High
Court Hears Arguments in Atlantic Yards Case
New York Times City Room blog. By Nicholas Confessore
The Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn faced a landmark legal test on Wednesday,
as New York’s highest court heard arguments in a case with major implications
for economic development across the state.
...
Lawyers for the Empire State Development Corporation, the state authority
sponsoring the project, argued that eminent domain was both necessary, to
promote economic development on the site — with attendant public benefits
in terms of jobs and housing — and legal, because the site chosen for
the project fit the statutory definition of “blighted.”
Lawyers for those who owned homes or businesses on the site argue that the
blight designation was merely a justification arrived at years after planning
for the project began, as officials sought a legal pretext to condemn private
property on the developer’s behalf. They have also argued that the project
site, which includes a rail yard as well as apartment buildings and commercial
property — much of it now owned or controlled by Forest City Ratner
— had been developing on its own before the state intervened.
Wednesday’s one-hour hearing featured sharp questioning from several
judges over what limits the state faced when it sought to condemn private
property, some of it suggesting that the judges believed that the rights of
the owners had not received enough consideration from state officials.
The lawyer for the Empire State Development Corporation, Philip E. Karmel,
also faced sharp questioning from the court’s chief judge, Jonathan
Lippman, that went to the heart of a key legal and political dispute surrounding
Atlantic Yards: Whether it is a private real estate project seeking the patina
of a public purpose to justify eminent domain, or a state-sponsored economic
development project that happens to include a major real estate venture.
In his questioning, Mr. Lippman repeatedly pushed Mr. Karmel to define the
project.
“The majority part of this project is market-rate housing?” the
judge asked.
“That is not the purpose of the project, your honor,” Mr. Karmel
replied.
“Is it the largest component of the project?” Mr. Lippman pressed.
“It is a significant component,” Mr. Karmel said, not quite conceding
the point.
In another line of questioning, Judge Robert S. Smith, in a tone that suggested
skepticism, asked Mr. Karmel if there were any limits on the state’s
ability to take private land, so long as there was a public benefit. Mr. Karmel
said that under current law and precedent, there was not.
Judge Smith also questioned Mr. Karmel about the state’s definition
of blight.
“Suppose I am a developer and I want to buy on an area that is half
blighted and half not,” the judge asked. “They can condemn the
whole thing, even if only half of it is blighted?”
The answer, Mr. Karmel said, was yes.
