Ratner Wins Another Round of Yards Lawsuits
Despite voicing uneasiness with some aspects of the case, an Appeals Court panel did not find enough evidence of improper conduct on the part of the ESDC to rule in favor of the 26 neighborhood groups challenging the Atlantic Yards project on the basis of the project’s “sham” environmental review. While the court did not…
Despite voicing uneasiness with some aspects of the case, an Appeals Court panel did not find enough evidence of improper conduct on the part of the ESDC to rule in favor of the 26 neighborhood groups challenging the Atlantic Yards project on the basis of the project’s “sham” environmental review. While the court did not find legal grounds to grant the opposition’s petition, it did sympathize with its overall plight:
While we do not agree with petitioners’ legal arguments, we understand those arguments to be made largely as proxies for very legitimate concerns as to the effect of a project of such scale upon the face and social fabric of the area in which it is to be put. Those concerns, however, have relatively little to do with the project’s legality and nearly everything to do with its socio-economic and aesthetic desirability, matters upon which we may not pass. To the extent that the fate of this multi-billion dollar project remains, in an increasingly forbidding economy, a matter of social and political volition, the controlling judgments as to its merits are the province of the policy-making branches of government, not the courts.
Bruce Ratner joined Mayor Bloomberg in celebrating the victory: This project has been reviewed as thoroughly as any in the city and not it is time to put these cases behind us and get to work, he said. An appeal is planned, notes Atlantic Yards Report, though there is a chance that the Court of Appeals could decide not to hear it.
Appellate Court, Despite Some Misgivings, Dismisses EIS Case [AY Report]
Ratner Wins a Big Yards Case [Brooklyn Paper]
Legal Victory for Atlantic Yards Developer [NY Times]
Again I ask: Why are taxpayers being asked to pay for a stadium to house a team owned by Ratner?
“Destroying the fabric of a residential area”
No, it won’t. That’s just not true.
If it weren’t for the NIMBY’s the developer would have dug a hole in the ground and would have run out of money since his devlopment was never economically vialble. This project relied on public subsidies in the best of times. It would need even more now. If the City + State are going to spend money to generate construction jobs, I’d much rather they spend it on something like building new schools. We don’t need an arena + high end condos. We look stupid enough for having already subsidized the construction of two new baseball stadiums.
I think we can agree that judges interpret the law in attempting to decide it. Isn’t that why the Supreme Court writes opinions? And we have all read the stories of judges who have been bought off or involve themselves in cases they should have been removed themselves from because of conflicts.
In cases like these where so much money and cronyism abound, I would be surprised if the judge hadn’t found for Ratner. But that doesn’t make Ratner or ESDC right or the project a good one. It still s*cks.
cmu: Your contempt for judges who limit themselves to deciding the law is contemptible.
cmu – thats why we have elections, judges are not legislatures (at least they arent supposed to be)
A couple of tools. Welfare for billionaires.
Just increases my contempt for the judicial system.
“Those concerns, however, have relatively little to do with the project’s legality and nearly everything to do with its socio-economic and aesthetic desirability, matters upon which we may not pass.”
Yes, we know that. That’s the issue. It’s not legal to paint your door white in a landmarked area, but that’s clearly not an aesthetic matter. Destroying the fabric of a residential area while spending hundreds of millions of our money, however, is ok.
You misread the dicta – it isnt sympathizing with the petitioners plight, it is saying you have no grounds EXCEPT non-legal (i.e. political) – what they are saying is that THE COURT WILL NOT INTERCEDE – and given the citation to the economic/social aspect it is also giving a nod AGAINST any Eminent Domain objections as well.
Essentially this is a D-O-N-E D-E-A-L -> except of course the Nimbys have succeeded in delaying the project needlessly which results in billions of more subsidies and tax losses, a build out that will take decades and near-term an Arena surrounded by parking lots….Congrats on a job well done!