Lawsuit to Save Six Bldgs from Ratner Wrecking
January 18, 2006, NY Post — Foes of an NBA arena in Brooklyn are filing a lawsuit today in state Supreme Court, The Post has learned. The suit, filed by a half-dozen community groups, seeks to block Bruce Ratner, the new owner of the New Jersey Nets, from demolishing six buildings in the footprint of…
January 18, 2006, NY Post — Foes of an NBA arena in Brooklyn are filing a lawsuit today in state Supreme Court, The Post has learned. The suit, filed by a half-dozen community groups, seeks to block Bruce Ratner, the new owner of the New Jersey Nets, from demolishing six buildings in the footprint of his planned $3.5 billion arena and complex of commercial and residential skyscrapers. Ratner, claims the buildings are in danger of collapsing; opponents call that an intimidation tactic against the holdouts. The lawsuit requests an independent analysis of his engineering report on the buildings.
Lawsuit Says Nuts to Nets [NY Post]
Wise – probably not; practical
Anon 7:10, would I like to make changes to Ratner’s plan – sure, would my changes please everyone – No (many dont want an arena under any circumstances), and the point is- you will never reach consensus on anything (except an economically unsustainable plan to simply build more brownstones). And opponents will use the same tactics (frivolous lawsuits, sky is falling publicity etc…) to stop what they dont like.
Therfore having been a lifelong NYer I know that my choices here are basically this development or nothing. Sure a little complaining here or there may make some differences (open parks for example) but in the end if AY isnt built it will be another generation b/4 anything is done with the site.
Personally, I am excited about an arena (NBA Basketball in Brooklyn), but mostly I dont want to look at this eyesore for another 20 years and despite all the talk like “if he just built over the yards and scaled it back we’d all be happy”; the reality is that it is simply untrue (do you think that people wouldnt be filling lawsuits if Ratner proposed an Arena alone w/ no ED????).
Look around the city, everywhere you go you’ll see plans that were proposed and fought and that died on the vine (and on many – thank god) but what you wont see is the “alternative” plan being executed – it is simply not the way things work. So the way I see it is – AYs or a hole.
In response to David “the wise”:
Few would claim that the exposed railyards at the AY have “character”. The issue isn’t should we build over the yards but, rather, do we want the public to pay for this particular concept, which will de-map 3 streets, hide parks behind buildings (not open like Bryant Park or Ft. Greene Park), and take many buildings that do have tremendous character. Wouldn’t it be better to accept a plan that actually is worth living nearby to? Or would you prefer to let a ruthless developer just cover up those yards, regardless of what’s placed there? (Excuse me if you’re really Mr. Stuckey) By the way, this will be the single largest private development in the history of Brooklyn.
I say, let the anti-Ratner crowd start spending their pitifully small war chest now. DDDB was touting the 60K it raised a few months ago, but how long can that last in the expense world of litigation? If they waste it on this, then they’ll be bankrupt by the time the bigger fights come around
Whether or not you agree with what Ratner wants to build, demolishing abandoned buildings such as the Underberg will not create a greater chance that the site be considered blighted. Abandoned boarded up building lend just as much to that argument as do empty lots in my opinion.
I think pretty much everyone would prefer something over the railyards (the “huge hole”). So let’s just agree to develop there, let Ratner be satisified with his sweetheart MTA deal, and take eminent domain off the table.
I will never understand this argument that the proposed AY site has some sort of character – even if you bought the idea that these blocks some how compose a neighborhood(it doesnt – it is actually just the fringe of a neighborhood) – how do people seriously argue that this area has some sort of “character” worth preserving – it has a huge hole in the middle of it!
As for the need to destroy buildings in order to create blight – this argument is also silly- you dont need to have an area declared blighted in order to do Eminent Domain under current law AND by many definitions the area IS blighted.
But I will say to those of us who anxiously await development on this scar in the middle of or community – these tactics (frivoulous lawsuits, etc…) are far from just a small speed bump – they can easily be effectively used to derail the project. The only real question is how much political capital, the Mayor and others dedicate to this effort. Only with real political pressure will the judiciary push these lawsuits to the side and allow development to begin. If not AY will most likely die a slow and painful death (and the site will remain dormant for at least another generation)
That is simply not true. There is no political consensus on the proposed Ratner plan. The local councilmember, in fact, has no say whatsoever because the State of NY has trumped city regulations.
In regard to the buildings being demolished. The only way to make for good communities for us and our great grand children is not to demolish, as Moses would have liked of the West Village, but to incorporate the distict, existing character. See this interesting recent article: http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1746
Before FCR’s Atlantic Terminal mall was built, it was a vast empty lot for about 10 years. Businesses and homes had been demolished and the residents displaced. So by the time the mall came, people of course were thrilled to see something — anything — go up. And look what we got. Now FCR is planning to punch holes in our neighborhood (there are several buildings in different locations that they claim are unstable) for the obvious purpose of a) making the development a fait accompli, b) creating the conditions for blight so that eminent domain can be invoked when the last holdouts refuse to sell, and c) demoralizing the opposition. These are not the rantings of a paranoid group of conspiracy theorists. This is just reality. It’s how developers play the game. Wake up and smell the coffee! If the Atlantic Yards project goes forward, it should because the process has been observed (ie. enviromental impact studies, assessment of the cost to be borne by tax payers, consensus among political representatives, etc.), not because the developer strong-armed it through.
The thing I will miss the most when this project is underway is the entertainment value of the Ratner conspiracy nuts. I’ve never come across a group so thoroughly unable to step outside of their own little world and consider that others might actually hold a different point of view.
Truly, I will miss it.