Newsletter |
« Thursday Links Open Thread »
17

Brooklyn Speaks to File Its First AY Lawsuit

Categories: Atlantic Yards

skyboxes-sign-1109.jpgAfter pursuing a non-adversarial stance for the entire history of the Atlantic Yards saga, Brooklyn Speaks, the coalition of neighborhood and civic groups, is set to announce a lawsuit challenging the ESDC’s approval of the Atlantic Yards Modified General Project Plan. From yesterday's press release:

The suit contends that the plan was approved without sufficient study of the impacts of its extended construction schedule and completion risks. It also alleges that the ESDC has illegally delegated to FCRC much of its governmental power to determine the future content and configuration of the Project. Groups and elected officials filing suit include the Atlantic Avenue LDC, the Brooklyn Heights Association, the Boerum Hill Association, the Fifth Avenue Committee, the Park Slope Civic Council, the Pratt Area Community Council, the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council and State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, Assemblyman Jim Brennan and City Councilmember Letitia James. Attorney Albert K. Butzel of the Urban Environmental Law Center is representing the plaintiffs.

Atlantic Yards Reports notes that the lawyer for the coalition is Al Butzel of the Urban Environmental Law Center, the same guy who led the legal fight to block the Westway landfill project back in the 1970s.
New Lawsuit Challenging AY Approvalby BrooklynSpeaks [AY Report]
Photo by Tracy Collins from 2008 Rally



By Brownstoner at November 19, 2009 9:00 AM | Comments (17)

17 Comments

By randolph on November 19, 2009 9:18 AM

here we go again....

By Johnny on November 19, 2009 9:25 AM


EXCELLENT news. Paying Ratner to $%#$ up our borough starting to look even less likely. Aside from the $50 mill in affordable housing money we've already given him.

And love the pic btw.

By Sparafucile on November 19, 2009 9:43 AM

I'm as opposed to corporate welfare and use of eminent domain to benefit a poltically connected private developer as anyone, but I have a hard time with lawsuits alleging failure to conduct adequate studies.

ESDC could have looked at another dozen economic scenarios or hundred intersections, and it wouldn't have changed anyone's opinion of the project.

But in our system, the people who win elections, or are appointed by them, get to make policy decisions. You can't litigate because someone made a decision you oppose, so you claim they didn't meet their environmental review obligations. The response is to conduct incredibly data-rich but information-poor documents that may convince a judge you took a 'hard look,' but are worthless at providing meaningful information to decision makers or interested parties.

By bxgrl on November 19, 2009 10:02 AM

sparafucile- but they are litigating because in our society when you make the laws you're supposed to follow them. And there are good reasons for these environmental studies to be done. I've spoken with firefighters back in 2003 who said the studies were not done to show the impact on getting essential emergency services in and out of AY and the surrounding area- something crucial to putting up an enormous project like this. And he then elucidated how bad that impact could be to an ambulance or a firetruck or police.

By Minard Lafever on November 19, 2009 10:12 AM

environmental studies are usually pretty meaningless. They are payed for by the developer and the consultants who prepare them are unlikely to bite the hand that pays them. The most successful environmental review firms are usually the ones who cater best to the needs of the developer. Is that really such a mystery? Lawsuits brought by consortiums of "concerned citizens" are equally bogus. No matter what the enviroenmental report says or doesn't say, these folks don't want to see this project happen. Period. It is all about density and keeping more people out because we already have enough people here. New Yorkers have been thinking this way since the days when Greenwich Village was considered uptown.

By Sparafucile on November 19, 2009 10:35 AM

"the studies were not done to show the impact on getting essential emergency services in and out of AY and the surrounding area"

That may well be true. But do you really think that the public officials who supported the project would have changed their minds had this been disclosed? The document probably would have said something to the effect that emergency vehicles confront traffic congestion and narrow roadways all over the city on a daily basis, and this is a basic fact of urban life that emergency responders know how to address.

Or do you think that if the EIS had fully disclosed a whole litany of potential impacts, that project opponents would have said, "thank you for your candor" and left it at that?

They're litigating because they don't like the project, not because they don't like the process. I don't like the project either, and hope it never happens. But this use of litigation as politics by other means is used just as often against benign or beneficial projects.

