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]
“Lets say if instead of an Arena, they built a Public University (an original plan for the site), would ED be okay in that case?”
Well on the upper West side a judge ruled against Columbia (albeit private) expansion – citing the corrupt ‘blight’ process – which is yet another corrupt aspect of the whole AY debacle.
And no, I don’t think it’s right to user eminent domain to build arenas or stadiums.. it reeks of ‘bread and circuses’ which is never the sign of a healthy republic (sorry for all the ‘ranting’ rhetoric) .
the definition of ED has been expanding to the point where, literally, the city can seize a church property and claim that a mall will bring more tax revenue- and if you think that’s a hyperpole – it has already happened in Bridgeport Conn.
mcarmbk2010, I’m not a big fan of emminent domain in general. However, in some cases, especially in a heavy population density area, you just aren’t going to get everyone to agree, no matter what you offer. Without eminent domain, nothing would ever happen. Yes Ratner and company will make a good deal of money on this, but you wouldn’t expect them to work for free would you?
Similar situation occured in Dallas when SMU got the Bush library. They offered a ton of money to the owners of a condo building adjacent to the land they owned that they wanted to build on (they needed more than just their lot). Everyone took the deal, which was a very good deal, except to owners. They refused no matter what. SMU ended up going the eminant domain route. Sure it’s not a private individual, but still a private entity. Without it, they would have lost the library that will be a boon to both the school and the city of Dallas.
So long as the propety owners are fairly compensated, there is nothing unethical about it.
“Madison Square Garden, in a more heavily congested area, seems to do OK”
Oh yeah, that’s a great, vibrant ‘neighborhood’
Bxgrl – I never called you unethical – as you said – I dont know you but you are a bit naive:
“If there was no question as to the law, it never would have gone before a judge.”
As for ED – I do have to (rhetorically) ask – If instead of Ratner, the City, State or even the MTA, used ED and built the Arena would that be ok?
Lets say if instead of an Arena, they built a Public University (an original plan for the site), would ED be okay in that case? – What if they hired Ratner to actually do the construction – would it still be ok or would all the contractors have to be Government employees to be acceptable? What if they didnt used Ratner but another builder, would that builder be entitled to make a profit? How much profit would be “too much” for ED to tereby be inappropriate.
What about if the Government used ED to build a museum? Would that be acceptable? Could the museum charge the public to enter or would that render the ED improper? What if it was a really popular museum (ala Air and Space) could the Government take in more revenue than the cost to operate the museum – or would that render the use of ED improper?
IMHO all this ED talk is misdirected – if an Arena is a public amenity (which again IMO it is) than in doesnt make a particle of difference that Ratner may “profit” – newsflash – even in “public” developments – private individuals/organizations “profit” – in fact usually alot more.
ncarty97: What about the ethics of turning over someone’s private property, against their will, to give it to a private developer for personal gain?
fasrq: do you think it is right to turn over private property against the will of the owner, to a private developer? Is it ‘ranting’ to be against that.
As destroying the fabric of the borough – that is true – Ratner is a dinasaour stuck in 1970s superblock planning – he does this because on paper, it is most profitable – if you eliminate streets you can increase your density by claiming the former streets as open space – its not good for cities though –
Metrotech knocked out something like 1300 factory and other small manufacturing jobs – the kind of jobs the poorest and least educated brooklynites had a chance of getting.
The development will not “destroy” the area. It will improve it in many aspects, and will create economic activity in an area where none presently exists. Naturally traffic will increase during events. Madison Square Garden, in a more heavily congested area, seems to do OK. I do think Ratner received a “sweetheart” deal – in the same way that developers are often granted special terms in return for launching projects in areas that represent unusual challenges. I can live with that. I don’t mind that my tax money went to the project, as long as it’s completed. I think Ratner has a good track record with projects of this scale and can do a reasonable job. The project isn’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile. I’m ready to see it go ahead, and I expect it to be a positive thing for this area of Brooklyn.
RIP USA 1776-2010
I would love the nets here just as much as anybody but if this isn’t the official end of our republic as we know it, I don’t know what is:
THE STATE CAN NOW ARBITRARILY SEIZE PRIVATE PROPERTY AND GIVE IT TO OTHER [WELL CONNECTED] PRIVATE CITIZENS.
antidope- fsrg was quicker to insult. However considering all the information that has been made public over the last few years re AY, it’s the height of ridiculousness to claim we are just crying in the wind. You can ignore the information, but it does exist- the fact that I don’t rehash all of it in its entirety with every post has everythng to do with space, not lack of facts. But your argument simply pretends those facts are either all incorrect or do not exist (“appraisals mean shite, trust me”) so if nothing is true and everything is true, that’s a lot of chaos. However, if you don’t want me to respond to you, try not taking a potshot. trust me, I won’t miss the discussion with you.
fsrg- obviously you have some personal relationship with gerges. I’m done explaining anything to you – take a chill pill.
“When your evidence is more concrete than a “gut feeling” – please post it immediately.”
Ridge Hill