Atlantic Yards Development - Commercial, Residential, Retail, NBA Arena

[BrooklynRider]

"This action represents important public policy concerns and is essentially local in nature," he wrote. "Because the state's interest in adjudicating this case in its own forum outweighs the federal interest in retaining jurisdiction, I respectfully recommend that this court abstain ... and dismiss plaintiff's complaint."

Putting aside the issue of AY pro's and con's, this is kind of disturbing. The court is basically saying it is tossing it out because the state wants it tossed out. Do individuals have no rights any longer? I'd swallow the whole kit & kaboodle of AY if it went through the full judicial process. However, this is really an injustice. Isn't it the Federal court's responsibility to review and rule on potential infringements on rights BY states against citizens?

It makes the whole project that much uglier. I envision lots of harassment of this project as it goes forward. I can see this becoming a Black Bloc center of protest and action. Diregard for the legal process breeds disregard for law and anarchy. I can see windows being smashed and sites fires already. Very foolish ruling.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Isn't it the Federal court's responsibility to review and rule on potential infringements on rights BY states against citizens?

The article left out one detail.

Here is another, with the passage highlighted:

Magistrate deals legal blow to critics of Atlantic Yards project
The Associated Press

February 23, 2007, 10:04 PM EST

A federal magistrate recommended tossing out a lawsuit meant to block New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner's $4 billion Atlantic Yards project -- dealing a blow Friday to a group of Brooklyn property owners and tenants facing eviction.

While a U.S. district judge still has final say on whether the suit survives, magistrates' recommendations seldom rejected.

The size of the project -- a megadevelopment of 16 skyscrapers and an 18,000-seat arena -- has dismayed thousands of Brooklyn residents who worry that it would overwhelm existing neighborhoods and give too many concessions to Ratner.

The project will feature office suites, a hotel, 6,400 apartments and a 500-foot glass tower. Under a deal signed by Ratner's development company, at least 2,250 of the new rental apartments will be offered at reduced prices to families living on low or middle incomes; at least 600 condominium units also will be available at reduced prices to families that meet income guidelines.

The suit, filed in federal court last year, charges that seizure of the plaintiff's property under eminent domain would be unconstitutional.

U.S. Magistrate Robert M. Levy concluded in court papers filed Friday that the case "represents important public policy concerns." But he also found that the federal court should abstain from entering the fray because it is a local matter.

Levy noted the matter could still be addressed in state court, where residents attempting to block the project have already brought other ongoing lawsuits.

Despite the recommendation, plaintiff lawyer Matt Brinckerhoff predicted U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis would allow the suit to go forward because it "involves an issue of paramount constitutional importance" -- making it more suitable for federal rather than state court.

But if the magistrate's recommendation is upheld, plaintiffs will refile the suit in state court, said Candace Carponter, a spokeswoman for Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, one of the plaintiffs.

A spokesman for Ratner's firm, Loren Riegelhaupt of Forest City Ratner, declined comment.

A spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, John Gallagher, applauded the decision.

"Atlantic Yards will create tens of thousands of jobs, provide hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue and thousands of units of affordable housing for the city, and we welcome this recommendation by the magistrate and are looking forward to the project moving ahead," he said.

Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.

This is a lawsuit filed in federal court, not an appeal on a state court ruling. There are pending lawsuits in NY State Court.

I think the magistrate had in mind the Supreme Court ruling in 2005 of Kelo vs City of New London. In ruling that municipal governments had the right to seize private property for private development, Justice Stevens stated, "States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened.

[BrooklynRider]

I was under the impression that the suit was lost in the state courts already. I retract my former post (but will keep it here to cut and paste should it all end up back where I thought it was).

[elfgam]

I think this is just a matter of legal procedure:

the federal government is supposed to "oversee" the states... not issues of local jurisdiction. This means that if a case is running concurrently in both NY and FED courts, the Feds have to let the NY case finish, not rule at the same time (as this would automatically render the state court ruling moot). Once the state case is concluded then one or the other side can appeal to the federal court. In this case, the issue won't be the subject of the case itself, but whether or not the state gave either side full due process of the law -- a much narrower issue.

[ZippyTheChimp]

the federal government is supposed to "oversee" the states... not issues of local jurisdiction. This means that if a case is running concurrently in both NY and FED courts, the Feds have to let the NY case finish, not rule at the same time (as this would automatically render the state court ruling moot).

Not necessarily.

See Timothy McVeigh.

He was first tried on 11 counts in federal court, 8 of which were 1st degree murder of 8 federal law enforcement officers. He was convicted and sentenced to death.

Oklahoma had jurisdiction over the other 160 people killed, but the state chose not to file charges, since the death penalty had rendered the matter moot.

[BrooklynRider]

In this case, the issue won't be the subject of the case itself, but whether or not the state gave either side full due process of the law -- a much narrower issue.

I'm not a legal expert, but I think I disagree with this assertion. The Feds can certainly rule about due process, but they can also rule about constitutionality of outcomes on cases where due process was not an issue. I think we'll see due process, but I do think this is going to be appealed. Eminent Domain is on the Federal legislative agenda and the court's earlier ruling last year set parameters through which the court could or would rule on such cases. This might not be a case that saves people's homes, but it will be a case that can impact legislation or spur the Fed Courts to further clarify law if it is filed and argued effectively.

