Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report

The 20 plaintiffs who sued Forest City Ratner, Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) signatory BUILD (Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development) regarding promises of construction jobs and union cards, got a significant—if incomplete—victory from U.S. District Judge John Gleeson, who refused to dismiss key aspects of the case. Gleeson, in a ruling (bottom) issued yesterday, did agree to remove from the case Forest City Ratner Chairman Bruce Ratner, who had only an indirect connection to the pre-apprenticeship training program (PATP), but would not, as a matter of law, remove executive Jane Marshall and the company. Thus, if a jury finds for the plaintiffs, Forest City, the deepest-pocketed defendant, could be liable for millions of dollars in projected wages that the plaintiffs didn’t get—though that also depends on a highly-contested calculation of the earning potential of each plaintiff. Notably, Gleeson would not agree to delink BUILD CEO James Caldwell, who admitted makin...

Lawyers representing former trainees in a coveted but ill-fated pre-apprenticeship training program (PATP) authorized by the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) yesterday faced a judge somewhat skeptical of attempts to tie developer Forest City Ratner to the nonprofit Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development (BUILD), which operated the program. The plaintiffs are trying to recover significant damages for promises of construction union cards and careers--whose CEO, James Caldwell, readily admitted he made promises--as well as unpaid training in the program and at a work site on Staten Island. (There are 20 plaintiffs listed in legal papers, from a program that enrolled 36, but discussion in court referenced a total of 19. Background on case  here .) To recover any significant damages in this civil lawsuit, the plaintiffs must tie BUILD, now defunct, to its deep-pocketed patron as "joint employers," while lawyers representing Forest City seek to narr...

Nov. 2006 outline, via Empire State Development Corp. The decision to declare the Atlantic Yards site blighted, a necessary precondition to the use of eminent domain, has long been suspect for several reasons: developer Forest City Ratner drew the map of the 22-acre project site, with the oddly missing gap in the south-central block the Blight Study conducted by the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) concerned only the footprint of the project the consultant conducting the Blight Study was hired to conduct a "Blight Study in support of the proposed project" the consultant, AKRF, had always  found blight as directed the consultant, though initially charged to do so, did not compare market conditions on the project site with conditions nearby (Prospect Heights was already a hot neighborhood, and even pro-Atlantic Yards legislator Roger Green said the area was not blighted) the criteria for blight, such a properties built out to less than 60% of allow...

It was, actually, a little surreal. Yesterday in Kings County Supreme Court emerged the most complete—and, to the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), completely off-base—assault on the Atlantic Yards project ever heard in any courtroom, but it occurred before a handful of spectators and a single, not-so-engaged judge, well after most people, officials, and editors had relegated Atlantic Yards to the status of old news. The case involves only three plaintiffs (two of whom are corporate entities owned by longtime footprint property owner Henry Weinstein), none of whom were present in the courtroom. However, in challenging the ESDC to issue a new Determination & Findings because the justifications for eminent domain had changed markedly since 2006, it was essentially a challenge to the project itself. Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges faced dueling motions to both dismiss the case and expand the record. With charges that the project timetable is “a complete fantasy...

The Atlantic Yards Development Agreement "was intentionally withheld in bad faith." "We now know [the ten-year project timetable] is complete, utter fantasy," declared petitioners' attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff . Finally, in court yesterday, some serious charges were lodged about the essence of the Atlantic Yards project, part of the case challenging the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) eminent domain Determination & Findings (D&F), based on the premise that the project had changed so much that the ESDC had to reassess its goals and value. And previous court cases, limited to the record of Atlantic Yards as of 2006, were unable to examine the true nature of the project. Whether Brinckerhoff's arguments get anywhere is another question. The start of the case certainly wasn't auspicious. After all, the two Atlantic Yards cases were set for 9:30 am, but state Supreme Court Justice Abraham Gerges didn’t arrive until 10:10. Then...

Yesterday, I asked : will the Atlantic Yards Development Agreement--which gives far longer deadlines than officially proclaimed when the project was approved--get its day in court? Well, it didn't happen today and it's looking less likely (though not impossible). In a hearing that lasted little more than 20 minutes, Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman limited argument in the case, known as Peter Williams Enterprises, et al., vs. New York State Urban Development Corporation (aka Empire State Development Corporation, or ESDC), to questions of venue--whether the case even belonged in her court. Her announcement at the start perked up ESDC attorney Philip Karmel and left the 15 or so project opponents in the audience somewhat frustrated. (Also in the audience, a few attorneys for Forest City Ratner, the meter ticking.) Should she agree that it does, rather than move the case to a condemnation judge in Brooklyn who has ruled without question in the ESDC's favor, she...