Legal Shot Fired in Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards Fight
Thursday, October 26, 2006, by Robert
The fight over Atlantic Yards is going to court. (Again.) Ten property owners and tenants on the site where Forest City Ratner would like to build Atlantic Yards have filed a Federal suit to stop the development. This should be the lawsuit over the project and the key legal issue, as expected, is eminent domain, and whether the state's use of it to take property is constitutional.
The suit names all the major players in the development--Governor George Pataki, Forest City Ratner President Bruce Ratner, Empire State Development Corporation Chairman Charles Gargano, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff and others--as defendants. (For the lawyer in you, the PDF of the actual complaint can be found here.) The outcome of eminent domain litigation will either clear the final obstacle to the project or send it back to the drawing board. Stay tuned.
· Announcement of Lawsuit [dddb.net]
After the Kelo decision, they have a better chance of seeing Jesus at the Gowanus Yacht Club than getting anywhere with this suit.
Even China's recent new policy towards property rights is stronger than ours (.e. eminent domain).
Eminent domain is appropriate to have and use for "certain" things but, I disagree against using it to take personal property by sheep in wolves clothing private citizen on other private citizens.
But, I think we all know how this fight will end, rightly, or wrongly.
[sarcasm: on] By all means, sue the pants off this greedy capitalist. How dare he take a mostly derelict site on transit yard and convert it to desperately needed housing! [sarcasm: off]
This lawsuit is typical and a complete waste of time. It will go nowhere.
i honestly don't understand why people are so against this - they are empty transit yards. If i had a choice over whether I would want empty an industrial yard as my neighbor, or overpriced condos, i would take the condos. Not only will it be prettier (i love this architecture - its something unique as opposed to most of the boring crap being built in nyc, reminds me of barcelona a la the gaudi days), but their property values will go up relative to other areas, and they will have more choices. Why are people so opposed to change? Open your minds you morons.
Anybody else notice this? I tell you, Democracy/Mobocracy just doesn’t work. We were meant to be a Republic. Small but significant differences between the two.
Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Sorry to come so late to the party -- I was actually reading the complaint, as I suggest most of you above do. It gives a nice distillation of how totally corrupt this process has been from the get-go -- and it has nothing to do with developing the rail yards, which everone agrees would be a good thing.
What is wrong and unconstitutional is the taking of private property by a private developer for private profit -- this has nothing to do with the railyards at all.
Read the complaint, then discuss if you don't know all the facts.
This has been in the works for so long - does anyone NOT believe that ESDC and Ratner have an alternate plan to build around these contested sites. Most of the plaintifs live at one end of the site, around Freddy's bar, on the location of the arena block. Ratner can choose to delay the work on that end or just jettison the arena which is pretty much a loss leader anyway. The remaining plaintiffs are all rent-stabilized tenants living in a single building on Pacific and Vanderbilt. Ratner can wait these leases out as well. These lawsuits may not make a dent in this project.
To Anon #4: No one is against building over the railyards. People are against having their homes seized for the benefit of a developer.
The threat of eminent domain can effect us all!
Be wary! Eventually they'll come and get YOU!
Only 10 plaintiffs? Crazy Dan Goldstein makes it seem like hundreds of impoverished and/or infirm residents will be tossed out on their asses. I guess that's the type of hyperbolic language that comes from living in a bubble and being a member of the idle rich.
I agree with #3 and #4 - this suit will go nowhere.
But at least then this whole damn thing will finally come to an end. Soon...
One small note, mes amis. The arena, because it is a loss leader, is the justification for the outsized scale of the development. No arena -- no more need for extreme density.
Anyway, there are going to be other suits regarding the lack of democracy in the process, in all likelihood. So this isn't really the the last stand. It does seem kind of dicey to sue two billionaires, but hey, I'm glad someone's doing it. Challenge the oligarchy in this town.
Lay off Dan Goldstein. I doubt any of the posters here would have the stones to stand up to a hugely powerful megaconglomerate. He takes an unbelievable amount of crap from people who don't know what they're talking about, and he holds up well. Anyone who gives Dan Doctoroff a bad day is a-okay in my book, nevermind Bruce Ratner.
Dan Doctoroff is not losing any sleep over this. I'm sure that he's just as confident that the AY will be built as Dan Goldstein is that it will be stopped. The latter is beyond delusional in my book, but, hey, who am I to stop a person from making a fool of himself?
