Nets Coming Late to Atlantic Yards and Suit Coming Soon
Two new developments in the Atlantic Yards saga. Atlantic Yards Report reveals that the Nets have three more years at the Meadowlands’ Izod Center, not two, meaning the 2010 opening date Bruce Ratner has been promoting may be nothing more than a pipe dream; we might be looking at 2012 for the team’s debut. Besides…
Two new developments in the Atlantic Yards saga. Atlantic Yards Report reveals that the Nets have three more years at the Meadowlands’ Izod Center, not two, meaning the 2010 opening date Bruce Ratner has been promoting may be nothing more than a pipe dream; we might be looking at 2012 for the team’s debut. Besides the team’s schedule, there’s the issue of construction. Ratner tells some outlets that groundbreaking won’t begin until January; to others, he says November.
As construction remains stalled at the site, a lawsuit goes forward. Nine property owners and tenants filed a petition against the Empire State Development Corporation in the Appellate Division Second Department of New York State Supreme Court. They’ve got five beefs: The seizure of their property violates the public use clause contained in the Bill of Rights of the New York Constitution; violates the due process clause contained in the Bill of Rights of the New York Constitution; violates the equal protection clause contained in the Bill of Rights of the New York Constitution; violates the low-income and current resident requirements of the New York Constitution; and violates the “public use, benefit or purpose” requirement contained in New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). They expect to hear the case in January of 09, apparently long before a single building will rise on the site. Check out the press release below.
AY Arena Might Open 2011 [AY Report]
Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation [DDDB]
Appeal Over Atlantic Yards Suit Filed [Brownstoner]
Supreme Court Won’t Hear AY Eminent Domain Case [Brownstoner]
Photo by threecee.
DEVELOP DON’T DESTROY BROOKLYN
For Immediate Release: August 4, 2008
Nine Property Owners and Tenants File Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Challenge in New York State Court
Petitioners Seek to Prevent New York State’s
Seizure of Their Homes and Businesses by Eminent Domain
BROOKLYN, NY— Late Friday nine property owners and tenants—with homes and businesses New York State wants to seize for developer Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project—filed a petition with the Appellate Division of New York State Supreme Court seeking an order rejecting the Empire State Development Corporation’s (ESDC) findings and determination to seize their homes and businesses by eminent domain.
The court argument will likely be in January 2009.
“New York Courts have a proud history of interpreting the New York Constitution as providing greater protections for individual rights than the federal constitution. This case presents an opportunity to continue that tradition by declaring that the New York Constitution prohibits the government from seizing private homes simply to turn them over to a developer who covets them for a massive luxury condominium project,” said lead attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP. “We are confident that the court will see this for what it is: government officials bending to the will of Bruce Ratner, allowing him to wield the power of eminent domain for his personal financial benefit.”
Facing the seizure of their homes and businesses, the petitioners have alleged five claims against the ESDC— the condemning authority utilized by Forest City Ratner to take the petitioners’ properties and give them to Forest City Ratner. The five claims are that the ESDC’s determination to forcibly seize the properties should be rejected because:
1. It violates the public use clause contained in the Bill of Rights of the New York Constitution.
ESDC’s claims of public benefit are a pretext to justify a private taking.
2. It violates the due process clause contained in the Bill of Rights of the New York Constitution.
The public process was a sham. The outcome was predetermined in a back room deal between Ratner, Pataki and Bloomberg.
3. It violates the equal protection clause contained in the Bill of Rights of the New York Constitution.
By singling out the petitioners, for unequal, adverse, treatment, and selecting Ratner as the recipient of irrational largess, the ESDC violated the petitioners’ right to equal protection under the law.
4. It violates the low-income and current resident requirements of the New York Constitution.
The New York State Constitution provides that no loan or subsidy shall be made to aid any project unless the project contains a plan for the remediation of blight and the “occupancy of any such project shall be restricted to persons of low income as defined by law and preference shall be given to persons who live or shall have lived in such area or areas.”
The Atlantic Yards project is not “restricted to persons of low income” and no preference has been given to “persons who live or shall have lived in such area.”
5. It violates the “public use, benefit or purpose” requirement contained in New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL).
ESDC’s determination that petitioners’ homes and businesses will serve a “public use, benefit or purpose” has no basis in fact or law.
The petition to the Court for the case, Goldstein et al. v. Empire State Development Corporation, can be downloaded at: www.dddb.net/eminentdomain
————————————————
Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn—in its effort to defend the homes and businesses of community members and advocate for their rights—organized the eminent domain lawsuit, and raises the funds for the lawsuit.
————————————————
DEVELOP DON’T DESTROY BROOKLYN leads a broad-based community coalition
fighting for development that will unite our communities instead of dividing and destroying them
DDDB is 501c3 non-profit corporation supported by over 4,000 individual donors from the community.
###
Anybody who already lives in this area knows that the nearby intersections are already death traps. And we know that Ratner is responsible for the ugliest building in Brooklyn. The fact is that we’re “not Portland” vs. thoughtless development is a mutually exclusive concept, but good development and the creative potential of Brooklyn is a workable concept. This city contains the multitudes. We can do better.
Evening rush hour trains are already packed.
9,000 + 15,000 on game nights= subway nightmare.
Yay. I can’t wait.
well, of the 6,430 you really think 9,000 of those residents will be coming from outside of New York City?
