Ratner Must Pay Up: And So Will NYC for Willets Point United

As Develop Don’t Destroy is reporting:

“A judge today ruled that the Empire State Development Corporation ("ESDC") is liable for legal fees incurred by community groups that sued successfully to compel a supplemental environmental impact study (SEIS) for the second phase of Forest City's controversial Atlantic Yards project.  She referred the parties to a referee to determine the amount of the award, which under an agreement with ESDC, Forest City Ratner will then have to pay.”

Good for them! Just another example of how Big Real Estate cheats their asses off and expects the politicians and the courts to turn the other way:

"Justice Friedman's ruling today is another reminder of the sordid 10-year history of the Atlantic Yards project, which to this day has largely failed to deliver on the promises that were used to sell it to the people of New York," said Candace Carponter, Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn's legal director.  "We're gratified by today's decision, but the fact remains that, as Justice Friedman suggests, had the ESDC and Forest City Ratner not knowingly misrepresented the facts to the court, the entire Atlantic Yards project, including the heavily subsidized Barclays Center, would never have gotten off the drawing board."

Too often, these kinds of vindications come posthumously-and what should be seen as criminal or civil liability ends up being simply throwing coins at beggars. Willets Point United is facing the same situation-with the criminal activity being exposed and little or no consequences for the perps. But when the city pulled its eminent domain proceeding-fearing the exposure of massive corruption-they opened the tax payers to being on the hook for all of the WPU legal fees. As the Daily News reported:

“A group of Willets Point property owners want the city to pay their hefty legal fees after pulling plans last week to take over their land through eminent domain proceedings. The city halted its controversial approach because it was instead nearing a deal with a developer to overhaul the industrial cluster of auto body shops and scrap yards next to Citi Field.”

Show us the money-the city must be made responsible for putting the property owners through a living hell. All for nothing, as the News points out:

"Michael Rikon, an attorney representing about two-dozen WilletsPoint business owners, said he will file a petition for the city to repay his clients’ legal fees. Willets Point United members have shelled out more than $300,000 in legal fees since 2008, he said. That number is on top of the money group members paid to attorney Michael Gerrard, who represented them in their fight against new exit ramps on the VanWyck Expressway. Rikon said his clients are entitled to the money under section 702 of New York State eminent domain law."

The $300,000 is really chump change when seen in the context of a $400 million boondoggle-and still escalating fraud-but it is symbolic of the disregard of the plutocrats for the fate of the peons. The City Council has now been given the opportunity to give this bait and switch the bum’s rush, but given the total lack of character of the leadership-and their obeisance to Big Real Estate (not to mention the complete lack of competency of the local council member)-this is as unlikely as the sun setting in the East. It will be up to the new mayor to take a look at all of the unethical and criminal behavior involved in this mayoral grift-and decide if there really will be a new day for New Yorkers.

Will Bill de Blasio Really Fight NYC’s Permanent Government?

For those of you who got carried away with all of the hope and change rhetoric in 2008-only to be gob smacked by the continuation of the anti-terror policies of George Bush-please be on your toes for the expected mayoral reign of Bill de Blasio, another elected official who we believe understands Machiavelli’s dictum that it’s better to appear good than to be good. All of de Blasio’s populist campaigning may only be part of a bait and switch that, at least when it comes to real estate, will simply be a continuation of the three terms of Mike Bloomberg. As Crain’s reports:

“It wasn't just the Afro that put Bill de Blasio over the top. The impressive hair of his son, Dante, featured in the Democratic primary's most memorable campaign commercial, was certainly a factor. But campaign cash from deep-pocketed industries that have nurtured Mr. de Blasio's rise in politics over the years ultimately helped the public advocate emerge as the favorite to become mayor.

But it isn’t only the cash that should make us leery. Daniel Goldstein is someone who should know:

“Critics say that despite his anti-Bloomberg campaign theme, Mr. de Blasio represents continuity with the mayor's pro-development agenda. "He was the same as Bloomberg, at least while he was in the City Council," said Daniel Goldstein, a community activist who battled Atlantic Yards for a decade.