Right, so save your snarky comments. This isn't a referendum on a private citizen.
The snarky comments shall continue. The constitution protects them, too.
So then you admit, #15, that private property is constitutionally protected?
Hey, at least Goldstein is doing something civicly useful instead of sitting around taking anonymous pot shots on a real estate blog...
Just a small precision -- Ratner cannot wait out any rent-stabilized tenant's lease because rent stabilization law requires these leases to be renewed ad infinitum. Even if Ratner legitimately bought the building, he couldn't not renew those peoples' leases or demolish the building without going through several public hearings (and that is state law, not city, so it applies in this case) -- hence the eminent domain approach.
just remember. your next...
if anyone is willing to pay premium for my prop and I don't have to pay realtor to sell - they are welcome. only fool passed up great deal Ratner gave them.
Yeah, I have to agree with #19. Take the money and buy another townhouse.
#11 - the reason for density has nothing to do with an arena and everything to do with the sites proximity to mass transit (which also makes it excellent for an arena).
You might hate Ratner, oppose an arena, and stupidly think that Goldstein's 'fight', funded by donations, won't end up with Dan profiting well in excess of a million dollars of capital gains on a crappy apartment he bought 3yrs ago.
BUT you cannot deny that AY is served by more subway lines then anywhere else in the city (and probably the country) and also has a regional rail line (LIRR). - These undeniable facts is what justifies the density.
Its a simple calculation, put an arena or housing anywhere else and more congestion will result b/c no where else can deal transportaion in an economically and enviromentally efficient manner.
Nothing justifies that much density -- it will simply over-load the surrounding infrastructure.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
David -- you are wrong oh wrong, friend. In fact those trains are at capacity, according to the MTA's own assessments. And that's just for plain old rush hour.
As to an arena, it makes much more sense to have an arena at a terminus like Coney Island, where they can just line up the trains at the end of the game and move people out. It'll be a logistical nightmare at Atlantic/Pacific. But beyond that, how many people who cough up $100 for a seat at a basketball game are going to take public transportation. And have you tried driving down Flatbush recently?
I don't mind your theory -- without facts, it sounds plausible -- but you need to back up your assertion with facts. And you won't find any that do this, I'm afraid.
The arena has everything to do with the density of the project according to Ratner. He needs enough housing to pay for the arena, which is a cost burden. And, it would be hard to take the arena out of the equation because the promise of jobs and basketball are two of the three main draws of the project. It's a package deal.
Every train to the Stadium is filled with Yankee fans; LIRR trains to MSG are filled with Knick fans; LIRR and #7 trains are filled with Met fans - so why wouldnt Net fans take mass transit if it was equally convenient???
BTW - NONE of those other arenas are at a terminus; all are served by much fewer lines and considering that at 10pm when the games let out, most Brooklyn Trains are far from capacity. Putting an Arena all the way out in CI is simply NIMBism - CI is 45 minutes minimum out of the city, it is served by only 2 lines and its out of the way location will ensure that most people arrive by car.
As for #25 - If Ratner had his choice, he'd build no arena and just replace it w/ housing (MUCH more profitable). The arena is only tied to AY for political expediancy - Markowitz, Bloomberg et al, want it.
As for the trains being at capacity - please - if the 10 lines and LIRR at AY are over capacity then how do you describe the IRT on the Eastside.
Capacity is all relative, and relatively AY is the best place for density and large entertainment venues. Unless you advocate no more building in NYC?
Penn Station IS the terminus for the LIRR, and a lot of fans drive to all of the above (especially the Mets and Yankees). The 4, 5, and 6 trains at rush hour in Manhattan are simply hell -- and supposedly the Second Ave subway is to alleviate some of this.
Great, So if Ratner doesn't want the arena, let's get rid of it. Sounds good to me. I live three blocks from there and am not looking forward to the parking nightmare and fans puking and pissing on my doorstoop.
If anyone actually reads the Kelo decision, they'll understand that the Supreme Court justices were careful to articulate that in cases when there is impermissible favoritism towards a private party, no city-planning process or when the public benefits are incidental and pretextual, then the courts should not allow it.
The Supreme Court basically said that a case like Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards is different than the New London case, and would probably cross the line.
