the demolition has begun...
this was on NY1 today.
I love that Ratner is trying to make it seem as if he is demolishing the buildings for 'public safety'. If that was actually the case and he was losing sleep over the poor endangered neighborhood, why didn't he have them demolished last year since he said thats when the engineers told him that they were unsafe.
I love that Ratner is trying to make it seem as if he is demolishing the buildings for 'public safety'. If that was actually the case and he was losing sleep over the poor endangered neighborhood, why didn't he have them demolished last year since he said thats when the engineers told him that they were unsafe.
Comments
-
a picture is linked here:
http://ltjbukem.blogspot.com/2006/03/atlantic-yards-related-demolition-to.html -
I know that I've clashed with others regarding this issue, but I honestly wonder how DDDB and other arena opponents will be able to afford this legal fight. I recently read that their legal bills could cost a million dollars. They shared that their "Walk Don't Destroy" march raised $60,000, but some of that has surely been spent in their attempts to block this demolition. I haven't seen any figures on how much their "Sing Don't Destroy" event raised, though.
-
Jack Krohn wrote: I know that I've clashed with others regarding this issue, but I honestly wonder how DDDB and other arena opponents will be able to afford this legal fight.
If it were your home being seized, you'd do your best to find a way. -
If my home were in the footprint, I'd have sold out to Ratner for double the value long ago.
I'm not begrudging people for fighting, just asking how they plan to finance such an expensive undertaking. Any theories? -
Jack I think many of the attorneys working on this case are pro bono (i.e., South Brooklyn Legal Services) or probably charging very little. DDDB also has supporters who contribute on an ongoing basis. If that is the case the cash they have on hand would be used for experts (e.g., architects, engineers, etc.) and court costs (such as depositions, filings) which can run in the hundreds of thousands.
-
the deepdale case will probably help to further define the us supreme court decision and is being fought by high dollar firms, which should help keep costs down on the ratnerville cases if the DDDB (et. al.) can hang on until that case is completed. we'll see, I guess.
-
Jack Krohn wrote: I know that I've clashed with others regarding this issue, but I honestly wonder how DDDB and other arena opponents will be able to afford this legal fight. I recently read that their legal bills could cost a million dollars. They shared that their "Walk Don't Destroy" march raised $60,000, but some of that has surely been spent in their attempts to block this demolition. I haven't seen any figures on how much their "Sing Don't Destroy" event raised, though.
Thanks for your concern about DDDb finances!
We have many campaigns that we are pursuing, and but we'd be glad to accept your donations at
http://dddb.net/donate.php
If you want to volunteer, go to
http://dddb.net/volunteer.php
Like any nonprofit, we need a variety of contributions, from small to large, and we've been very good at getting broad support. I am pretty excited about some of the things that we are planning, but we are not at a point where we can discuss them. However, I do want to insure you that we are actively pursuing the necessary funds, and that we are prepared for the next wave of legal fees.
We are doing what needs to be done to insure a transparent, democratic process in developing the Vanderbilt Yards and surrounding properties. -
You will be able to eat a hot dog at center court (@AY) before Deepdale will be litigated (assuming no settlement) - the suit was filed today!
-
friendlypitbull wrote: You will be able to eat a hot dog at center court (@AY) before Deepdale will be litigated (assuming no settlement) - the suit was filed today!
actually, it was filed yesterday. -
friendlypitbull wrote: You will be able to eat a hot dog at center court (@AY) before Deepdale will be litigated (assuming no settlement) - the suit was filed today!
Didn't the Nets just extend their nj lease until 2010? In that time frame, Kelo v. New London made it to the Supreme Court and back. -
qtrain wrote: [quote=Jack Krohn]If my home were in the footprint, I'd have sold out to Ratner for double the value long ago.
Touche. But who's getting double for their place? According to this FCR offered Simon Liu Inc. less than 2/3 the value of their property.
Qtrain,
Several years back, when the footprint properties were purchased by Ratner, the NY Post ran a story about how people were paid double the market value for their homes. I recall that one couple relocated to Manhattan, while another purchased a house on Prospect Park West.
