« Open Thread Tenants Claim Negligence at Flatbush Gardens »

October 15, 2009

Oral Arguments over Eminent Domain at Atlantic Yards

aycourt_151009.jpg
The long-awaited Court of Appeals case against Empire State Development Corporation for the use of eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards development project began yesterday. The ESDC argued that the use of eminent domain to condemn private homes and businesses was necessary to promote economic development and because the region was already blighted. The lawyers for the business and home owners, on the other hand, claimed that the state used the blight designation long after planning had begun, to justify the 22-acre condominium and stadium project, and development had been occurring on its own before Forest City Ratner bought the land. The New York Times' City Room blog brings us some key excerpts from the opening round of questioning, in which the chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, questions Philip Karmel, the lawyer for the ESDC:

“The majority part of this project is market-rate housing?” the judge asked. “That is not the purpose of the project, your honor,” Mr. Karmel replied. “Is it the largest component of the project?” Mr. Lippman pressed. “It is a significant component,” Mr. Karmel said, not quite conceding the point.
In another line of questioning, Judge Robert S. Smith, in a tone that suggested skepticism, asked Mr. Karmel if there were any limits on the state’s ability to take private land, so long as there was a public benefit. Mr. Karmel said that under current law and precedent, there was not.
Judge Smith also questioned Mr. Karmel about the state’s definition of blight. “Suppose I am a developer and I want to buy on an area that is half blighted and half not,” the judge asked. “They can condemn the whole thing, even if only half of it is blighted?” The answer, Mr. Karmel said, was yes.

The judges were equally tough on the plaintiffs' lawyer Matthew Brinckerhoff. As Norman Oder points out in a detailed dissection of the day, a decision is expected by Thanksgiving.
High Court Hears Arguments in Atlantic Yards Case [NY Times]
At Hearing, Judges Skeptical of Both Sides [AY Report]
Court Battle Could Determine Fate of AY [NY Daily News]
Atlantic Yards Appeal Gets Intense in Albany [Brooklyn Eagle]
Atlantic Yards Court Case Begins Wednesday [Brownstoner]
Atlantic Yards: the Profits from Eminent Domain [Brownstoner]
ESDC Approves Revised Plan for Atlantic Yards [Brownstoner]
Image by Tracy Collins




Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11880

Comments

Where is that gorgeous courtroom interior? Is that a stock shot or a real Brooklyn courtroom?? Sorry, I am easily distracted by woodwork.

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at October 15, 2009 10:13 AM

that is a photos of yesterday's argument in Albany. The Court of Appeals is in Albany.

Posted by: brokeland at October 15, 2009 10:27 AM

I am pretty show it is the Appeals court building on Monroe in Brooklyn Height right off of Pierpont. It is beautiful, I had my swearing in there.

Posted by: broker at October 15, 2009 10:28 AM

This is the scene from yesterday in the courtroom of the New York State Court of Appeals in Albany. The building first opened in 1917.

Posted by: SteveFtGreene at October 15, 2009 10:29 AM

It's a real Albany courtroom, the Court of Appeals, the State's highest court. It doesn't look quite that nice from every angle.

Sounds like a serious argument, with pointed questioning directed at both sides.

Posted by: slopefarm at October 15, 2009 10:29 AM

That courtroom will be worthless once AY is built.

Posted by: Brooklynnative at October 15, 2009 10:30 AM

Brenda, that was the same thing I was thinking.

The case looks quite interesting, and is important, both for Brooklyn, and future development in NY state.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 15, 2009 10:30 AM

I'm curious to see the Brooklyn Heights Building now- it must be quite beautiful if it compares with that.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 15, 2009 10:32 AM

Oder wrote a very thorough analysis of the arguments yesterday. I'm hoping the Court decides AY is a sham, and with the new MTA case- I have hopes there might be a resolution. Ratner got a sweetheart deal. Shame on them.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 15, 2009 10:34 AM

I've never been to Albany, now I have at least one reason to go--to see that courtroom. I also note the Conceptual Art installation on the walls behind the judges: "The Many Faces of Shelly Silver."

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at October 15, 2009 11:04 AM

Funny, Brenda. Those are portraits of former Court of Appeals judges.

Posted by: slopefarm at October 15, 2009 11:48 AM

The one on Monroe is the Appellate Division for the second department.

Posted by: broker at October 15, 2009 1:18 PM

Montrose, I would recommend a trip to both the 2nd Department on Monroe and the First Department in Manhattan (20s, just off Madison) for the architecture in the courtroom. Go and sit in the audience for oral argument and just gaze around.

Posted by: slopefarm at October 15, 2009 1:32 PM

D-O-N-E-D-E-A-L!!!

Posted by: Big Jugs at October 15, 2009 6:45 PM

The plaintiffs in this case deserve a lot of credit and support. I can't imagine having to go through something like this. May justice prevail.

Posted by: dash at October 15, 2009 7:47 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions