NEW YORK, NY- Late yesterday, twenty-six co-plaintiff groups filed their appeal in New York State Appellate Court seeking to overturn Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden's January 11th ruling. Their appeal challenges the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and approval of Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards proposal. The appeal alleges that the FEIS submitted by former Governor Pataki's Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) was fatally flawed on substantive and procedural grounds. Annulment of the FEIS would require the undertaking of a new and credible environmental impact analysis by Governor Paterson's ESDC, and a new vote by the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) for the 22-acre real estate development project proposed in Prospect Heights and Park Slope, Brooklyn. Defendants on the suit include the ESDC, the PACB, the MTA and Forest City Ratner Companies (FCRC).

The plaintiffs believe that the case, DDDB et al. v ESDC et al., was wrongly decided, on a number of grounds, by the lower court. The appeal focuses on the plaintiffs' charge that the lower court erred in numerous respects, including the following:

• The State's determination that the project site is "blighted" was illegitimate, and manufactured by the developer to take valuable private property via eminent domain.
• The State had no authority to approve the Barclays Center Arena because it is not a "Civic Project" as defined under the Urban Development Corporation Act (UDCA) .
• The State violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by failing to consider the possibility of terrorism and other security breaches on the Project.
• The State violated SEQRA by grossly misrepresenting the project's construction timeline, thereby minimizing the project's impacts, and not requiring adequate mitigation.
• The State violated SEQRA when it failed to adequately study alternative locations for the proposed Project, including locating the arena in Coney Island.
• The PACB violated SEQRA by approving the project without considering its environmental impacts and failing to make its own SEQRA findings.

"The ESDC's rush to reach the pre-determined outcome of its Atlantic Yards review before the end of the Pataki administration led to a fatally flawed environmental review, and violations of its statutory procedures and responsibilities," said lead attorney Jeffrey Baker of Young, Sommer, Ward, Ritzenberg, Baker & Moore. "Our appeal seeks to overturn the Supreme Court ruling from January, and annul the environmental review and approval of 'Atlantic Yards' by Charles Gargano's Empire State Development Corporation, the Public Authorities Control Board, and the MTA, necessitating an urgently needed fresh look from Governor Paterson, his new ESDC and MTA, and the PACB, which has two new members on the three-member board since the approval of the project in December, 2006."

The legal appeal has broad support from the community with co-plaintiff groups representing all of the communities surrounding the project site, and well beyond, including: Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), the 41-member coalition Council of Brooklyn Neighborhoods (CBN), New York Public Interest Research Group/Straphangers Campaign (NYPIRG), Sierra Club, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats (CBID), Fort Greene Association, Society for Clinton Hill, Boerum Hill Association, Crown Heights North Association, Park Slope Neighbors, Fort Greene Park Conservancy, and Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus, as well as fourteen other community organizations and block associations.

All legal papers filed can be found here: www.dddb.net/FEIS/appeal
A summary of the original complaint can be found at: www.dddb.net/FEIS/summary.php

It's interesting that among mainstream New York newspapers, it's often the sports writers who have most pithily summed up the Atlantic Yards and Yankees deals for the corporate welfare exercises they are.  As noted below, city columnist Juan Gonzalez of the Daily News deftly skewered the Yankees job promises last week.  And then in the Sunday Daily News, sportswriter Michael O'Keeffe followed up  with this observation about the state of big-money sports in the City of New York:

But given how Bloomberg has consistently put the greed of the sports teams - especially the Yankees, Mets and Nets - over the needs of ordinary citizens, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

As Daily News columnist Juan Gonzalez pointed out last week, City Hall is backing a Yankee request for $366 million in additional tax-exempt financing to complete the new Yankee Stadium - a very expensive handout for a private business that employs a tiny number of New York residents.

Lawyers for Willets Point businesses, meanwhile, say the city has refused to provide even basic services to the neighborhood for years. So is it coincidence or conspiracy that the city has decided to use eminent domain to throw out the junkyards and body shops just as the Mets are putting the finishing touches on their nearby new stadium?

Bloomberg, meanwhile, has been a shameless cheerleader for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project, which has become an international synonym for a shameless corporate land grab.

Yesterday's  Assembly hearing regarding tax-exempt bond financing for the New York Yankees, as narrated by Norman Oder, featured one aspect familiar to those who have frequented Atlantic Yards hearings:

The hearing, at 250 Broadway in Lower Manhattan, was packed with construction workers who came on at least four buses more than 45 minutes before the 10 am start time, thus crowding out some others who didn’t expect a full house. The hearing room holds fewer than 150 people.

