Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo
On Saturday the Wall Street Journal ran an anti-eminent domain op-ed by the Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas. The writer argues that the state is masking an economic development motive in its push for the use of eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards footprint by falsely categorizing the area as blighted. AY Report notes, “not every…
On Saturday the Wall Street Journal ran an anti-eminent domain op-ed by the Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas. The writer argues that the state is masking an economic development motive in its push for the use of eminent domain in the Atlantic Yards footprint by falsely categorizing the area as blighted. AY Report notes, “not every block was thriving, but Prospect Heights was surely on the way up.” The piece also says that Develop Don’t Destroy’s Dan Goldstein is now being offered less money for his home, in the building above, than what he paid for it in 2003: “The letter they received in September informed them that the state will compensate them $510,000 for their property—less than what they bought it for and less than half of what Mr. Ratner offered to pay them for it four years ago. It’s also less per square foot than what Mr. Ratner expects to sell his luxury apartments for once they are built. ‘I think [the state] lowballs to deter people from fighting like we have,’ Mr. Goldstein told me.” Goldstein paid $590,000 for his 1,290-square-foot apartment, or $457 a foot, and the state is now offering him $395 a foot; AY Report writes that state consultants prepared a report saying that prices in Prospect Heights now start at $470 a foot and go up to $1,225 a foot.
The Empire State and Eminent Domain [WSJ]
How New York Abuses Eminent Domain [DDDB]
How the AY Blight Study is About Economic Development [AY Report]
Dan Goldstein doesn’t care about just compensation. He was offered a fortune for his place and turned it down, and he now lives in a vacant building without services because everyone else took the deal. He is standing up to Ratner and the City on principle, and I think he deserves some credit for that.
Great old building with wonderful terra cotta trim. The kind of interesting building with a history that many people like to live in, interior configurations and design notwithstanding. I hardly think Goldstein, or anyone else would have bought knowing what Ratner was going to do, so it’s hardly fair to characterize his stand as simply a way to make a fast buck.
One does not have to be likeable, nice, or humble to be right. In opposing AY, Dan Goldstein tore down the curtain covering up business as usual in this city, where big real estate has always been able to get its way with little or no real resistance.
You go Babs, I heartily agree. If we can’t count on the constitution, what have we got?
> the People’s Republic of Nueva York…
I always enjoy it when Polemicist takes a break from his Atlas Shrugged coloring books and logs on to Brownstoner.
heather, it was an old warehouse. The renovation was interesting, but odd. Kitchen sinks were the smallest I ever saw.
Is that an old building that was renovated, or a new building that was built by an insane architect, like the one on Fulton and Classon? I have been wondering for a while.
“…’I think [the state] lowballs to deter people from fighting like we have’…”
Uh…I think this would make you want to stay and fight, not deter you.
***Bid half off peak comps***
I always wondered if people lived in that building.
I meant to say he has taken a principle stand—I don’t think my sentence came out that way.
Please. Dan cares about his ego and little more.