On that project, Mr. de Blasio helped hammer out a community-benefits agreement with Forest City Ratner calling for union construction jobs and 2,000 units of affordable housing, none of which has been built. Forest City Executive Vice President Robert Sanna later gathered more than $13,000 in donations 

That is why we have seen the fate of Willets Point as a harbinger of understanding who is the real de Blasio:

“True, the public advocate has spoken harshly about real estate during the campaign. In July, he said, "Last time I checked, it wasn't the real estate industry's town and we were just living in it." And at his victory party after the Sept. 10 primary, Mr. de Blasio decried "luxury condos" replacing "community hospitals." He has pledged to require developers to include affordable housing in their projects.

But he has raised almost $300,000 from the industry—about 9% of his total—and his history reflects a more conciliatory approach to it. He bucked local opposition in Brooklyn to support the Atlantic Yards project, a Toll Brothers luxury-apartment plan along the Gowanus Canal and high-end condos in Brooklyn Bridge Park.”

What has been wrong with Mike Bloomberg’s development policies has been the promotion of tax subsidized crony capitalism-is there anyone who sees the good policy sense in the tax subsidized move of Fresh Direct from Queens to the Bronx? As we pointed this July:

For Mike Bloomberg it never gets old to reward his friends and billionaire cronies-and the award of huge subsidies to FreshDirect is just the latest example:

“The city has delivered a sweet deal to FreshDirect. The Industrial Development Agency voted Tuesday in favor of the online grocer's controversial plans to relocate from Long Island City to the Bronx — thanks to $127 million in public subsidies.  

The company has promised to use the money to build its new facility in the South Bronx, convert its truck fleet to green energy, and to hire local workers. A spokesman for FreshDirect told residents the move to Port Morris would create 1,000 new jobs over 10 years, a third of which were promised to go to borough residents.”  

FreshDirect is run by a young man named Jason Ackerman, whose uncle, hedge fund guy Peter Ackerman, is a partner in some of the mayor’s political action ventures. Peter, a former associate of Mike Milken, is naturally a financier like the mayor and the subsidies for his nephew’s company is emblematic of what passes for economic development under the billionaire mayor.” [Crains]

The same pattern is being repeated at Willets Point-with $200 million worth of property simply gifted to Related/Sterling Equities, in spite of the testimony given by Deputy Mayor Lieber to the contrary in 2008. So a kind of gauntlet is being laid down for de Blasio. The fate of the Iron Triangle’s corrupt new deal-absent the important affordable housing that the Public Advocate voted for in the council-hangs in the balance.

If de Blasio speaks out and lets the council know that he opposes this obscene corporate welfare deal, then we will be alerted to the possibility of real change from the last 12 years. On the contrary, if he remains silent, de Blasio will be loudly proclaiming the wisdom of the old French philosophy:

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Land Use Policy: Whither Bill de Blasio?

We have been trying to ascertain just where Bill de Blasio actually stands on land use policy questions, and the WSJ does a good job at laying out some of the issues:

“Bill de Blasio has risen to the top of the polls assailing the Bloomberg administration, but if elected he could pursue even more aggressive policies than his predecessor on a crucial issue: creating densely packed new residential towers through land-use decisions.

Mr. de Blasio, the city's public advocate, would push for mandatory affordable housing and fewer tax breaks for developers. But he wouldn't differ from Mr. Bloomberg on a fundamental premise that building significant amounts of new housing is a top way to spur economic growth and control housing costs.”

How to read these tea leaves? Well, at first blush, the affordable housing and fewer tax breaks aspects of his policy makes some sense to us-but de Blasio must be aware of the pitfalls of this given the manner in which the Atlantic Yards promises have gone unmet, and the fact that he based his support of AY on the housing pledge.

That brings us, of course, to Willets Point, where the developers and EDC have baited and switched on the crucial pledge to build affordable housing-with an original 2,00 unit promise now reduced to 825 units, assuming that it ever gets built at all (A reasonable assumption in this dodgy deal.)

De Blasio has also said the following:

“Mr. de Blasio said Friday he would differ from Mr. Bloomberg in taking "a more rigorous approach that focuses on community benefits like creating infrastructure like affordable housing, like local jobs, hiring for local residents. And I think we just need to do a lot better job at driving a hard bargain with the real-estate industry."

EDC really drove a hard bargain with Related/Sterling over at the Iron Triangle. Didn’t they? Must have been tough negotiating with these hard bargain drivers if all you got out of the transfer of $200 million worth of property is a zero cash payment, a mall, and affordable housing to be built later-much later, and with an out clause that says for a paltry $35 million the developers can buy their way out of any housing.

Given the incredibly flim-flam nature of the Willets Point deal-a deal that bears no resemblance to the one that de Blasio signed off on in 2008-isn’t it the right time for the putative next mayor to weigh-in on this travesty? It offers de Blasio a great opportunity to differentiate his policies from those of Mike Bloomberg.

But the WSJ reports that de Blasio’s position on land use means that he is “pro-development.” This is an interesting take, and omits almost every possible nuance-since how development is done lies at the heart of the concept:

“Mr. de Blasio's pro-development policies have helped allay fears in the real-estate industry that perhaps the most liberal Democrat in the race would, as mayor, be a fearsome opponent on big developments.”

There is, however, one area that is a major cause for concern-and that is e Blasio’s view that the ULURP process needs to be truncated:

“In a July economic policy speech, Mr. de Blasio said promoting significant new development while demanding high-paying jobs and affordable housing would create a more equal city, even if it alienates community groups—often pejoratively dubbed NIMBYs.

"We can't afford a process rife with delays, subject to knee-jerk NIMBYism and tangled in bureaucracy," Mr. de Blasio said.

Mr. de Blasio has said he would shorten the timeline for debate on developments before they enter the formal approval process and promote more neighborhood-wide rezonings, as opposed to forcing developers to seek approval for large new projects individually.

Mr. de Blasio, along with others, also supports so-called mandatory inclusionary zoning, requiring affordable units when areas are rezoned.”

This would be a serious mistake since it is precisely the period before a pproject is certified that is crucial to the information gathering and dissemination about a development. What de Blasio is suggesting, is the further  centralization of land use policy and the weakening of any potential opposition-since opponents rely on the period before certification to gain more knowledge about a project and organize against it if deemed inimical to a community’s interest.

If he means this, then de Blasio appears ready to adopt the mantle of corporate liberalism-and a repetition of cronyism seems like a likely scenario under his ULURP formulation. More power would accrue to the mayor and the community-derided as NIMBYists-would be skunked . To a great extent, then, the WSJ is right to see this as “pro-development,” but it is a development of the worst kind and offers little difference with the disastrous nature of the Bloomberg approach.

Process is important, and the efforts by Comptroller Liu to advocate reform of the ULURP process are much more democratic and would prevent the abuse of mayoral power that the de Blasio approach portends-and this includes any concept of communitybenefits as well.

What we are left with, then, is a great deal of trepidation when it comes to the prospects of a Mayor de Blasio. We could have these fears greatly allayed if he would stand up and be fore square opposed to the Willets West deal. That would indicate that he would be a different kind of mayor, one that would be more attuned to the legitimate concerns of neighborhoods and small businesses.

Willets Point: Wither Bill de Blasio?

Mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio has positioned himself as the progressive alternative to Christine Quinn and the other aspirants for Gracie Mansion. But what exactly does this really mean? We know that de Blasio has little problem railing against such liberal shibboleths like Citizens United and, of course, stop and frisk-the issue that has catapulted de Blasio to front runner status one week prior to the pivotal primary. All very well and good, but in NYC the ultimate special interest is real estate-and de Blasio’s stand on the proclivity of the political class to hand the keys to city hall over to Related, Vornado and Forest City Ratner is, well, quite murky.

Dana Rubinstein has underscored some of this in Capital New York:

“In fact, de Blasio’s record as a councilman demonstrated a willingness to work with developers to spur economic development and tackle the city's affordable housing crisis, using an approach to land use that at times bore a strong resemblance to Bloomberg's own. For instance, de Blasio, like Bloomberg, was a staunch backer of the Atlantic Yards project, on the basis of the developer's promise to provide union construction jobs and more than 2,000 units of below-market housing.”

Gee, how did that work out Bill?

“Residents took issue with the project’s reliance on eminent domain, the developer’s evasion of the city’s onerous public review process, the development’s sheer scope (8.6 million square feet), and its implications for traffic, parking, schools, sewage. Some even worried about the shadows it would cast. After several members of Park Slope's Community Board 6 voted against the project, Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and de Blasio “purged” them.

“I support the project because I believe that we're at a crisis in New York City when it comes to affordable housing. ... And I think we're in a crisis when it comes to economic development and providing real jobs for the community,” said de Blasio at a hearing in 2006. “But I also want to stress as much as I believe this project will help move us forward in terms of economic development and especially affordable housing.”

