BREAKING: Goldstein et al Lose Eminent Domain Lawsuit
The New York State Court of Appeals has just ruled in favor of the ESDC in the closely-watched eminent domain lawsuit brought by property owners in the footprint of its proposed Atlantic Yards project. According to Atlantic Yards Report, “In a decision (PDF) that gives the crucial–but perhaps not final–boost to the Atlantic Yards project,…
The New York State Court of Appeals has just ruled in favor of the ESDC in the closely-watched eminent domain lawsuit brought by property owners in the footprint of its proposed Atlantic Yards project. According to Atlantic Yards Report, “In a decision (PDF) that gives the crucial–but perhaps not final–boost to the Atlantic Yards project, the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, approved the use of eminent domain by a 6-1 margin, saying that it’s not the role of the courts to intervene in agency decisions, given the wide latitude in state law.” The ruling means that Ratner may proceed with the sale of tax-exempt bonds to finance the sports arena that is scheduled to be the first stage of the gigantic development. The construction of both affordable and market-rate housing is supposed to begin with months of the arena, but as The New York Times points out this morning, “with so many new apartments sitting vacant, analysts say it could be many years before demand will justify building so many units in one neighborhood.”
Atlantic Yards Project in Brooklyn Clears Legal Hurdle [NY Times]
Court of Appeals upholds AY eminent domain 6-1 [AY Report]
Photo by Tracy Collins
I think ENY has said it all. All I can add is that I will be a happy man the day the shovels start moving some earth.
read the decision folks.
only one judge got it. or wanted to get it.
the evaluation that the majority did was that since the esdc is a legislatively enabled body with a specified set of attack points available as per ligislation that the findings of the esdc are beyond review because the legislature says its beyond review.
pretty pathetic.
“even if that team might go an entire season without a win.”
If you’ve noticed, the Knicks aren’t too much better. One “impossible dream” at a time!
The problem is citing economic benefit without citing the cost spend to get that benefit.
The vast majority of the expense is a simple transfer of assets from us to Ratner. We build him a stadium and the Nets increase in value exponentially. A small proportion of the cost will go to construction and generate a small economic benefit (relative to total cost.)
Essentially we’re spending $300,000 on a $20,000 Chevy and rationalize it by citing the economic benefit of constructing the car.
Right on East New York.
I’m ready for something other than a gravel lot in that spot. I like basketball, and the idea of Brooklyn being home to a professional sports team, even if that team might go an entire season without a win.
Bring it on.
So depressing – almost as bad as the Times reporting (they are still talking about 16 residential buildings – which even Ratner admits are not in the cards – and ignore the fact that 8 acres of “open space” has become 7 acres of surface parking.) Do any of the pro-posters really believe this is a “public benefit” – or one that is worth anywhere near the public subsidy?
The extent to which politicians and press were bought off in this whole awful process will probably become some sort of landmark urban (non)planning case study. I recently heard that “Brooklyn Matters”, a great little independent film on Atlantic Yards has been shown on public TV stations across the country – but not in New York. Seems there was fear of alienating Ratner as a PBS donor.
right on eny.
Perhaps one day, before I’m dead, there will be something built there. Bruce Ratner is most certainly the right developer to get it done, and I don’t mind if my tax money goes toward making it happen. This is a logical area for a sports arena and additional housing. I also don’t care if Ratner gets rich (or richer) in the process. It’s not a perfect project, by any means, but overall it makes sense. The arena will create economic opportunities which do not presently exist in that area. I guess you can argue about the quality of that business, but certainly it isn’t there presently. All DDDB did, in my opinion, was to create as many obstacles as possible to the first real progress at this site since at least the 1960s. I’m sure they’re not finished, but it’s nice to see their BS isn’t working.
“I hate Landmarks telling me what kind of windows I have to use in my home.”
“I love the ESDC taking my home and giving it to another developer.”
Yeah. Go try to rationalize that.