Skip to main content

In eminent domain case appeal, plaintiffs say AY sequence violates Kelo case

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis was emphatic in his June 6 dismissal of the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case. But the case is hardly dead, and the plaintiffs have fought back with a blistering appellate brief that, while it doesn’t fully refute Garaufis’s analysis, argues that he ignored a host of other factors, notably the sequence endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the controversial 2005 Kelo v. New London decision.

Garaufis said, essentially, that, the plaintiffs—originally 13 tenants and property owners in the Atlantic Yards footprint—erred in alleging that the benefits were a pretext. (A 14th plaintiff was added as Garaufis combined a second case.)

"Because Plaintiffs concede that the Project will create large quantities of housing and office space, as well as a sports arena, in an area that is mostly blighted, Plaintiffs’ allegations, if proven, would not permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the 'sole purpose' of the Project is to confer a private benefit,” Garaufis wrote. “Neither would those allegations permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the purposes offered in support of the Project are 'mere pretexts' for an actual purpose to confer a private benefit on FCRC.”

I thought Garaufis’s analysis was flawed regarding three of four counts, since he missed nuances and details in the plaintiffs’ argument. But the appellate brief, a prelude to an exchange of at least two more legal briefs before an October 9 oral argument, has bigger fish to fry.

The brief focuses on what the plaintiffs argue is the appropriate sequencing for the exercise of eminent domain, as affirmed in Kelo. In other words, even though the case has led to a backlash in some state legislatures and has emerged as a presidential campaign issue, the plaintiffs are arguing not that Kelo should be overruled, but merely should be adhered to.

The brief states:
This deal was struck: (1) without creating a comprehensive development plan or so much as considering a single alternative to Ratner’s plan for development of the area, including his selection of Plaintiffs’ properties for seizure; (2) without a true competitive bidding process for the purchase of Vanderbilt Yards owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”); (3) with no bidding process at all for the remainder of the site, including Plaintiffs’ properties; (4) without local legislative review and approval by the City Council; and (5) without a process to allow for meaningful community input.

Who benefits?

The brief argues:
Defendants’ decision to take Plaintiffs’ properties serves only one purpose: it allows Ratner to build a Project of unprecedented size, and thus reap a profit that Defendants, tellingly, have attempted to conceal at every turn. This is not merely favoritism of a particular developer in the classic sense, although it is that. Here, the “favored” developer is driving and dictating the process, with government officials at all levels obediently falling into line.

While it may serve to allow Ratner to build such a project and reap an unknown profit, the city and state officials who are defendants can argue that, as stated in the Empire State Development Corporation’s General Project Plan and affirmed by Garaufis, that the project serves the purposes of establishing a sports arena, building affordable housing, and removing blight, among other things.

Special benefits

The brief points to favoritism:
The agreement to develop the Project and take Plaintiffs’ properties included express provisions bestowing atypical benefits upon FCRC. Under one written agreement, FCRC will receive a raft of special discretionary goodies not available as-of-right to real estate developers, including $200 million in capital contributions from the City and State,2 low-cost financing for the arena, extra property tax savings, a low-cost lease, and the guaranteed transfer of private property through eminent domain. Under a second agreement, FCRC is granted the unfettered right to develop other properties near the Project footprint including Pursuant to the pre-Project announcement agreement between Pataki, Bloomberg and Ratner, FCRC was gifted the rights to build over the MTA’s Vanderbilt Rail Yard. This was expressly confirmed, on more than one occasion, by MTA spokespersons in discussions with news reporters. Apparently embarrassed by the disclosure that a back-room deal had already been struck to convey the MTA’s property to FCRC, the MTA retracted its statements. The sham RFP was profoundly biased in favor of FCRC. Whereas FCRC had been working on its (pre-approved) proposal for purchase of the railyards with the MTA and other State officials for more than two years, the RFP gave everyone else forty-two days to generate proposals. Among other things, the RFP required proposers to submit a twenty-year profit and loss statement (pro forma). FCRC submitted a formal bid to develop over the railyards, offering to pay the MTA $50 million – $164.5 million less than the appraised value of $214.5 million. Notably, FCRC failed to submit a profit and loss projection as the RFP required.