By architect66 on November 19, 2009 11:31 AM

The firm that prepared the EIS was specifically chosen because of its record of holding to the letter of the law and getting EIS' approved. But for the AY EIS, the letter of the law is the City's Environmental Quality Review guidelines. These are written as guidelines and there is latitude for interpretation. As an interested citizen, I did take a look at both the EIS and the CEQR guidelines. I think that the way ESDC and its consultants interpreted the CEQR guidelines was deliberately slanted towards findings of low environmental impact.

Sparafucile, I also think that the process followed on the project - deliberately skirting and avoiding city reviews that are mandatory for other large development, the use of eminent domain, sweetheart deal, payoffs to community groups, etc. - has ultimately been detrimental to the project's success. People are infuriated by what are perceived to be backroom deals. I also think that while density is good, the project as planned and designed was too dense, and too much of an enclave, with little connection to the surrounding communities.

I agree it is unfortunate that development projects are litigated so often, but in this case, where the public process was so transparently abused by ESDC and the developer, I think extended litigation was inevitable. FCRC is a proven, savvy developer, but AY was walking around with a big "Sue Me" sticker on its back from the get go.

By cityplanner on November 19, 2009 11:41 AM

ESDC are MENTAL for not revising their studies when the project changed. It gives a significant amount ammo to the public who are against of the project on legal grounds. A court, regardless of how it leans, will have to look at the facts in a case like this. Environmental reviews might not matter in the decision-making process always, but in terms of carrying a valid study out and revising it when necessary (i.e. when a project changes), that can make or break a project.

historically, ESDC are bad at conducting these projects.

By bxgrl on November 19, 2009 11:45 AM

sparafucile- whether or not the studies change anyone's minds, what should people have done? Say nothing? Do nothing. As it is, you can't say litigation has no effect. If it didn't, AY would have been a reality by now.

By Johnny on November 19, 2009 11:51 AM

When your money's being stolen you fight back. Oh, that and the massive congestion.

By Sparafucile on November 19, 2009 11:54 AM

"Environmental reviews might not matter in the decision-making process always, but in terms of carrying a valid study out and revising it when necessary (i.e. when a project changes), that can make or break a project."

Exactly. They're litigation protection, not a meaningful input into the decision-making process.

And I agree that this project would have been litigated no matter what, but that the project sponsor's decision to skirt ULURP was a poor tactical decision, in that it just gave project opponents that much more ammo.

To me, the below-market sale of state land and abuse of eminent domain have always been the real issues here.

By bxgrl on November 19, 2009 12:09 PM

spara- I agree with you on that, but the density issue is also huge.

By Brooklyn Chicken on November 19, 2009 1:14 PM

Architect66, thank you for your spot-on analysis.

There are always anti-development people, and anti-anti people who hate everything. But FCR handed these cranks the support of more mainstream folks (like me) by blatantly cirvumventing and making a mockery of the processes designed (however poorly) to encourage thoughtful development. As Architect66 pointed out, THAT is why they are facing endless litigation. By shutting the reasonable people out, they sent them (and their wallets) into the arms of the cranks.

As an example of the blatant bullshit promulgated in the EIS, on a playoff game night Pacific Street is estimated to receive a maximum of an extra eighty cars above normal traffic volume. COME ON.

By Sparafucile on November 19, 2009 1:37 PM

"As an example of the blatant bullshit promulgated in the EIS, on a playoff game night Pacific Street is estimated to receive a maximum of an extra eighty cars above normal traffic volume. COME ON."

I think the bullshit assumption here was that the Nets would be hosting a playoff game in any reasonably foreseeable future.

By Brooklyn Chicken on November 19, 2009 4:42 PM

Touche, Sparafucile!

By Big Jugs on November 19, 2009 6:39 PM

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

By my1cent on November 20, 2009 2:24 PM

It's funny that the wealthy who have lawyers on retainer and constantly prepared to sue anyone and those who have made millions by suing and/or the very threat to sue are quick to complain when the same tactic is used against them.
Yes it's all a big travesty and a waste of lots of money but the fact is that this is the only way to even the playing field.

Post a comment

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

Related Posts with Thumbnails