Eminent Domain
April 1, 2008
AY Owners, Renters File Eminent Domain Appeal
Eleven property owners and tenants within the Atlantic Yards footprint filed a petition yesterday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their eminent domain case, nearing its 18th month in the judiciary system still without a trial. The case was dismissed twice by lower courts in developer Forest City Ratner's favor. Since news broke of the basketball arena and high-rise project's Dec. 19, 2009 kill-date (as long as Ratner stops pursuing litigation or construction matters), a lot of attention has been focused on the ticking clock rather than the people arguing beneath it. Now, about that legal case: In short, it seeks to clarify the Supreme Court's controversial Kelo v. New London decision in 2005, which allowed the Connecticut city to give a developer private property for the purpose of economic development. In that case, eminent domain was decided by a legislative body, whereas Atlantic Yards was voted on by three publicly accountable politicians, though it went through a lengthy review process. And lead attorney for the plaintiffs Matthew Brinckerhoff said Kelo's definition of public purpose was vague, leaving the average person vulnerable to having their property handed over to more influential citizens. They want the chance to vet that out more, and further investigate who Atlantic Yards was actually intended to benefit.
Forest City Ratner execs have long called lawsuits and appeals filed by project opponents "delay tactics" that deprive citizens benefits from the project's arena, affordable housing and jobs. And now Ratner has found himself in credit crunch territory, possibly delaying or killing key components of the project. Lead plaintiff Daniel Goldstein, who owns a condo in the arena footprint, said it's about their constitutional rights. But as far as the ticking clock, he said this is their last federal appeal, and he expects the court to decide whether to hear it this July. "If they don't take our case, or take our case and rule against us, then we will go to state court, the appellate division, and raise our state claims." When asked if they could drag out their case until 2010, after which time Forest City could automatically default if he decides not to continue pursuing litigation, Goldstein said, "We will take our case as far as we can to protect our constitutional rights."
Ratner Only Required To Show Arena Financing for Eminent Domain Approval[Brownstoner]
Read The Fine Print[Atlantic Yards Report]
Slow Economy Likely to Stall Atlantic Yards [NY Times]
What Will Be Left of Gehry’s Vision for Brooklyn? [NY Times]
March 31, 2008
Vito's Plans for Pfizer: A Gross Misuse of Eminent Domain?
This morning the Sun takes a look at the drive to seize the old Pfizer plant in Williamsburg via eminent domain. Assemblyman Vito Lopez introduced a bill that would result in the state condemning the 15-acre property so it could acquire it and issue its own request for proposals to create around 1,700 affordable housing units. Pfizer intends to shut down the plant at the end of this year, and it released its own request for proposals for a mixed-use development on the site that would also include affordable housing. Lopez's chief of staff says Pfizer's RFP isn't good enough since it doesn't specify how much affordable housing would come out the site's redevelopment, but Pfizer begs to differ. "Not only is the concept of state-sponsored eminent domain extremely premature at this point and could have implications for development statewide but the legislation's justification fails to mention affordable housing is one of the key uses already being considered," said a spokesperson for the pharma giant in a statement. Critics of Lopez's plan think his bill would result in a completely unwarranted use of eminent domain. "The fact that this grossly mistreats business doesn't make it any better," says Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. "If Lopez wants the affordable housing on that site then he should work with Pfizer to get it included in the development and require that they build it on their property."
Eminent Domain Foes Fear Bid By Assemblyman [NY Sun]
Pfizer v. Vito for Rights to Old Pfizer Plant [Brownstoner]
Photo by hi-lo.
March 14, 2008
Paterson May be a Foe to Eminent Domain
According to an article in today's Sun, our new governor could end up opposing projects like Atlantic Yards that involve the use of eminent domain. As a state senator, David Paterson participated in a 2005 rally calling for a statewide moratorium on eminent domain. Councilmember Letitia James, who also took part in the rally, says she hopes Paterson's views on the subject haven't changed. "He stood with me and proposed some legislation and I am very hopeful that the lieutenant governor and soon-to-be governor will honor his commitment and will either issue a moratorium or review the abuse of eminent domain across New York City," says James. Steven Spinola, the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, says it's "premature" to make predictions about where Paterson will stand on eminent domain, but that "It would clearly be a mistake for the state to give up one of its powers to get public improvement projects off the ground." Time will certainly tell.
Paterson Could Derail Development [NY Sun]
Photo by d-4ce.