What’s the standard?

The brief argues that Garaufis misread the standard on whether a case was plausible enough to survive a motion for dismissal. The relevant case at the time was Bell Atlantic v. Twombly. The brief states:
The court held that “Under [Bell Atlantic], Plaintiffs’ claims that the public use requirement has been violated must be dismissed” because, as in Bell Atlantic, “the facts alleged by Plaintiffs in the present case – the taking of property from some private parties and the resulting benefit to other private parties – are as consistent with lawful behavior as with unlawful behavior.”
(Emphasis in brief)

However, the brief argues, an appellate court case since decided in June, Iqbal v. Hasty, clarifies the standard, making it easier for the plaintiffs to state their claim. It requires "a flexible ‘plausibility standard,’ which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible.”
(Emphasis in original)

The brief follows up to argue that such a “notably permissive standard” is especially important in cases where “defendants have exclusive possession and control of virtually all of the evidence concerning the decisionmaking process” and “the immense power of government has been enlisted in service of seizing plaintiffs’ properties.”

The brief sets it out:
If the district court’s formula were correct, no complaint – not one – asserting a claim alleging an unconstitutional motive… could ever be sustained. It would matter not that the assertion of unconstitutional purpose, or motive, or intent, was supported by a welter of undisputed evidence, whether circumstantial (as is typical), or even direct. A reviewing court can always confidently proclaim, as the district court did here, that undisputed allegations, or allegations accepted as true, while fully consistent with an unlawful purpose, are also plausibly consistent with an lawful purpose.

Fighting facts

The brief also argues that “the district court misconstrued and/or ignored many of the detailed factual allegations that support the factual inference of improper purpose," pointing to the difference with Kelo, where the court’s opinion noted that the use of eminent domain was “executed pursuant to a ‘carefully considered’ development plan.”

In the case of Kelo, the brief draws on Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence [not, as I originally suggested, the opinion of the court]:
[T]he trial court considered testimony from government officials and corporate officers; documentary evidence of communications between these parties; respondents’ awareness of New London’s depressed economic condition and evidence corroborating the validity of this concern; the substantial commitment of public funds by the State to the development project before most of the private beneficiaries were known; evidence that respondents reviewed a variety of development plans and chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand; and the fact that the other private beneficiaries of the project are still unknown because the office space proposed to be built has not yet been rented.

(Emphasis in brief)

In this case, the issue of motive or intent must be determined by trial rather than dismissed via an exchange of briefs, especially since new facts have already emerged thanks to press and political scrutiny:
Indeed, if facts emerge in discovery, as they have during the pendency of this action even without forced disclosures, this action will likely not be subject to resolution at the summary judgment stage.

Supplemental allegations

Indeed, should the case go back to trial, the plaintiffs say they’d amend the complaint to add supplemental allegations, noting that “additional evidence of Defendants’ improper purpose has come to light" since the suit was filed. See the Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 15(d) (p. 44 of PDF).

The allegations include:
--the MTA’s July 13 RFPs soliciting proposals from developers interested in purchasing its Hudson Rail Yards contrast with the Vanderbilt Yards RFP, 1369 pages long vs. 42 pages, with 92 days to respond, rather than 42 days, with design guidelines and a planning process before any developer was selected or even solicited.
--the doubling of the city’s commitment to the project, from $100 million to $205 million –a judge’s findings that developer Forest City Ratner misrepresented its “control” of a building it had subleased
--the news that the ESDC never saw a business plan from the developer and the KPMG report it solicited failed to include Site 5, home to a condo building.
--a 7/19/07 report on the ESDC by consultant A.T. Kearney, which “confirms Plaintiffs’ general allegations and fears concerning ESDC. The report recommends that ESDC should ‘reject its legacy of regional patronage, a pattern of funding one-off solutions, and a perceived preference for practicing the economics of political convenience.’”

