Skip to main content

Beyond the eminent domain case, other lawsuits looming against ESDC and MTA, but can they have any impact?

Many people believe that the pending eminent domain case, to be heard in the Court of Appeals on October 14 after being rejected at the trial court and appellate court levels, is the only piece of litigation that can stop Atlantic Yards from going forward.

That may be so, and that case has to be considered an uphill battle for the plaintiffs. Both the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and developer Forest City Ratner have expressed confidence about success in the case.

Still, the willingness of the Court of Appeals to accept a case unanimously dismissed at the appellate division suggests that the court recognizes it needs to at least clarify whether the state constitution restricts eminent domain more than does the federal constitution. (On Monday, I'll have a preview of the legal arguments.)

And, if the court upholds the defendants, the ESDC apparently intends to pursue eminent domain even as other cases proceed.

More litigation

Meanwhile, one other appeal is still in play and three other cases should be filed soon, both by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (and allies) and the BrooklynSpeaks coalition. News of the latter's suit surfaced yesterday.

While these lawsuits may not be able to stop the project formally, they might raise sufficient questions to affect the financing of the arena. More likely, they would at least shine some light on the process behind some questionable decisions by the ESDC and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).

The lingering EIS case

The coalition that challenged the project's environmental review, led by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), has asked the Court of Appeals to hear an appeal. A decision is expected later this month.

The appeal was filed after the case was dismissed at the trial and appellate court levels. While the latter decision was unanimous, Justice James Catterson filed a concurrence that read like a dissent, giving some ammunition to the appellants.

New cases from DDDB

DDDB is still raising money, not only for the above two cases, but for two additional cases, likely to be filed in partnership with other organizations.

"In the next few weeks we plan on bringing 2 or 3 new lawsuits against Atlantic Yards to help stop it once and for all," DDDB said in a handout Sunday at the Atlantic Antic. Hence the fifth annual Walk Don't Destroy walkathon on October 17.

One case will challenge the ESDC's unwillingness to issue a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The ESDC has said an SEIS wasn't necessary.

The other case will challenge the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's decision in June to revise the Vanderbilt Yard deal on terms more favorable to Forest City Ratner.

The suits should be filed within the next week.

Possible impact?

But can the suits slow or stop the project and/or the pursuit of eminent domain?

"First, we will file these suits because we believe the involved agencies have violated the law," DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein said. "The involved agencies should not allow the project to go forward until these serious issues are resolved. Where applicable we will be seeking an injunction on the project."

"As to whether the suits could slow or stop the project, or slow or stop the ESDC from stealing properties by eminent domain, we'll have to see about that," he said. "Our goal is to hold these agencies accountable and to win these suits."

Brooklyn Law School Professor David Reiss was more cautious. Regarding the SEIS suit, he told me, "That certainly can result in delay if the court finds that an SEIS is necessary, but it’s really procedural, and I can’t imagine that the lawsuit can stop the project for good.”

What about the MTA lawsuit? "Generally, courts give broad discretion to the judgments of the board of an entity like the MTA," he said. "In the absence of a finding of a breach of fiduciary duty, they will defer to that judgment."

The BrooklynSpeaks lawsuit

Yesterday the Courier-Life reported that the BrooklynSpeaks coalition, including at least the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council (PHNDC), the Boerum Hill Association, and the Park Slope Civic Council (PSCC), would be filed, arguing that the ESDC approved the 2009 Modified General Project Plan (MGGP) last month without a SEIS to assess traffic impacts.

Interestingly, BrooklynSpeaks was formed in 2006 to pressure the developer and the state for changes to the project, and specifically to avoid litigation spearheaded by DDDB (and later the Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods, or CBN). The Courier-Life quoted PSCC President Ken Freeman: "It is with a heavy heart that we are forced to admit that nearly three years later, all our efforts have been in vain."

And why didn't BrooklynSpeaks and DDDB join forces? "We began preparations for a challenge to the MGPP approval several months ago, at a time when we were not aware of DDDB’s intention to file a similar suit," PHNDC's Gib Veconi told me. "We’re following through with those plans, while watching to see how their efforts unfold."

Local tensions?

The Courier-Life quoted Freeman:
"The PSCC has decided to sue to draw attention to the fact that even reasonable organizations who tried to work with the developer and the ESDC have been shut out and rejected."

I'm not sure whether he had air quotes around the word "reasonable;" surely, the groups in BrooklynSpeaks were considered more reasonable by project supporters such as Borough President Marty Markowitz. That doesn't make groups that have regularly pointed out flaws and deceptions in the project unreasonable.

Similarly, the Courier-Life quoted Veconi:
...the participation of the Park Slope Civic and other groups like the Pratt Area Community Council and Boerum Hill Association sends a message “that purposeful opposition to the project is not limited to a tiny group of people”

Does that imply that those behind and supporting DDDB and CBN are a "tiny group"? Veconi said no.

"The quote in the article regarding opposition to the project was taken out of context," he told me. "It was a reference to the Mayor’s remarks to the Brooklyn Paper a few weeks ago. I told the reporter that the Mayor and other project supporters could no longer claim that 'purposeful opposition to the project was limited to a tiny group of people.' I did not suggest that I agreed with the Mayor’s perception. Both CBN and DDDB have worked very hard organizing awareness and opposition to the Atlantic Yards project, and their efforts are recognized by all community advocates."

(The original quote from Bloomberg, an 8/25/09 article: “One of the great sins here is this small group of people stalled it so long [that] the economy is different.")

Comments

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…

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…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.