I guess we will have to wait until 2035:

“In the meantime, the developer has yet to create nearly as many jobs as anticipated, has yet to appoint an independent compliance monitor as required by the agreement, and has also pushed back the completion of all 16 skyscrapers to 2035 and softened its affordable housing commitments.

“I think he was too quick to believe that there would be affordable housing that would be generated in that deal,” said Ronald Shiffman, a Pratt Institute planning professor, of de Blasio. (He is not, overall, a de Blasio critic — he told me he thought de Blasio would make an excellent mayor.)

Does all of this sound familiar? It should if you’ve been following the Willets Point debacle. Remember, we got the same promise for affordable housing in 2008 (and the same 2,000 unit promise) that Ratner had made to tamp down criticism of Atlantic Yards. In the end, the bait and switch worked for Forest City, and the arena was built with housing as the proverbial player to be named later.

So now we have the Willets Point development wending its way towards approval at the city council with Christine Quinn, the ultimate fixer and real estate darling, poised to take care of her friends in Queens and the good old boys at Related. This gives progressive Bill the opportunity to really distinguish himself from the Quinnberg administration.

What de Blasio needs to do is to let the world know that he will not rubber stamp a toxic deal that has been built on illegal lobbying and has failed to deliver on the promises that were the linchpin of the development’s approval in 2008. He needs to send a strong signal to his allies on the city council that they need to buck the speaker and let his administration-if elected, of course, handle the reconfiguration of a deal that is currently the epitome of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

WPU, the NYC Parks Advocates, the affordable housing coalition, and the immigrant businesses awaiting eviction, stand ready to stand with de Blasio if and when he want to stand up for integrity in government, small business and against corrupt insider politics. We all await your call Bill.

DDDB Wins Atlantic Yards Lawsuit

Court Rejects NY State's Misrepresentations About Completion Of Atlantic Yards, Sending Project Back To Empire State Development Corp For Reconsideration

New York, New York— State Supreme Court Justice Marcy S. Friedman issued a ruling today in favor of Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) and associated neighborhood groups, slamming the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) for "what appears to be yet another failure of transparency" in its approval of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project.

Justice Friedman granted the motion by DDDB and the other petitioners for reargument of her March 10, 2010. She held that the December 2009 Master Development Agreement should have been provided to the Court and having now reviewed that agreement, Justice Friedman found that the ESDC did not properly consider the full 25-year schedule. Justice Friedman has sent the case back to ESDC for reconsideration, requiring the ESDC to provide a "detailed, reasoned basis for [its] findings."

"We are thrilled with the Court's decision," said, Candace Carponter, Esq, chair of DDDB's Legal Committee. "It has laid bare the pattern of lies and deception by ESDC and Forest City Ratner that underlie this project. We have always contended that the project will take decades to complete, if ever and the supposed public benefits of affordable housing and open space would never happen. Instead we are faced with decades of developer created blight in an area that may never be redeveloped due to ESDC's and FCRC's malfeasance."

DDDB argued that ESDC had violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when it considered a 10-year time frame for completion of the project, despite contract documents which demonstrated a 25-year schedule. ESDC had argued that it would require Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC) to use "commercially reasonable efforts" to complete the project by 2019. DDDB argued that the only contractual agreements between ESDC and FCRC had penalties and some guarantees for some of Phase I of the project, but there were essentially no guarantees for Phase II and it might never be built. Since most of the purported public benefits (affordable housing, open space, new school space) were included in Phase II, it affected the SEQRA determination.

In today's decision, Justice Friedman chastised ESDC for not being forthright to the Court and not providing her with a copy of the Master Development Agreement and for arguing at the January 2010 hearing that there were meaningful obligations in the development agreement, when they knew that was not case. Given the fact that ESDC misrepresented the facts to the Court and that the ESDC Board did not ever consider the 25-year schedule when it issued its SEQRA decision in September 2009, the Court has sent the matter back to ESDC to reconsider its decision.

Ms. Carponter continued, "Justice Friedman's decision puts the entire project in doubt. ESDC approved the project as an integrated development with a variety of alleged benefits. ESDC cannot proceed with just an arena or only with Phase I without considering the lasting effects of the resulting blight caused by FCRC. Such a truncated project is not what was contemplated or approved by New York State. We call upon ESDC to suspend all construction on this project which is so wasteful of public resources and consider a feasible and comprehensive development that is consistent with the surrounding area."

