Goldstein et al. File Suit Over AY Eminent Domain
Three homeowners, along with six renters and the owner of Freddy’s Bar, sued Governor Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg and Bruce Ratner in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn yesterday over the “misuse of government’s power to take property by eminent domain.” The Atlantic Yards proposal is premised on the abuse of eminent domain, said Matthew D. Brinckerhoff,…
Three homeowners, along with six renters and the owner of Freddy’s Bar, sued Governor Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg and Bruce Ratner in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn yesterday over the “misuse of government’s power to take property by eminent domain.” The Atlantic Yards proposal is premised on the abuse of eminent domain, said Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer. It would mean the taking of one citizen’s property to benefit a powerful and influential private citizen, he said. The suit also claims that the politicians and developer failed to seek adequate community input. According to the NY Post, Mayor Bloomberg laughed when asked about the suit’s chances of stopping the project. “The Atlantic Yards project is something that Brooklyn, and this city, really needs,” he said. What do you think the suit’s impact will be?
Groups Aiming to Block AY Cite Eminent Domain [NY Law Journal]
Suit Against AY Challenges Eminent Domain [NY Times]
Suit Seeks to Dunk Arena [NY Post]
AY Project Abuses Eminent Domain, Suit Says [NY Sun]
Legal Shot Fired in Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards Fight [Curbed]
Photo by threecee
Again, the issue isn’t whether public benefit (jobs, housing, etc) outways public cost, at least for the sake of this court case of course, but whether there is a public benefit. Opponents are going to lose but quick if they’re arguing that there is no public benefit. There clearly is.
As for the process, the standard isn’t too high, and if you look at what has passed for blight, and what agencies like EDC have to do to sustain that standard, it doesn’t bode well for AY opponents.
“This isn’t capitalism. This is the “free market” (what’s free market about how ratner pushed the AY project through?). It’s cronyism at its worst, at greed at its fullest.”
Exactly…when Stuckey was on a radio show and goldstien asked him about how much profit he wouldn’t answer…but said ‘hey this is america, we are going to make a profit’
yeah stuckey, its america, were allegedly people have basic property rights….
Sorry guys, but in the early 80s the Supreme Court upheld an eminent domain decision by Hawaiin government to redistribute land, from large owners to smaller owners, both private. The type of oversight that the US Supreme Court has taken in these cases has been very light, or at least much lighter than most that are posting here seem to think.
To the poster above who questioned the description of AY as ill-conceived:
The development as currently designed would attract 10s of thousands of new car trips to the single busiest intersection in Brooklyn. There are many things that could be done to mitigate traffic, but the development plan does not include any of them.
The development as currently designed will result in a net LOSS of open space to the neighborhood. Morover, the so-called park that will be built is not really a park at all — it is a highrise backyard that will not be inviting to the surrounding community. If Brooklyn is to get a development that will be even bigger than Battery Park City, don’t we deserve the same level of public park amenities that Battery Park received?
The development as currently designed will be twice as dense as the densest housing tract in the United States. This degree of density is severely out of scale with the community and is the root of many of the other problems with the project.
The development as currently designed will severely overcrowd schools. There is no plan to build a new school.
The development as currently designed will not result in the development of affordable housing until 2016, and even then, the affordable component is dependent on the profits from luxury condos and might not be built at all.
The development as currently designed involves significant public subsidy but a complete lack of transparency as to what the public benefits will actually be. For example, the amount of subsidy per affordable apartment planned is unknown.
Right on, Bx2Bklyn, totally agree with every point you just made.
And the previous poster who mentioned that this is exactly what FCRC didn’t want to happen is also right on. The more fuss that these owners make the better for all of us, in the long run. FCRC does not want the facts exposed to public scrutiny. They are masters of spin and propaganda, masters of capitalism at its ugliest.
I now think there’s a chance. Hope the lawyers are as good as ratner’s. and hope the judges won’t be bought.
I looked at those pictures- if you think that is a blighted area I can sell you a bridge. The Kelo case had- if anyone has bothered to read earlier posts- a concurring opinion that provides the possibility of a check on this type of situation. whether or not it will work here, i don’t know. But the idea that someone can come in and basically tell you they are going to use eminent domain if you don’t sell them your property is more like blackmail than a fair offer.
Beyond that, there is literally no reason for the AY project to have proceeded as it has, nor be designed as it is except, imo, Ratner is one of those people who loves to engage in pissing contests.
Nor should the financially strapped MTA have sold him the air rights for so little money. Between that and the financial subsidies, seems to me we have lost a substantial amount of “public benefit”, seeing as the taxpayers are paying for it. The benefit is to Ratner, the construction industry, Gehry and the people earning over 100,000 a year who are still going to be entitled to subsidized housing.Oh- and did I mention that the money to build or maintain old and inadequate infrastructure, as well as closing off a big part of a major street? To whose benefit? Not mine or yours.
I might also point out that if you read the Constitution- which was written as a protective document for all- this was never the intention of eminent domain, nor has it ever been changed. All that’s happened is that people have interpreted the Constitution so as to benefit themselves, their pals (think Halliburton) and their finances. No- I don’t think any of the justices took bribes- but I think they operate in an atmosphere (as many on this blog seem to) that money takes precedence over everything.
This isn’t capitalism. This is the “free market” (what’s free market about how ratner pushed the AY project through?). It’s cronyism at its worst, at greed at its fullest.
Regarding blight – every empty lot in PH and the surrounding neighborhoods has been bought up and developed and now developers are resorting to tearing down buildings to build new. Don’t you think that the AY (private) property could be sold and developed individually? What about Newswalk and the other condos on the site?
I think Goldberg tries to distinguish Kelo arguing that the project wasn’t initiated by the city and no bidding process took place. Doesn’t sound like it will get them very far…
Kelo only requires proper process which was probably followed, there’s no specific requirement of the project being initiated by the city.
Sorry 1:54pm post was mine