Atlantic Yards Project-Brooklyn, NY
Project # - Atlantic Yards
Condemning Authority - City of New York
This information was taken from the PlanNYC/Planning Information Portal. For additional information, please visit their website at: http://www.plannyc.org/project-5-Atlantic-Yards-Plan
Recent News is listed below.
Forest City Ratner Companies has proposed a large-scale, mixed-use real estate development that would consist of a 19,000-seat basketball arena; 4,500 units of housing; over 2.4 million square feet of office and retail space; and six acres of open space and parking for 3,000 cars. Since the initial proposal, several changes by the developer have been discussed. The developer has been negotiating a community benefits agreement (CBA) with a group of stakeholders, covering especially affordable housing and local hiring. The project footprint may change slightly, to reduce the need for property takings through eminent domain. On March 3, 2005 the City and the State signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the developer.
For supporters, the project would bring jobs, housing, a world-class sports and entertainment complex and economic development to the affected neighborhoods and the borough. For opponents, it is an ill-conceived, out-of-scale proposal that would squander taxpayer dollars, displace existing residents and businesses, bring few benefits to the area, and swamp adjoining neighborhoods with traffic. On October 26, 2006, opponents of the plan filed a suit in federal court against Forest City Ratner CEO Bruce Ratner and several representatives of New York City and New York state, challenging the state’s use of eminent domain in acquiring land for the project. On December 20th, 2006 the Public Authorities Control Board approved the project, the last offical approval needed to begin construction.
Current News:
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Atlantic Yards
By PETER KIEFER,
June 24, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a request to take up a case by property owners and tenants facing eviction by Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards development project in Brooklyn.
The decision is the latest in a string of legal victories for the developer, Bruce Ratner, who has faced legal challenges by tenants, property owners, and preservationists.
The petition asked the court to consider the appropriate constitutional limits on the government’s use of eminent domain.
The 11-property owner and tenants who served as plaintiffs issued a release yesterday morning pledging to take the case to state court.
“We are, of course, disappointed that the Court declined our request to hear this important case. This is not, however, a ruling on the merits of our claims. Our claims remain sound,” the group said.
Mr. Ratner is seeking to build 16 skyscrapers, a new 18,000-seat Nets basketball arena, and thousands of apartments.
In a statement issued yesterday, Mr. Ratner noted that in February the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in the developer’s favor. The appeals court affirmed an earlier decision by the New York Southern District Court, which ruled that the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards project does not violate the public good.
“We believe, and the courts have repeatedly agreed, that Atlantic Yards provides significant public benefits, including thousands of affordable homes and much-needed jobs for Brooklyn,” Mr. Ratner said. “We are gratified that the Supreme Court has decided to put an end to this lawsuit. The opponents have now lost 20 court decisions relating to Atlantic Yards, and we are now one step closer to making these benefits a reality for the borough and the city.”
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/us-supreme-court-turns-down-atlantic-yards-appeal/80499/
-END-
New York Times
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and ANDY NEWMAN
Published: July 1, 2007
Ever since it was proposed, the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn has simultaneously been the borough’s biggest, most controversial and least understood real estate development.
Critics have long suggested that the project is a taxpayer-subsidized bonanza for the developer, the project’s promised jobs and subsidized housing a kind of Trojan horse for the thousands of high-end apartments that come with them. But the developer, Forest City Ratner, and state officials overseeing the project have resisted divulging much information about the project’s financial structure, confining those criticisms to the realm of speculation.
That debate may be revived because of a lawsuit that has wrung free hundreds of pages of internal documents from the Empire State Development Corporation, the state agency overseeing the project. An analysis of the documents suggests that the Atlantic Yards behemoth - 8 million square feet of apartments, offices, stores and an arena planned for 22 acres near Downtown Brooklyn - may in fact be a delicate beast.
“The documents confirm that the overall project is risky,” said James F. Brennan, a Brooklyn assemblyman who, with State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, also of Brooklyn, sued the development corporation to obtain the documents. “This information should have been disclosed to the public before the project was approved.”
Follow the link to read the rest of the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/nyregion/01yardsxx.html?pagewanted=1
June 28th, 2007
Rally Against Eminent Domain Abuse, Four City Concil Members, and the “Willets Point Effect”
As the fight against eminent domain abuse heats up, maybe it’s time to start talking about “the Willets Point effect.” The coalition fighting the Atlantic Yards project has gathered savvy from a high-profile battle lasting more than three years. Those challenging Columbia University’s West Harlem expansion have a clear David vs. Goliath fight. And the two homeowners on Duffield Street in Downtown Brooklyn have strong suggestions of a link to the Underground Railroad in the face of denial by the city agency that wants their land.