In a December 13, 2005 debate with Daniel Goldstein on brownstoner.com, a poster named David found the following information on the Atlantic Arts building from PropertyShark. I quote David:
"It is so infuriating how you exaggerate Dan so I thought rather than wait for you- Id add to the list of "victims"
Unit 802
Purchased 7/03 - for $789,000
Sold 12/04 to Ratner for $1,878,000
Unit 204
Purchased 8/03 for $305,000
Sold to Ratner 1/05 for $730,000
Unit 403
Purchased 6/03 for $384,000
Sold to Ratner 11/04 for $878,000
Unit 803
Purchased 7/03 for $688,000
Sold to Ratner 11/04 for $1,663,000
Yeah it really sounds like these people were victimized."
So, there you have it.
Raulism, I appreciate your response and wish you the best of luck! -
Jack Krohn wrote: So, there you have it.
Thanks, Jack, I didn't know about that. Offering double what they paid does seem generous; refusing to take "no" for an answer, not so much. -
Re the Atlantic Arts buyouts: Ratner wasn't exactly being Santa Claus here. Prices in the area did increase significantly in those two years; the very first buyers at Newswalk had nearly doubled their money by early 2005.
Secondly, Ratner was paying what might be called an "eliminate the rich folks premium." That is: get rid of as many people who have money and lawyers before you go after the renters and small businesspeople. -
...also doesn't address all the renters in the footprint, who have no safeguards at all. Ratner claims he'll take care of them -- or in Chuck Schumer's empty rhetoric, "make them whole." But few renters have been approached by Ratner, and a number are fighting to stay where they are.
Finally, a price -- no matter how inflated -- is crummy if the only choice is Ratner's offer or lose your property through eminent domain abuse. When Ratner had New York State condemn certain Times Square properties so he could partner with the New York Times on the latter's new office tower, the eminent domain process paid but 30% of those properties' market value.
Sell to Ratner, or have the state take your property. Some choice.
Lose your rented apartment to Ratner. Period. No choice. -
have renters been approached by Ratner? that would be quite interesting.
-
qtrain wrote:
Never mind the gag orders stripping you of your first amendment rights if you don't want to live in limbo or take a financial risk of condemnation or simply want to keep the home you own and live in
Qtrain,
Several years back, when the footprint properties were purchased by Ratner, the NY Post ran a story about how people were paid double the market value for their homes. I recall that one couple relocated to Manhattan, while another purchased a house on Prospect Park West.
In a December 13, 2005 debate with Daniel Goldstein on brownstoner.com, a poster named David found the following information on the Atlantic Arts building from PropertyShark. I quote David:
"It is so infuriating how you exaggerate Dan so I thought rather than wait for you- Id add to the list of "victims"
Unit 802
Purchased 7/03 - for $789,000
Sold 12/04 to Ratner for $1,878,000
Unit 204
Purchased 8/03 for $305,000
Sold to Ratner 1/05 for $730,000
Unit 403
Purchased 6/03 for $384,000
Sold to Ratner 11/04 for $878,000
Unit 803
Purchased 7/03 for $688,000
Sold to Ratner 11/04 for $1,663,000
Yeah it really sounds like these people were victimized."
So, there you have it.
Raulism, I appreciate your response and wish you the best of luck!
FCR used the threat of eminent domain, period, and continues to. abusing the fifth amendment and the first simultaneously.
that must be challenged. whatever dollars backed by a hammer are thrown around. and never forget, though some woulud like to deny it, that taxpayer dollars are part of the land acquistions. its in the MOU.
i dont begrudge those who took buyouts, it was their right to do so. and for those who didnt its their right to do so as well. but the others above are right, jack's propertyshark search ignores renters and owners who are getting screwed.
Money is fleeting. Individual and civil rights, one would hope, are eternal. -
Subject: demolition
incorrect. ratner has stated that they cannot approach renters until they own the building. they can't approach people living there if the owner is unwilling to negotiate or enter into dicussions with them. -
Subject: Re: the demolition has begun...
moufaisbad wrote: I love that Ratner is trying to make it seem as if he is demolishing the buildings for 'public safety'. If that was actually the case and he was losing sleep over the poor endangered neighborhood, why didn't he have them demolished last year since he said thats when the engineers told him that they were unsafe.
