Critics Try One Last Time to Stop Arena
by Net Income on Nov 29, 2010 9:52 PM EST
in Brooklyn
Email
PrintBrooklyn critics of Atlantic Yards filed a motion today asking a Manhattan judge issue a stop order on construction of Barclays Center. The critics, including Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, won its first legal victory three weeks and now want the judge who gave them hope to halt construction on the nearly $1 billion arena. Steel continues to rise at the site.
However, that appears unlikely as Judge Marcy Friedman specifically chose not to stay arena construction in her November 8 ruling. Instead, Friedman asked the Empire State Development Corporation reassess its reliance on a 10-year build-out schedule for the overall Atlantic Yards project or seek a new environmental impact statement. The ESDC lengthened the schedule to up to 25 years because of economic conditions. Critics are particularly upset at the prospect of a massive "interim" parking lot. next to the arena. If the rest of the project isn't built, they fear the 1,100-car lot will cause congestion and pollution.
- Judge Asked to Halt Atlantic Yards Construction - Ryan Thompson - Brooklyn Eagle
- DDDB attorney charges ESDC and FCR with malfeasance, says their lawyers breached ethical conduct - Norman Oder - Atlantic Yards Report
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yes, because New York is adamant about having no traffic or congestion
Section 18, Row 7 at The Rock!
waaaahhhhhhhh
Official Member of the "MAKE CARMELO A NET" Movement
by Chakroot on Nov 29, 2010 10:52 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Let them build!
So after years of frivolous litigation and dilatory tactics, the critics’ attorneys have the audacity to claim that the lawyers for the ESDC have engaged in unethical litigation tactics? What a joke. The critics and their attorneys have been abusing the court system for years. Fortunately this should be the final hurdle.
by nynjlawyer on Nov 29, 2010 10:59 PM EST via mobile reply actions
This is dumb, I want the arena! Why cant they just stop ? DUMB CRITICS ARE GOING TO STOP CONSTRUCTION
No they won't
they’ll lose…again. For the 400th time.
Official Member of the "MAKE CARMELO A NET" Movement
The lawsuits being filed are
Beginning to sound ever more frivolous and desperate. The difference between the mind set of American and Canadian court systems shows quite a bit in these situations… This lawsuit would never fly in our system.
(Hear the proky? If you abandon Brooklyn and move the team to Canada people won’t sue your project. :) )
"I'm going to make a lot of people eat their words when it's time."
by Canadianetsfan on Nov 30, 2010 12:03 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Lmao
They’ll still be trying to stop construction on opening night.
Official Member of the "DO NOT TRADE DERRICK FAVORS" Movement
And during the season
they’ll be demonstrating outside each home game chanting “Tear it down! Tear it down!”
Is there any updated photo/video showing the progress at Barclays?
Seems the opposition (Tracy Collins) is no longer interested in providing weekly updates of PROGRESS.
May need to have some nice photos available in case Nets lose tonight. Fans will need something positive.
Lemme get this straight...
I might be totally misreading this so somebody point it out to me if I am…
…But:
1) Critics have always said that this was never about the Nets or a new arena.
2) Critics have always said that this was about using an arena to anchor a brand new “city” a Ratner-ville, within the basic triangle between Atlantic, Flatbush, and Vanderbilt.
3) Critics have always said that this Ratnerville (which, to be fair, was indeed a land grab) would add too much traffic and congestion to an already densely populated area.
But now that the arena IS going up and the whole thing appears to be solely about the Nets and the arena as everything else in Ratnerville has been delayed, the critics are still unpleased?
Now they’re angry that a dinky 1,100 space car lot (that is 6 times SMALLER than the lot at the Nassau Coliseum) will stand where the maligned Ratnerville was slated to get built?
Basically, again if I’m reading this correctly, it appears that economic conditions have pushed back the very maligned Ratnerville (personally I too was against high rise condos that was supposed to surround the arena) an additional 15 years, yet the critics still aren’t happy???
…Mingia!
Opulence, I has it.
I am so glad that Ratner and the ESDC stood up to the critics.
It annoyed the hell out of me to see the judicial system used as a tool to stall development. If the critics were to succeed, their dilatory tactics would’ve been used as a blueprint to stall any and all future development that a select group of individuals decides they don’t like.
Ignorance knows no bliss
As usual, those who back the plan slander those who oppose it. They have every right to stop a project that is both abusing eminent domain and corporate welfare, not to mention being built on their homes that they didn’t originally want to sell. I cannot believe how some of you actually support this. Perhaps a developer should come and build over your property, and the we can see how you feel when you are the victim of this. I hope that the opposition continues the winning streak and gets that stop work order, which can throw a wrench into the construction. BTW, if the project is declared dead and the arena isn’t built, the current construction wouldnt’ have to be demolished, it can always be retrofitted to go with something else just like what Ken Gardner, one of the architects for Twin Towers II, said about on the WTC site if the official plan is stopped and ended. As a matter of fact, a more sensible project like the Extell Plan can be built there, which is more in scale with the neighborhood, provides actual jobs to locals, gives real affordable housing, and actually has a developer that did meet with the community rather than snub them. Those living in the affordable housing of that plan can be those that lost their property.
Thanks for enlightening me. So on the issue of eminent domain YOU are correct and everyone else is wrong — including each and every judge that ruled AGAINST the critics on that issue.
And how exactly do YOU define slander? I know how the law defines it and it allows for personal opinion. But to hell with the law, how do YOU define it? That’s what really matters, right?
by nynjlawyer on Nov 30, 2010 6:39 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Big difference here
It’s not that I am against those that want to have the Nets moving to Brooklyn, I am against those who have used claims that they can’t prove, which is what defines slander. If you really have the proof that the opposition is very selfish, represents just a few, or happens to just want to leave the rail yards undeveloped, I will like to see proof for that rather than you rushing to the defense. I have not slandered Ratner or any of his paid supporters, I have actually backed my claims, but I have yet to see your claims on DG or anyone else who is against this. Keep in mind that I have actually met with DDDB, so I know what they are fighting for, while you just say things in front of a screen like a coward who will never stand up to a fight like I am doing hence I don’t have to be scared of you. Nevertheless, please prove your claims or I will consider it slander, and something comming from a biased source doesn’t count.
nynjlawyer's opinion "counts" just as much as yours does
Need I mention how hypocritical you are being by referring to Nets fans as cowards? Nets fans, unlike you are willing to acknowledge, do in fact know what they are fighting for, just aren’t antagonistic enough to force their beliefs on everybody else. Also, you are using a screen name the same as every body else on this sight. It truly does not matter how well you understand what DDDB is fighting for when its obvious you haven’t a whiff about the New Jersey Nets or any of the other side of the argument. Let’s go over what I believe you have overlooked.
1. Projects like this are a massive boost to a community. Have you taken into account how many people will be employed to help build the structure? To help operate it? To sell snacks? I am unable to find exact numbers, but compared to what the former neighborhood’s description, I would have to assume that the number of jobs at an arena would double the amount of jobs at a bar and a condemned apartment building.
2. Not all sports franchises lose money, and if you try to proclaim as such again I will proclaim you a liar. Sports teams can be about two things. 1. (Hopefully to most owners) is winning. 2. Is making money. If money wasn’t being made by the majority of all major league franchises, why would they exist?
Also, this is a New Jersey Nets fan site, and as such I don’t understand how you can possibly think everybody whom is supportive of this program is “a coward”.
By the way, I’m curious. I noticed in one of your comments in this post you used the term “epic fail”. Is this term as popular in the states right now? I know it was here about 4 months ago, but it has since retro-evolved to the point where it is really annoying (mostly due to it being a grammatical error ).
Oh, and I almost forgot, Canadian laws regarding such a thing are almost identical. However, Canadian citizens don’t pursue frivolous lawsuits trying to leach money out of everything they can. Since you seem so fond of quoting court cases I request you look into the building of the gardiner dam. I also ask you to do a little more research into the topic before simply telling me I am wrong.
