Non-Biased Times article?

Subject: see comprehensive report here

note the false dichotomy in the Times lead and speculation about BUILD

http://timesratnerreport.blogspot.com/2005/10/esdc-hears-critics-on-scale-scope-and.html

The pro-community development/anti-Ratner forces were not only impressive in our numbers, but also in our quality. Nearly everyone represented a block association, Community Board, or some sort of local organization. While the pro-Ratner forces were indeed loud, they weren't very convincing. Anthony Pugliese (who I think is a very nice guy) listed as one of his reasons that the Ratner project would help increase union membership, which may be nice, but I doubt that's one of the stated goals of the Empire State Development Corporation.

If the press had stuck around, they would have seen that most of the pro-Ratner crowd left before 8, though apparently they came back. They were loud, but they were outnumbered. I have been to too many meetings when the pro-Ratner people outnumber the anti-Ratner people, but that's usually because the pro-Ratner people are literally bussed in. They are usually fed and have to check in. I think all the bad press that BUILD has been getting made it hard for them to do this.

The other remarkable development from the meeting was that one elected representative who had been on the fence, State Assembly representative Joan Millman, came out swinging against the project. And Assembly representative Roger Green went from being vocally for the project (he's a co-founder of BUILD) to being kinda on the fence, and definitely supporting more dialogue. While Roger Green is especially slimy, it did show which way he thinks the wind is blowing.

The NY Times, as usual, falsely implies that the anti-Ratner forces are somehow against jobs. That is wrong, wrong, wrong, but at least they put Ratnerville in Prospect Heights and not Downtown Brooklyn.

When I got up and spoke, I mentioned that the most vocal anti-Ratner elected official, Tish James, beat a pro-Ratner candidate 84% to 16% in the most recent election. So the voters have spoke on this issue. We are the ones that know the neighborhood best.

~Raul

PS For those of you who live on or near Carlton in Prospect Heights, do you know that the street is slated to be expanded from 34' to 38'? That would mean Ratner would cut down all the trees!

If you look at Millman's speech you'll see that she forgets to mention that Prospect Heights is in her assembly district. She's got parts of Park Place, Vanderbilt, Sterling and Plaza. It was given to her in the last redistricting - and coincidently cut out Hakeem Jeffries, Roger Greene's opponent in the next year's election.

I'm pretty skeptical about Roger Greene's being a uniter - he hasn't done much over the last two years to reach out to the residents of his district who oppose the project.

One other thing to note - in his speech Roger Greene proposed that, in order to decrease the density, some of the low-income rental units should be relocated to Crown Heights. I find this suggestion of economic and racial segregation appalling. If this happens, it really will be instant gentrification of the neighborhood. It contradicts everything that groups like BUILD and ACORN have said about keeping the neighborhood diverse.

Subject: Re: Millman Hopping off the Fence

Captain M wrote: A month ago I was against the project and it appeared to be a done deal and had pretty much started to accept it was coming, but now things seem to be fraying at the seams

I feel the same way and I was just reading an article in yesterday's NY Law Journal. What scares me is what the Corporation Counsel and Ms. Salkin say - "the Court's decision that private property can be taken from one owner and transferred to another for economic development purposes has no impact in this state. However, both also said the eminent domain rule is ripe for thoughtful, considered review — as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction to Kelo."

Unfortunately I cannot link it so I have copied and pasted it here:

ALBANY — Legislative proposals to reform eminent domain law in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Kelo v. City of New London decision are unnecessary, as New York already protects private property owners from government condemnation, experts told a state Senate panel yesterday.

New York City Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo and Patricia E. Salkin, associate dean and director of the Albany Law School Government Law Center, said yesterday the Court's decision that private property can be taken from one owner and transferred to another for economic development purposes has no impact in this state. However, both also said the eminent domain rule is ripe for thoughtful, considered review — as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction to Kelo.

Yesterday, a Senate committee held one in a series of statewide hearings to explore the potential impact of Kelo, and to compile testimony on what response, if any, is appropriate in New York.

