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. 10:38/10:46, yes, I’ll say it again, please get out more and get an idea of your own rather than repeating yourself with non-points. Indeed, look what I did now, continued to elicit a reaction from you…TWICE! Thanks.

  2. Anyway, back to the matter at hand…Goldstein and DDDB absolutely disgust me…its one thing to fight for your rights and quite another to abuse the legal system…so let me get this straight…on eminent domain, they file a case in federal court – lose, appeal to federal appeals court – lose, and then appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Considering the fact that the Supremes actually hear about 2% of the cases presented to them (and considering that they already decided this subject matter with Kelo, with largely the same members), chances are this case WILL NOT be heard by the Supreme Court. To the extent that is the outcome, you mean to tell me that they are going to start the process again on the federal level? That is absolutely ridiculous. Daniel Goldstein is publicity whore…we should start calling him “Kristen”

  3. Biff, Biff, Biff. Look what you did now. Yesterday you were trying to tell me I needed to get out more after I said the What was funny. But I guess you’re the one who needs a reality check, man. You really need to learn to behave yourself. This just a blog about real estate. That’s all.

  4. Thanks 10:32 #1. No, Brownstoner posted everything except one little clean harmless joke that was removed (which at least daveinbedstuy appreciated). I know the faded type spammer has caused them frustration, but as someone who has constantly battled The What’s lack of respect for others and always tried to contribute in a positive manner, I’m pretty baffled at Brownstoner’s reaction. I can appreciate and understand more now why people sign in as guests. Too bad if this comment was off-topic.

1 6 7 8