"I'm going to make a lot of people eat their words when it's time."
by Canadianetsfan on Dec 2, 2010 12:19 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I have heard that one before
Candiannetsfan, I have heard a lot of these before, and they don’t answer my questions about the project. Please don’t say that if you build they will come, because this is only a short term statement, but not a long term statement. Don’t give me those claims, because I can easily refute it the other way. Don’t forget Ratner made similar promises when building MTC and lied about them. Since I have MTC on my mind, when JP Morgan Chase located there, they didn’t hire the locals, they just relocated their employees, and the same thing was done with the government agencies that moved there to bail him out as well as locating in his mails. Relocation of existing employees by businesses does NOT help communities, it actually raises the unemployement rates on them instead. The reason I say that MTC was an epic fail was not only because those that were living nearby never got the jobs, but it destroyed much of the area’s historical architecture leaving it with nothing but a desolate office park that is dead after work hours. If that complex was so great, then why do courts and government agencies occupy most of it when it was supposed to be originally for private businesses? Why does the DMV occupy the Atlantic Terminal Mall, while the ESDC has their Brooklyn office in the Atlantic Center Mall when those are supposed to be for private businesses as well? My main point here is where do you have proof that Ratner will keep his word. I have asked this numerous times, and many here who support it have either refused to answer that, repeat the same statements he said, or just got defensive on it. If he was really about the team, he wouldn’t be snubbing them by saying that they are moving to Brooklyn, where most will probably still stay Knicks fans, which actually shows that he has turnned his back on them. If there is proof that the Nets are not a trojan horse to this project, I will like to see proof for that as well. If no proof is shown, I will be holding your statements in question and possibly calling you the liar instead. Don’t be surprised if most of the jobs will once again go to relocated employees instead of locals as the others did. The reason I call some a coward to this is because I know most who will never show their faces at an actual event, which in my book means that they are too scared. If you are not afraid, then attend an event based on this. Maybe I shouldn’t say cowards and just say a bunch of chickens or scardy cats instead. I am more than just some armchair activist, I actually attend events based on this, so I do make a sound in real life, plus I don’t hide behind a computer screen like others who do. For the record, this is my actual name, so I don’t hide by using some other name as well. How do I know that you are not some imposter Mr. Idon’tuseaconsistentnameeventhoughIampossiblythatverysameperson? As for slander, I only accuse others of it when they can’t seem to prove it, which how it’s defined. I don’t have anything against those who support this project, it’s those who have made claims on the opposition that I know are clearly false when I have actually met with them unlike many others who would never show themselves in front of them. If there is really evidence that they just want to see the rail yards left undeveloped, then please prove that one as well. This is the reason why I don’t follow tabloids. Just to let you know, good faith doesn’t answer anything either.
My name is Joseph Chiliak
And its pronounced shulak. I live in Alsask Saskatchewan, Canada. Google me if you think I’m an impostor, because trust me I exist. And what, per say, makes someone an impostor? This is a Nets fan site. Accusing everybody whom shows support for the Nets argument is very edgy. Also a little geography research may also explain why I’ve never gone to support rallies for your cause.
"I'm going to make a lot of people eat their words when it's time."
by Canadianetsfan on Dec 3, 2010 12:03 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
it's always the same thing from you...
and it was old a long time ago. you act like the entire building industry in america isn’t completely corrupt. if you could fathom the amount of dollars this project is affecting and will continue to for several decades, you’d understand why (spoiler alert) contractors and developers do not care. you’re a little bag of money, and they will squeeze until there’s nothing left worth squeezing for.
Official Member of the "MAKE CARMELO A NET" Movement
I can say the same thing back at you
Developers will always find a group of people to make as their yesman to back their projects and make them promises that will most likely not be kept. There are developers that do listen to the people, and there are those who never do. Ratner is an example of a person who never cares about communities, and just wants to see another of his projects up there no matter what. Keep in mind that there is a process for this known as ULURP, which allows for community imput on such projects. However, because Ratner had friends in high places, he was allowed to bypass it and use SEQRA instead, because it was known that if through ULURP, it would be opposed greatly, and there were huge zonning laws against placing a project like this in a densley populated area. If it wasn’t for the subsidies and the ESDC placing it all on life support, this project would have died in the recession just like many others. It’s like that quote in that Simpson’s episode where Frank Grimes came to work at the nuclear power plant and mentioned to Homer Simpson this, “If you have live in any other country, you would have starved to death and died long ago.” BTW, Ratner needs the government to locate their agencies in his buildings just to stay afloat otherwise, they would be vacant for over a decade and really be shown as an epic fail.