DDDB co-founder Daniel Goldstein said, "With today's ruling it is more evident than ever that the new Governor has a job to do with the Atlantic Yards debacle. The blight Ratner has created in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn can be fixed if Governor Cuomo is willing to take the much needed fresh look at Atlantic Yards that today's Court ruling demands."

"The Court properly found that ESDC misrepresented the facts of the contracts and there were no requirements that FCRC complete the project" said DDDB lead counsel Jeffrey S. Baker of the Albany, New York law firm of Young, Sommer, Ward, Ritzenberg, Baker & Moore, LLC. "ESDC's lack of transparency was not just with respect to its own deliberations, but extended to trying to hide material facts from the Court. We are very pleased that Justice Friedman did not tolerate that behavior."

The Court's ruling can be found at:
www.scribd.com/doc/41732228/Atlantic-Yards-Reargument-Final-Friedman-decision

Politics as usual

Reporting on the mixed record of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the NY Times writes the following:

...an investigation into whether the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and some public officials violated lobbying laws in their redevelopment efforts is still unresolved after two years. (Mr. Bloomberg last month endorsed Mr. Cuomo’s campaign for governor.)

They are referring to our request for an investigation into Claire Shulman's illegal lobbying efforts as well as a request submitted by Atlantic Yards reporter Norman Oder.

Bloomberg endorsed Cuomo for governor.

Neighborhood Retail Alliance has more.

Photo from the Daily News

We agree!

From a letter to the editor of the Queens Tribune, written by Lenny Rodin of Forest Hills:

...the worst decision the Supreme Court has made in the past few years was Kelo v. New London where the court ruled 5-4 that states and localities could use the power of eminent domain to take over private property for the benefit of private developers. You can see the result of that in Willets Point and Brooklyn, where the city is trying to take over property for private uses. It is ironic that the four justices who voted in the minority against this power grab were the four most conservative judges who liberals love to hate.

Atlantic Yards opponents basically being held hostage in their own homes!

From Atlantic Yards Report:

Things are getting truly strange for Daniel Goldstein, spokesman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, who with his wife and child is the only resident left on Pacific Street between Fifth and Sixth avenues.

Goldstein lost his condo to condemnation last week and his street and two others were closed and made private.

Now that his street is closed to traffic--permanently at Fifth Avenue, and via guarded barriers at Sixth Avenue, anyone visiting Goldstein must provide advance notice, which means friends have been stopped by guards and kept him on the phone today with representatives of both Forest City Ratner and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), which owns his property.

Goldstein on March 4 received a letter (below) from Charles Webb, ESDC Condemnation Counsel, informing him that "ESDC requires you to relocate by April 3, 2010 (thirty days after the date of this letter) so that development plans for the Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project... may proceed."

Goldstein's attorney Michael Rikon responded forcefully, on behalf of Goldstein and other footprint property owners, calling Webb's letter "an attempt to intimidate our clients":

First, you have absolutely no right to inform anyone that they must vacate by April 3, 2010. You must understand that condemnees have the protection of New York's Eminent Domain Procedure Law. You cannot even suggest a vacate date until you comply with the requirements of the law.

Those requirements include a notice of acquisition and a good faith advance payment. Then the date to vacate would be set by the condemnation court.

He added that "no roadway or access to a street or highway may be interfered with."

Why using blight for eminent domain just isn't right

From the NY Post:

New York's real blights today are government's fault -- like the old Deutsche Bank building at Ground Zero, owned by the city and state since 9/11, whose "deconstruction" is still underway.

Eminent-domain abuse is a symptom of a deeper problem: The belief that central planning is superior to free-market competition. To cure yourself of this notion, stroll around Atlantic Yards, past three-story clapboard homes nestled near corniced row houses -- "blighted" residences. You'll peer up at [Daniel] Goldstein's nearly empty apartment house, scheduled to be destroyed.

And you'll see how Ratner's wrecking balls have made the neighborhood gap-toothed. A vacant lot now sprawls where the historic Ward Bakery was.

Today, Prospect Heights displays what the state wants everyone to see: decay. But it's isn't the work of callous markets that left the neighborhood to perish. It's the work of a developer wielding state power to press property owners to sell their land "voluntarily." Meanwhile, true private investment has been choked off, since everyone knows the state's aiming to hand everything to Ratner.

