Sections

Yards foes to sing to Supremes

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

The Atlantic Yards project is heading to the Supreme Court — if the Court will have it, that is.

Eleven Brooklynites who still own land in the footprint of the mega-project asked the High Court on Monday to examine the state’s use of eminent domain to make way for Bruce Ratner’s development — and at least one expert gave the case a good chance of being heard by the Court, which turns down 99 percent of the 8,000 petitions it receives every year.

“The petition is very well written, so there’s a chance,” said attorney Michael Rikon, who once represented plaintiffs fighting eminent domain at Ratner’s Metrotech project.

Two months ago, Rikon said the odds were “extremely slim” that the case, Goldstein v. Pataki, would be accepted. But he said on Wednesday, “I’ve changed my opinion” because the plaintiffs, who include Freddy’s Bar and Daniel Goldstein of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, may have found an inconsistency in the Court’s landmark 2005 Kelo decision.

Traditionally, courts have allowed governments to seize privately owned land for public projects like highways. And Kelo expanded the definition of “public benefit” to include the positive impacts of economic development on a “blighted” community.

But the court also said that the state can’t seize land “under the mere pretext of a public purpose when [the] actual purpose [is] to bestow a private benefit.”

That same 5–4 decision also held that courts must defer to a given state legislature’s determination of what is and is not in the public benefit.

But the Goldstein v. Pataki plaintiffs, who have lost two prior rounds in this battle, want the Supremes to allow lower courts to determine if government is using its eminent domain power properly — namely that it is truly for public benefit, not for the gain of a developer.

The issue is central to Atlantic Yards, because opponents argue that the so-called public benefit of the now-truncated 16-skyscraper arena, residential, office space and hotel project was merely a sham designed to get Ratner through the approval process.

“The arena for Ratner’s professional basketball team is no more a public benefit than the planned hotel,” reads the petition. “Both … will be available to the public — for a price.”

The petition also argues that if the project were indeed intended for the public’s benefit, the state would have had a long planning process, and then held a bidding process to choose the best developer — a process that did not happen at Atlantic Yards.

Warner Johnston, a spokesman for the Empire State Development Corporation, which spearheaded the project, was unimpressed by the plaintiffs’ appeal to the High Court.

“Courts have uniformly dismissed each and every challenge to the Atlantic Yards development, and we expect this petition to be similarly rejected,” said Johnston.

The numbers are on his side.

The Supreme Court receives about 8,000 petitions a year, yet takes about 80. Plaintiffs’ attorney Matt Brinckerhoff put the odds at 5–1 that the Roberts Court would choose to re-examine its still-fresh Kelo decision.

But if the Supreme Court declines the case, Brinckerhoff vows to refile his appeal in state court.

“When that’s over, then we’re done,” he said. “We’re talking about at least a year or year and a half before all that gets resolved.”

The time element is key.

Ratner’s agreement with the state calls for the ESDC to hand over $200 million in public funds to finance the arena — but the deal will be voided if litigation and condemnation procedures are not complete by December 2009.

Time has not been on Ratner’s side.

The developer admitted last month that he had shelved 11 of the project’s 16 buildings, including the iconic Miss Brooklyn , due to the economic downturn, he said.

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

al pankin from boro hall says:
the plaintiffs are wasting their time and money, I guess you could always find a lawyer to take a case if you pay. metrotech, while not perfect was a big improvement for the area after years of neglect, no body misses the myrtle ave "L".
April 4, 2008, 9:47 am

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

This week’s featured advertisers