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.

Atlantic Yards Federal suit dismissed — Brooklynian

Atlantic Yards Federal suit dismissed

splunge
splunge
edited November -1 in Prospect Heights
http://tinyurl.com/3cy6df


Atlantic Yards suit dismissed by federal judge

By: Erik Engquist
Published: June 6, 2007 - 4:19 pm

A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit against the $4 billion Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn. The ruling, eagerly awaited for two months, is a major blow to opponents of the project, who plan to appeal.

The lawsuit challenges the eminent domain condemnations that Atlantic Yards needs to proceed. Thirteen residents and businesses in the project’s footprint have refused to sell their apartments, buildings or long-term leases to Forest City Ratner Cos., which wants to build a 19,000-seat arena, a huge office and retail complex, and more than 6,000 apartments.

"Today's decision is an important victory not only for Atlantic Yards but for Brooklyn as well. This decision means we are one step closer to creating over 2,200 units of affordable housing, thousands of construction and office jobs and bringing the Nets to Brooklyn," said Bruce Ratner, president and CEO of Forest City Ratner Companies.

Their suit’s chances, say project opponents, are best if the case remains in federal court. That is why they say they will appeal the ruling issued today by Judge Nicholas Garaufis to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

“Part of the reason we have a better chance to win [there] is because the federal courts are much more familiar with constitutional issues and are less susceptible to political pressures,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, David Brinckerhoff days before the ruling.

A federal magistrate judge had recommended in February that the case belonged in state court. Judge Garaufis disagreed, but dismissed the case on its merits.

Another suit by opponents, challenging the process by which the state reviewed and approved the development, remains pending. But the eminent domain lawsuit was considered the greater threat to the project.

The crux of Mr. Brinckerhoff’s argument was that the condemnations do not have a primarily public purpose, as required by New York’s eminent domain law.

Comments

  • dw438
    dw438
    DONE DEAL!
  • volition
    volition
    just goes to show, it's not a matter of principal or law but who has the deepest pockets.... ;-)
  • anony
    anony
    In the ongoing saga of the Ratner project here in Brooklyn, the supreme court once again ruled eminant domain can be used to take private property and give it to large corporations if it is in the public interest. Yet, the government never asked the people what is in their interest. In the United States, the government tells us our interests and than protects these interests with the rule of law and coercion.
  • izisharp
    izisharp
    dw438 wrote: DONE DEAL!
    I'm not ready to accept that. In fact, now more than ever am I starting to feel truly compelled to get more active in this fight. It's always easy to take the "government and big money can't be beat" mentality, but usually one takes that stance on matters that won't literally affect and surround their lives and community every day to come. I'm not even from Brooklyn, but since I first stepped foot in the neighborhoods to be affected 3 1/2 years ago, and in the 2 years I've lived in P Heights, I've fallen in love with this town. The same vigilence and perserverence that dismantled the Lower Manhattan Expressway proposal in the 60s is what's needed now -- and this Ratner plan could very well have a similar impact as Moses' freeway cutting thru SoHo would have had.

    To start, I'll be donating some loot to the cause this week
    http://dddb.net/php/donate.php

    Done Deal my ass!
  • dw438
    dw438
    Ah, yes, and the area looks really beautiful the way it is.
    I especially like the romantic railroad yards, the weeds and the graffiti.
    You're throwing your money away, son.
    Why don't you get Goldstein's daddy to contribute more?
  • izisharp
    izisharp
    dw438 wrote: Ah, yes, and the area looks really beautiful the way it is.
    I especially like the romantic railroad yards, the weeds and the graffiti.
    You're throwing your money away, son.
    Why don't you get Goldstein's daddy to contribute more?
    If the choice was in fact limited to just (a) or (b), a basketball arena and a dozen 500-foot tall buidlings versus a vacant railyard, you'd have a point. Lucky for us you're view is oversimplified, and options do exist for more organic growth and development, brother, instead of importing a new city between our great neighboorhoods.
  • caseopele
    caseopele
    So, it's better to let the government pervert eminent domain for corporations?
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    Some may not like it, but I respect the legal opinion of a federal judge who has heard all the evidence, and have no reason he/she was in the pocket of the developer or otherwise paid off or corrupted, or that the outcome was somehow determined by $$$. Sounds like they just didn't have a case.

    Flame away.
  • brooklynpotter
    brooklynpotter
    doctorj wrote: Some may not like it, but I respect the legal opinion of a federal judge who has heard all the evidence, and have no reason he/she was in the pocket of the developer or otherwise paid off or corrupted, or that the outcome was somehow determined by $$$. Sounds like they just didn't have a case.

