BREAKING: Judge Backs Eminent Domain Seizure at Yards

wonder how much the judge was paid off- considering the lack of traansparency, the special favors, the illegality of some of the procedures, the lies, the reneging on agreements that have characterized AY, I wouldn't be surprised. Think about all of that the next time we complain about the MTA or taxes. But hey- what's all that compared to an arena?

fsrg- first of all I didn't know the name of the judge. On the other hand, considering everything that has gone on with AY, nothing would surprise me. There's been far too much back room dealing and despite all of it, and all of the special exceptions and even outright flaunting the rules, Ratner still wins out. Sorry, fsrg- my money and yours is being handed to Ratner on a silver platter- I want to know why and how. As far as Gerges- well, Spitzer "Mr. Clean" shocked us too. At that level of power, no one is above suspicion, NY Supreme Court Justice or no. It ain't sainthood.

crap, IJ- now I suppose I'll have to shred my new jacket with a razor blade :(

Really gman? My comment was to a whole range of things- so what if the case was simply about eminent domain? As well known, eminent domain laws vary widely- despite the SUpremem Court rulings. But beyond that, why should Ratner be allowed a pass on everything and be given the favor of eminent domain? I'm sure Gerges is trembling in his seat over my question- which was more glib, than serious. I was making a point- but i see you and FSRG are not conversant in sarcasm or irony.

My bigger point is this- since we have seen how well the government works for any of us- why should the Supreme Court be considered untouchable? We've already seen how the Justices at the Federal Level, allow their own politics to color their decisions. We've seen how politicians and judges and CEOs are interconnected- why shouldn't I, or any other citizen question why poor decisions are made? Because I have yet to hear a good explanation for the use of eminent domain in this case.
The lack of outrage over the many questionable details of AY, or the money we are throwing at it seems far more spurious and off base than what I said.

Thanks, harriet. Here- sit by me behind this tree. I'm evading incoming fire :-)

Snarky- the MoneyGrubbers? The AY A$$hats? The Ratner Rats? I can see that logo.

I am a sore loser when it comes to fighting something when the deck is stacked against you before you even get started. I do question how the stars all aligned for Ratner despite everything. And you should be asking why that is too, denton. It's not like Ratner is spending his money. He's spending a hell of a lot of ours. Too many people in power rolled over for this deal- most visibly, the MTA. It sucks and we have a right to question why.

fsrg- I said "the judge"- which is generic. I'm sure you enjoy making this into something that it isn't. You don't know me personally, you have no qualifications as a psychologist and you have no right to speak for me. But if in your arrogance you still feel you must interpret, let me paraphrase Senator Bunning (R-KY): Tough sh*t. After all, what kind of ethics do you have, that the MTA deal is ok with you?

Well denton- I'm with Mm and Mimi- I can't feel sorry for Ratner. He could have done this far differently and the Nets would be playing in the arena by now. By no- his supersized ego (and you talk about Goldstein's?) meant a megaproject with 18 buildings and an arena and if that meant taking someone else's property, demapping streets, and sweetheart deals, well so be it.

He's run roughshod over taxpayers and yet everyone is carrying on about Goldstein. Well, daniel makes a good scapegoat- gotta hand it to him.

antidope- are you well? Do your glasses need cleaning? Did you not see what fsrg posted to me? Or is it just that you are so in love with the idea of AY you feel the need to attack? Whatever. And what makes you think I didn't get involved? Because I don't post about it here? I had every right to ask fsrg about his ethics- after all I was subjected to his personal psychological analysis which you seemingly did not read.

FSRG- I'll confess to glancing over the initial post so I did not read the judge's name but your shrieky hysteria and need to get personal over my opinion and an off the cuff remark really says more about your uptight I'm sitting on a broomstick political view. You chose to ignore a lot of facts (Read the AY Report once in awhile) in your comments and for you to get personally nasty over comments about a public figure- a conjecture in fact- says you have issues of maturity. Don't like the idea of questioning judges or politicians? Maybe you should live in a totalitarian country where they actually like that sort of unthinking behavior.

" it is a slanderous accusation and IMHO quite inappropriate - not based on law or feelings regarding AY - but rather on a personal level.

Posted by: fsrg at March 1, 2010 4:22 PM"

Since you don't know me, how would you know what is or is not personal for me? You don't.

If there was no question as to the law, it never would have gone before a judge. Each side presents an interpretation of the law for judges to decide.

Once again- my comment was sarcastic- if i were going to accuse him of taking a bribe I would have said exactly that but you just can't seem to wrap you mind around anything but trying to score gotcha points. As ofr speculating- nothing wrong with that. People in positions of power have to be held accountable. Would that we never had cause to speculate about pols and their appointees but considering everything we've seen, we'd be fools to never question. Why you seem so bent out of shape is very telling. Let it go already.

And again- what makes you think your ethics are so much better? You can accept the bad deal the MTA made? Or that the ESDC didn't follow proper procedure in order to help Ratner? How ethical is it to give one person's property to another for the sake of private development? Yet you're calling me unethical. Nice work if you can get it.

antidope- fsrg was quicker to insult. However considering all the information that has been made public over the last few years re AY, it's the height of ridiculousness to claim we are just crying in the wind. You can ignore the information, but it does exist- the fact that I don't rehash all of it in its entirety with every post has everythng to do with space, not lack of facts. But your argument simply pretends those facts are either all incorrect or do not exist ("appraisals mean shite, trust me") so if nothing is true and everything is true, that's a lot of chaos. However, if you don't want me to respond to you, try not taking a potshot. trust me, I won't miss the discussion with you.

fsrg- obviously you have some personal relationship with gerges. I'm done explaining anything to you - take a chill pill.