Just last month, a group of senators led by John A. DeFrancisco, R-Syracuse, proposed a constitutional amendment to make clear that in New York "property shall not be taken from one owner and transferred to another, on the grounds that the public will benefit from a more profitable private use."

Other legislative proposals are also pending. (See column on page 5 of today's Law Journal by John R. Nolon and Jessica A. Bacher describing remedial legislation both in Congress and the state Legislature).

Mr. Cardozo said those fears are unfounded since New York law already bars condemnation for economic development purposes unless the area in question is blighted or in danger of becoming a "substandard or insanitary area" likely to negatively impact the municipality.

"To place additional limits on the eminent domain power beyond those already contained in New York State and New York City law could cripple development in this state and hamper vital economic growth," Mr. Cardozo told Senator James Alesi, R-Monroe County, sponsor of yesterday's hearing, and Senators Elizabeth O. Little, R-Glens Falls, and James W. Wright, R-Watertown.

Mr. Cardozo said that without the power of eminent domain, and the restrained use of that power, the city would not have Lincoln Center on the Upper West Side or the Metrotech development near the Brooklyn Bridge, and Times Square would have remained the crime-infested "national showcase for urban decay and blight" that it was in the 1970s.

Ms. Little repeatedly asked about the scope and definition of "blight," implying that it may be too broad. Mr. Alesi also expressed concern that property can be taken for market value, a figure that may not accurately reflect its worth.

"I want to emphasize that New York City uses eminent domain sparingly," Mr. Cardozo said. "Still, the power of eminent domain is vital to the social and economic well-being of New York City and the entire state."

Ms. Salkin, an authority on land use regulation, decried the "unfortunate hysteria" sparked by Kelo and cautioned that it essentially means nothing in New York. She said that while the state is looking at eminent domain in a Kelo context, it should shift its focus and examine compensation levels, notice requirements and master development plan principles as those items relate to condemnation law.

But John Lincoln, a dairy farmer from Ontario County and president of the New York Farm Bureau, disagreed.

"I can assure you we will be using our resources to support legislation protecting landowners from municipal use of eminent domain to enhance economic development," he said. "The citizens of the state of New York are very upset about the Supreme Court decision. The Kelo decision changes the game dramatically. . . . Now private property can effectively be taken by a public entity for the profit of other private parties. . . . After Kelo, no property is safe. Any property can be seized and transferred to the highest bidder."

Mr. Lincoln and others in the agricultural community fear New York's current law does little to protect them against Kelo. For instance, farmers say it is conceivable that a municipality would target a farm with a dilapidated barn and acres of virgin land, using the rundown building as an excuse to condemn under the "blighted" provision and transfer ownership to a Wal-Mart or other commercial interest that would pay far more in local taxes.

Additional hearings are scheduled for today at Suffolk County Community College, Thursday at the Theodore D. Young Community Center in White Plains and Oct. 27 at City Hall Commons in Syracuse.

I love the double-standard at work here. When the NYT prints pro-Ratner stories, it's considered "one sided". When Ratner prints his own paper, it's "propaganda" or "Pravda". But when the local papers print nothing but anti-Ratner stories for two years, it's "much better coverage". Nice.

Subject: Re: Millman Hopping off the Fence

Captain M wrote:
What I am curious about is Markowitzs' recent stament about down scaling the project and Letitia spoke about him recently stating something to the effect of "he is starting to realize the problems with the project".

It seems to me Marty is playing the game Ratner wants him too. Ratner proposes 7.7 million square feet in December 2003. Now in october 2005 its 9.8 million. then Ratner scales it back to 7.7 or 7 and says "see i'm a compromiser, i listened to the community." And he gets exactly what he wanted from the beginning, what is still an out of scale atrocity that abuses the taxpayers and homeowners and businessowners.

Padding the footage is old developer trick.

Subject: Re: Millman Hopping off the Fence

stacey wrote: ALBANY — Legislative proposals to reform eminent domain law in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Kelo v. City of New London decision are unnecessary, as New York already protects private property owners from government condemnation, experts told a state Senate panel yesterday.
Additional hearings are scheduled for today at Suffolk County Community College, Thursday at the Theodore D. Young Community Center in White Plains and Oct. 27 at City Hall Commons in Syracuse.