(Photos by Jonathan Barkey; here’s the full portfolio.)
But the 225 businesses operating in the “Iron Triangle” of Willets Point, Queens, employing some 1800 workers, have the manpower and muscle to mount a very public fight against the city’s plans for an upscale development that would include some 5500 housing units, a hotel and convention center, a million square feet of retail and 500,000 square feet of office space.
So, as the four disparate groups gathered yesterday on the steps of City Hall to join in a rally as New Yorkers Against Eminent Domain Abuse, the Willets Point contingent was the largest and the loudest, wearing hats and t-shirts indicating their protest, arriving by bus with signs in tow.
And given that a good number were white guys who do physical labor, the group in some ways echoed the contingent of construction workers who flooded Atlantic Yards public hearings last summer to argue for, rather than against, condemnation.
More than 100
The rally, hosted by Lumi Rolley of NoLandGrab (who has honored me here and here) and promoted by Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), drew more than 100 protesters, including City Council Members Letitia James and Charles Barron of Brooklyn, Tony Avella and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, plus the chief of staff of Council Member John Liu, also from Queens.
The gathering occurred just a few days after the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s controversial 5-4 Kelo v. New London decision, which reaffirmed the right of governmental entities to take private land for economic development, again saying that tax revenues do constitute an example of “public purpose”-as opposed to “public use” as eminent domain was originally defined.
The decision generated a backlash around the country across the political spectrum, beyond the right-wing and libertarian groups that have long opposed eminent domain. (Several people yesterday carried signs produced by the Institute for Justice, a longtime opponent of eminent domain.)
Many states-though not New York–have passed laws to narrow the use of eminent domain. Still, most states have not tightened the definition of “blight,” which was not affected by Kelo, and has been used to pursue condemnations, including in the Atlantic Yards case.
“The legal definition of blight is so absurd,” Rolley said, leading off the rally. Her web site is mainly a portal cataloging and critiquing Atlantic Yards-related news and information, though it does extend to other issues related to eminent domain.
Council Members speak
“We cannot engage in the subjective definition of blight,” James (right) declared, after leading the crowd in a chant of “Hell no, we won’t go.” “It must be based on deteriorating buildings, not just blight created by the developer. Forest City Ratner should not be rewarded.”
James said eminent domain was “stealing property for individuals in high places,” adding that “the Mayor cannot talk about [PlaNYC] 2030 and support eminent domain.” She said she hoped the Atlantic Yards case challenging eminent domain-currently pending appeal in federal appellate court-goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
“It’s probably the only time I agree with Clarence Thomas,” said the generally liberal Council Member, contrasting herself with the right-wing justice. Both are African-American.
The firebrand Barron, after criticizing eminent domain, also made reference to the special deal for Atlantic Yards inserted into the state legislature’s reform of the 421-a tax break. “If you get the information an hour before… you need to vote no,” he said.
Avella, a candidate for mayor in 2009, hearkened back to the traditional notion of eminent domain, which took homes for highways and other clear public use. “Now we’re taking private property so we can turn it over to private developers,” he said. “That is so un-American.”
(At right, Avella, with James and Barron behind him.)
Actually, it is legal-the question is whether states will narrow the powers.
Willets Point
Dan Scully of the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association (WPIRA) said that business owners had been ignored. “For 30 years, we’ve been telling the city we need sewers and we need streets. For 30 years, they’ve ignored us,” said Scully, who’s in the top photo.
WPIRA aims for “owner development” of the area. “We’re not blighted. “We’re neglected by the city,” said Scully, a vice-president at Tully Construction. (Here’s Tom Angotti’s May article, A Sustainability Test at Willets Point, from Gotham Gazette.)
Joe Ardizzone, a crusty 74-year-old who’s the only legal resident of Willets Point, declared, “It’s so un-American. It’s too much to even explain.”
(Now there’s a Coalition for Willets Point arguing for community benefits if eminent domain proceeds.)
Other voices
Nellie Hester Bailey of the Harlem Tenants Council, talking about the fight against Columbia, said, “We have to look at the elected officials who are not here today,” pointing to Mayor Bloomberg.
Ron Shiffman, founding director of the Pratt Center for Community Development and a longtime consultant to community planning groups, said, “if we want New York City to grow, the only way to do it is with a diversity of jobs, not just FIRE [Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate] but also manufacturing.”
