 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
tel/fax:
718.362.4784
Please note our new postal address when sending
contributions to the legal fund:
121 5th Avenue, PMB #150
Brooklyn, New York 11217
About DDDB
Our coalition consists of 21 community organizations and
there are 51 community organizations formally
aligned in opposition to the Ratner plan.
DDDB is a volunteer-run organization. We have over 5,000
subscribers to our email newsletter, and 7,000 petition
signers. Over 800 volunteers have registered with DDDB
to form our various teams, task-forces and committees
and we have over 150 block captains. We have a 20 person
volunteer legal team of local lawyers supplementing our
retained attorneys.
We are funded entirely by individual donations from the community at large
and through various fundraising events we and supporters have organized.
We have the financial support of well over 3,500 individual
donors.
More about
DDDB...
|
|
|
|
 |
ARCHIVES:
By Date|
By Category|
Text Search
|
NY State Left Behind in "Kelo's Revenge"
On Tuesday nine
of eleven states passed ballot measures restricting the use of eminent domain
in the wake of the nationally despised Kelo v. City of New London Supreme
Court decision of 2005. That decision opened the door for broad definitions of
"public benefit" justifying the government's seizure of private property
to transfer to private entities. The ballot measures which passed narrowed the
meaning of "public use" as a corrective to eminent domain abuse which,
over the past 50 years, has perverted the intentions of the Fifth
Amendment. The two states that didn't pass their ballot measures saw eminent
domain reform hijacked by different agendas that made the bills too broad for
passage. All the measures that passed did so with at least 63% of the vote.
It is clear that American citizens understand eminent domain abuse better
than most of the officials they elect, and want to see it returned to its proper,
constititutional use. When pure eminent domain reform is proposed we consistently
find ordinary citizens pitted against municipalities and real estate developers
with vested interests in keeping eminent domain laws as broad as possible.
New York State and Forest City Ratner, we believe, are abusing eminent domain
in an unconstitutional manner, and owners and tenants in the proposed "Atlantic
Yards" footprint have filed
a federal lawsuit saying so. New York State, perhaps one of the worst abusers
after only New Jersey, was unable to bring numerous eminent domain reform bills
out of the Assembly judiciary committee. The Senate judiciary committee did
move bills forward to the Senate but they have not moved forward. Albany has not
even been able to pass a bill that would simply set up a commission to further
study the need for eminent domain reform. Thus New Yorkers are left with only
one option to protect their rights–the courts. (By the way, oddly enough,
Governor Pataki did
indeed prohibit eminent domain for the NY Interconnect power line project–a
traditional public use–while supporting it fully for Ratner's luxury housing
and arena project–a non-traditional use. Pataki is named as a defendant
in the lawsuit referred to above.)
The Castle Coalition has the full
results of the various ballot meausres around the country.
CNNMoney accuratley calls it "Kelo's
Revenge."
And the Atlantic Yards Report examines the measure passed in Michigan
and how the Michigan measure would impact "Atlantic Yards" were such
legislation passed in Albany:
After
Michigan vote, AY project wouldn't fly there
What if the Atlantic Yards project were proposed for Michigan? It would be much,
much tougher to approve a project that, like AY, is predicated on the elimination
of blight. On Tuesday, Michigan voters by a 4-1 margin
endorsed a constitutional amendment tightening the use of eminent domain.
According to the summary
by the Michigan League of Women Voters, the amendment will:
--Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
--Provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property's fair market value.
--Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking
is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard
of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use...
Continue
reading....
Posted: 11.09.06
|
|
|
|