I testified at the hearing today in White Plains, in front of Senator Alesi's economic development committee. testimony below:

Testimony in response to the recent ruling (Kelo v. The City of New London) by the United States Supreme Court stating that private property may be taken by eminent domain when a locality desires to make the property available for private commercial development.



My name is Daniel Goldstein. I live in Brooklyn, New York. I’d like to first speak about the facts on the ground in one alarming case of the abuse of eminent domain, as an example of why we desperately need to reform New York’s eminent domain law, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision.

My home on Pacific Street in Prospect Heights happens to sit at center court of a proposed basketball arena. The basketball arena is about 8 percent of a larger 10 million square foot development proposal which includes 17 skyscrapers of mostly luxury, market rate housing. The proposed site has, in recent years, become one of the most desirable locations in Brooklyn to purchase property. The developer is Bruce Ratner, CEO of Forest City Ratner. Mr. Ratner has benefited greatly from New York State’s condemnation powers at Times Square where he has partnered with The New York Times to build their new headquarters.

I am also the spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, which leads a grassroots coalition of community organizations opposed to Bruce Ratner’s development proposal, and the use of eminent domain for that proposal. Our organization has over 5,000 members. Last December we filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner, Susette Kelo et al.

The project proposes the use of eminent domain for about 53 buildings. It would displace around 800 people and 35 businesses. Wielding the threat of eminent domain Mr. Ratner has bought out many residents and some businesses, but many still remain and will challenge condemnation when the time comes. Even though it is the largest development proposal for Brooklyn in at least 30 years, the project completely bypasses the normal New York City Uniform Land Use Review Process, meaning our City Council, Department of City Planning and community boards have no say at all in the project. It also overrides all local zoning laws. The lead agency and condemning agency for the project is Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC).

The proposal was unveiled in December 2003 amidst great fanfare with the support of several prominent political figures. But it was only made an official State supported project one month ago. This means that for nearly two years an entire neighborhood has lived under the threat of eminent domain without the state or city even having the decency to outline a timeline or explain the law to homeowners, business owners and tenants in the Ratner footprint; people and places such as Vince Bruns the fish monger who lives in an irreplaceable converted factory loft he’s worked for decades to own, or Hector Gonzalez whose family has lived on my block for 60 years, or Freddy’s pre-prohibition era bar, or Johnny “Seatcovers” a senior citizen who has lived on his quiet block for 40 years, or the newly renovated roofer’s union headquarters around the corner from me and on and on. There is also the compelling and ironic case of Chinese immigrant Simon Liu who owns a beautiful and wildly successful fine art supply factory, which supplies top artists and arts institutions around the country. Mr. Liu employs 25 legal Chinese immigrants in his immaculate and air conditioned factory. Mr. Liu came to America to get away from a Communist country where he was forcefully evicted from his home by the State. Now, decades later, the kind of despotic power he fled from is threatening his business in our so-called free market. His is a thriving business with skilled employees that adds taxes to the city that are a sure thing being taken away for a gamble. There is a sad history (even right near the Ratner site) of condemnation and demolition, only to see the project fall through. A once productive neighborhood then lies fallow for 20-30 years creating true blight. There are lots of examples of that. It could easily happen at Ratner’s proposed site.

Mr. Liu and the others are being forced from their condos, their coops, their rent-stabilized homes, their businesses and their neighborhood for a private sports arena and a lucrative luxury residential mega complex. Even Robert Moses, known for his extensive use of the power of eminent domain, didn’t condemn private property to benefit privately owned businesses.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads:
“…No person…shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Some would argue that the abuse of eminent domain is not necessarily an abuse of the Constitution. Many Americans, from the left to the right, would posit that it is an abuse of the Constitution. What IS certain is this: the abuse of eminent domain is an abuse of power that renders the Constitutional takings clause meaningless and truly does threaten every un-connected property owner (and their tenants) throughout New York. Too often this abuse of power is formulated by the unholy alliance between government and private developers, who are major political players or donors in a specific locality or statewide.

