New NY State License Plate Revealed—And Required On All Cars
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
Cops: Fort Greene Violence Sparked By Chicken Wing Promotion
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
64 Things Restaurant Patrons Must NEVER Do
A federal judge dismissed an eminent domain lawsuit that would have stopped the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. The lawsuit, brought by Daniel Goldstein of the vocal anti-AY group Develop - Don't Destroy Brooklyn, claimed that the multi-billion dollar project abused eminent domain, by not having much public benefit, only benefit for developer Bruce Ratner. Judge Nicholas Garaufis dismissed the case, writing, "Plaintiffs have not set forth facts supporting a plausible claim of an unconstitutional taking. Nowhere in the amended complaint or their briefs do plaintiffs sufficiently allege any purpose to confer a private benefit." You can read more about the case, Goldstein vs. Pataki, here.
Ratner said, "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." However, the plaintiffs say they will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals and believe the "constitutional claims are plausible and require a trial." No Land Grab gives a POV: "t is our view that if Judge Garaufis’s ruling is allowed to stand, then there are effectively no protections for private property in the State of NY."
Yesterday, Norman Oder's Atlantic Yards Report had an interesting look at whether the project would be mostly privately financed, finding that it seems like many parties have been misleading.
Photograph by rynokins on Flickr
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
How ironic that it was the liberals on the Supreme Court that paves the way for Atlantic Yards.
Kelo v. City of New London
John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Stevens appointed by Ford
Kennedy appointed by Reagan
Souter appointed by Bush
Bader Ginsburg by Clinton
Breyer by Clinton
True, that it was 4 conservatives who dissented, but 3 of the 5 majority were republican appointees, so liberal here is relative.
anyway, its not ironic, many liberals love neoliberalism. Like Chuck Schumer who loooooves eminent domain.
[2], while it's true that Stevens, Kennedy and Souter were Republican appointees, that doesn't change the fact that they're the liberal wing of the court.
(Disclaimer: I'm a liberal and agree with those Justices on most points but I think Kelo was awful.)
individual rights always get trumped by money...I dont know ANYONE outside of the politicos and ratner that want this development..yet it goes on
What a terrible misuse of Eminent Domain that sets a terrible precedent.
Smitty
they should cancel atlantic yards on looks alone. what a disgusting development.
they should cancel atlantic yards on looks alone. what a disgusting development.
One can only wonder what the quid pro quo was.
yeah, because what is there now is so beautiful and a great use of limited space, right?LOL.
"great use of limited space", what does that even mean?
[10] Makes a good point - I live two blocks away from the AY site and can attest that the yards are an eyesore, in what is a great location for residential and commercial development.
I feel that a lot of the protests against the AY seem to misrepresent, intentionally or not, the context of where these buildings are going. For the most part, the only thing that's going to be destroyed is a mostly vacant, creepy-at-night rail yard that serves no real purpose to the community. Some (certainly not all) of the disagreements aimed at the fact the the new buildings will be mostly high-rises seem to ignore the fact that there are already quite a few high-rise buildings in the area: housing projects, the Newswalk condos, etc. If the popularity of the Atlantic Station mall/shopping area is any indication, the addition of more retail and commercial business would certianly not go unused...
All that said though, the abuse of eminent domain, the way lower income families are being pushed out of the homes they've lived in for years, the _outlandish_ scale of many of the buildings, and the likelihood of there being a god damned sports stadium there all horrify me.
1:21
if it were just rail yards that would be utilized for the project, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because there would be no debate over the use of eminent domain.
While I agree that the eminent domain is the major issue here, I'm responding the 10's comment that the rail yard is a blight, and 11's question about use of space. I feel that the way the area has been represented by some of the critics of AY (while I agree with much of their position) is not quite accurate.
Personally, I think that even if the plan were to go on at its current scale _without_ the eminent domain abuse, there would still be protests and attempts to prevent construction.
- 1.21
if it were just rail yards that would be utilized for the project, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because there would be no debate over the use of eminent domain.
Bullshit. Well, maybe there wouldn't be an eminent domain issue but I can say with 99.99% certainty there would be a fight. Older New Yorkers tend to hate just about any new development and young liberal types tend to hate rich developers.
Posted by; "Still Not Amused" Ratner has the judges pretty much in his back pocket . This whole project is a lousy waste of time and money . Then again it's about the money here so this ruling shouldn't surprise anyone .