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
Anon@ 1:04 – I am making perfect sense – ED doesnt have to be applied to each sq inch of the property individually, nor does the fact that the propery ‘could’ be sold off and developed individually matter.
The fact that most of the site is a hole and/or empty land is very relevant to the determination of blight.
Here of some photos of the homeowners in New London standing in front of their homes -( http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/ )- in case you hadnt heard, this area was declared blighted, ED was used and all appeals based on the EXACT same arguments that DDDB is using – failed.
I disagree.
While the project hasn’t gone through the ULURP project, which I think was a big mistake, it did go in front of the City Planning Office. Although this doesn’t meet the usual NYC standards, what do you think happened in New London? Not much more than this. The negotiations, whatever you think of them, with the BP will also be held to be part of a public process.
As for whether there isn’t a public benefit, I don’t think that Kelo requires strict scrutiny on that question. If the developers and state agenices can show a public benefit, then that’s it, they don’t have to weigh benefit against costs, because once they show benefit, the standard has been satisfied.
Really, this is about as weak a case as you get, and that’s not to disparage the lawyers or the residents, because the reason this case will be dismissed has everything to do with the law as it currently exists.
David: that area has been on the upswing for over 20 years- its been improving on its own. COndos sell there for 700K .
look what he declares – oops the state – declares blighted
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3667/1536/1600/BlightPrecinctBoundaries.0.jpg
look a little fishy? Its because ratner cut a deal with the developer of newswalk to not have that buildign declared blighted – the blight is defined by Ratner’s needs – which is ass backwards.
“Yes the non-railyard property could probably be sold and developed individually but that is irrelevant from the question of blight as is the fact that at the bottom of the hole there is a working railyard.”
david you’re not making any sense – the area that is being called blighted is the non railyard property – Ratner doesn’t need eminent domain to get the railyard – that’s already been handed to him for 100 million under its value.
I honestly don’t see how anyone can justify eminent domain in this case –
Ratner didnt “create the blight” – the AY site has been mostly a hole in the ground and empty lots for decades – long before Ratner owned 1 inch of property there.
Huh? The justification is that the buildings are abandoned, Ranter bought out the tenants and let them get run down.
Yes the non-railyard property could probably be sold and developed individually but that is irrelevant from the question of blight as is the fact that at the bottom of the hole there is a working railyard.
Mr. Stuckey (sorry, I mean David…)
Well done!
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 the area of AY is blighted within any reasonable definition – the majority of the site is either a hole in the ground or empty lots.”
umm no they are functional railyards.