Eminent domain, he said, must be used “only for public purpose, not to make the rich richer.” Shiffman’s on the DDDB Advisory Board.
Council Member Monserrate showed up in the middle of the event, and declared, “We should never use eminent domain to enrich others.”
(At right, Monserrate, with Rolley next to him and Bailey and Henry Weinstein, a major property owner in the Atlantic Yards footprint, behind him.)
Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council, called eminent domain “the thermonuclear warhead of city planning.”
Who’s responsible?
Joy Chatel, a Duffield Street homeowner, asked, “Governor Spitzer, where are you?” He hasn’t spoken out against eminent domain abuse.
Closing the rally, DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein (right) declared, “When they say it’s a public use just because they say it’s a public use, it doesn’t mean it’s a public use.” He offered the same mantra substituting the word “blight” for “public use.”
“The mayor says often, ‘you can’t let one guy’ stand in the way of development,” Goldstein continued. “We’re not ‘one guy.’”
He pointed out that eminent domain does seem to be an official policy, citing the June 2001 Group of 35 report, organized by Sen. Chuck Schumer, that identified condemnation as a tactic to assemble sites for office space.
(Note that Mayor Bloomberg made fighting federal curbs on eminent domain a priority last year; meanwhile, his law department stresses a principled approach, as with development of Melrose Commons.)
What to do
There were only a handful of reporters at the rally, plus various observers, including some from the New York City Economic Development Corporation, keeping tabs on the opposition.
At the end, with most people drenched in sweat, there was only one question: what should the legislature do?
Goldstein pointed out that bills to reform eminent domain had languished in the legislature. “When it comes to blight, we need a strong definition,” he said, suggesting that government neglect, cracked sidewalks, and underused properties-all cited or hinted at in the state’s Atlantic Yards Blight Study-should be struck in favor of “genuinely unsafe and unhealthy neighborhoods.”
“I have a joke,” he continued. “What’s the definition of blight? Yours.”
# posted by Norman Oder @ 7:10 AM
Contact: timesreport (at) hotmail.com // Info: http://tinyurl.com/al22x
http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2007/06/rally-against-eminent-domain-abuse-four.html
June 7th, 2007
Judge Rejects Main Argument of Effort to Stop Atlantic Yards Project in Brooklyn
A federal judge yesterday dismissed the most significant lawsuit against the Atlantic Yards project near Downtown Brooklyn, dealing a major setback to opponents of the $4 billion project.
The decision by the judge, Nicholas G. Garaufis of United States District Court in Brooklyn, centered on the looming condemnation of about a dozen businesses and homes to make way for the 22-acre project, which state officials approved late last year. It was among the most significant eminent domain cases to unfold since the United States Supreme Court’s much-disputed Kelo v. City of New London decision in 2005, which held that public officials may transfer condemned property to another private interest if doing so would create a superior benefit to the public.
The plaintiffs argued that any public benefit of the project was incidental, and the true purpose was to enrich the developer, Forest City Ratner Companies, and its investors.
The plaintiffs include residents and business owners who have refused to sell their properties to Forest City. They say the project originated with Forest City rather than with city and state officials, and that Forest City planners had selected the properties that needed to be condemned
But Judge Garaufis rejected their reasoning. “Plaintiffs have not set forth facts supporting a plausible claim of an unconstitutional taking,” he wrote. “Nowhere in the amended complaint or their briefs do plaintiffs sufficiently allege any purpose to confer a private benefit.” He also said any claim that the condemnations would not benefit the public were “baseless.”
Forest City has already begun preparing the property. The plans for the complex include a basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets, more than 6,000 apartments and office space. Supporters of the project say that it will generate thousands of new jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax revenue and badly needed units of subsidized housing. The project is being overseen by the Empire State Development Corporation, which would exercise eminent domain.
In a statement, Bruce Ratner, the chief executive of Forest City, said that the decision was “an important victory not only for Atlantic Yards but for Brooklyn as well.”
Forest City Ratner Companies is also the development partner for the new Midtown headquarters for The New York Times.
The plaintiffs said they would appeal the decision. “We will continue to pursue every single legal option available to the plaintiffs, wherever they lead us, to stop what we believe is a private taking in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” said Candace Carponter, a lawyer and member of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, a coalition of groups and individuals opposed to the project.
A federal magistrate judge had earlier recommended that the eminent domain lawsuit be dismissed from federal court on procedural grounds and moved to state court. But Judge Garaufis said the case was appropriate for federal court.