DDDB read the Kelo decision and figured that Atlantic Yards was tailor-made for drawing the line on private-to-private eminent domain property transfers.
That's why they filed the lawsuit in FEDERAL COURT, ya dig?
Yeah, we do dig. A million studies have already been performed, including the US Census which DOES survey occupancy. Big news: There is a housing shortage in New York City!!! Only a rich brownstone owner or a rent controlled lifer will say that the one thing New York does NOT need is more housing.
No rational person would ever suggest that building thousands of housing units on top of the largest transportation hub in the US is going to represent a public benefit that is incidental and pretextual.
This case will be laughed out of the court.
Eryximachus we have a housing shortage because the elite think that the only way to keep the economy going is to keep the population growing - thus the ignoring of immigration laws and near open immigration ALL population growth has come from immigration 40 million in less than 20 years.
Anyone with any common sense realizes this is not a sustainable pattern, but then again, our elite don't have any common sense - they are only out to make a quick buck.
I'd love to close the borders and eliminate immigration for at least a generation. That isn't going to happen. That will take a major revolution, the likes of which I am not prepared to fight at the moment.
When the European population of the US begins to approach 50%, then you'll see major change. Until that happens, relentless media and educational propaganda cheering the joys of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity will keep the masses blissfully unaware of hostile and desperate ethnocentric immigrant groups.
The country is headed towards disaster of epic proportions. But that is a decade away at least. Until then, I'd like to live in nice elevatored building with a doorman while I save my money.
the suit has a very good chance, and it will do what forest city has been trying to avoid like the plague- expose this project and its financing to legal review.
if this project is so good, why has Forest CIty taken so many steps to avoid revealing the truth to the public? Why do they send fliers to residents that make it look like a small scale housing project and public park? Why have they NEVER in any of their fliers, shown the scale?
This isn't about housing or an arena - its a corrupt land grab and huge boondoogle. It will cost taxpayers BILLIONS if it goes through with little or no benefit - like he did with metrotech (a complete failure) twenty years before. Ratner and STuckey are low life scumbags.
It's amazing how David(oops I meant Jim Stuckey) makes the rounds of the local blogs just to try and justify Ratner's billion dollar boondoggle and land grab. David it's amazing how you find the time while working at thaT multinational corporation during the day and running your small business that you claimed you owned over at Brownstoner.
It's amazing how David(oops I meant Jim Stuckey) makes the rounds of the local blogs just to try and justify Ratner's billion dollar boondoggle and land grab. David it's amazing how you find the time while working at thaT multinational corporation during the day and running your small business that you claimed you owned over at Brownstoner.
#35 is so typical of Ratner opponents: i.e. their debating skills are so impaired that all they can do is accuse all opponents of working for Ratner. Moronic.
If they want to waste their money, the money from their donators, and their time, just go right ahead but, in the end, it’s futile and meaningless. They may as well try to extinguish a blazing townhouse fire by pissing on it.
After I click on Post below, I am not going to waste another second of my life on this.
"D-O-N-E-D-E-A-L!!!"
I love the way Forest City employees openly brag about a corrupt political process.
Personally, I'm glad that these people are fighting to keep their homes. I'm not a fan of rich developers mowing everything down and making neighborhoods into their personal sandbox. Who's to say that they won't want to mow down your home next?
The opposition has put up a good fight, but the suit will not be won. Eminent domain is an unfortunate circumstance, but the real truth underlying all this protest is fear of change. People yearn for comfort and things familiar, which is the antithesis of an ever changing and growing city landscape.
I'm tired of people romanticizing the development area. The decaying railroad terminal is a great spot for a new arena, and basketball is the sport of modern and urban expression. A neighborhood of conformity (low-rise brownstones) should not dictate what can and cannot be built in Brooklyn. Where is the vision? Atlantic Yards will bring diverse architectural style and urban renewal to rundown portions of the area.
As for the continued pleas for Coney Island, it's not happening. That would be the worst move for a franchise like the Nets. Continental is an inconvenience as is and the most non-fan-friendly arena. Now imagine traveling 45 minutes mid-week just to get to a game in Coney Island (with only 2 lines of public transportation might I add). The stadium would be filled with empty seats. Imagine the nightmare of trying to get home at 10
pm.
In the spirit of moving forward… as da Vinci said, “There shall be wings!”
Full content feed