atlantic-yards-040108.jpg
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]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Bruce Ratner. Blight Mogul. Scumbag in Cheif. Trust Funder in Chief. Thriving off the teat of his Cleveland forefathers.

    Bald sheep of the family.

    blight King. Slacker! dabbler. welfare king!

    YAY!

  2. Attacking DG personally, aside from cowardly, directs attention away from the corruption that brought us AY. It is irrelevant as to how he makes his money or his father. That is a distraction as well as pure speculation. There is no speculation that AY was a corrupt,crony deal that is the subject of the wonderful book, Free Lunch.
    Those of you who criticize must know DG very well. Come out from under your rock and tell us who you are. I don’t know much about him. I do know a bit about AY.
    The vitriol against DG is telling. It just won’t work. The blame for this mess belongs to our state and local politicians. Had the process properly gone through ULURP, you would probably have your arena and affordable housing. Ratner is simply doing what he does around the country. It is what G.W. Bush did in Arlington, Texas. It is great to keep up this thread because it exposes Ratner flunkies for what they are. Keep going.

  3. It’s comical to me the way these Anti-AY NIMBY’s hold Goldstein up on some pedestal as a hero. He has not “given up a normal life” to fight Bruce Ratner…he has no life! This guy is a complete slacker who does not want to get a job and therefore decides to become an “activist” to avoid the real world. In England they call these guys “Trustafarians”. He’s a total scumbag…

  4. I agree that Daniel Goldstein is not brave. A person as rich as he can afford to quit working for several years and dabble in community organizing. I wouldn’t be surprised if his father, a hedge fund manager, has helped to support him during his “activism”.

    If Daniel Goldstein were a teacher, social worker, bus driver, etc., someone who took a bona fide a risk in order to stand up to the corporate giant, then I’d respect him, even if I disagreed with his views. But with his financial security, I see him as a contemptible brat participating in a safe experiment and therefore worthy of no respect.

  5. Kelo was extremely vague and there is every reason for these people to petition the Supreme Court to hear the claim…that is how it works. One vague precedent does not end the legal analysis, in many ways it opens up more questions. I don’t think the Supreme Court will take the case, but they certainly have the right to try. And a lawsuit is NOT frivolous just because it hasn’t won in the lower courts. To say so would mean Brown v. Board of Ed and a gazillion other cases were frivolous at one point. I’m really not invested in the Ratner thing at all, just a land use law academic who was wondering as a purely legal exercise what happens if Ratner pulls out after successfully employing ED, leaving a blighted neighborhood?

1 2 3 4 5 6 8