 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
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
|
More on the Court's Decision and Plaintiffs' Appeal
As usual Norman Oder over at the Atlantic Yards Report provides the most
in-depth coverage and analysis of Judge Garaufis' nuanced and complicated decision
on the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's eminent domain case. In the
decision, the Court rejected an earlier recommendation to send the case to State
court, determining that the federal venue is the proper place for the plaintiffs'
constitutional claims, but that the plaintiffs' failed—in the Court's eyes—to
raise plausible claims. The plaintiffs on the suit, organized and funded by Develop
Don't Destroy Brooklyn, have vowed to appeal, clearly feeling that their constitutional
claims are plausible and require a trial.
Oder explains:
Judge
dismisses federal eminent domain lawsuit; appeal planned
In an emphatic yet potentially questionable decision, U.S.
District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis yesterday dismissed Goldstein
v. Pataki, the federal lawsuit challenging eminent domain that Atlantic
Yards opponents have considered their best hope for stopping the project.
In his decision,
Garaufis ruled that even if public benefits—including new tax revenues, housing,
jobs, and the elimination of blight—are less than promised, they’re sufficient
to overcome allegations that the project is a sweetheart deal benefiting developer
Forest City Ratner.
“Because Plaintiffs concede that the Project will create large quantities of housing and office space, as well as a sports arena, in an area that is mostly blighted, Plaintiffs’ allegations, if proven, would not permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the 'sole purpose' of the Project is to confer a private benefit,” Garaufis wrote. “Neither would those allegations permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the purposes offered in support of the Project are 'mere pretexts' for an actual purpose to confer a private benefit on FCRC.”
Despite the setback, the plaintiffs, 13 owners and renters whose properties
lie in the southern segment of the 22-acre footprint, outside the longstanding
Atlantic Terminal Renewal Area (ATURA)
that encompasses the Vanderbilt Yard, vowed to appeal.
Appeal issues
“We have a nice issue for an appellate court to decide,” said plaintiffs’ attorney
Matthew Brinckerhoff. “Undisputed facts lead to an inference that this was driven
for Ratner’s benefit. It’s undisputed that no other developer was considered
to do this project, that the genesis was Forest City Ratner, that they identified
my clients’ properties [for eminent domain], and that the government, broadly
speaking, agreed to do exactly what [the developer] asked for. If those facts
don’t give rise to a claim under the public use clause, it’s definitely a dead
letter, for anybody.”...
Continue
reading
Posted: 6.07.07
|
|
|
|
