Atlantic Yards Case Starts in State Appeals Court Today
Today’s the day that the State Appeals Court begins hearing oral arguments in Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation; the case was already dismissed in Federal Court. In an exhaustive round-up on Friday, Atlantic Yards Report discusses some reasons why plaintiffs (nine renters and owners in the footprint whose homes, like the three…
Today’s the day that the State Appeals Court begins hearing oral arguments in Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation; the case was already dismissed in Federal Court. In an exhaustive round-up on Friday, Atlantic Yards Report discusses some reasons why plaintiffs (nine renters and owners in the footprint whose homes, like the three at left above, have been targeted for seizure by eminent domain) have a shot at winning but concedes that “the new case has to be considered a long shot.” Eminent domain arguments aside, the post reminds us of what an untransparent, back-room deal the MTA deal was: First, the MTA announced it would sell to Ratner, then it went through the motions of issuing an RFP; when Extel Development bid $150 million for the Yards versus Ratner’s $50 million, the MTA gave it to Ratner anyway. Nice. Anyway, after Appeals Court hears both sides’ arguments today, it’s expected to take a couple of months to issue a decision.
Oral Argument in State ED Case Approaches [AY Report]
Photo by Tracy Collins and Enhanced by No Land Grab
“Well ENY, I would say the fire department and the building next to it are much uglier (shudder) and “blight” the neighborhood more than these houses.”
Sure….I agree with that.
Well ENY, I would say the fire department and the building next to it are much uglier (shudder) and “blight” the neighborhood more than these houses. They are just lucky enough to be on the other side of the street.
I’ve lived in one of the crappy apartment buildings to the right of the little green house for a few years now, so I’m pretty familiar with the area.
Just here to comment about the little green house in the pix.
I looked at that place in 2006, it was being offered for rent at $2700/mo. I made a low-ball counter-offer, but they weren’t budging. So I walked away, and am very glad I did.
It is without a doubt, one of the strangest layouts/interiors I have seen in downtown Brooklyn.
First, one of the recent residents was apparently a ‘arts and crafts’ type of person and did all this ‘slightly better than amateur’ woodworking in the parlor. There is a small living room and s smaller separate dining room on the other side of the first floor windows. The kitchen is old, and looks like its from a lower middle class home in New Hampshire from 1961. Frankly, it really rides the line between cute and bizarre.
I asked questions about the possible teardown due to Atlantic Yards. The broker showing the place assured me that it was not in the footprint. Gotta love those brokers!
“firehouse” and “across”
Not spelling particularly well today.
wasnt a judge. esdc lawyer.
the crowd laughed at that one.
fwiw i think the state and ratner were well aware of the constitutional requirement that no state $$ for sum clearance unless all housing is low income.
thus the contorted set of actions that occurred.
“These houses are definitely a bit worn around the edges, but they add so much to the streetscape.”
They’re DIRECTLY across from a Fire Department, and acors the street from (dump) Freddy’s Bar. Not the most attractive streetscape to begin with. The apartments to the right ARE in poor shape also, and have been for some time (I lived on this block betwen 1997-2001).
bkn4life- I would be surprised if Ratner and friends haven’t done many behind the scenes deals.But “especially their contention that no one has standing to challenge a property transfer by eminent domain/condemnation until the property has actually been transferred away from the initial owner”- Can you explain a little more? Is the judge saying that eminet domain can’t be challenged until after the transfer is done?
P:
i get your point(but dont agree) and hope that the justices also see thru the end run as i described above.
there was a bit of chatter at the oral arguments about a reduction to absurdity of value to the public. they could take ANY property(yours, mine), state that one square inch was for public purposes and then let a private developer have unlimited profit with a rezoning because they “promised” one square inch for the public.
this sucks enough to make a stink. the least i could do was to attend and report back.
bkkn4life:
The “any” public benefit bit is actually a result of the New London eminent domain case that the Supreme Court decided over the summer. The current standard for a legal taking is that 1) the legislature must merely intend that the taking will benefit the public and that 2) there is no longer any standard of what the benefit actually is.