CMU you better lookup a ‘strawman argument’ I think you confused….asking where the 9000 or so people currently included in 1 proposal and excluded for another will live is far from any definition of a strawman argument -although arbitrarily coming up with 20k number and suggesting we’d have to knock down all the brooklyn brownstones to house them (like you just did) is alot closer.
fsrg, by that rationale, why not look further into the future and postulate that there are another 20,000 people who won’t be housed even by AY and we should raze all of brownstone Brooklyn and build high rises a la Shanghai? A straw man argument?
fsrq- so where are they living now? You’re predicating what? There’s nowhere for these theoretical 9000 people to live? Do you see them with sleeping bags and little cookout units waiting for AY to be built?
You wrote:”The problem with your argument (and many others) is that you don’t take into account the alternatives – sure 10M people living in extreme density can be very bad for the (local) environment, but 10M people living sprawled all over is much much worse. So unless you are going to be encouraging massive population control – the issue is living in a manner that does the least damage (and most efficient) – again there is no perfect solution.”
We agree- there is no perfect solution but the point where we differ is the question of which is worse? My contention is extreme density (and a lot of research agrees) is not necessarily more beneficial or efficient without better urban systems being put in place. In other words, for extreme density in cities to work- and there is agreement that it can be the best solution- there has to be a real policy of city planning in place, infrastructure and technology. Polemecist threw out the fact that China has a very small carbon footprint despite it’s extreme density. But greenhouse gases are only one part of the problem that effects the environment. Look at the link I posted to him- China’s pollution problem is global. As is ours. Whether or not China’s lack of pollution and environmental protection laws is to blame, what’s the reason we have a pollution and environmental impact problem, with all our laws? I used China to show that equating density with efficiency and a better environment is meaningless without a structure to support it.
I disagree that the panel discussion was a NIMBY solution. The point of the panel discussion was that we need a better approach to increasing density throughout the city.
I also disagree with “the issue is what are you going to build at AY – if it is an appropriate spot for density b/c of its location and proximity to mass transit.” No one disagrees with building something at AY- No one even argues they shouldn’t build hi-rises (at least I don’t). But in my opinion Ratner’s plan is too big, and packs too much into the area and will put way too much strain on it. that’s like piling 5 tons of brick on a weak beam and then being surprised that it’s cracking and you have to fix it. Over and over again.
That’s my opinion after a lot of reading and research. You don’t have to agree with it. I don’t agree with everything you say either but I respect your right to it without insulting you for differing.
So BxGrl – where are those extra 9,000 people living? You still haven’t responded.
The problem with your argument (and many others) is that you dont take into account the alternatives – sure 10M people living in extreme density can be very bad for the (local) environment, but 10M people living sprawled all over is much much worse. So unless you are going to be encouraging massive population control – the issue is living in a manner that does the least damage (and most efficient) – again there is no perfect solution.
Your example of China is beyond silly – they have essentially ZERO environmental laws and regulations and even with that if you think its bad now – you have no idea what it would be like if they lived like Americans (i.e. in suburban enclaves or even Brownstone developments) – the extra pollution just in terms of distributing their coal generated electric (the vast majority of world sources) would be enormous.
As to the existing strain on mass transit – again you are right – it is crowded already – so the question is – does it make sense (for efficiency and environmentally) to build where there are few or no current subway lines – with the hope that they will one day be built – OR – build where there are alot of subway lines with the hope that capacity can be increased – Since most experts acknowledge that the cheapest and likeliest way to increase the systems capacity is an upgrade of the ancient signaling ( which will allow more trains to run closer and faster) it seems to me building atop subway lines still offers the best hope for a non-car based city – even if the lines are CURRENTLY maxed out (which they aren’t)
And yes I read your link – and essentially it is a NIMBY solution – it says that there are many underutilized places in NYC that can be developed in a pro-transit manner (very true) – and then goes on to cite Third Ave in the Bronx as one great place for such development (IMHO also true) – SO WHAT – the issue isnt – ‘is there other places to build that are just as good as AY’ – there probably are (and my guess is they have just as many NIMBYs in those places suggesting AY as an alternative)- the issue is what are you going to build at AY – if it is an appropriate spot for density b/c of its location and proximity to mass transit – the fact that there are other locations that are also good is irrelevant – except to those that want to move development away from themselves – i.e. NIMBY
bxgrl, sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you were anti-subway by any stretch, especially since you’re a user yourself. I was just trying to say let’s not throw away the baby with the bath water – again, I don’t mean to put words in your mouth and imply that was your point. It was just a general statement.
And I too think we would agree that there is still tremendous waste in cities that can be easily reduced and most governments aren’t presently doing enough to deal with current and future increases in density and development issues.
Again, my point isn’t at all that Atlantic Yards is the solution. I’m just stating we will be seeing a long overdue movement back to the cities which city planners and politicians need to try to deal with as best they can.
Polemicist- I can’t argue with the fact that the average Chinese has seen vast improvements as China has grown by leaps and bounds. But if it’s true that the carbon footprint is so low, what’s your thinking on the pollution problem? This is from the March 19th issue of the Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0319/p09s01-coop.html
Greenhouse gases are only one part of the environment and while China may still have a small carbon footprint, it’s other environmental problems are huge.