The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to settle a Connecticut land dispute
case that could have major implications for Forest City Ratner’s
proposed Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.
The ruling will ultimately decide whether governments may seize private
property for privately developed projects, a key question as New York
and other cash-strapped cities seek ways to generate tax revenue.
At issue is the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments
to take private property through eminent domain, provided the owner is
given “just compensation” and the land is for “public use.”
Developer Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards project calls for the taking
of more than half of its 24 acres of land from private owners. The other
half would come from Ratner’s purchase of air rights over the state-run
Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Long Island Rail Road yards.
Daniel Goldstein, a member of the anti-arena group Develop-Don’t
Destroy Brooklyn, was encouraged by the decision of the highest court
in the nation.
“We were overjoyed today to hear they’ve decided to hear the
case,” Goldstein said. “It is a milestone. We believe that the
use of eminent domain is unconstitutional and we’re happy to see
the Supreme Court is ready to listen to that argument after 50 years of
eminent domain abuse.”
Goldstein’s group, in representing various members of the community
— including those who face losing their homes for the construction
of a 19,000-seat basketball arena for Ratner’s New Jersey Nets, 4,500
new housing units in high-rise buildings and four office skyscrapers —
has hired attorney Norman Siegel, former executive director of the New
York Civil Liberties Union.
If it comes to it, they are ready to file a lawsuit, as did Susette Kelo
and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London,
Conn., after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear
the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents
refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.
They argued the takings would be proper only if they served to revitalize
slums or blighted areas dangerous to the public.
“I’m not willing to give up what I have just because someone
else can generate more taxes here,” said homeowner Matthew Dery,
whose family has lived in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London
for more than 100 years.
Patti Hagan, a resident and community leader in Prospect Heights, the
area in Brooklyn where most of the Atlantic Yards proposal falls, echoed
the same sentiment, and hopes the ruling will result in dropping the plans
in her neighborhood altogether.
“If — and they will — come out with a decision in May or
June against it, that will just knock this dead. That will become the
law of the land,” she said. “[Ratner] cannot have the state
seize their property and kick them out.”
New London contends the condemnations are proper because the development
plans serve a “public purpose” — such as boosting economic
growth — and are therefore valid “public use” projects
that outweigh the property rights of homeowners.
The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London, ruling 4-3 in March
that the mere promise of additional tax revenue justified the condemnation.
“The U.S. Supreme court taking the New London case could have a direct
bearing on the proposed Nets arena and the Forest City Ratner plan for
Prospect Heights,” said Siegel. “Eminent domain has run amok.
Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will decide that eminent domain is limited
to public use, and not for economic redevelopment.”
Nationwide, more than 1,000 properties were threatened or condemned between
1998 and 2002, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.,
public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
In many cases, according to the group, cities are pushing the limits of
their power to accommodate wealthy developers. Courts, meanwhile, are
divided over the extent of city power, with seven states saying economic
development can justify a taking and eight states allowing a taking only
if it eliminates blight.
In New London, city officials envision replacing a stagnant enclave with
commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront,
complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed
Coast Guard museum.
“The record is clear that New London was a city desperate for economic
rejuvenation,” the city’s legal filing states, in asking the
high court to defer to local governments in deciding what constitutes
“public use.”
According to the residents’ filing, the seven states that allow condemnations
for private business development alone are Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, Siegel urged a halt to
any negotiations involving the proposed footprint of Ratner’s plan.
“The state and the city, in view of the U.S. Supreme Court taking
the Connecticut case, should not proceed on any eminent domain projects,”
Seigel said, “including Forest City Ratner’s and the Nets arena,
until the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.”
— with Associated Press
