ESDC Forced to Cough Up Financial Docs on AY
After dragging its feet for two years, the Empire State Development Corporation signalled yesterday that it would finally release documents containing financial information about the Atlantic Yards project. After the ESDC fought a freedom of information reques last year, Assemblyman James Brennan teamed up with state Senator Velmanette Montgomery on Monday to file a lawsuit…
After dragging its feet for two years, the Empire State Development Corporation signalled yesterday that it would finally release documents containing financial information about the Atlantic Yards project. After the ESDC fought a freedom of information reques last year, Assemblyman James Brennan teamed up with state Senator Velmanette Montgomery on Monday to file a lawsuit against the ESDC for improperly withholding the financial documents. One reason opponents of the project are so curious to see the documents is to get a better view into how profitable the project is expected to be for Bruce Ratner, hoping that big numbers would undermine his argument for needing to make the site so dense. The craving for transparency is due in part to the fact that the project gets to by-pass the city’s land-review process because so much of the land is state-owned.
Lawmakers Push for the Release of AY Financial Documents [NY Sun]
Photo by nautical2k
Another thing that sleeps on no one is the arrogance of the anti-AY crowd. Now we have a stipulation that working class people can’t possibly use proper grammar or craft a coherent argument. Typical stuck-up NIMBYs.
That was a little too eloquent for an Average Joe. Perfect punctuation? Paragraphs set aside with bullet points? Yeah, I really believe you work down on the docks. The AY public relations machine sleeps on no one!
I most certainly do realize. Still doesn’t make it right for someone to take someone else’s property. And once you start down that slippery slope, how long before your neighbor decides he has a right to your house just because he could build a prettier one and we all know that a prettier neighborhood would be more to the public good? should I have to give up my house because you want to put a Mcdonalds there? all your arguments are doing is opening the door to taking away property rights of private citizens. And even more importantly, for not very good reasons. there is no justificatiopn for using eminent domain in the AY project- there is plenty enough space without stealing it (and I use the word intentionally in this case) from other property owners. So unless you are going to come up with a very narrowly defined set of circumstances and protections regarding eminent domain, you may as well just come right out and tell homeowners and businesses that they have no rights at all, especially when a huge private developer decides he wants their property.
Ok Bx2Bklyn so what difference would it make to homeowners, nearby residents, renters, biz owners etc… if the developer of AY was actually NYC, NYS, the MTA or the PA????
As for the fact that the SCt is affected by the political process – no kidding! of course it is. Sorry buddy but that is how this democracy works – there isnt a direct election on all political/societial decisions – and the Justices while insulated are of course still subject to politics to some extent (just dont tell this to G.H.W.Bush when discussing his Souter pick). The Consititution was designed to be an interpretive document and so of course it doesnt say explicidly 99% of waht we consider “consitiutional” (like Roe) or “unconsititutional”. That still doesnt mean ED is “stealing”
And I note that the most vocal dissenters in Kelo (which is not the only case supporting AY BTW) are the justices who are considered most “political” (i.e. adhearing to a strict ideology/political view) – Wasnt it Scalia who recently went on a hunting trip w/ the Vice President. Maybe you dont realize that the Kelo dissenters were Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O’Conner?
Hi – I am a property owner. I am pleased with Ratner’s plans. I hope this written testimonial is used for the purposes of moving forward with the yards. Thank you.
David- considering that supreme Court justices are just as prone to outside pressures (althought they’ll tell you they are not) as any politician, a look at the history of the supreme Court will prove to you that even the intent of the original constitution can be corrupted and subverted. Do I think money plays a huge part in this? Yes. Political friendships? Yes again. The Supreme Court is about interpreting the constitution and I believe that those interpretations are based more on politics, money and friends, than on pure constitutional law. And it also seems to determine the definition of “public good.” The Nets a public good? Well then by all means let give all sports teams someone’s house to build on. And by all means let the taxpayers fund it. If its “entertainment” by all means, lets distract the public with entertainment.
Except, again, there is nothing in the Constitution that even comes close to considering that the AY project is a form of public good that deserves to use eminent domain.
By the way, contractor and developer are 2 very different people. I never used the word contractor, and it is incorrect anyway in the context of what i was saying.
Ok Mole got it…. Can you ask Ratner one more question? what are his feelings on the word “seizing” or “snatching”?
Ahh the other f’ing retarted retort of the anti-AY crowd – you work for Ratner.
I am flattered that your only response to my cogent arguments is that I am $ by Ratner – but if Ratner is paying $ for me to waste my time like this then I am a total fool, because I didnt know I could sign up.(should I get paid by the post or the hr????)
Actually I have sent emails directly to Brownstoner (other tips) and I also have an IP address both of which should tell Brownstoner that I am not working at FCR. So try instead to actually refute what I say with something other then ridiculous claims, over the top hyperbole or outright lies.
SPer & BxBklyn – my opinion is 1000% irrelevant – the Supreme Ct’s opinion is the only relevant opinion and in case after case the Supreme Ct has determined repeatedly that Economic Development is a valid public benefit. Now please dont tell me how this case is so different from the endless precedents espousing this opinion (that will be up to a court to determine) – personally I see this as virtually analogous to Kelo except that w/AY instead of just economic development the public gets a new railyard, a mass entertainment venue and the covering of an eyesore. BUT I KNOW you disagree so lets not debate it – the point is – its not stealing – it a legal process (whose validity in this case will be determined by law)
as to who “profits” from a development – this is just plain silly – do you think no one profits (and there is no politics) when a new school is constructed, or a road is built, or a bridge??? Who do you think “built” the Brooklyn Bridge – Private Contractors many of whom profited handsomly (through regular profits as well as wholesale corruption). What difference would it make if instead of Ratner owning the arena, the city did (like Yankee Stadium) – what difference does it make?
The only question for ED is if there is a public benefit – our opinions differ, and thats fair – it will be decided by a Court of Law – but please dont call it stealing cause you just undercut your own credibility.