Free markets aren't perfect, but they're better than the blight of arbitrary government.

Julia Vitullo-Martin's cognitive dissonance

From the Neighborhood Retail Alliance:

...as we have been pointing out, the EDC proposed development would create new environmental hazards-like 80,000 new vehicle trips a day in and out of the new development. [Julia] Vitullo Martin, a shill for development who castigated the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory deal, scoffs at the suggestion: "When asked about Lipsky's concern that developing the area would create 80,000 new vehicle trips in Flushing every weekday, therefore clogging traffic and increasing the city's carbon footprint, Martin chuckles. "I don't believe that's worthy of a response," she says.

Interestingly, Julia is opposed to the Atlantic Yards development plan in part because of the unmitigated traffic impacts that would result. Yet laughs at the notion that Willets Point, a project 3 times larger than Atlantic Yards, would have any impact.

But that's our Julia...

Perkins bill would eliminate ED based on government-caused blight

From Atlantic Yards Report:

As previewed (Gotham Gazette, New York Times), State Senator Bill Perkins has introduced a sweeping bill (S. 6971) to redefine eminent domain by redefining blight--currently subsumed under the amorphous terms "substandard and insanitary."

Thus environmental consultants like AKRF inevitably find blight when so requested by agencies like the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC).

The bill, which likely will gain both supporters and critics, is clearly a response to the efforts to use eminent domain in the cases of Atlantic Yards, Columbia University, and Willets Point.

It requires that vacant or deteriorating buildings be condemned only after a grace period to abate code violations, pay back taxes, and repair the structures.

And, in cases where multiple parcels are part of a blighted area, the condemnor must demonstrate in writing that 75% of the parcels in the area are individually blighted.

The eminent domain fight on which the bill might have most impact is the city's redevelopment plan for Willets Point, where some business owners are fighting fiercely as Willets Point United, pointing out that the city long neglected the industrial area.

The bill would bar the use of eminent domain where utility services and infrastructure were not provided. (emphasis added)

Given this clear challenge to the Bloomberg administration--and New York City has long resisted any change in blight laws--the Perkins bill likely will face some serious pushback in the legislature.

And it's about time...

From the Gotham Gazette:

When Henry Weinstein bought a commercial building at752 Pacific St. in Brooklyn 1985 he never expected that 20 years later the government would want to take it away and give to a developer. Weinstein said that he would be shocked if his land was being taken for a hospital, a bridge or a library. But seeing it seized to make way for Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project shakes his faith in the government. "This is the most un-American thing I have ever experienced," he said.

As New York City has reshaped itself over the past decade, the government has given private developers, such as Forest City Ratner, a powerful tool -- an eminent domain law that allows them to seize land from other property owners. Now some politicians believe the law needs change to protect property owners, such as Weinstein.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has put together a package of legislation that would create a commission to review the state's eminent domain process, give land owners fair compensation for their property and establish an ombudsman who would help land owners whose property is targeted by eminent domain. Later this week Sen. Bill Perkins will unveil legislation that he says would change the state's eminent domain laws to better protect property owners. The situation in the legislature, along with a recent appellate court ruling that found the process the state used to take land for a Columbia University satellite campus in upper Manhattan was unconstitutional, could result in the first major changes to New York's eminent domain laws in more than 30 years.

The possibility that the state might finally redo its eminent domain laws -- laws that have remained the same as other states updated theirs -- has caught the interest of civil rights lawyers, property owners and advocates. But developers, real estate interests and some politicians fear changes could make it more difficult for the state to improve blighted neighborhoods in desperate need of investment, infrastructure and jobs.

According to attorney Michael Rikon, who represents property owners in the Willet's Point section of Queens, where the city is planning a major redevelopment, the term is so vague that the contractors used by the government basically make up formulas as they go along. "The definition of blight is so broad it could come down to cracks in the sidewalk. Even the mayor's townhouse could be blighted, because it only supports one family," he said.

Civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, who represents Tuck-It-Away, a storage company that is fighting Columbia University's expansion plans, agrees. "Basically they are saying if there is a Motel 8 and Hilton comes along and says they can make the property more valuable, then it [the Motel 8] can be declared blighted." Many advocates, Siegel said, have begun saying the land in these cases should not be labeled "blighted," but "coveted."