I hate Ratner and the development, but this is unfair. He didn't knock the buildings down a year ago because he was in court with DDDB, arguing for his right to knock the buildings down because they are arguably unsafe. -
but
he also said he wouldnt do anything until it went through all the court processes.
They are not done and he is knocking them down.
There have been no secondary engineers reports to state that they are, in fact, dangerous. -
moufaisbad wrote: but
Don't make me into a Ratner apologist, OK? He won in the lower court and the only building that he is currently taking down is Underberg which is, I believe, unoccupied. When Freddy's gets shuttered I'll agree that he is going back on his word.
he also said he wouldnt do anything until it went through all the court processes.
They are not done and he is knocking them down.
There have been no secondary engineers reports to state that they are, in fact, dangerous. -
Subject: Re: the demolition has begun...
ugarte wrote: I hate Ratner and the development, but this is unfair. He didn't knock the buildings down a year ago because he was in court with DDDB, arguing for his right to knock the buildings down because they are arguably unsafe.
Ugarte, you are incorrect. Ratner has owned three of the six buildings he wishes to demolish for over 19 months. His "indepenedent engineer's" report (the one he hired) said the buildings were unsafe back last Summer and more than one year ago Ratner had contracts for demolition. DDDB's lawsuit was filed in January 2006. (by the way, there will be an appeal hearing on the demolitions on March 23rd, as well as a hearing on ESDC's appeal on their right to retain the same lawyer Ratner used on the same project). Ratner was not in court a year ago. Ratner says the buildings are unsafe and a public safety hazard; that the demolitions have nothing to do with "Atlantic Yards," but rather public safety because the buildings are in danger of collapse, he says. Well, the buildings stand there today, other than Underberg, with absolutely no warning or protection for the public. You and i could go have a picnic right next to them leaning against their walls (niche thought on such a warm spring-like day). What giant corporation would risk such liabilities by leaving the public at risk of these buildings in danger of collapse? A company that knows the emergency of the situation is bogus.
and of course, as i look at my window over these many months, the windows of many of these buildings owned by Ratner have been left wide open, like most responsible owners do with their buildings.
the buildings are a danger to the public; sounds like Colin Powell at the UN. (on a much smaller scale, of course.) -
Subject: Re: the demolition has begun...
ratnerville4ever wrote: (niche thought )
NICE thought, that is. weird typo. -
using eminent domain to take private property to give to private companies is wrong. Too bad some activist fail at trying to take the house of Justice David Souter. He try to build a hotel in place of the justice's house
. he missed by a large number of votes. -
qtrain wrote: [quote=Jack Krohn]If my home were in the footprint, I'd have sold out to Ratner for double the value long ago.
Touche. But who's getting double for their place? According to this FCR offered Simon Liu Inc. less than 2/3 the value of their property.
I happen to know Simon personally, and I can tell you that he was originally very concerned about getting screwed over this project, but he ended up making out with a fortune. Don't lose any sleep over Simon. -
armchair_warrior wrote: using eminent domain to take private property to give to private companies is wrong. Too bad some activist fail at trying to take the house of Justice David Souter. He try to build a hotel in place of the justice's house
In general this seems to make sense. However, I think the line between public and private is very blurred. Why is it okay for the state to use eminent domain for its own purposes but not for private development? The obvious answer is that eminent domain should only be used for the "public good". But the public good is often served by private initiative, and in fact the public good is often harmed by public initiatives. I fail to see, for example, why it's morally acceptable to use eminent domain to build a public university but not to build a private university. Because one is cheaper than the other? Since when does "cheap" equate with "public"? Is Walmart public?. he missed by a large number of votes.
I think eminent domain should be used only as a last resort, and only when there is a compelling need to use it to avoid senseless obstruction by a small number of individuals of a large scale project that represents a clear benefit to the community. If the developer of that project happens to be a nongovernment entity, I don't think that makes it morally wrong, or vice versa. The key should be in the trade off between the overwhelming need and benefit to the community vs the rights of the individuals. And finally, those few individuals who are victimized should be compensated well beyond the mere market value of their homes--the compensation should include a generous premium that accounts for the massive inconvenience being caused.
For example, if a town in the midst of a recession needed to push one man out of his home to make room for the opening of a Toyota plant that would employ 5,000 people, and for some weird hypothetical reason the plant couldn't be built without using eminent domain, I'd support it. It doesn't matter that Toyota is private. -
escap wrote: In general this seems to make sense. However, I think the line between public and private is very blurred. Why is it okay for the state to use eminent domain for its own purposes but not for private development? The obvious answer is that eminent domain should only be used for the "public good". But the public good is often served by private initiative, and in fact the public good is often harmed by public initiatives. I fail to see, for example, why it's morally acceptable to use eminent domain to build a public university but not to build a private university. Because one is cheaper than the other? Since when does "cheap" equate with "public"? Is Walmart public?
one word: Deepdale. public use or public good is bullshit in that case, and in many others. research eminent domain abuse - you'll be completely shocked. (well, maybe not, but I was)
I have a lot of problems with private initiative A influencing a public entity into using eminent domain to remove private initiative B's property for, ultimately, private initiative A's use and gain. -
escap wrote: I happen to know Simon personally, and I can tell you that he was originally very concerned about getting screwed over this project, but he ended up making out with a fortune. Don't lose any sleep over Simon.
Good to hear. Enough to relocate his business nearby, I hope?escap wrote: Why is it okay for the state to use eminent domain for its own purposes but not for private development?
The fifth amendment is explicit in that eminent domain be for "public use":"No person shall be... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process, of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (1791)
Whether that could include handing over property for private development would seem to have been settled a few years later:"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798).
In Kelo v. New London, the minority argued that the Public Use clause has been effectively nullified by the Courts more recent reluctance to interfere with interpretation by local governments. It will take a truly screwed up case like Deepdale before the majority will overcome its fear of "bright-line" rules and "second-guess the wisdom" of city plans.
You can read the opinion here. The majority opinion pretty much affirms what you said. -
escap wrote:
if toyota wanted to take my cousin's farm without her consent to build a plant, i'd be pretty mad. even if they paid her well. because it doesn't belong to them.
For example, if a town in the midst of a recession needed to push one man out of his home to make room for the opening of a Toyota plant that would employ 5,000 people, and for some weird hypothetical reason the plant couldn't be built without using eminent domain, I'd support it. It doesn't matter that Toyota is private.
and no matter how many jobs they said they were bringing, they would be building that plant because it is good for their business, not because it is good for the town. (and you can bet they'd close that hypothetical plant if it ceased to be good for business, no matter what that meant for the town.)
i'm not a fan of a lot of things about our government, but in principle, it is trying to help people, not just itself. (don't get me started on how often that principle becomes reality.) -
sweet tea wrote:
Clearly most if not all of what the govt does benefits only a certain segment of society, not the entire public. In fact, private investment often benefits a much wider swath of people than does public investment, which is often just wasteful pork spending. You yourself admit that the principle that public investment is for the common good is a complete joke.
i'm not a fan of a lot of things about our government, but in principle, it is trying to help people, not just itself. (don't get me started on how often that principle becomes reality.)
Furthermore, any form of wealth distribution is a form of eminent domain that goes to private citizens. The government takes my money with each paycheck (massive amounts, I might add), and gives it to other private individuals such as sugar farmers, welfare recipients, police officers, etc. Sometimes I benefit from the spending my tax dollars go towards, sometimes I don't. Either way, I have no choice, and my personal property is being taken from me to benefit the public good/other private citizens. This is no different from eminent domain, and though I'd love to be able to keep all my money, I don't begrudge the govt the right to take my money and use it for the public good, even if that means some of that money might end up in the hands of a private citizen. Of course I hate to see that money spent wastefully (sugar farmers), but if it goes towards a "good" cause (education loans for people attending expensive private universities, or job training for people trying to get off welfare to name a couple), I definitely support it.
As the majority said in Kelo, one of the most widely recognized roles any government plays is in the fostering of economic development. I know this is in violation of my own generally libertarian principles, but nevertheless if you oppose any property reallocation you have to be consistent in your opposition across the board, which I think it's fair to say none of you are (given that you support rent control, for example....).
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds