Skip to main content

In effort to appeal EIS case, plaintiffs charge "evidence of corruption" in ESDC's blight study

On the same day that developer Forest City Enterprises asserted in a press release that "only one material lawsuit" is pending in the Atlantic Yards case, project opponent Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) announced that one other lawsuit may indeed be alive.

In an effort to reverse an appeals court’s February decision rejecting an appeal of a trial judge's dismissal of the case challenging the Atlantic Yards environmental review, DDDB and 25 co-plaintiff community and civic groups have asked (PDF) the Appellate Division, First Department, to allow the state’s highest court to review the decision, arguing that the blight study by Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) did not contain simply errors or misjudgments but rather is associated with “evidence of corruption” and that a for-profit company should not be able to lease a publicly-owned arena for a dollar a year.

Decision said to be tainted

The ESDC, argue the appellants, was “purposefully disregarding the contrary economic conditions and development trends which it asked its own consultant, AKRF, to study; knowingly misrepresenting the effect of the Vanderbilt Rail Yards on the non-ATURA [Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area] portion as impeding development, while the non-ATURA portion and adjacent areas were enjoying substantial, desirable private redevelopment and rapidly rising property values; and knowingly misrepresenting the crime rate in the non-ATURA portion as higher than surrounding areas, while its own data showed just the opposite.”

“Simply put, New York law requires ESDC to do more than simply throw out a number of purported justifications for its “blight” determination without regard to truth, accuracy, or logic, secure in the knowledge that as long as any one of its proffered justifications can be called ‘rational,’ its blight determination will not be disturbed by judicial review,” the petitioners argue.

Thus the “the court should find the agency’s ultimate determination irremediably tainted, regardless of whether a few of its proffered justifications might arguably be valid.”

While the four judges acknowledged that “our power to review the substantive adequacy of an EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] is extremely limited,” the petitioners argue that, in this case, “[i]t is not a question of the courts substituting their judgment for the agency’s; rather, it is matter of the courts requiring an agency to be truthful and unbiased in making its judgment.”

Appeal not automatic

The appeal, filed as an affirmation by attorney Jeff Baker, is not automatic, and the defendants in Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, et al., v. Urban Development Corporation dba Empire State Development Corporation, et al. almost certainly will oppose the case moving forward.

The ESDC has less than two weeks to respond, and the Appellate Division's decision on whether to move the appeal should come down within 60 days.

Should the appeal not be granted, the plaintiffs will then appeal directly to the Court of Appeals.

If both are denied, that would leave the eminent domain case as the only extant major case challenging Atlantic Yards. That case is very likely a win for the state, and, unless there’s a split decision guaranteeing an appeal, the plaintiffs would also request leave to appeal.

However, if the case does go to the Court of Appeals, that would push the timetable for briefing and argument to the fall, further delaying the developer's stated plans to break ground this year and open the arena in 2011.

From the concurrence, a need for new standards

James Catterson, one of the four judges on the panel, filed a concurring opinion that read like a dissent, and the petitioners relied significantly on this.

“As Justice Catterson of this Court noted in his concurring opinion, the obvious point raised by petitioners and dismissed by ESDC is that if the non-ATURA properties were in the midst of an economic revival, it would be counter to ESDC’s mandate to step in, stop all productive development, and, in partnership with a private enterprise, develop the neighborhood according to its own vision of urban utopia, complete with professional basketball for the masses,” the appeal states.

“Nevertheless, Justice Catterson felt compelled to join the majority in upholding ESDC’s findings and determinations regarding the Project, despite his belief that ESDC’s analysis did not provide a rational basis for its finding that the entire Project area is “blighted”, based on a perceived standard of review under which courts would be compelled to defer to ESDC’s findings and determinations as long as ESDC can provide any arguably plausible justification for them, regardless of how contrary they may be to the clearly stated purposes and plain language of ESDC’s enabling statutes and the environmental laws which ESDC is obliged to follow,” the appeal continues.

That, they say, is a reason for the Court of Appeals to step in and “determine the boundaries of judicial review of ESDC’s determinations.”

(DDDB's press release quotes Catterson's opinion: "However, I reject the majority's core reasoning, that a perfunctory ‘blight study’ performed years after the conception of a vast development project should serve as the rational basis for a determination that a neighborhood is indeed blighted.… ESDC's contention that as 'a matter of law,' ESDC could only look at conditions contemporaneous with the study, which was conducted years after the [project’s] announcement, is ludicrous on several levels.")

Standard of review

The appellants note that the court relied heavily on two cases that required it “to afford a high level of deference” to the ESDC’s decision. 

However, they argue, the two cases relied under section 51 of the General Municipal Law, for which redress is available only in case of fraud or illegality, whereas this is “an ‘Article 78' proceeding dealing with a situation wherein it might be claimed that public officials, although acting within their powers, are doing so in a way that is arbitrary or capricious.”

In this case, the ESDC, for example, neglected the market study it required its consultant, AKRF, to perform--the request for which was in an AKRF contract I discovered after filing a Freedom of Information Law request.

“[T]here is no dispute that ESDC contracted with AKRF for a study of the development trends in and around the Project area, even though it later chose to ignore development trends and denied that they are relevant to its blight determination. Nor is there any dispute that the non-ATURA blocks and surrounding areas were undergoing well documented, substantial, desirable residential redevelopment both before and after the announcement of the Project and ESDC’s blight study," the appeal states.

"The record in this case leaves no room for any reasonable doubt that ESDC knew very well that its claims that, without the Project, ‘significant new development’ of the non-ATURA area ‘is considered unlikely given the blighting influence of the rail yard and the predominance of low-density manufacturing zoning on the project site’, and that the non-ATURA area 'would remain blighted' without the project, were unsupported by any evidence, and were false when they made them." the petitioners contend.

(I had called the “no redevelopment without AY” claim one of the least credible statements in the environmental review.)

Economic conditions and development trends

The Urban Development Corporation Act, which established the parent agency of the ESDC, is supposed to address areas which are “slum or blighted, or which are becoming slum or blighted areas . . . all of which impair or arrest the sound growth if the area, community or municipality, and the state as a whole.”

The appeal cites Catterson’s observation that that ESDC’s conduct was “ludicrous”--and the appeal contends it was therefore not rational and thus should be overturned.

“Civic project”?

While a federal appellate court in the eminent domain case agreed that a sports arena may serve a “public purpose” under the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiffs, according to the appeal, can still challenge the arena as a “civic project” under state law, contending that the appeals court “nevertheless proceeded to conflate the two issues.”

While the Court of Appeals did allow that a sports arena operated privately for profit may still serve a “public purpose,” the petitioners acknowledge, the case at hand was based on a differing governing statute, while the UDCA limits the ESDC’s ability to lease an arena to government agencies, public corporations, or “any other entity which is carrying out a community, municipal, public service or other civic purpose.” 

And that, they say, should not mean a real estate develper with a dollar-a-year lease, who would get all profits from the arena, including naming rights and sponsorship deals.

They assert that it’s circular logic: “In effect, the court determined that the private, for-profit FCRC subsidiary to which ESDC would lease the Barclays Center Arena would be engaged in a ‘public service or other civic purpose’... merely because the Barclays Center Arena has already been designated a ‘civic project.’”

In conclusion

The appeal concludes, “By its Decision herein, this Court has clouded the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review of ESDC’s determinations with the more deferential standard of a taxpayer action, and incorrectly conflated constitutional requirements applicable to condemnation issues with the specific statutory requirements of the UDCA and SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act]."

"Appellants respectfully submit that the Court of Appeals should address and clarify these issues, by recognizing that the proper focus of the courts’ review of ESDC’s conduct and determinations herein is not simply public policy or what constitutes a ‘public purpose’ under constitutional standards, but, rather, whether ESDC was within its legislatively proscribed authority, and whether it acted arbitrarily and capriciously, when it decided to demolish and rebuild a thriving urban neighborhood without taking an unbiased, objective, and rational look at the evidence before it.”


Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…