Unfortunately, people who OWNED property there and did not want to move will be FORCED to by the government in order to give a handout to a corporation.

You mean the owners who received two and three times market value at the height of the real estate market? Feel bad for them, real bad.

Stop crying about people that lived there. 95% of them were happy to take their check and leave.

Those that didn’t already sell to Ratner knew that their property was more important than money. What part of their property wasn’t for sale did he not understand? In a normal transaction when someone says no to giving up their property, the seller usually walks away. In this case, he will obtain their property by any means necessary even if it means tearing it down with them in it or even hiring an assasin if all else fails. Whenever I hear someone standing in defense of this process, I almost think that they do support eminent domain abuse.

@tal, enough already. These people need to GO!!! They want the attention more than anything. I am sure Ratner has said name your price. What I think you need to look into the anonymous money supports who have been giving Goldstein backdoor moniey for the last few years. What are their motivation???? I bet they dont give a rats as$ about Develop dont destroy or whatever their name is. I guarantee you its personal.

This is the problem with eminent domain. If this were a public project (infrastructure, hospital, school, etc.), there would be no problem getting the property from current residents. I suspect the residents wouldn’t try to fight a public project, anyway. The problem with AY is that it’s entirely private in nature. In a private development, if the potential seller says no, then the developer makes a better offer or backs off.

If residents were being told to move for the affordable housing or other essential services, enforcing ED wouldn’t be a problem, but the fact of the matter is that people are being told to move for a sports arena. This is part of the reason the plan is flawed, since the affordable housing is being put off indefinitely. This was poorly planned from the start, and if anyone believes that the Nets will being playing in Brooklyn by the 2011 season when no vertical construction has yet to commence will be sorely disappointed. That timetable is now impossible, the Barclays CEO’s proclamation notwithstanding. This sort of lip service reminds me very much of Meadowlands Xanadu, another project that was to have opened by this time yet has been postponed. In that situation, we’ve heard multiple claims of new grand opening dates, many of which has long-since passed. Realistically, that project will likely be shelved, and so will the current AY plans. Remember all we’ve heard from Yormark over the years.

the people who are fighting the government from taking their homes are heroes, principled and brave.

you who demean them are cowards.

and those who make claims about what kind of money is being offered them etc. are clueless.

Such crap…black and white, moral and immoral, just and injust. That’s at the heart of this…no compromise, no acceptance of alternate views. Instead, there is a theological standard applied. If you oppose me, you are cast out into the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the other.

Better suited to Middle Eastern politics or even Eastern European politics than the American form. It’s real estate. It’s housing.

It’s FIFTEEN people holding out…or THIRTY-FIVE.

@Tal

“Even if it means tearing it down with them in it or even hiring an assasin if all else fails.”

This statement disqualifies you from any rational discussion of this issue. Thanks for going on the record.

Does everyone realize what the bottom line of that article is?

Steve Politi, who wrote some of the most anti-Ratner pieces and who has claimed Newark is a real alternative, is seemingly chastened by his discussion with the CEO of the bank that 1) is providing the bulk of the collateral for the arena and 2) is arranging the financing.

Diamond sees no problem with the naming rights issue, including the supposed Dec. 31 deadline—“we won’t walk away” nor the financing, believing that it will be secured—“set fairly soon.” He is the CEO of the company involved with both and he is convinced it’s going to happen.

“Net Income Says:

August 29th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Does everyone realize what the bottom line of that article is?

Steve Politi, who wrote some of the most anti-Ratner pieces and who has claimed Newark is a real alternative, is seemingly chastened by his discussion with the CEO of the bank that 1) is providing the bulk of the collateral for the arena and 2) is arranging the financing.

Diamond sees no problem with the naming rights issue, including the supposed Dec. 31 deadline–"we won’t walk away" nor the financing, believing that it will be secured–"set fairly soon." He is the CEO of the company involved with both and he is convinced it’s going to happen."

Not entirely how I see it. I see it as the same sort of lip service being paid by Yormark and Ratner for these last few years. What else is he going to tell the local Newark reporter? Again, I won’t believe anything from people involved in this current project until I see the Nets playing there.

Also, you have to admit that if their plan was so airtight, so buttoned-up, this would have happened by now. This has been bungled from the start, which is not surprising considering how current ownership has handled personnel decisions (and everything else) to this point.

Of course thats how you see it. You are not objective. A CEO of a company that is providing the biggest collateral for the financing and is arranging the financing makes a public statement and yet you dismiss it, based on nothing but your own biases.

This would be done if a bunch of whiners hadnt decided to stop it, not because of their homes, but because of the traffic and other issues. If there are indeed 4000 people who contributed to the DDDB and only nine plaintiffs in the suit and a handful of holdouts, do you really think this is about “eminent domain”? Its about Not In My Back Yard.

But you keep thinking that.

I think Ratner should sell and have written it. But to suggest that somehow someway an angel will appear and whisk the Nets away to Newark and an arena owned by an NHL team is naive. There are three, maybe four, investors interested in buying the Nets and ALL of them want the team in Brooklyn. The economics only make sense if the team also owns the arena, gets the benefit of all the non-sporting events. If Brooklyn fails, whoever are the highest bidders for the carcasse of the the New Jersey Nets will do with it what they want.

I have yet to see one viable, detailed proposal that would result in the Nets moving to Newark. It’s all Cory Booker claiming he has investors interested…investors who have never been identified or come forward now 19 months after he first made the claim. They don’t exist.

“Net Income Says:
August 29th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

Of course thats how you see it. You are not objective."

Pot…Kettle…Black

Unfortunately, the supporters don’t get it that this is not eminent domain for a public project, it’s for a private project hence the term eminent domain abuse. Also, no sale means no sale. Maybe when a developer tries this on any of you, they should say that you guys are blocking great developement. It’s all fun’n’games until they come for you. As for that statement quoted by Net Income, keep in mind that Ratner will never walk away from trying to get their property no matter how many times they have refused to sell to him. The basic rules for transactions on acquiring property for private use is very simple. First they have to get an approval from who owns it and if they say no, then they should just go away. Secondly, they have to use their own money or from their partners, and tax dollars don’t count. Third, projects such as this should NOT be allowed to use any form eminent domain because they are not a public project to begin with. One other thing, they are not NIMBYs to this project because they will not be living with being that it will actually be on their property. I am sure that they would have supported this project if it was just on the Vanderbuilt Yards themselves, but that’s not the case when looking at the proposed footprint. Why should someone be forced to sell to a private developer when they choose not to?

In Communist China, they seized property from poor folk on a whim in order to build all of those sports venues for the 2008 Olympics.

Now that’s an efficient government. Take anything you want (just relocating them to another random location wihtout the compensation that Ratner must give) and beat the living snot out of anyone who protests.

Think Brooklyn has it bad?

Good thing we don’t live in China!

The only difference here is that China isn’t a democracy while the US is. Therefore, the government cannot arbitrarily take anything without the input of the current owner or even community. That was the result of when Robert Moses tried to undermine the public when he was in charge. Another thing that makes us different from China, is that anyone who tries to attack protesters can actually go to jail be it the government or private individual. Maybe Ratner should just build in China in the UAE so he won’t have to worry about the problems in this country.

BROOKLYN HERE WE COME !!!!! =)