Today in AY: FCR Rally Panned; Amicus Brief Filed
Battles over Atlantic Yards’ PR face and legal validity continue to rage. On the image front, Daily News sports columnist Michael O’Keefe has a withering piece about the rally Forest City Ratner sponsored at Borough Hall last week in order to demonstrate support for Atlantic Yards. O’Keefe says the developer’s statement that 3,500 supporters showed…
Battles over Atlantic Yards’ PR face and legal validity continue to rage. On the image front, Daily News sports columnist Michael O’Keefe has a withering piece about the rally Forest City Ratner sponsored at Borough Hall last week in order to demonstrate support for Atlantic Yards. O’Keefe says the developer’s statement that 3,500 supporters showed up for the event “seemed extremely optimistic” and that “the speakers at the rally sounded like Hillary Clinton in the waning weeks of her failed presidential campaign: angry and frustrated, stunned at the prospect of defeat when they once expected a slam dunk.” The lawsuit-plagued project recently got its latest legal challenge in the form of an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to an article in today’s Sun. Public-interest firm Institute for Justice, which challenged the use of eminent domain in Kelo v. City of New London, filed the brief on the grounds that it wants the Supreme Court to use it “to clarify how much leeway courts still have to halt the use of eminent domain.” It’s unclear whether the high court will hear the case, which is brought by residents in the Atlantic Yards footprint who are supposed to be booted from their properties in order for the project to proceed.
Bruce Ratner’s Brooklyn Day a Dud [NY Daily News]
Prominent Law Firm Urges Atlantic Yards Development Be Stopped [NY Sun]
Photo by Atlantic Yards Webcam.
“I also do not judge how important an issue is by how many hits it gets on a search engine. If that’s how you do all your research, you have a very poor approach to thinking.”
If there is legitimate outrage, people will make themselves heard and the media will follow suit. Hence, it is a fair measure and it shows that your claims of ED outrage are a fantasy.
“And by the way there was an uproar and several states in fact did change their eminent domain laws in response. Read a newspaper, will you?”
Now look whose reading comprehension is in question. I clearly commented on this at 11:20 because I knew this would be your predictable response. Still, the important question to ask is, will this increase the chances of the SC hearing the case? And the answer to that, of course, is NO.
“I can only think that you’re one and the same with 11:31”
But of course! Another predictable response. So predictable that the anti-AY crowd uses it in nearly every single post. But I am not 11:31. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but there are actually more than a few people who want AY to happen.
Now I’ll sit back and wait for you to accuse me and the others of working for FCR.
2:03,
See 11:25 and 11:31.
11:31- and your assumption makes an ass out of you. I certainly know that they can’t retry Kelo but obviously people much more intelligent and involved seem to think they have a good reason for the court to take a new look. I am nto convinced the court will hear it either but someone with far more knowledge about the subject than I obviously thinks it’s work a shot.(I guess that person isn’t you).
11:20, 10:25-And do I think ED is an important an issue as abortions, human rights, etc- it’s not really your business. The only reason I brought them up was historical to establish a context. “you would see how issues “resolved” in one case can and will be brought up again in a different way. the Abortion debate is a perfect example.” See- if your reading comprehension was as extensive as your obvious need to attack me (I can only think that you’re one and the same with 11:31)you could have understood that from the quote. As far ad ED being a genuine issue- I think there are far more people in this country who think it is when they watch their homes being taken over for malls and luxury housing complexes. That was never the intent of eminent domain and a Supreme Court less concerned with having its face up the conservative butt would have made a decision based on the constitution, not greed. And by the way there was an uproar and several states in fact did change their eminent domain laws in response. Read a newspaper, will you?
I also do not judge how important an issue is by how many hits it gets on a search engine. If that’s how you do all your research, you have a very poor approach to thinking.
Most people do not know how the Supreme Court really works. I know I don’t. It would be nice for someone to be allowed to ask questions and get informed answers without the snarky remarks regarding the questioner’s intelligence. You never know if you don’t ask, but you never ask if you are going to be raked over the coals for it. That’s why there are so many uniformed people in this country, city and borough. Who needs the spite, venom and condescension?
If anyone has any formative info in how the Supreme Court might or might not operate re this case, I’d be interested in knowing.
Care to elaborate, 1:24?
Oh, it’s a done deal.
As in, “stick a fork in it, it’s done.”
“unless the plaintiffs can say while this case is different from kelo (and they can’t)”
they can, and do.
Nice summation, Johnny. That is why Ratner is rich and we’re here debating the merits of a done deal.
Of course Ratner wants the stadium built. The entire excercise is based around strategically aligning the Nets with the sweetest stadium deal in the country. Take a second rate basketball team acquired cheaply, give them a free stadium* and what do you have – a basketball team that’s worth several hundred million dollars more than it was.
As for Newark, the alignment there is whenever NYC wanted to renew their lease at, say more favorable terms to the city, relocation to Newark is held as a bargaining chip for Ratner. The brilliance of it is that the city is then forced to give him even more money (thereby further increasing the value of the Nets) or we’re left with an empty stadium . . which we taxpayer paid to build.
* free to Ranter, not to us. $500 mil in taxpayer subsidies for the stadium and $20 mil/year from Barclays = pretty much free.