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]
Babs fair enough – but the private developer will always offer you more than the state, so if its the money you’re worried about, take the developer’s money. If its not the money you’re worried about but your principles, don’t complain about how much money the state is going to give you.
How about caring about a precedent that imperils your constitutional rights as a property owner, CookieCutter? This means the state can take away your proerty without just compensation. Or maybe you’d be OK with that, as long as something cool like a basketball arena, luxury condos, or a shopping mall was going to be built there instead.
Exactly, CCB. He’s the one that threw the wrench in the works with all the lawsuits. It’s his own fault. Payback!!!!
Relax dibs, neither Dan nor anyone else knew what was afoot when they bought. And the price offered by the state is completely ridiculous — look at recent sales in the area, including the Newswalk building. Really makes it look like this is punitive on the part of the state and Ratner. I certainly hope the Kelo debacle will wake these judges up!
I could care less if Dan Goldstein is offered less money than before, besides, he’s the one that didn’t want to sell during the peak of the real estate boom. Now that we have lost trillions of dollars in this financial mess, he want’s to be courted by Ratner again at above peak bubble prices?
What a douchebag. Major Fail! And so to is the WSJ writer of this garbage piece.
dibs, doubtful the AY plan sisn’t become public till about a year after people closed.
Posted by: DeLepp at November 16, 2009 9:30 AM
Inside information???
dibs, doubtful the AY plan sisn’t become public till about a year after people closed.
DeLepp, so Goldstein bought it as a speculation on getting money from AY eminent domain????
The constitution requires just compensation. why is new york not paying just compensation? and what about all those politicians and individuals who say “what’s so bad about eminent domain, you get paid for your property?”
that seems to be the point, in part, that the OpEd is making. you don’t get paid justly for your property.
but read the OpEd, it is much more about the eminent domain case and blight then the compensation issue.