So you are against the Barclays center
Because of eminent domain reasons. Fair enough.
But later you say that another building can be built in the exact same spot and it would be, as you say, “more sensible”. So the grudge you are apparently harboring is towards the Nets? Your comment makes it appear as such, even though you claim it is wrong for eminent domain reasons.
Inconsistency loses court cases friend.
"I'm going to make a lot of people eat their words when it's time."
by Canadianetsfan on Nov 30, 2010 11:49 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
You tend to missing the point completely
It’s not that I am against eminent domain as a whole, it’s that I am against the way it’s being used. I had already told you on previous topic about this, that it was being used for a private developement when it’s supposed to be for the public and only the public as it’s defined, but I guess you Canadiens define it differently. Why should a private developer like Ratner be allowed to use this process when it’s clearly not a public project at all? If this really was for something that was for the public, the reactions would be different. I am not just selective to this project on eminent domain abuse, there is also the fight for Manhattanville and Willets Point that are facing similar issues as well. The reason I said something more sensible is because the opposition did meet with Garry Barnett, who is the head of Extell Developement, and he agreed to actually work with them where Ratner didn’t and give promises that he would keep. If they were really for leaving the rail yards undeveloped, they wouldn’t have met with him at all. BTW, Barnett did offer triple the bid Ratner did for those rail yards but was shut out of talks with the MTA despite outbidding him. As for court cases, rulings aren’t always right. If you were living in the early 1800’s durring the ruling of Barron vs Balitmore, which was for saying that state governments can surpass US constitutional laws, would you be going for that? If it was an 1856 and the ruling of Scott vs Sanford (Dread Scott Decision) ruled that if a person was originally a slave and must stay a slave while living a free state for over a year doesn’t change that, would be defending that ruling? If it was 1896 and the ruling of Plessy vs Ferguseon, which claimed that segregation was justified just by being seperate but equal, would you be defending that? It just shows that they are not right all the time. On a side note, it was said that the judge that ruled in favor of building the new Yankee Stadium was given his own box by the owners as a reward for his decision.
Its spelt Canadians Tal
I’m sure you meant “you’ve tended to miss the point completely”.
What part of an arena isn’t considered public? Much more public than anything there before.
That being overlooked, what point am I missing? Your point of view? There are quite a few points you’ve made here… Like that you really need to learn to a relevant president when you are trying to prove a point. Comparing a man whom was given something like 3 million to leave a condemned property and a group that is trying to get even MORE money out of atlantic yards to the suffering that back people in america had to go through is disrespectful, and quite frankly I am disgusted.
Also I’ve noticed your tendency to avoid anything mentioned by anyone on this post that appears logical in the pro-atlantic yards argument. Interesting, considering that according to you the fans of the Nets are the “cowards”.
And please stop pretending that you are preaching to a judge and try proof reading just a little bit. Its hard to have a decent conversation when chunks of your comment is nonsensical. (I know I know, the Canadian english major can’t understand because of how much smarter you are and how advanced your vocabulary is…. Ha.)
"I'm going to make a lot of people eat their words when it's time."
by Canadianetsfan on Dec 2, 2010 1:50 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
and for the record
I said eminent domain reasons, meaning your proposed “abuse of the system”. But I understand that since you had no response to my other point you felt a need to banter on about something else.
"I'm going to make a lot of people eat their words when it's time."
by Canadianetsfan on Dec 2, 2010 2:01 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
You still are missing the point
If anyone here sound biased, it sounds more like you than me. If property must be seized by eminent domain, then it must be for a public project, not a private project. An arena that a professional sports team uses is not considered public property. If it was really public, then we wouldn’t have to buy tickets just to get in. Your claim on DG’s property being condemned is misstated. He was not the only person living there when Ratner wanted it originally, there were others as it was fully occupied, and he didn’t buy this property to make a statement either. He along with anyone else living in the footprint was only given two choices and that was to either sell to him now or lose it through eminent domain. However, they could not choose to not sell, which is what would lead to the threat of eminent domain. I suggest you read the Atlantic Yards Report by Norman Oder, because unlike others, he actually did his research, and his blog is very much credited and respected by many for covering this project. Enough with this it will bring money, because this is just the same ploy that other developers have said to push for their projects, so I don’t see what makes Ratner any different. Then again, maybe it’s the fact that he has friends in high places such as the ESDC helping by placing everything on life supporter whearas if he didn’t have their backing and subsidies, this project would have been long dead when the recession occurred. I won’t accuse everyone who supports this project as being paid by Ratner, but I still wonder why so many keep drinking that kool aid and eating so slices of humble that he gives you. Keep in mind that there is irrefutalbe evidence from the Independent Budget Office that proves that the arena is a net money loser, and nobody has given any proof stating otherwise. One other thing, you tend be another one of those who believes in that famous the end justifies the means statement where you don’t care what is used to get something done just as long as it gets done without ever understanding what is used. BTW, wouldn’t you want to sue if someone wanted your property when you weren’t selling it? Try walking in their shoes, and maybe then you will understand why. I recomend looking at the causes rather than the effects of this issue.
Its hard to walk in those shoes
Because Canadians simply do not use the court system like this. No, I personally would not sue, especially not if I was offered considerably more than my place of residence was truthfully worth. That makes me believe that this case is driven by greed and pride more than anything.
Also, looking at causes is a bad theorem for this topic as a whole as this project is aimed at the future. Your chasing ghosts.
"I'm going to make a lot of people eat their words when it's time."
by Canadianetsfan on Dec 3, 2010 12:15 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Its hard to walk in those shoes
Because Canadians simply do not use the court system like this. No, I personally would not sue, especially not if I was offered considerably more than my place of residence was truthfully worth. That makes me believe that this case is driven by greed and pride more than anything.
Also, looking at causes is a bad theorem for this topic as a whole as this project is aimed at the future. Your chasing ghosts.
"I'm going to make a lot of people eat their words when it's time."
by Canadianetsfan on Dec 3, 2010 12:26 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Welcome to the USA
Things are a lot different in the USA than they are in Canada. In this country, one does have a right to sue if they feel that they are getting cheated on. Keep in mind that they never wanted to sell in the first place, they were forced to by the limited choices of either give to him now or lose it through eminent domain, while saying ‘No Sale’ was not given as an option. To some people, their property matters more than money. It wasn’t that they didn’t want to sale, it was more like they never placed their property for sale in the first place, and that is the cause, not the effect, which is what you are looking more at. Normally, when a person says that their property isn’t for sale, that is suppose to mean that the transaction is dead and they keep their property. It does NOT mean that the developer can use a system to get it from them anyway. Another thing is that I have been following this project from the start and opposed it from the start mainly because I don’t just think that it’s wrong to do this, but also to use what is supposed to go for public projects by used for a private developement as well. Why should our tax dollars go to help a rich man like Ratner become richer rather than go for where it’s supposed to go such as helping areas in the public sector, who need it more? The reason I ask others to walk in their shoes is because I would like to know if they would feel the same way they are right now if their property was the target, because most of those who support it, do not live in the planned footprint. Remember, it’s all fun’n’games until they come for you. I hope that judge(s) will rule in their favor to putting a stop work order, which will really throw a wrench in this project. On a side note, you sort of remind me of all of those who have only caught onto something late like the WTC site, and are only looking at what’s going on now assuming that it was fair, while I am just filling you in and what has happened when you were not around to explain what really went on.
Again you have
Misinterpreted. Canadians can also sue anything that moves, and a multitude of things that don’t. Its a different mind set, not a different system.
"I'm going to make a lot of people eat their words when it's time."
by Canadianetsfan on Dec 6, 2010 12:59 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
If you read the links
It says it will halt the construction.
A must read
Although this link is actually about the WTC site and not the Atlantic Yards, it can almost pass for it if reworded. This four page story talks a lot of how the public was duped and is being forced on accepting a project that they never wanted, while the media did next to nothing to expose for what it really is, which is both a back room deal and a boondoggle. I thank the the Twin Towers Alliance for writing this, because they are one of the few just like Norman Oder, who writes the AYR, knows what is actually going on.
http://www.twintowersalliance.com/petition/the-best-laid-schemes
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