“I dislike public benefits for private parties when the public at large is being starved in so many ways.” And if that’s a description of sports facility finance, he added, “so be it.”

At the groundbreaking in August 2006, Bloomberg announced that the new stadium would "result in about 1,000 permanent jobs."

The actual job figures the Yankees submitted in their application to the IDA told a far different story.

They show the Yankees had only 104 full-time permanent employees in 2005. Included in that total were all team executives, ballplayers, office workers and maintenance personnel. Barely half were city residents.

The number of full-time permanent jobs, the Yankees projected, would increase to 140 by 2009, the year the new stadium will open. That's a gain of just 36 permanent jobs.

Oder: Why aren’t naming rights counted as subsidies or value? Forest City Ratner's deal with Barclays is worth a reported $400 million over 20 years.

(Imagine a mocking tone to the first sentence of his response.)

deMause: Because it’s industry standard, don’t you understand? That’s the only answer--the teams always said: we always get the money for this, so therefore it’s private money. There’s no reason for this to be private money. If the public is building the stadium, if the public is owning the stadium, why should the team get to slap a name and get the money from it, or consider the money from it that pays off the stadium as paying off their share.

Y’know, I rent; if I decide to put a giant billboard on the roof of my house here--if my landlord lets me do it, I really don’t think he could let me keep all the money from it. If I say, I’d like to move into your apartment, but in order to pay my rent, I have to put a big billboard outside, he’s going to look at me as if I had two heads.

Bruce Ratner, the Nets’ principal owner, has denied reports that he is interested in selling the team or moving it to Newark. Booker, though, says otherwise.

“I’m going to work very hard to make it happen,” Booker says. If the deal were to go through, the team would play at the Prudential Center, the newly built Devils’ home arena. Both teams played at the Izod Center, the former Continental Arena, in East Rutherford, N.J., before the Devils moved to the new facility in Newark last season.

“I don’t think there’s going to be a fight,” Mr. Booker said. “I think it’s going to be settled in an amicable way.”

Ratner's Atlantic Yards block party cancelled

..."We wanted to be sensitive to the community that the decision came down Monday," said Hunley-Adossa, who works with both the developer and the community.

Daniel Goldstein of community group Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, a plaintiff in several lawsuits against the project, said that flyers were first emailed out Monday afternoon, soon after the Supreme Court's decision.

"The flyer was emailed out at 4:30 p.m. on Monday," Goldstein said. "The decision came out after 10 a.m. I believe that it was scheduled because of that decision and I believe it was canceled because somebody realized it was a really bad, offensive idea."

Goldstein said the block is full of rent-stabilized tenants, including some families who have lived there for generations, and all of the homes are threatened by the project.

"We work to prevent displacement due to gentrification," Hunley-Adossa said. "We're getting 2,250 units of affordable housing [in the Atlantic Yards project]. For all of what has been done, the commitment is where it should be."...

Full article

Must have been a lack of interest and Forest City Ratner's realization that this was a bad idea.

The balance of power?
The Brooklyn Paper. Editorial

So much for checks and balances.

We are disappointed that the United States Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by 11 slated-to-be-evicted property owners in the Atlantic Yards footprint.

While we sympathize with some of the arguments made by the plaintiffs in the case, Goldstein v. Pataki, our irritation with the High Court stems more from our belief in a fundamental American principal: each branch of government must balance the power of the other branches.

At its core, the issue in this case is New York State’s insistence that Bruce Ratner’s basketball arena, office and housing mega-project will bring about a “public benefit.” The declaration of such a “public benefit” enables the state to use its eminent domain power to seize the 11 properties from their owners and give them to Ratner.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that when states condemn private property for a public benefit, they do not violate the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

But in its most-recent ruling on such takings — the 2005 Kelo decision — the High Court declared that the “public benefit” cannot merely be a pretext for handing over one person’s land to another person.

In a word, the benefit must be real.

But who determines if the public actually benefits from a development? In its brief to the High Court, state officials said that only the state itself has the power to make that determination.

The 11 plaintiffs in Goldstein v. Pataki allege that a corrupt and cronyism-riddled Empire State Development Corporation simply used the pretext of public benefit to hand over properties so Ratner could make millions. Two federal courts have declined to examine this claim, saying that judges have no role in hearing challenges to a state’s determination that a project is a “public benefit.”

So, if a state agency says that a project is a “public benefit,” it is, de facto, a public benefit.

But what if the so-called “public benefit” isn’t a benefit at all?

At the very least, plaintiffs should be able to take their case to a presumably impartial judge who would be empowered to determine whether the state cooked up a “public benefit” merely to justify a land grab for a wholly private benefit.

The Empire State Development Corporation argues that judges have no business meddling with the back room dealings of state officials and the developers with whom they conspire — and the Supreme Court, in not taking up Goldstein v. Pataki, let this argument stand.

“The role of the judiciary in determining whether [eminent domain] power is being exercised for a public purpose is an extremely narrow one,” state lawyers wrote.

In other words, there are no checks and balances when eminent domain is involved.

EYES ON BROOKLYN
JERSEY CLEARS ROOM FOR LEBRON IN 2010

...By my count, the Nets are the 23rd team to set their sights on the free agent Class of 2010.

Clearing cap room two years ahead of time on the belief James' outwardly magnetic bond with Nets' minority owner Jay-Z (it's not as if he rhymes as tight as Biggie Smalls) will influence him to forsake his home state of Ohio is like building an elaborate spec house just across the Brooklyn Bridge in today's saggy, baggy real estate market.

Yet here we have intrepid Nets' owner Bruce Ratner (from Cleveland), no less doing both!
...

Full article.

Congressman offers unskeptical endorsement of Zimbalist's dubious AY study

In Congress last year, Andrew Zimbalist's dubious study of Atlantic Yards for Forest City Ratner got a mindless endorsement from the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, even though an expert witness warned that accepting studies that were not peer-reviewed was akin to federal drug regulators embracing reports created by the drug companies themselves.

It was during the 3/29/07 hearing called "Build It and They Will Come: Do Tax Payer-Financed Sports Stadiums, Convention Centers and Hotels Deliver as Promised for America's Cities?"
...

Fluffing Zimbalist

Still, later in the hearing, some non-peer-reviewed research, albeit with an academic gloss, was promoted by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the ranking minority member. He declared (see p. 123):
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to put into the record an economist's study from the Robert A. Woods professor of economics at Smith College in Massachusetts. It is from May 1, 2004, and it specifically deals with Atlantic Yards, estimating that the total of $2.93 billion over 30 years or a net present value of $1.08 billion would be the advantage for that operation. Although it may not be the one that is going to carry the day, it certainly seems that independent bodies such as university economist very much believe that there can be a net economic benefit, and I ask that be placed in the record.

Except that Zimbalist was a consultant "retained" by the developer, not an "independent body," his study was deeply flawed, and it was never peer-reviewed (nor the subject of journalistic scrutiny).

Read Full Article

Q: There seems to be an explosion in the number of stadiums New Yorkers may soon see built, including for the Jets on the West Side, the Nets in Brooklyn, and now possibly the Yankees and the Mets. What will this mean for New York taxpayers?

A: The governor and I have made it clear for nine-plus years that no taxpayer money will go to build a sports arena.We will consider helping with infrastructure improvements, like a platform over the rail yards on the West Side or new subway stations, which helps the public at large. The Yankees are now taking that road, which I am very happy about because they are a great ball club that brings a lot of revenue to the city and their stadium is too old. They are offering $700 million to build a new stadium, with the state and city pitching in to improve roads and other infrastructure. Similarly, the Jets have agreed to build the Sports and Convention Center and we will build a platform and the retractable roof. This discussion of sports arenas is not out of the blue. The fact is, they have been talked about for a long time, but after September 11 these ideas were shelved. Now, almost three years after that terrible day, they are starting to think about this once again.

Q: Your agency is putting in a lot of money to develop Downtown [sic] Brooklyn. How important is the stadium in this area’s development?

A*: The Brooklyn development has 2.1 million square feet of commercial space, 300,000 square feet of retail space,and 4.4 million square feet of residential. It is a $2.1 billion project, and only $500 million is for the arena. Our support is primarily for the commercial, retail, and residential development — not the arena. We don’t care about the arena. We aren’t opposed to it, but our assistance is primarily to provide support for the other parts of the plan.
(Full color emphasis added)

“It [the slowing economy] may hold up the office building,” the developer, Bruce C. Ratner, said in a recent interview. “And the bond market may slow the pace of the residential buildings.”...

The developer did say he was confident about starting construction on a $950 million basketball arena for the Nets by the end of the year.