Siegel calls eminent domain one of the premier civil rights issues of this century. "I really think it is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. It disproportionately impacts poor neighborhoods and people of color. It cuts across partisan lines," he said.

George Will vs. eminent domain abuse

From syndicated columnist George Will in the Washington Post:

On Aug. 27, 1776, British forces routed George Washington's novice army in the Battle of Brooklyn, which was fought in fields and woods where today the battle of Prospect Heights is being fought. Americans' liberty is again under assault, but this time by overbearing American governments.

The fight involves an especially egregious example of today's eminent domain racket. The issue is a form of government theft that the Supreme Court encouraged with its worst decision of the past decade -- one that probably will be radically revised in this one.

The Constitution says that government may not take private property other than for a "public use." By "public," the Framers, who did not scatter adjectives carelessly, meant uses -- roads, bridges, parks, public buildings -- directly owned or primarily used by the general public. In 1954, however, in a case concerning a crime- and infectious-disease-ridden section of Washington, D.C., the court expanded the notion of "public use" to include removing "blight."

Since then, that term, untethered from serious social dangers, has become elastic in the service of avarice.

Eminent domain beheaded in Brooklyn

From Atlantic Yards Report:

Bar manager Donald O'Finn read from a scroll, declaring a revolt against eminent domain law and criticizing the role of ACORN, the British bank Barclays, which bought the arena naming rights that the state gave away, and Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, slated to become majority owner of the Nets.

"It's just like a foreclosure, except they're foreclosing on a neighborhood, and we're not even behind on the mortgage," O'Finn declared.

He passed it over to Death, who pronounced, "Poor eminent domain, born of a noble purposes of building hospitals and roads... is being used to take Americans from their homes, not just for a British bank but also for Russia... eminent domain, you are hereby condemned."

With a straight face, de Seve predicted, "Sometime soon in the next weeks and months, a battle of epic proportion will be fought. Around here, it's known as the bars vs. banks smackdown."

And when he sentenced the effigy to death, he pulled a Blue Point beer tap, the handmade guillotine fell, and the head indeed was severed. He then collected money for those facing eminent domain to put armor plate on their buildings or--more likely--use for other purposes in fighting back.

Use eminent domain to build public works, not help developers

Dear Editor [of the Times Ledger]:

An adverse court ruling in the Willets Point matter should not deter efforts at seeking to preserve the livelihood and families of the hundreds of workers who will be displaced by this outrageous give-away of private property for the benefit of private real estate interests (“Willets Point owners lose suit,” Flushing Times, Dec. 3).

If a student in any class from the sixth-grade through college was asked about eminent domain, I am sure there would be a uniform response that government has the right — indeed, the duty — to take private property for just compensation to accomplish a public purpose. Pressed to define “public purpose,” reference would be made to public works, like a government building, a roadway, public transportation facilities, bridges, etc.

When asked if it included taking private property to be turned over to a private, for-profit real estate developer, the answer would be no way. I am sure the general public would respond the same way.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Kelo v. City of New London case, ignoring the public’s decades-old understanding of eminent domain, ruled that a municipality — actually politicians more interested in fat cat real estate developers than the poor and middle class — could exercise eminent domain, take private property and turn it over to a private real estate developer on the dubious theory that it would increase the economic viability of the area and the little homeowner be damned.

Parenthetically, it should be noted that while the Kelo homeowners were forced to leave their homes, the projected development — notwithstanding the passage of many years — never came to pass and the land is now vacant.

Recently, the state Court of Appeals, in a 6-1 decision, supported the use of eminent domain in Bruce Ratner’s New Jersey Nets arena project in Brooklyn on the same dubious economic claim. A good deal of the project will be subsidized directly and indirectly by taxpayers. Many homeowners will be forced out of their homes, all for the benefit of a private real estate developer.

As a result of the Kelo case, 35 states enacted legislation upholding the public’s traditional understanding of eminent domain and prohibiting the taking of private property and turning it over to a private real estate developer. New York state was not one of those 35 states — not surprisingly, given the fact that the Brennan Center for Justice, a public interest center at the New York University School of Law, rated New York’s state Legislature the worst state Legislature in the nation.

