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]
PS I personally think Dan is anything but principled on this issue. We still need to await the final NY Court of Appeals decision. Who knows he may wind up winning and then Ratner can sell the rest of the apartments for what they are worth.
The way this is ultimately decided is a court will decide the fair/just value. Its not unheard of for the State to start low and then at court offer more much more. Ultimately the State’s experts testify, Goldstein’s experts testify and the court sets the value.
The US Constitution always allowed the use of eminent domain. The issue was mainly whether it was a State’s right vs the purposely weak federal government.
Fair compensation doesn’t mean a windfall. it means what a willing buyer would pay at the time the property was taken, not in the future not in the past NOW….and now the prices are down. Some people get more some people get less some people get just right—it may not be perfect but its “fair”…Goldilocks any one?
Wrong Pete, Babs makes valid points, you just refuse to address them head on.
Yes, dibs, I’d think you would be concerned about the state’s powers.
ccb, to call Dan a douchebag probably says more about your world-view than anything else, what an over-the-top assessment.
Whether or not you agree with him, Dan made a principled stand on so many levels… objecting to the AY overkill, preventing Ratner (at least for now) from ripping us off, shining a light on the real-estate sweetheard scams etc. Besides which, living as the sole occupant, with a baby, in a Ratner-owned building can hardly be fun. Hats off to him.
I think both babs and Polemicist are competing for best drama awards.
“The constitution is a meaningless document.” That is so wrong on so many levels I wouldn’t even know where to begin and I can’t imagine why anyone who believes that would even live in this country.
Again dittoburg the concept is just compensation. A price hunderds of dollars per square foot less than recent sales (and I’m not talking about what Ratner paid Dan’s neighbors years ago here) is not just. Hopefully the Court of Appeals will rule against Ratner and this will all become moot.
I’m sure when the revolutionary war was fought in 1776 and the constitution was ratified in 1789, no one with a mind would have thought 1) being an American citizen would mean you are born into debt bondage for your entire life or 2) people wouldn’t be allowed to do whatever they wanted with their property.
The constitution is a meaningless document, especially in the People’s Republic of Nueva York. Why that is brought up here with respect to this singular issue, I will never know. No one would have ever died to create this mess we call the United States, and no one will certainly die to save it as we descend into the abyss.
“A wrench in the works”? How about the first to sound the alarm about a major scam to fleece NY taxpayers for the benefit of a rich real estate developer? While Dan’s neighbors were happily counting their Ratner-supplied profits and moving far, far away from the mess, Dan cared enough about his neighborhood to fight on. It’s payback for Ratner time, as the smelly details of his liitle scam become more and more odiferous!