[NYguy]

NY Post

RATNER READIES WRECKING BALL

By RICH CALDER
March 2, 2007

Developer Bruce Ratner plans to demolish 12 buildings within a 22-acre footprint next week as he revs up efforts to begin building his $4 billion Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.

The developer - who last week began prep work for the Frank Gehry-designed development featuring an NBA arena and 16 skyscrapers - announced yesterday that he will also begin asbestos removal and abatement work on 12 other vacant buildings he controls in the project zone.

Those buildings will be demolished at a later date, he said.

The $2 million in new construction jobs were awarded to minority-owned firms as part of the project's Community Benefits Agreement.

The buildings scheduled to be razed next week include six on Pacific Street, three on Flatbush Avenue, two on Vanderbilt Avenue and one on Dean Street.

New financial projections for the development, published by The Post yesterday, raise more questions than answers about the massive plan, critics say.

A Post analysis of the documents found that Ratner and smaller investors stand to make close to $700 million in profits by 2015 should the developer ever decide to sell the arena and residential and office space slated to be built.

But sources familiar with Ratner's financing told The Post yesterday that he is taking a big risk - putting up $1.2 billion in equity - although he obviously believes that Atlantic Yards is a sound long-term investment.

[Teno]

The financial records released were deemed insufficient for a proper analysis. The documents say that Ratner will not really make as much money as AY opponents claim he will.

I'm sure they released slim details and low balled the projections on purpose. I'm sure the full numbers could be skewed in any direction. They could show Ratner would make a lot of money under certain circumstances, or they could show he won't make much under other circumstances. His goal certainly is to make as much money as he can. These are all projections and there really is no way at this point to know with 100% accuracy what will happen, as none of us have the ability to see into the future.

[lofter1]

One thing I'll bet on: The public expenditure for AY will be higher than is projected.

[ablarc]

^ Are they ever lower?

[kz1000ps]

Atlantic Yards Loses Lease to Part of Site

By ANDY NEWMAN
Published: March 8, 2007

As it moves forward on its plans for the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, the developer Forest City Ratner has represented itself as controlling nearly all the property in the 22-acre footprint of the site.

But in a decision released yesterday, a judge in Brooklyn terminated Forest City Ratner’s long-term lease on two properties covering nearly an acre of land within the site, after finding that a tenant had sold the lease to Forest City without the owner’s permission.

Control of the properties, a six-story office building and adjacent parking lot along Pacific Street near Downtown Brooklyn, reverts to the owner, Henry Weinstein, the judge ruled.

Mr. Weinstein is one of 13 property owners challenging the state’s right to condemn property under eminent domain law and convey it to Forest City for the $4 billion Atlantic Yards project that includes 6,400 rental apartments and condominiums, office towers, a hotel and a basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets.

Forest City has already begun work on the project on portions of the site it owns in anticipation of ultimately gaining control of the disputed properties.

Officials at Forest City Ratner declined to comment on the ruling.

Mr. Weinstein’s tenant, a company controlled by another major developer, Shaya Boymelgreen, had argued in court papers that Mr. Weinstein had no valid reason to deny him permission to sell his leases to two companies controlled by Forest City. Mr. Boymelgreen’s lawyer contended that Mr. Weinstein was only withholding his consent in order to be able to extract more money from Forest City or the state when he sold the properties.

But the judge, Justice Ira B. Harkavy of State Supreme Court, ruled that regardless of Mr. Weinstein’s motives, the contracts stated “clearly and unambiguously” that the leases could not be transferred without his permission.

A lawyer for Mr. Boymelgreen’s companies, James P. Sheridan, said he would appeal the decision.

Mr. Weinstein had leased the properties, at 762-766 Pacific Street and 535 Carlton Avenue, to Mr. Boymelgreen’s companies in 1999, for a term of 48 years.

In 2003, Forest City proposed the Atlantic Yards project. Forest City is also the development partner for The New York Times Company in building its new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan.

In February 2006, the parties agree, Mr. Boymelgreen’s companies sent a letter to Mr. Weinstein asking permission to sell the leases to Forest City, but sent it to a wrong address. Ten days later, without having heard back from Mr. Weinstein, Mr. Boymelgreen’s companies transferred the leases to Forest City.

Mr. Weinstein said that Forest City must have known that it did not have the right to take over the leases without his blessing. “If you’re buying a lease from somebody and you have thousand-dollar-an-hour, 800-pound gorilla lawyers retained to protect your interest,” he said, “I tend to think that they read the lease and realized that they knew that what they were doing was illegal.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Fahzee]

So - what's the over/under on how much this will set back the project?

[tmac9wr]

Where can I find a rendering of this project? I know there has to be one on this thread somewhere, but there's over 150 pages here.

[lofter1]

Google Image Search: http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

[tmac9wr]

The scale of this project is really amazing...it's like a whole new mini city being built. However, the more I look at Gehry's work the more I dislike it. It seems like everything that he builds is basically the same design on a different scale. I remember waiting a long looongg time to see the design of the Gehry-Ratner building being built in downtown, but had I seen this design before I would have been able to guess the design of the other building downtown. Regardless of the design though, this project is just huge, and it will be really cool to see the Nets move to Brooklyn.