    Flame away.
    (some small flaming)... i don't trust our judges or elected officials or government for that matter to make intelligent, moral, sound, and beneficial decisions about most anything these days. hell, i wouldn't want them to discuss whether or not i should have a hangnail taken care of.

    i'm not completely all about conspiracy theory, it's more about incompetence.
  • izisharp
    izisharp
    doctorj wrote: Sounds like they just didn't have a case.
    I'd encourage you to see the documentary "Brooklyn Matters", unless you're fortunate enough to be privy to the actual evidence presented by the plaintiffs. More importantly, I think we should all, including the the skeptics on both sides, look at this debate not as just another fickle fight about gentrification, about government corruption, or conspiracy theories. Rather, take a look at it with a focus on the future of Brooklyn. If this plan goes ahead, this borough will be forever changed, undoubtedly for the worse in my opinion. Atlantic Yards ain't Ebbetts Field.
  • caseopele
    caseopele
    izisharp, I agree with you. So many of the things that made people want to move to Brooklyn are disappearing.
  • friendlypitbull
    friendlypitbull
    The Judge had no choice, he is controlled by the Supreme Court which ruled in an almost identical case - Kelo v. New London.

    This District Court Judge could not find any other way.
  • karl the druid
    karl the druid

    Subject: the flame has died?

    doctorj wrote: Some may not like it, but I respect the legal opinion of a federal judge who has heard all the evidence, and have no reason he/she was in the pocket of the developer or otherwise paid off or corrupted, or that the outcome was somehow determined by $$$. Sounds like they just didn't have a case.

    Flame away.
    oh, dr j., our judges are only men, not lofty gods. god is not a paid occupation, a judge's career always errs under the weight of money just as all mere men can

    there is no flame to be had

    mortal kind smothered that fire long ago. mortal kind has long since shut its eyes, hoping the dragon named hsaimn will see them not, pass them over, perhaps spare their own.

    but pass them over, hsaimn will not. mortals that remains will be left to flee watching their children be turned into the ground. "what manner of beast be this?" one might then ask, a monster suckled on the teat of blind fear and grown strong on apathy

    a question: what do you then? flee you far from the broken land? turn you a blind eye leaving the weeds, rocks and insects to fight? run you now in the time of the dragon named hsaimn? or perhaps now stop feeding it

    it is still the time for men
  • karl the druid
    karl the druid
    izisharp wrote: [quote=dw438]Ah, yes, and the area looks really beautiful the way it is.
    I especially like the romantic railroad yards, the weeds and the graffiti.
    You're throwing your money away, son.
    Why don't you get Goldstein's daddy to contribute more?
    If the choice was in fact limited to just (a) or (b), a basketball arena and a dozen 500-foot tall buidlings versus a vacant railyard, you'd have a point. Lucky for us you're view is oversimplified, and options do exist for more organic growth and development, brother, instead of importing a new city between our great neighboorhoods.

    the kingdom of the blind does need a king

    qualification: at least one milky eye
  • caseopele
    caseopele
    Yeah, judges are beyond reproach. They would never take bribes!

    http://tulanelink.com/tulanelink/maloney_05a.htm

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/06/05/2007-06-05_3_to_10_years_worth_of_cigars.html

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1175517538882

    http://www.gothamgazette.com/judgesgame/winners_barron.html

    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/022306BriberyJudge.html

    Though I do admit to being pretty cynical in regards to our government.
  • splunge
    splunge
    friendlypitbull wrote: The Judge had no choice, he is controlled by the Supreme Court which ruled in an almost identical case - Kelo v. New London.

    This District Court Judge could not find any other way.


    well, there is a good-faith argument to be made that Kelo would not control and the District Court could have ruled for the plaintiffs, b/c there is a difference in facts and circumstances.

    I'm compressing the holding here, but in Kelo, the Court recognised that economic development can serve a public purpose. the precedent, the part that lower court judges must follow, held that a taking that benefits a particular private party, with public benefits being only incidental or pretextual, would not pass the public purpose test. opponents of the Atlantic Yards development, as it is being proposed now [b/c it's not just develop or not develop, it's develop with an eye to the existing scale of the area and to the fact that there already is a somewhat vibrant neighborhood there; unfortunately Judge Garaufis chose to accept the argument that the are is blighted] maintain that the public benefits are pretextual b/c the upwards-of-$4 billion project was private from the beginning, not organised or developed by the government for a public purpose.

    In Kelo one of the arguments reviewed by the Court was whether the city reviews a number of development plans and chose a developer from a group of applicants, rather than going along with plans presented by a particular developer that had been drawn up beforehand. also, in Kelo there was a significant economic depression in the entire city, and the Court found that the city followed extensive procedural requirements for review and entered those into the public record. Very reasonable arguments can be made against Ratner's "entirely private" funding claims [FCR will be using tax-free bonds from the NYC HDC, which are pretty scarce to come by right now] and as to the rushed nature of the approval process by ESDC, all of which have been gone into in other threads on the board so i won't rehash.
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