Sadly, the taking of private property to give to a private developer for a private project, justified by something called “economic development” is all too common across the country and particularly in New York. “Economic development,” more often than not means increased tax revenue for a locality. But here is the slippery slope: What locality across this country ever stops seeking to increase its tax revenue? It never ends.

As we know, the abuse of eminent domain has run amok across the country to the point of being an epidemic. The abuse of eminent domain is like pornography; you know it when you see it. The abuse of eminent domain is an issue not just of property rights, but civil rights. And the abuse of eminent domain destroys lives and communities. This is made abundantly clear in Dr. Mindy Fullilove’s book Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What We Can Do About It. It is a must read for anyone considering the health and psychological effects of eminent domain on individuals, families and communities.

In the case of the Ratner project this kind of abuse of eminent domain has reached a corrupt extreme, where the favoritism is blatant, the cronyism is clear and the developer is an old law school buddy of Governor Pataki, one of the project’s chief political supporters. Mr. Ratner also has a cozy relationship with Mayor Bloomberg.

There is absolutely no local oversight, planning or decision-making on this project. It is a completely developer driven planning and approval process with the unaccountable, opaque ESDC bending over backwards to give the developer whatever the developer wants, including condemnation.

Favoritism and the absence of a legitimate planning process is precisely what Justice Kennedy had in mind in his Kelo concurrence where he wrote: “transfers intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, are forbidden by the Public Use Clause.” Taking these facts and statements into account, one could easily come to the same conclusion as Columbia Law School professor and eminent domain expert Thomas Merrill, who, after Kelo commented in the New York Sun that, “The court responded more favorably to New London than they would have if it had been the Ratner plan they were considering.”

The situation I’ve described in Brooklyn is, unfortunately, not unique. It is this kind of favoritism, fixing and contorted bastardization of public use to the nebulous “public benefit” that makes meaningful eminent domain reform in New York State necessary. I do not believe that the Brodsky/Flanagan bill goes far enough, though it is a good start. Stricter public use requirements are necessary. We need to rein in the eminent domain and bring it back to traditional public use. This would limit the use of eminent domain to truly public works like parks, roads, airports, hospitals, and schools. Such reform would outlaw condemnation for the benefit of private developers, avoiding the cronyism and favoritism, which pits the wealthy and powerful versus the powerless. Eminent domain could not be used for private for-profit developments no matter what the benefit might be to a locality. RFPs and competitive bidding would be mandated for public projects requiring eminent domain.

The meaning of blight would be much more clearly defined instead of the current eye-of-the-beholder standard. The onus must be on a legislative body and the condemning agency to prove blight in a court and the courts must not defer to the condemning agency as they do now. In my opinion, "blight" is used to justify eminent domain and the purpose, these days is not really to remove "blight," but to increase tax revenue. I think and exploration must be made into changing the law where "blight" cannot be used this way.

Yes, they will argue that our neighborhood in Brooklyn is “blighted.” But of course it is not. It’s a mixed-use neighborhood with million dollar homes, where development is booming and where diversity is treasured. Blight is like eminent domain abuse; you know it when you see it. And in most cases where blight is claimed to justify eminent domain, it’s a bogus claim.

With necessary and inevitable reforms in New York’s eminent domain law, those with a vested interest in keeping the law lenient for developers will raise the argument that economic development and “progress” cannot occur without the so called “tool” of eminent domain and that localities will suffer without the power to condemn nearly at will. But such an argument will be proven to be a self-serving canard.

It is said that eminent domain, even when used for traditional public uses, should only be used as a last resort. But Senator Chuck Schumer’s Group of 35, formed to create a long-term “economic development” strategy in New York City, clearly states that eminent domain should be used as a first resort. More often than not eminent domain condemnation is used as a first resort threat to cow and terrorize individuals and whole neighborhoods into selling their homes and then as a cudgel to force whole neighborhoods out of their homes. It used to be called “urban renewal”. Now it is called “economic development.” It is why our legislators in Albany must reform our laws. And must do so with urgency.

Thanks Daniel-fantastic testimony.