AY vs. Kelo

The brief compares the sequence preceding the use of eminent domain compared to the Supreme Court’s decisions, upholding eminent domain, in Berman v. Parker (1954) and Kelo. The brief notes:
--the identity of the private developer who would benefit from the transfer of plaintiff’s property was unknown
--the legislature considered and adopted a comprehensive plan for economic development or the elimination of blight
--the beneficiaries of the takings did not conceive of the project and drive it to completion
--the legislature “did not cut a back-room deal to convey a massive swath of government-owned property to a private developer and then try to cover up the favoritism by concocting a sham public bidding process.”

With AY, the brief argues, “the difference is stark”:
--Forest City Ratner determined the map of the project
--government defendants agreed to cooperate
--an MTA official told reporters in 2004 Ratner had the rail yards without any bidding
--the “sham RFP process” in 2005 covered up the fait accompli
--the government decided the blighted area was exactly what Ratner needed.

Appropriate sequence

The brief argues that there is an appropriate sequence:
--the project emerges from a legislative body
--the body, or one delegated by it, targets an area for redevelopment
--the beneficiaries of eminent domain "are identified through an open public process."

By contrast, courts have disapproved of cases driven by private parties, effectuated by “non-legislative governmental entit[ies],” and with outlines that match the property identified by the private party.

The brief sums it up:
The Complaint cogently explains the facts that support the conclusion that blight – and Defendants’ other proffered justifications – are a pretext. Surely Defendants cannot avoid the kind of meaningful review endorsed by the majority in Kelo, by merely mouthing the words “blight” (or “jobs” or “housing”) in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary.

The brief points to a recent California case in which a trial court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and instead said a trial would be necessary to evaluate whether the “public purpose”--providing affordable housing–was a pretext, and the actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit.

The decision by a trial court wouldn't be binding in this case, nor even would be an appellate court decision covering California. But it certainly suggests that the law, post-Kelo, is in flux.

Comments

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 …

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 Matzav.com 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…

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

Click on graphic to enlarge. This is post-dated to stay at the top of the blog. It will be updated as announced configurations change and buildings launch. The August 2014 tentative configurations proposed by developer Greenland Forest City Partners will change, and the project is already well behind that tentative timetable.


Not quite the pattern: Greenland selling development sites, not completed condos

Real Estate Weekly, reporting on trends in Chinese investment in New York City, on 11/18/15 quoted Jim Costello, a senior vice president at research firm Real Capital Analytics:
“They’re typically building high-end condos, build it and sell it. Capital return is in a few years. That’s something that is ingrained in the companies that have been coming here because that’s how they’ve grown in the last 35 years. It’s always been a development game for them. So they’re just repeating their business model here,” he said. When I read that last November, I didn't think it necessarily applied to Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, now 70% owned (outside of the Barclays Center and B2 modular apartment tower), by the Greenland Group, owned significantly by the Shanghai government.
A majority of the buildings will be rentals, some 100% market, some 100% affordable, and several--the last several built--are supposed to be 50% market/50% subsidized. (See tentative timetable below.)

Selling development …

Atlanta's Atlantic Yards moves ahead

First mentioned in April, the Atlantic Yards project in Atlanta is moving ahead--and has the potential to nudge Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn further down in Google searches.

According to a 5/30/17 press release, Hines and Invesco Real Estate Announce T3 West Midtown and Atlantic Yards:
Hines, the international real estate firm, and Invesco Real Estate, a global real estate investment manager, today announced a joint venture on behalf of one of Invesco Real Estate’s institutional clients to develop two progressive office projects in Atlanta totalling 700,000 square feet. T3 West Midtown will be a 200,000-square-foot heavy timber office development and Atlantic Yards will consist of 500,000 square feet of progressive office space in two buildings. Both projects are located on sites within Atlantic Station in the flourishing Midtown submarket.
Hines will work with Hartshorne Plunkard Architecture (HPA) as the design architect for both T3 West Midtown and Atlantic Yards. DLR Group will be t…