I think the Willets Point people would be best served by a concerted grassroots effort at engaging all members of the state Legislature and exacting an agreement to enact legislation that will prohibit the kind of result that occurred in the Kelo and Ratner matters, under pain of which legislators will be opposed in any election in which they seek office.

Since the taking of private property is political and not economic, it should be opposed on a political basis. I have no doubt the public will embrace and support such action.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

Saturday's Community Meeting of Eminent Domain Actions

Senator Bill Perkins holds Community Meeting of Eminent Domain Actions. Willets Point United participated as did our attorney, Mike Rikon.

WPU earns the support of State Senator Bill Perkins

This morning, WPU members Jake Bono, Jerry Antonacci and Len Scarola and WPU's attorney Mike Rikon, attended a meeting with Senator Bill Perkins who is leading the charge against Eminent Domain abuse in New York State. He expressed his support for our group's cause. More importantly, he will eventually push for legislation that would overhaul eminent domain law in NY State. He is the only elected official that has put his/her name to the possibility of such a reform.

WPU will be attending Senator Perkins' town hall meeting regarding the Columbia University development project THIS SATURDAY MORNING from 9:30 am - 11:30am (see the attached flier for more details). He stated that this type of local meeting is the beginning phase of his plan that will influence a climate of change with respect to eminent domain law and is CRITICAL to the eventual passing of any legislation in support of property rights. He plans on holding a meeting for each major current eminent domain case; Columbia U, Atlantic Yards & possibly Willets Point. He even expressed interest in holding a meeting on Didden vs. The Town of Port Chester. The purpose is to expose all the corruption involved with these cases. (A Willets Point hearing would require several days.)

Saturday, December 19th
Community Meeting on Eminent Domain
Manhattan Pentecostal Church
547 West 125th St
New York, NY 10027
9:30 AM - 11:30 AM

WPU joins Atlantic Yards protest

Willets Point United members Irene Presti, Jake Bono and Jerry Antonacci attended the "Junk Yard Bonds Protest" held by Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn today at noon in front of 55 Water Street in Manhattan, headquarters of Standard and Poor. Crown Container donated a garbage truck upon which hung a banner that stated "Deposit Atlantic Yards Bonds Here". At the end of the demonstration, junk yard bonds were tossed into the back of the truck and compacted. Unfortunately, Crown couldn't dispose of them because their transfer station permit does not cover toxic assets.

Demonstration to Protest, Expose and Trash Ratner's JUNK YARD BONDS for Atlantic Yards Arena

Save the Date: Monday, December 14. Noon.

Demonstration to Protest, Expose and Trash Ratner's JUNK YARD BONDS for Atlantic Yards Arena

NEW YORK, NY — At noon on Monday, December 14th there will be a demonstration protesting the Junk Yard Bonds New York State is about to sell for Forest City Ratner's junk arena, at great risk for New York State.

We will be selling Junk Yards Bonds. The demonstration will conclude with a ritual dumping of the Junk Yard Bonds into a Garbage Truck—the best place for these bonds—from Willets Point, Queens (where they are also fighting eminent domain abuse).

Questions will be raised.

It will be videogenic and photogenic.

WHAT:
Demonstration to Protest and Watchdog Ratner's Arena Junk Yard Bonds and the credit rating agencies that gave these bonds, barely, an "investment grade" rating.
Call for Attorney General Cuomo and Comptroller DiNapoli to investigate the bond structure, rating and issuance.

We will be selling Junk Yards Bonds.

WHEN:
MONDAY, DECEMBER 14
12 NOON
Dumping the JUNK BONDS into the GARBAGE TRUCK about 12:45
(Garbage Truck from Crown Container, fighting the taking of Willets Point by eminent domain)

WHERE:
Standard & Poor's Offices
55 Water Street
Manhattan
(2/3 to Wall St., R/W to Whitehall/South Ferry, 4/5 to Bowling Green)

WHO:
Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn
Good Jobs New York
Citizen Watchdogs

More eminent domain stories

Perkins asks Paterson for moratorium on eminent domain, not to appeal Columbia case [Atlantic Yards Report]

Sen Perkins: Gov, Stop Eminent Domain for Atlantic Yards [Develop Don't Destroy]

First Person: Standing Up to Eminent Theft [The Indypendent]

Atlantic Yards Takes the Court [The Indypendent]

Daniel Goldstein: Home, Blighted Home [Huffington Post]