Yards ‘domain’ case has some eminence

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Legal experts agree on one thing about the latest lawsuit to block the Atlantic Yards project — the plaintiffs have put together a crafty argument to combat the project.

Law professors are intrigued by the argument, filed on Aug. 1 in state court by soon-to-be-displaced residents, that the state’s use of its eminent domain power to clear land for Bruce Ratner’s mega-project violates a little-known and never-tested provision of the state Constitution that prohibits public subsidies from underwriting any urban renewal project whose occupancy is not restricted “to persons of low income.”

Ratner’s development is slated to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in direct public subsidies and tax breaks despite the fact that it includes thousands of units of market-rate housing.

The plaintiffs claim that the luxury housing would violate Article 18, Section 6 of the state Constitution.

“It’s a very good, well-written complaint. They’ve got a hook,” said James Gardner, a law professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo.

The latest suit to halt the $4-billion, 16-skyscraper project comes after three federal courts — including the highest court in the land — declined to rule on the plaintiff’s principal argument, namely that state officials agreed to condemn land for Ratner in a “sham” process that touted the project’s supposed public benefits as a “pretext.”

The suit also alleges Atlantic Yards breaks several provisions of the state Bill of Rights and the state’s eminent domain code, but these arguments are likely to be determined by precedent, unlike the untested low-income residency requirement.

“That’s the only interesting hook that they have. Everything else in there has been already decided in other courts,” said Patricia Salkin, an associate dean at Albany Law School. And those decisions, most notably the landmark Supreme Court Kelo ruling, have given the government broad powers to use eminent domain for “public use.”

The case may blaze new ground by invoking an arcane section of the Constitution, but scholars and lawyers would be shocked if the New York State Supreme Court upheld the plaintiffs’ low-income housing argument rather than deferring to previous rulings in similar lawsuits.

“Public funds have frequently been used for various forms of urban renewal that were not so restricted,” said Christopher Serkin, an associate law professor at Brooklyn Law School.

Yards opponents have another glimmer of hope, experts said, namely that the state court is presiding during an ongoing backlash against the 2005 Kelo verdict.

“The New York court is one of the most activist in the country,” Gardner told The Brooklyn Paper.

Updated 5:08 pm, July 9, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reasonable discourse

alpankin from downtown says:
doesn't this newpaper have anything better to report on but this big waste of time about the 11 holdouts still trying to stop the redevelopment of this blighted,seedy,worn out area? this same few would be against the dodgers stayng in brooklyn...this area should have been knocked down fifty years was the wild west over there and nothing but a bunch of junk now. enough already.
Aug. 15, 2008, 6:40 am
spankin from downtown says:
Al, these "11 holdouts" are trying to keep NY State from stealing their property. what does that have to do with the Dodgers staying in Brooklyn?

What does that mean "it was the wild west over there and nothing but a bunch of junk now?" Junk, really? sounds like you don't know the area very well.

Anyway, if you are upset that the project is not underway, take that up with the project's developer.
Aug. 15, 2008, 12:05 pm
Charles from PS, Bklyn says:
There are more than just "11" holdouts who are pushing to have this development stopped. Many people understand that when constitutional rights are denied to one person, they are denied to all.

We fight for truth, justice and the American way, something Alpankin above knows very little about. A corruptive process that withholds due process, under the guise of a public benefit, done solely for one private developer, is repugnate to our democratic and constitutional form of government. It must be stopped for the sake of fairness and to perserve the property rights of all people in Brooklyn with property interests, whether as a land owner or a renter.

This issue is not about whether you think a section of Brooklyn looked blighted or is "a bunch of junk." It is a question of home, country, and constitution.

Oh, and bye the way, this has never been the wild west. This ain't the plains, and this ain't the burbs. Your in Brooklyn, NYC, now son.
Aug. 15, 2008, 3:33 pm

Comments closed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Keep it local!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: