This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

DDDB loses appeal — Brooklynian

DDDB loses appeal

ben
ben
edited November -1 in Prospect Heights
I just saw this posting, it doesn't look like it's really getting much press.

"The Appellate Division today overturned a lower court that ruled in favor of Develop--Don't Destroy Brooklyn in its conflict-of-interest argument against David Paget."

The link below has links to the actual decision but no additional info.

http://therealestate.observer.com/2006/05/dddb-loses-appeal.html

Comments

  • raulism
    raulism
    I just read the full decision, and those judges are on crack. If they think there is no conflict of interest for a lawyer to work for a developer and then work for the agency overseeing the developer, they are on another planet.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    Re: DDDB loses appeal

    A cruel blow indeed for an organisation with such little appeal to begin with.
  • jack krohn
    jack krohn
    Does this surprise anyone? DDDB has been ineffective so far, that is, unless you consider holding sparsely-attended marches and issuing long-winded press releases to be signs of success.

    Yea, yea, I know, "it's not a done deal". (Yawn)
  • ratnerville4ever
    ratnerville4ever
    no, jack, it does not surprise anyone that our government is corrupt. not in the least.

    as for DDDB's appeal, you and the above poster are so clueless there is really nothing to say.
  • ben
    ben
    ratnerville4ever wrote: no, jack, it does not surprise anyone that our government is corrupt. not in the least.
    Are you really suggesting that 5 appeals court judges are corrupt? This was a unanimous decision. All 5 judges voted to overturn the previous ruling.

    Now if you have some evidence of corruption on the part of 5 appeals court judges I'm sure that many people would be very interested in hearing about it. Otherwise, comments like this make it very difficult to take anything you say seriously.
  • dw438
    dw438

    Subject: A History Lesson

    The heirs of Walter O'Malley [boo, hiss] have put together a spectacular website ... http://www.walteromalley.com
    If you dig into the historical documents section, you'll see memos that are over 50 years old pertaining to development of the land at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues ... as the home of a Brooklyn Dodger ballpark.
    The personalities of the two principals ... O'Malley and the legendary Robert Moses come to life ... the folly of a Buckminster Fuller-inspired domed stadium over the LIRR tracks (sounds familiar?) ... Moses' insistence on a stadium in Queens ... and the final, desperate cries of politicians and others as the Dodgers went to LaLa Land.
    One can also peruse the documents leading to LA's seduction of the Dodgers, and the beautiful new stadium built (yes, a land grab) in Chavez Ravine.
    FYI Dodger Stadium, beautifully maintained, is the third oldest ballpark in the major leagues [1962] after Fenway [1912] and Wrigley [1914].
    The 4th oldest, and one of the worst maintained, is of course Shea [1964].
  • ratnerville4ever
    ratnerville4ever
    Ben wrote: [quote=ratnerville4ever]no, jack, it does not surprise anyone that our government is corrupt. not in the least.
    Are you really suggesting that 5 appeals court judges are corrupt? This was a unanimous decision. All 5 judges voted to overturn the previous ruling.

    Now if you have some evidence of corruption on the part of 5 appeals court judges I'm sure that many people would be very interested in hearing about it. Otherwise, comments like this make it very difficult to take anything you say seriously.

    No I'm saying the ESDC and its appointers are corrupt. well actually, yes, when a court says that the PUBLIC has NO standing to challenge a conflict between a PUBLIC agency and a PRIVATE corporation, when that PUBLIC agency is supposed to be representing the PUBLIC interest, i would say that is corrupt, especially when that court IGNORES half the plaintiffs briefs.

    if you don't like the word corrupt, how about: bonehead stupid?
  • ben
    ben
    ratnerville4ever wrote:
    when a court says that the PUBLIC has NO standing to challenge a conflict between a PUBLIC agency and a PRIVATE corporation, when that PUBLIC agency is supposed to be representing the PUBLIC interest, i would say that is corrupt, especially when that court IGNORES half the plaintiffs briefs.
    As far as I saw things DDDB said there is a conflict and the court agreed. Then a higher court overturned that decision. But the public (DDDB) was allowed to challenge the relationship and claim a conflict. The court never said a challenge couldn't be made they just ruled that a conflict didn't exist.
    ratnerville4ever wrote: if you don't like the word corrupt, how about: bonehead stupid?
    Either way, calling people corrupt or calling them bonehead stupid doesn't help boost your image as someone that should be taken seriously. Maybe you should just call them poo poo heads.
  • jack krohn
    jack krohn
    Ben: Don’t be too hard on this poor guy. As his options continue to dry up he is getting more irritable than ever. In the end, his main concern appears to be not with his image, but with correcting anyone and everyone who disagrees with him. His brash, “you’re with me or against me” attitude, IMO, does little to persuade potential allies. Your exchange with him is a case in point: rather than using courtesy and reason to convince you to rethink your position (as someone like raulism or escap does), he’s viewing you as a misguided soul in need of his enlightened perspective. And he seems to take any disagreement with his position as a personal insult.

    All of this is fine by me, because it will ensure continued failure by the anti-AY crowd and therefore expedite the arrival of the arena and housing. Maybe things would be different if the fight had been taken up by a more experienced and capable team, but, thankfully, this is what we got.

    Brooklyn Lager anyone? I hear that it’s widely available in Prospect Heights (and the rest of the city, for that matter).
  • bill c
    bill c
    The First Department did say that the public (thru DDDB) lacked standing to challenge the conflict. Justice Williams wrote, "Initially, petitioners had no standing to seek disqualification since they did not claim, nor had they ever been, an attorney-client relationship between the attorney/law firm and petitioners." Williams found that DDDB's recourse for protecting the public interest was the "statutory provision for public participation in the drafting and finalizing of the EIS as well as review of the ESDC's final determination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding or other appropriate legal action." Of course, DDDB's suit was initiated via an article 78 proceeding against ESDC.

    The court then went on to consider whether a conflict existed between ESDC and the attorney Paget. It found that the trial court misapplied the standard for simultaneous representation, claiming that the representation was consecutive, but then also acknowleding that there had been simultaneous representation. Then in analyzing the apparent conflict under the lesser standard decided that there was no conflict between ESDC and the developer! Nor is there a conflict for the fox when he's got his paid employee guarding the hen house. Moreover, the court claimed, ESDC/ the devleoper had waived any potential conflict -- since it worked entirely in their interest to have thier hired man in on the "review" process. nice work if you can get it.
  • ben
    ben
    bill c, thanks for the additional detail on this ruling.

    I'm not claiming to understand all of the elements involved here but it sounds like things were done according to our judicial process and while the outcome may not be what some would have liked, it sounds like the proper procedures were followed and this current ruling is accurate.

    If there is an issue here it sounds like it should be with the underlying rules regarding these potential conflicts and not the enforcement of these rules.

    To see a response that actually offers some insight into what is going and is not simply a rant of name calling and false accusations is very welcome.
  • raulism
    raulism
    I suppose I'm guilty of giving a bit of a rant, but I think it's appropriate. I was at the original court hearing where Judge Edmead called the ESDC's arguments "bonehead stupid," so my language is not that far from official judicial pronouncements on the matter.

    I strongly disagree with the idea that the citizens of New York State have no standing in determining how our state authorities spend our money. That is what the five judge panel concluded, and the original judge who reviewed the case would probably agree with me.

    I do have a question. The court ruling referred to a New York Times article saying that DDDb intended to litigate AY. They used this to undermine the legitimacy of the DDDb argument (which, it should be noted, was joined by some good government groups as well as some elected officials). Aren't appeals decisions supposed to be based purely on the evidence presented in the first trial? Is it improper for the judges to present new evidence?
  • rogersma
    rogersma
    Jack Krohn wrote: All of this is fine by me, because it will ensure continued failure by the anti-AY crowd and therefore expedite the arrival of the arena and housing. Maybe things would be different if the fight had been taken up by a more experienced and capable team, but, thankfully, this is what we got.
    This is just too smug and snarky to let stand. The "anti-AY" crowd--specifically DDDB--is not failing and is extraordinarily capable. They've taken up the job that too many of our elected officials have abdicated: making sure that the development of the railyards isn't done primarily to enrich elite developers, leaving the taxpayers with decades of paying to fix the damage and subsidize luxury sky-boxes.

    DDDB did precisely what the MTA and ESDC should have done: solicited developers and found one who would build at the site--providing housing and jobs--but also respect the character of Brooklyn, pay the MTA (read: us) more money and not demand vast corporate welfare. That's how this whole project should have started: not with a single developer asking his college cronies who run the state to condemn some property for him 'cause he had an itch to build really, really big.

    It is astonishing to me that even conservative taxpayers have been so narcotized by--what? too many hours of Donald Trump on network television?--that they are willing to let the state and private developers effectively plunder both the public treasury and public property without asking any questions. DDDB is asking those questions. It's an uphill battle because the game was rigged years ago by a handful of rich and powerful men, but it's not, by any means, over yet.
  • idlewild
    idlewild
    Considering that NYC has been built on corruption and stupidity since the Dutch settled, I tend to agree with Ratnerville that the courts in NYC are not only corrupt but can be "poo-poo headed" in their decisions/legislating. Those who think the courts are fair in interpretting the law and enforcing the law will be in for a suprise when the gavel hits them on the head.
  • ratnerville4ever
    ratnerville4ever
    the appellate division literally ignored the public officers law which was the argument of DDDB et. al. they IGNORED it. hmmm, why? could it be because it applies here?

    and as raulism said above "bonehead stupid" was the lower court judge's phrasing, not mine.

    as for Jack your epithets are sweet and I do appreciate them. why? because you're only fooling yourself if you think the opposition rests in the "image" of one individual.

    besides resting with thousands, there are now politicians introducing a bill that would mandate a radically altered Ratopolis.

    there are statewide candidates opposing the project.

    but i guess all these folks are just "poo poo heads."
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories