Skip to main content

Court papers hint at heated eminent domain arguments in court tomorrow

According to the legal memoranda filed in the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case, the hearing tomorrow at 2 p.m. in Brooklyn federal court should be a lively one.

The defendants--city and state officials, the Empire State Development Corporation (ERSDC), and developer Forest City Ratner--are asking the court to dismiss the case, while the 13 plaintiffs--owners and tenants within the proposed project footprint--want the case to proceed so the court can order discovery, or the exchange of documents.

A work of fiction?

Forest City Ratner's most recent memorandum of law, filed 1/19/07, begins, "Plaintiffs' opposing memorandum is engagingly written, but that is true of many works of fiction."

The Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) memo charges, "What they seek, ultimately, is the judicial defeat of a public development project that has garnered the support of a wide range of elected officials." The ESDC calls the plaintiffs' allegations "conclusory, self-serving, hyperbolic and... gravely irresponsible."

The ESDC criticizes the plaintiffs' sequencing formulation--that "deference is warranted only where the legislature first concludes that developing a given area will benefit the public, then identifies the specific properties to be seized to advance that predetermined purpose, and then engages in a fair and open bidding process"--would "undermine" the state's legislative scheme, and should not be changed by the courts.

The defendants get the last word in the legal papers, but plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff, asked to comment, countered, "Our legal analysis is fully consistent with the cases. All we did was suggest an analytical framework for organizing and examining the law in this area, i.e., a skeleton to hang the meat on."

State case

The ESDC also argues that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to add a state eminent domain law challenge to the federal case, saying that it would lead to a scenario in which the federal courts were flooded with claims from anyone threatened by a condemnation. The plaintiffs, allowed to respond 1/26/07 only regarding that narrow aspect, say in a memo that the defense ignores important precedent.

The ESDC argues that the case actually isn't ripe, since the scope of the project and the area to be condemned could change as a result of other court proceedings, "altered financial circumstances, or the mere passage of time." The ESDC notes that in other cases, such as Westway, only some properties were condemned before the project was stymied.

FCR's argument

Forest City Ratner lawyers argue that the plaintiffs rely on cases in which eminent domain apparently benefits only private parties, but reiterate that Atlantic Yards "contains the following essential components that have long been recognized as public uses": an arena, housing, transit improvements, open space, and the elimination of blight.

They cite a 1984 Supreme Court decision that says a court should not substitute its judgment "for a legislature's judgment as to what constitutes a public use." Whether the ESDC--a public authority created by a legislature--is truly a legislative agency may be argued in court.

Public review

FCR contends that the eminent domain findings "have been made here at the conclusion of a long public review process that included a public hearing before ESDC as well as numerous public meetings before other agencies, including the City Planning Commission."

(I'm not aware of other public meetings before agencies. The planning commission's meeting in September was highly scripted, and showed the commissioners generally uninformed.)

FCR argues that two Memoranda of Understanding signed 2/18/05, which the plaintiffs cite as the basis for asserting a predetermined outcome, don't constitute proof. For example, one MOU required approval by the ESDC and "review and acceptance" by the planning commission, and was nonbinding.

(While few doubted that ESDC and the planning commission would favor Atlantic Yards, it may not be easy to prove that. Then again, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a year earlier, had said,
Then, we’ve got to find a find a ways--Bruce Ratner’s got to find a ways--to build this complex in Brooklyn.)

Kelo effects

Both the ESDC and FCR take aim at the plaintiffs' contention that the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo eminent domain decision requires a heightened scrutiny of this case, arguing that, while Kelo concerned economic development, Atlantic Yards regards the removal of blight.

As for Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence, which set up some apparent standards for eminent domain takings, FCR lawyers contend they don't apply. Kennedy pointed to "the context of a comprehensive development plan;" FCR argues that "ESDC's exercise of eminent domain is part of a comprehensive development plan."

That's likely in dispute. While ESDC certainly held a hearing and issued findings, and an urban renewal area covering part of the footprint had existed for 40 years, there was no preexisting planning process or request for proposals for the project site itself.

Beneficiaries unknown?

Kennedy wrote that, in Kelo, "The identity of most of the private beneficiaries were unknown at the time the city formulated its plans." Brinckerhoff commented, "Every case where the courts have deferred to legislative judgments on eminent domain concerned a taking that was deemed necessary to accomplish a public purpose before the developer/beneficiary was known."

FCR lawyers argue, in a bit of a stretch, that Atlantic Yards would not simply be the transfer of property from private parties to another private party, pointing out that "major portions of the project will remain under public ownership," the city would own or lease space in one building for a school, and the publicly accessibly open space would be owned by a not-for-profit entity.

Unmentioned is that the developer would benefit from naming rights at the "publicly owned" arena. Also, according to the Final EIS, The proposed open space would be owned by a conservancy or other not-for-profit entity established by the project sponsors. In a footnote, FCR lawyers add that no one knows the identities of those renting or buying the apartments.

State response

The city and the state each seek to have city officials and former Gov. George Pataki dismissed from the case. The state's memo notes that Pataki left office before the properties had been taken, that he wasn't personally involved in the issue, and anyway, he should have immunity from the suit.

Lawyers for the state, in their 1/19/07 memo, deny the claim that Pataki "wholly controlled" the ESDC, noting that several cases point out that the ESDC and other public benefit corporations operate independently, despite the Governor's appointment process. (The 15-minute approval of the Atlantic Yards project probably wasn't a shining moment of independence.)

City claims

The city's 1/19/07 memo states, "Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations of conspiracy are simply not sufficient to preclude dismissal." The city argues that, because none of the city defendants are parties to the condemnation being undertaken by the ESDC, they shouldn't be liable.

In the memo, attorneys also argue that the city's $100 million capital commitment (now apparently $205 million) and its agreement to convey city streets to the state don't link the city to the condemnations. "The proposed condemnation of plaintiffs' property is only one small part of the Atlantic Yards project," the memo states.

That may be true, but it would be impossible to proceed with the initial phase--the arena block--without the property of some of the 13 plaintiffs. That's why there's so much at stake in this case.

Brinckerhoff commented, "The proposition we're asserting is very modest. The known facts give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a private purpose is drove this deal. All we're saying is that, given these unique facts, aren't we the people, we the residents and property owners in the footprint, entitled to scrutinize the decision-making process to make sure that it passes muster? We're just asking that our public officials be accountable." The defendants, of course, argue that the plaintiffs are going too much too far.


Popular posts from this blog

Barclays Center/Levy Restaurants hit with suit charging discrimination on disability, race; supervisors said to use vicious slurs, pursue retaliation

The Daily News has an article today, Barclays Center hit with $5M suit claiming discrimination against disabled, while the New York Post headlined its article Barclays Center sued over taunting disabled employees.

While that's part of the lawsuit, more prominent are claims of racial discrimination and retaliation, with black employees claiming repeated abuse by white supervisors, preferential treatment toward Hispanic colleagues, and retaliation in response to complaints.

Two individual supervisors, for example, are charged with  referring to black employees as “black motherfucker,” “dumb black bitch,” “black monkey,” “piece of shit” and “nigger.”

Two have referred to an employee blind in one eye as “cyclops,” and “the one-eyed guy,” and an employee with a nose disorder as “the nose guy.”

There's been no official response yet though arena spokesman Barry Baum told the Daily News they, but take “allegations of this kind very seriously” and have "a zero tolerance policy for…

Behind the "empty railyards": 40 years of ATURA, Baruch's plan, and the city's diffidence

To supporters of Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, it's a long-awaited plan for long-overlooked land. "The Atlantic Yards area has been available for any developer in America for over 100 years,” declared Borough President Marty Markowitz at a 5/26/05 City Council hearing.

Charles Gargano, chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, mused on 11/15/05 to WNYC's Brian Lehrer, “Isn’t it interesting that these railyards have sat for decades and decades and decades, and no one has done a thing about them.” Forest City Ratner spokesman Joe DePlasco, in a 12/19/04 New York Times article ("In a War of Words, One Has the Power to Wound") described the railyards as "an empty scar dividing the community."

But why exactly has the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Vanderbilt Yard never been developed? Do public officials have some responsibility?

At a hearing yesterday of the Brooklyn Borough Board Atlantic Yards Committee, Kate Suisma…

No, security guards can't ban photos. Questions remain about visibility of ID/sticker system.

The bi-monthly Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Community Update meeting June 14, held at 55 Hanson Place, addressed multiple issues, including delays in the project, a new detente with project neighbors,concerns about traffic congestion, upcoming sewer work and demolitions, and an explanation of how high winds caused debris to fly off the under-construction 38 Sixth Avenue building. I'll have more coverage.
Security issues came up several times at the meeting.
Wayne Bailey, a resident who regularly takes photos and videos (that I often use) of construction/operations issues that impact residents, asked representatives of Tishman Construction if the security guard at the sites they're building works for them.
After Tishman Senior VP Eric Reid said yes, Bailey asked why a guard told him not to shoot video of the site, even though he was on a public street.

"I will address it with principals for that security firm," Reid said.
Forest City Ratner executive Ashley Cotton, the …

Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park graphic: what's built/what might be coming + FAQ (post-dated pinned post)

This graphic, posted in February 2018, is post-dated to stay at the top of the blog. It will be updated as announced configurations change and buildings launch. Note the unbuilt B1 and the proposed--but not yet approved--shift in bulk to the unbuilt Site 5.

The August 2014 tentative configurations proposed by developer Greenland Forest City Partners will change. The project is already well behind that tentative timetable.

How many people are expected?

Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park has a projected 6,430 apartments housing 2.1 persons per unit (as per Chapter 4 of the 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement), which would mean 13,503 new residents, with 1,890 among them in low-income affordable rentals, and 2,835 in moderate- and middle-income affordable rentals.

That leaves 8,778 people in market-rate rentals and condos, though let's call it 8,358 after subtracting 420 who may live in 200 promised below-market condos. So that's 5,145 in below-market units, though many of them won…

The passing of David Sheets, Dean Street renter, former Freddy's bartender, eminent domain plaintiff, and singular personality

David Sheets, longtime Dean Street renter, Freddy's bartender, eminent domain plaintiff, and singular personality, died 1/17/18 in HCA Greenview Hospital in Bowling Green, KY. He was 56.

There are obituary notices in the Bowling Green Daily News and the Wichita Eagle, which state:
He was born in Wichita, KS where he attended public Schools and Wichita State University. He lived for many years in Brooklyn, NY, and was employed as a legal assistant. David's hobby was cartography and had an avid interest in Mass Transit Systems of the world. David was predeceased by his father, Kenneth E. Sheets. He is survived by his mother, Wilma Smith, step-brother, Billy Ray Smith and his wife, Jane all of Bowling Green; step-sister, Ellen Smith Alexander and her husband, Jerry of Bella Vista, AR; several cousins and step-nieces and step-nephews also survive. Memorial Services will be on Monday, January 22, 2018 at 1:00 pm with visitation from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm Monday at Johnson-Vaughn-Phe…

Some skepticism on Belmont hockey deal: lease value seems far below Aqueduct racino; unclear (but large?) cost for LIRR service

As I wrote for The Bridge 12/20/1, The Islanders Say Bye to Brooklyn, But Where Next?, the press conference announcing a new arena at Belmont Park for the New York Islanders was "long on pomp... but short on specifics."

Notably, a lease valued at $40 million "upfront to lease up to 43 acres over 49 years... seems like a good deal on rent for the state-controlled property." Also, the Long Island Rail Road will expand service to Belmont.

That indicates public support for an arena widely described as "privately financed," but how much? We don't know yet, but some more details--or at least questions--have emerged.

An Aqueduct comparable?

Well, we don't know what the other bid was, and there aren't exactly parcels that large offering direct comparables.

But consider: Genting New York LLC in September 2010 was granted a franchise to operate a video lottery terminal under a 30 year lease on 67 acres at Aqueduct Park (as noted by Gov. Andrew Cuomo).


Barclays Center event June 11 to protest plans to expand Israeli draft; questions about logistics

At right is a photo of a poster spotted in Hasidic Williamsburg right. Clearly there's an event scheduled at the Barclays Center aimed at the Haredi Jewish community (strict Orthodox Jews who reject secular culture), but the lack of English text makes it cryptic.

The website explains, Protest Against Israeli Draft of Bnei Yeshiva Rescheduled for Barclays Center:
A large asifa to protest the drafting of bnei yeshiva in Eretz Yisroel into the Israeli army that had been set to take place this month will instead be held on Sunday, 17 Sivan/June 11, at the Barclays Center in Downtown Brooklyn, NY. So attendees at a big gathering will protest an apparent change of policy that will make it much more difficult for traditional Orthodox Jewish students--both Hasidic (who follow a rebbe) and non-Hasidic (who don't)--to get deferments from the draft. Comments on the Yeshiva World website explain some of the debate.

The logistical questions

What's unclear is how large the ev…