Atlantic Yards Fight Far From Over
——————————————————————-

The following is our press release in response to the Court of Appeals ruling today on the eminent domain case (and more new round up here):

For Immediate Release: November 24, 2009

Constrained Court Rules Against Property Owners and Tenants in Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case

Despite Ruling, Fight Against Ratner’s Brooklyn Project Is Far From Over

BROOKLYN, NY ? New York’s high court ruled today against property owners and tenants who had challenged the state’s use of eminent domain to seize their homes and businesses for the enrichment of developer Bruce Ratner and his Atlantic Yards project in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn.

In the 6-1 decision (with dissent from Judge Robert Smith) the Court of Appeals ruled that the state agency’s determination to take the plaintiffs property had a rational basis under state law.

“The fight against the Atlantic Yards project is far from over. The community has four outstanding lawsuits against the project and, meanwhile, the arena bond financing clock ticks louder and louder for Ratner. While this is a terrible day for taxpaying homeowners and tenants in New York, this is not the end of our fight to keep the government from stealing our homes and businesses,? said Develop Don’t Destroy spokesman and lead plaintiff Daniel Goldstein. “Governor Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg now need to decide if they want their legacy to be the next New London?a dust bowl in the heart of Brooklyn caused by the abuse of eminent domain, because that will be the outcome if they allow the property seizures and final clearance for Ratner’s unfeasible project.”

“We are disappointed, but undeterred. We lost this round, but the legal fight is not over. My clients will continue to resist Ratner’s efforts to steal their homes and businesses in the New York courts,” said lead attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff of Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady. “Because the Court of Appeals made it clear that it considered itself ‘bound’ by the self-serving record created by the Empire State Development Corporation prior to its December 2006 public use finding, and thus refused to consider the events leading up to the ESDC’s adoption of a modified general project plan two months ago, we now intend to commence a new lawsuit seeking to compel the ESDC to issue new or amended public use findings. It would be perverse and unfair if my clients homes and businesses were confiscated based on circumstances that no longer exist. At the same time, we will also vigorously defend the cases that the State will now file seeking to seize my clients’ properties, which is the second barrier that Ratner and the ESDC must now attempt to overcome.”

“While we are deeply disappointed in the Court’s decision, our fight against the government’s abuses on Ratner’s behalf continues, and we expect to defeat Atlantic Yards through political and legal means”, said Develop Don’t Destroy legal director Candace Carponter. “It now falls to Governor Paterson to guarantee, through a binding legal contract, which the State would be required to enforce, that all the developer’s promises about the project?including all of the ?affordable’ housing and the ten year construction timeline?are fulfilled. If the Governor is unable to do that, he is duty-bound to abandon this ill-fated project, and start over so the rail yards can be developed properly and realistically.”

In 2005, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s widely despised Kelo decision that expanded the reach of eminent domain, then-Senator David Paterson called for a state-wide blanket moratorium on the use of eminent domain.

“Governor Paterson needs to ask himself what happened to Senator Paterson’s position on eminent domain. And then he needs to act on his principles,” Carponter concluded.

—————————————-

Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries Statement on Eminent Domain Ruling
“I am extremely disappointed with the decision of the Court. The power of eminent domain is extraordinary and should only be authorized in limited circumstances where, unlike in this case, there is a clear and robust public benefit. The use of eminent domain to benefit a private developer to build a basketball arena for a team owned by a foreign billionaire is an abuse of this extraordinary power, and I hope that Governor Paterson will choose not to exercise it.”