1. There will be 50% affordable housing in Atlantic Yards. (LIE, do the math: 6,430 units, 2,250 so-called "affordable")
2. There will be a public open space on the arena roof. (LIE)
3. There will be a private green roof on the arena. (LIE)
4. Ratner spokesman Loren Reigelhaupt: “When it comes to sharing information with the public and governmental bodies, there’s no such thing as too much, as far as we are concerned."
   (LIE)
5. Atlantic Yards will take 10 years to build. (LIE)
6. Atlantic Yards went through a rigourous public process. (LIE)
7. Atlantic Yards will create 15,000 construction jobs. (LIE)
8. Atlantic Yards will create 10,000 permanent jobs. (LIE)
9. "The $6 Billion Lie." (LIE)
10. Liar Fliers: Liar Flier 1, Liar Flier 2, Liar Flier 3
11. Arena will open in 2006.
    "Arena development to begin at the end of 2004, with completion set for summer of 2006." (LIE, see page 5)
12. Arena will open in 2007.
    Ratner flack Joe DePlasco claimed, "There’s no reason to think the team is not moving to Brooklyn for the 2007 season." (LIE)
13. Arena will open in 2008. (LIE, see page 14)
14. Arena will open in 2009. (LIE)
15. Arena will open in 2010. (LIE)
16. Ratner says bid to MTA for Vanderbilt Yards more valuable than Extell Development Company's bid. (LIE)
17. Bruce Ratner said that Atlantic Yards would “not touch the existing tax base.” (LIE)
18. Mr. Ratner said that the project ''will be almost exclusively privately financed..." (LIE)
19. Ratner told the Times in 2003 that only one block in the footprint had apartment buildings, with about 100 residents.(LIE, each non-rail yard block has apartments and residents--still!--with about 400 residents when he said this.)
20. Ratner's website said Frank Gehry was born in Brooklyn. He wasn't. (LIE)
21. Ratner said he'd build a "new 21st Century Brooklyn Tech High School." (LIE)
22. Ratner says he is "progressive." (LIE, he isn't.)
23. Ratner repeatedly says that they've won "20 court decisions." (LIE)
24. Ratner said "I have never, ever seen a project get less protest than this." (LIE)
25. Ratner attorney Jeffrey Braun admits $5.6 billion lie in court affidavit. (LIE)
26. Ratner attorney Jeffrey Braun: “This is not Times Square, the crossroads of the world,” Braun said, referencing a previously-cited eminent domain case. “This is completely derelict." (LIE)
27. Ratner spokesman shows misleading rendering to NY Times, exaggerting arena setbacks from street. Spokeman later gives precise setbacks. (Not quite a LIE but misleading enough to be close.)
28. (EXTRA CREDIT, an alleged lie.) From The Brooklyn Paper:
    Bruce Ratner is a money-grubbing liar who tricked a well-connected businessman into investing $6 million of his own money to help Ratner acquire the New Jersey Nets with promises that he “never had any intention of fulfilling,” a bombshell lawsuit charged last week."
    
    Eugene Greene contributed the hefty sum — and rounded up another $25 million from other investors — to help Ratner buy the Nets in 2004, but now claims that the Atlantic Yards developer reneged on his promises to make Greene “the glue that helps run this team.”
    
    Ratner made “repeated promises and representations of ever-increasing perquisites to Greene,” according to the businessman’s lawsuit, which was filed last week in Manhattan Supreme Court, and seeks $20 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.
    Ratner, said Greene, “never had any intention of fulfilling” the promises, which included making Greene a member of the Nets’ Board of Governors, where he could “interact with other high-worth investors … for further and ever-increasing business and financial gain.”
    
    When Greene confronted Ratner with the alleged breach of contract at the end of 2004, Ratner told him, “I don’t remember what I said. As you know, I have a memory problem,” the court papers said...

Brutally weird: a CBA block party on Pacific Street in the AY footprint

Permits for block parties in the city must be acquired 60 days ahead of time, so let's assume that the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement BLOCK PARTY! was scheduled well before the Supreme Court decision Monday not to accept the AY eminent domain appeal. Still, the event was not announced until late Monday afternoon.

That's curious. Stranger still, and brutally weird, is the location of the party: Pacific Street between Carlton and Vanderbilt avenues in the AY footprint, opposite the under-demolition Ward Bakery, where a stop-work order exists and where the handful of residents left are, as far as I know, plaintiffs in the eminent domain case or their relatives. As Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn comments, "Call us crazy but we thought block parties were thrown by PEOPLE LIVING ON THE BLOCK."

In other words, the "community" celebration is on a block scheduled for Phase 2 of the project, without start date or deadline, threatened by "condemnation blight." An email informs us that the organizer is Delia Hunley-Adossa, who also MC'd the strained "Brooklyn Day" rally.

Also, since when do the police shut down a block for a "block party" on a weekday when none of the residents on the block requested it?

Finally: "Historic Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement?" Yes, historic in the sense of how NOT to do a CBA.

Ratner's surrogates and partners want to have a block party? They should go to their partner's "commons" at 1 Metrotech and give those who live in and around the footprint some peace.