BREAKING: Judge Backs Eminent Domain Seizure at Yards
The Brooklyn Paper is reporting that State Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges this morning ruled against property owners in the footprint of the Barclays Center, paving the way for Forest City Ratner to begin construction on the controversial arena. In one fell swoop, the judge rejected 14 claims by the owners as being meritless. The…
The Brooklyn Paper is reporting that State Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges this morning ruled against property owners in the footprint of the Barclays Center, paving the way for Forest City Ratner to begin construction on the controversial arena. In one fell swoop, the judge rejected 14 claims by the owners as being meritless. The properties affected by the ruling include the home of Develop Don’t Destroy leader Daniel Goldstein, above.
Judge Rules Against Yards Property Owners [Brooklyn Paper]
“it is a far cry from say, protecting a historic district (people still own their property they are just limited to what they can do with it) to stealing middle class homes and turning them over to a private developer to build a megaproject. ”
It is still an interference of property rights. Regardless, what was stolen? The property owners were all paid at or over market rate for their properties. That’s not theft.
funny in this ‘green’ sustainable era the city still relies on make-work boondoogles in a desperate attempt to keep the economy from sinking – but like a thirsty man drinking seawater it only hastens our demise.
Do we really need another arena? And in 10 years when the team owner says its out of date and threatens to move do we fund it again?
There’s so much discussion here. It’s too bad that the developer worked with politicians to make sure that the public had no say in this publicly-subsidized development.
Specifically: Atlantic Yards’ being designated a State project allowed it to bypass the New York process (Uniform Land Use Review Process) that involves the City Council. This resulted in an instant upzoning for the area.
Ratner doesn’t care what you think.
Bloomberg doesn’t care what you think.
probably too late for this thread…
but google is your friend bxgirl..
justice gerges has been involved in questionable actions:
http://www.transalt.org/newsroom/media/2370
looks like he is for taking public land for private uses.
“. property rights are not absolute..”
it is a far cry from say, protecting a historic district (people still own their property they are just limited to what they can do with it) to stealing middle class homes and turning them over to a private developer to build a megaproject.
what has happened under bloomberg is a transfer of middle class property and small business to ‘megabusiness’ willots point – columbia, vanderbilt yards- which means less property is control of the middle class. that is not healthy for a democracy, or what’s left of ours.
and do you think Ratner’s going to stop here? He’s insatiably greedy and corrupt- mark my words, he will use the construction noise and pollution to blockbust other neighborhoods and continue sucking up property.
Despite what some people would like to believe, property rights are not absolute. If they were, there would not be a single landmark commission or historical district in the country.
Fair enough, but the concept of EM goes back a long ways, though certainly it has been expanded. One person should not be able to block progress simply because they hold a piece of paper.
There is no doubt that many time, EM is abused, and I agree that the definition of blight that they have been using is suspect to say the least. That said, I don’t think this EM case is near as bad as it is being made out to be. What should be of greater concerning is the sale of the MTA yards at less than market rates when the MTA is hurting so bad.
The simple fact is that if you wanted to build a Nets arena anywhere in Brooklyn that was anywhere near public transportation, they were going to have to use EM to do it.
“So long as the propety owners are fairly compensated, there is nothing unethical about it.”
And there is where we disagree, I suppose. I do not think it is right and it undermines of the most basic of rights.