Federal Eminent Domain Lawsuit Rejected
Yesterday, a federal judge dismissed the eminent domain lawsuit that opponents of the Atlantic Yards project had seen as their best shot at derailing the current plan. In ruling in Goldstein v. Pataki, U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis said that even if the benefits of the project (jobs, housing, etc.) fall short of what…
Yesterday, a federal judge dismissed the eminent domain lawsuit that opponents of the Atlantic Yards project had seen as their best shot at derailing the current plan. In ruling in Goldstein v. Pataki, U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis said that even if the benefits of the project (jobs, housing, etc.) fall short of what has been promoted by Ratner and the State, no reasonable juror would have grounds to conclude that the “sole purpose’ of the Project is to confer a private benefit. The judge also ruled that any claim that the condemnations would not benefit the public were baseless. The 13 plaintiffs, a mix of owners and renters, plan to appeal the decision. Speaking afterwards, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Matthew Brinckerhoff, said he thought his clients had a good shot on appeal: “It’s undisputed that no other developer was considered to do this project, that the genesis was Forest City Ratner, that they identified my clients’ properties [for eminent domain], and that the government, broadly speaking, agreed to do exactly what [the developer] asked for.”
Judge Rejects Main Argument of Effort to Stop AY [NY Times]
Judge Dismisses Federal ED Lawsuit; Appeal Planned [AY Report]
Federal Court Ruling Clears AY Obstacle [NY Sun]
Atlantic Yards suit dismissed [Metro]
Photo by Flatbush Gardener
DDDB had not done well. Stop with the propaganda. Aside from a few newspaper corrections, they haven’t scored a single victory.
So, “Mr. Doctoroff” kindly slither off to listen to your CRASS cd’s and spraypaint your “anarchy” symbols while the rest of us lead lives of unabashed luxury and indulgence.
It’s not extreme right or extreme left; (anarchist comes closest to the truth but a progressive will do the “dainty” Brownstoner crowd.) It just so happens people with principles are in agreement about Eminent Domain. Also it is FACT that the “liberal” bloc voted for the State in Kelso. Am I going too quickly for you? (Do you still read the Times “City” section & think it’s anything but crap?)
Bloomberg? Cronyism? Yeah, and ??? This is all true, of course. How many people who are reading this– tell the truth– have read “The Short Sweet Dream of Eduardo Gutierriez”? Do you ever know who Eduardo Gutierrez ** is ** ?? The only dude who got this right at length was Chris Smith in New York mag, btw; that and the Sun editorial was all we had (besides crazy Norm Oder, etc).
Without constitutional law on our side, the anti-Ratner fight was always going to be hugely difficult.
Non-New Yorkers– which I suspect many of you are– simply do not understand or appreciate the full depths of state & local corruption. Add in all Ratner’s $$$… As others noted, DDDB has done pretty well on a fucking shoestring.
The SAD part is most real New Yorkers are worn down & cynical as hell, i.e. what difference does it make?
Also, anti-Ratner people– ask yourself where were YOU when the city gave those stadium deals away, esp. the Yankees. I know that’s not everyone but it’s a lot & why Ratner propaganda has been able to paint ya’ll as NIMBY.
I know it’s not true but I’m a hardass too. Stay strong–
Dan Doctoroff
NYC 2012
9:30, I didn’t actually argue that the ED lawsuit should’ve gone the other way because AY is a disaster in the making, I was merely voicing my dispeasure that AY is a disaster in the making and it’s now one step closer.
Y’know, that and my already huge utility bill is going to go up 17% as a result of aforementoned disaster in the making.
Yes, “Boopsey”, and that wooden bat has been sooooooooo effective, hasn’t it?
Actually, the constitutionality of the use of ED in situations like this per recent decisions effectively defers to States to legislate restrictions so that situations that are not clear cut are more easily decided, so I think the point about lobbying for State law legislation on this point is a correct one.
Dear Dan Doctoroff:
The New York Sun is a conservative newspaper that is against ALL infringements on private property rights, including all rent ceiling regulations and forced acceptance of government subsidies as well as restrictive zoning.
The question is, why aren’t the anti-AY folks fighting for property rights across the board? A free man should be able to do whatever he wants with his property. He should be allowed to rent his property to anyone under any terms he sees fit. He should be allowed to build whatever he wants on his property, including the largest and tallest building he deems economically feasible.
90% of the buildings in this city were constructed before zoning laws and before rent control. There is a housing shortage in this city because of the abuse of property rights. The people suffer because New York City does not respect property rights.
12:13 – its too late to argue the constitutionality of this use of ED – Kelo already decided it.”Constitutionality” is decided by the Supreme Court – and they decided it (on nearly identical facts)
– that argument is OVER.
yeah, because architectural form renderings ALWAYS present their minute architectural detail, not. thats not what they are for, they created to show the height and bulk of the architectural forms.
how different is the rendering above, than say, this one from bruce ratner:
http://www.ecotectureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/1-nets-arena.jpg
please tell us mr. strategist, what produces “real-life” results? threats followed by capitulation a la the Dems on the war funding bill? middle of the road ineffectuality by a group like BrooklynSpeaks?
when the wealthiest development firm in the US comes into town to play hardball, don’t bring a wiffle ball bat.
“If anti-AY folks were really serious about ED “abuse”, they’d be working harder to get state law changed to make ED use more difficult”
ED is a (US) Constitutional issue, not a state law issue, in the sense that the Constitution is what supposedly puts limits on what can be taken by way of ED. State laws can only be more *restrictive* than that. So changing state laws would be nice, but the opponents here should be focusing on the unconstitutionality of this use of ED, which they did… albeit poorly.