually in PLG. Even though the media talked about Ebbets Field being in Flatbush, it was in Crown Heights. However, I'm told, when I've talked to people who lived here prior to 1957, that it was close enough to hear the cheering.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at May 20, 2009 9:03 AM

« Weekday Events Open Thread »

May 18, 2009

Appellate Court Rules Against Atlantic Yards Opponents

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions