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.
###
bxgrl, aesthetic concerns deserve consideration, else you dismiss a lot of the beauty, cohesiveness, sense-of-place and other intangible advantages that a well-designed built environment has to offer. It is definitely easier to use quantifiable metrics to denounce a project as it is typically the only thing most people can relate to – traffic, congestion, shadows. But ideally you want to design places for people instead of cars, for living instead of investing.
fsrg: Nobody is suggesting suburban density for AY, that’s a straw man. But making AY by far the densest-ever parcel in the US (and most of the world) is another story. And if you’ve looked at the Unity proposal, for example (admittedly sans arena,) the number of housing units is comparable to Ratner’s mega towers. with only low-rise (6-8 story) builds.
fsrg, I could not agree with you more with respect to your last two posts. You nailed it.
Huh? I’m not in Portland??
If you cared even slightly about Global Warming, dependence on Oil, or the environment in general – you would recognize that DENSITY is EXACTLY what the Government should be promoting at a site like AY. It is adjacent/atop to the largest Mass Transit hub in the country (in terms of # of lines intersecting). Such plots are available very very infrequently.
Its funny how the same people who bemoan the suburbanization of NYC advocate the exact policies that will continue that trend.
I personally don’t *love* the arena, but think it’s ok where it is *if* there’s no eminent domain used in its construction.
The stadium by itself is not the “out-of-scale”-ness that the opponents point to, it’s the 4 (or 6?) huge towers.
`
I do agree that the opposition grasps at straws — such as no terrorism analysis, too much shadow, and using inflated traffic claims. But that’s what you have to do to make our sclerotic legal system work for you…like the snail darter stopping the highway, ridiculous but necessary.
No, it’s not. My concern with the arena is how it will impact the surrounding area and my personal opinion is that an arena doesn’t belong there for a lot of practical reasons. But I don’t see why it couldn’t be planned better so that it could be a better fit.
Just to clarify- my point about scale is not for aesthetic reasons. It’s about impact on traffic, infrastructure, area services, and integration into the surrounding communities. People carry on like AY is the only possible solution and that is not the case.
enlightened city government? what do you think this is, portland, oregon?
The What – everyone has to register now – which means that virtually everyone posting is familiar with your positions….while most appreciate some colorful language in the posts (especially if its funny) your constant overuse of meaningless non-words such as asshat and fucktard are really annoying and ruin any point you may have to make.
I know you are probably intoxicated by the fame your rants gained you back in early summer – but really your 15mins in that regard is up – you are not going to get anymore press for being a blog poster – and you would do yourself (and everyone else) a big favor if you stopped with that stupidity enough to actually get yourself heard.
so, scale is all you protest? is an arena inherently objectionable to your concept of ideal scale?