The lawsuit is not the only one associated with Atlantic Yards.
A suit filed in January by a group of tenants living in rent-stabilized apartments on the site claimed that the state’s offers to relocate them were inadequate. A separate suit by the same tenants charged that the state had failed to go through the required steps to cancel their leases. A judge ruled last month that the case had been filed in the wrong court, but a lawyer for the tenants said it would be refiled.
Still another lawsuit, filed in April, challenged the environmental impact statement that the state used in evaluating the project, on the grounds that it did not fully address the traffic and security problems the project would create.
But the case dismissed yesterday was the most significant, both for the hope opponents had invested in its potential to stop the Atlantic Yards project - the arena, for example, could not have been built at all if the case had succeeded - and for the weighty constitutional issues it raised.
Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Judge Garaufis had erred both in his assessment of the lawsuit’s merits and in the test he chose to apply in dismissing the case. At this stage of the lawsuit, before discovery and a trial, he said, the judge should have considered whether the case could succeed if all the plaintiffs’ claims were true, rather than decide whether he thought the claims were plausible.
“Not only is what we believe plausible, but all of the evidence that is undisputed points to our conclusion being correct,” Mr. Brinckerhoff said. “And that is why we are appealing, and that is why we will win.”
Andy Newman contributed reporting.
Atlantic Yards to Get Additional Safety Monitor
Monday, May 07, 2007 | New York Daily News | Topic: General
The Empire State Development Corporation announced that a representative will be chosen to monitor demolitions within the Atlantic Yards project in order to address safety concerns after the partial collapse of a building in late April. Two other groups will have the ability to monthly review other issues, including transportation, which arise as construction goes forward. The agency hopes that together these additional measures will ensure no similar accidents and ease residents’ concerns.
Hearing Today on Atlantic Yards Law Suit
Thursday, May 03, 2007 | The Real Deal | Topic: General
The Manhattan State Supreme Court will hold a hearing today in part of a lawsuit which is attempting to throw out the Atlantic Yards Environmental Impact Statement as inadequate. The lawsuit was filed by Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn and 25 other petitioners approximately one month ago. The lawsuit is one of several againt the project which are still pending.
Pending DOB Review, Atlantic Yards Demolition on Halt
Friday, April 27, 2007 | Crain’s New York Business | Topic: Politics & Government
Both the state’s Empire State Development Corp. (ESDC) and Atlantic Yards developer, Forest City Ratner, have agreed to temporarily cease demolition following the collapse of a parapet at the Ward Bakery on Thursday. No work on the site will continue until the city’s Department of Buildings (DOB) conducts a formal investigation of what caused the collapse. While project opponents used the instance to highlight the project’s harm to the community, the developer used the occasion to emphasize that Governor Spitzer’s Administration is supportive of the project. A Spitzer spokesperson reiterated that the governor was interested in ensuring that all project stakeholders are satisfied during the plan’s implementation.
Demolition Collapse at Atlantic Yards Pressures Governor to Act
Friday, April 27, 2007 | Brooklyn Papers | Topic: Politics & Government
A coalition of public officials, including members of the City Council both supportive and opposed to the Atlantic Yards project, are asking Governor Spitzer to put a formal halt to the demolition process in the wake of an unforeseen partial collapse of one of the buildings in the footprint. In response to the demolition accident, the city’s Department of Buildings issued a violation against developer Forest City Ratner. The state’s Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) issued a public statement claiming that Ratner had agreed to halt the asbestos removal work on the site that caused the partial collapse. Opponents of the $4.2 billion plan continue to argue that the current demolition is premature given pending legal suits.
Re-Zoning to Preserve Low-Scale Brownstones in Brooklyn
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 | Brooklyn Eagle | Topic: Land Use
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle is reporting that the Department of City Planning is ready to begin a formal public review process of a rezoning plan for a large area of the Fort Green and Clinton Hill neighborhoods of Brooklyn. The rezoning would establish height limits in the range of three to five stories that would “protect the character of the low-rise, brownstone neighborhoods.” According to Amanda Burden, the head of City Planning, the rezoning will not restrict the development of affordable housing on account of the “city’s groundbreaking inclusionary housing program.” The rezone bounds Park Avenue (northern boundary), Atlantic Avenue (southern), Classon Avenue (eastern), and Ashland Place (western). Many maintain that the up-scale nature of the Atlantic Yards plans inspired the rezoning. Forest City Ratner, developer of the Atlantic Yards project, has foregone traditional city zoning procedure for his project.