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…
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]
I will never understand why Ratner’s richness is okay, but the accusations made of so called NIMBY’s is not?
Can someone please explain?
Sweet Dreams.
Not
Posted by: guest at April 1, 2008 12:53 PM
I heard that you heard, that I heard that your dad was a scumbag. Go investigate Britney spears.
Wait, Goldstein controls the economy?
You think DG moved into some place, before this project thinking, hey I’m going to create this project defense so I can be a media whore and take on my own agenda. Yea, that makes so much sense! That is up there with one of the most ignorant beliefs ever. Agenda’s are carried out by huge corporations like FCR, not individuals, who bought a house. Abuse of power, is Spitzer. To say that DG has abused his “power” is just nuts.
We want the arena, its just the billionaire housing, do you really think that poor folks are going to live here?
Said it before will say it again. Be careful what you wish for. If you think people like DG are your problem now, you are going to have a whole bunch of smug rich folks living there next, and sure as hell they won’t want the looks of you arena loving folks around.
Just remember that. You’ll be begging for the pesky NIMBY’s to come back!
You don’t think Ratner buying ACORN, creating BUILD, and buying the unions and churches, was not a tactic? Not an abuse of power?
Grow up!
harrass???
What do you call a gag order? That is harrassment…and that is just the tip of the Ratner “abuse..”
If you guys think that DDDB or stein is the criminal here, then hey, there is a bridge we can sell you too…
Must be nice to live in your world of worshipping some big lying developer like Ratner. Let me guess…you think Mc Cain is right for the job as well?
If you want AY to happen, then why don’t you start donating money to ratner so he can build it, and get off of brownstoner. Petulant says as petulant is!
The fact that you all stick talk about this like it is about one person, day after day, means you still don’t get it!
5:22 – Believe it or not, there are people who want AY to happen. Try stepping outside of your bubble once in a while and interacting with people who disagree with your views.
5:44 – I live and own property in Prospect Heights and definitely do not see Daniel Goldstein as a hero. I view him as petulant, egocentric, backward, and out of touch with community sentiment toward this project. The sooner his home is taken and he removed from the area, the better.
6:08 – So you mean to tell me that if you bought an apartment for $400k and six months later somebody offers you $900k for it your would not take the money “on principle”? You may be independently wealthy, but I’m not. I took the money and kept it moving.
Are you such a worm, such a low thing that you don’t realize people can’t always be bought for money. There actually are a few people like that out there. They often end up dead, broke, whatever, but there are a few who won’t bow.
2:09, ED law is not well-settled. It is an extremely open-ended area of law that has rapidly changed since the 80s. Kelo was radical in that it allowed ED for private/public partnerships. This is by no means enshrined in the Constitution. I am a published land use law academic and maybe I overthink these things, but it is not as simple as saying ED is in the constitution and therefore the arena qualifies as public use. There are a ton of nuances in there. I agree that this particular Court is unlikely to overturn their own precedent, and especially in this area. I disagree that the area of law is well-settled. As for Brown, I was just throwing that out there off the cuff with children screaming in the background. But I think you get my point. The Court can and does overrule itself and just because they have already ruled on an issue does not render it moot. Each set of facts is different, to a certain extent. I think you know all this anyway.
6:08 – Get the Hell outta here!! So you mean to tell me that if you bought an apartment for $400k and six months later somebody offers you $900k for it your would not take the money “on principle”? You may be independently wealthy, but I’m not. I took the money and kept it moving.
“When the buyout offers first came in, none of them were thrilled about it, but eventually they took their payouts and moved on with their lives. ” I am amazed by what a nation of sheep the people of the US – to gratetfully take the money of people who are seizing and their home and trot off. Really pathetic.