Morally, how do we reconcile the eminent domain for Atlantic Yards?

[BrooklynBound]

If this project can stand on it's own two feet, Ratner should buy it on the open market and not use the government to subsidize it and force homeowners out of their home.

 

[GMJ]

I'll make peace with this by yelling "GTFOOOOOO" when I run into the arena to see Lebron's first game as a Net.

 

[SportsTicker]

Easy...New York is in a housing crisis and the project envisions 6000 new apartments, compared to between 60 and 100 people (AT MOST) who would have to leave -- and get new apartments in the completed development.

This is New York City, not Keokuk, Iowa. It happens all the time. You act as if eminent domain was a new concept, not one rooted in English common law...and upheld by the US Supreme Court three years ago.

The majority of those opposed to Atlantic Yards are NOT people facing condemnation. They are people who live nearby who dont like the idea of more people moving into their neighborhood, creating more congestion, etc., etc.

New York is in competition with a number of world class cities around the world, not Newark.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 25 2008, 07:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Easy...New York is in a housing crisis and the project envisions 6000 new apartments, compared to between 60 and 100 people (AT MOST) who would have to leave -- and get new apartments in the completed development.

This is New York City, not Keokuk, Iowa. It happens all the time. You act as if eminent domain was a new concept, not one rooted in English common law...and upheld by the US Supreme Court three years ago.

The majority of those opposed to Atlantic Yards are NOT people facing condemnation. They are people who live nearby who dont like the idea of more people moving into their neighborhood, creating more congestion, etc., etc.

New York is in competition with a number of world class cities around the world, not Newark.</div>
Where did I imply that:

- eminent domain was a new concept
- eminent domain doesn't happen elsewhere

I didn't.

Also, I could care less about the majority of people who oppose the Atlantic Yards. That doesn't change the fact that the government seizure of private property for PRIVATE ENTERPRISE is absolutely unjustified and inherently wrong.

Not to mention that the state is pumping in subsidies. What a joke.

 

[SportsTicker]

Well, you implied it all in your new post.

It is neither unjustified nor inherently wrong. It is correct, as decided in Kelo, and it is a great tool for turning a piece of underutilized (and in this case ugly) property into something that benefits the greater good. I would like to see more of it...wholesale if needed to renew city centers.

You should now return to the Ron Paul board.

 

[cpawfan]

Come on NI, didn't you know that a multi-billion dollar development project in a tight economy isn't going to employ anyone.

It is meaningless that governments once upon a time had huge public works projects to build things to improve areas and now use subsidies to allow private businesses to accomplish the same goals instead of paying for them directly.

Screw progress, forget the greater good, and let the special interest misuse the moral and ethical cards.

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!

Come on chant it with me

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!

 

[ly_yng]

I haven't been following the whole eminent domain, Brooklyn thing all that closely. So, let me ask a few questions to make sure I understand what's going on.

Private property here is being seized for a larger project the city/state deems worthy. I presume this means the landowners are being compensated for their property, correct? What exactly are they being paid for?

Is it just the land, or are they compensated for the buildings as well?

I'd hope they're being paid above market prices, seeing as how we're in a housing crunch and it's a pretty terrible time to sell property.

Also, what about the gentrification issues? Are these apartments going to be mixed-income housing, or is this just going to drive people too poor to afford skyrocketing rents out of the neighborhood? Is this really going to help restore a failing neighborhood, or is it just going to relocate it?

 

[logik15]

I heard that the proposed deal was to give all current tenants who has an apartment there now a new one when it is finished with the current rent that they are paying now. So these tenants, although are going to lose their home now, later are going to get a new one.

In the end it benefits a lot more people with more middle class homes, more jobs, and of course benefits the Nets the most, which is all i care about.

If you are a true Nets fan, I don't see how you can be opposed to this move... we'll be able to sign large contracts like the Knicks and not care. We will be a enticing team in a new arena and an actual audience for our games which will drive players to want to play for the Nets. Once the arena breaks ground... it will be an exciting time for the franchise when the arena is actually commenced to be built.

The extra 30 minute drive for me to get there is nothing compared to what it is going to do for this franchise.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 25 2008, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, you implied it all in your new post.

It is neither unjustified nor inherently wrong. It is correct, as decided in Kelo, and it is a great tool for turning a piece of underutilized (and in this case ugly) property into something that benefits the greater good. I would like to see more of it...wholesale if needed to renew city centers.

You should now return to the Ron Paul board.</div>
I did not imply it. Show me where.

A court decision does not make a policy correct. I really hope you don't believe that.

Forcing people to leave their homes for a private enterprise is never justified or moral. If people want to leave, they should do so on their terms.

If Ratner wants the space so badly, he is certainly free to buy out every willing owner using market prices, not the government. And again, the use of government subsidies just makes it more ridiculous.

 

[MikeDC]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 25 2008, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Come on NI, didn't you know that a multi-billion dollar development project in a tight economy isn't going to employ anyone.

It is meaningless that governments once upon a time had huge public works projects to build things to improve areas and now use subsidies to allow private businesses to accomplish the same goals instead of paying for them directly.

Screw progress, forget the greater good, and let the special interest misuse the moral and ethical cards.

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!

Come on chant it with me

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!</div>

I'll chant it with you because I don't really see why the government should be taking from one group to give to another. Ugly vs. pretty is irrelevant. The "moral and ethical cards" aren't being any more properly used by the rich guys who stand to get richer by using eminent domain.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ May 29 2008, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 25 2008, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Come on NI, didn't you know that a multi-billion dollar development project in a tight economy isn't going to employ anyone.

It is meaningless that governments once upon a time had huge public works projects to build things to improve areas and now use subsidies to allow private businesses to accomplish the same goals instead of paying for them directly.

Screw progress, forget the greater good, and let the special interest misuse the moral and ethical cards.

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!

Come on chant it with me

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!</div>

I'll chant it with you because I don't really see why the government should be taking from one group to give to another. Ugly vs. pretty is irrelevant. The "moral and ethical cards" aren't being any more properly used by the rich guys who stand to get richer by using eminent domain.
</div>
Exactly. Who wouldn't want more economic development? It just should come through choice, not force. Especially when it's not GUARANTEED to provide substantial economic benefit. It might, it might nowt.

And you raised a good point, why do the developers get the hand out?

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (logik15 @ May 25 2008, 05:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I heard that the proposed deal was to give all current tenants who has an apartment there now a new one when it is finished with the current rent that they are paying now. So these tenants, although are going to lose their home now, later are going to get a new one.

In the end it benefits a lot more people with more middle class homes, more jobs, and of course benefits the Nets the most, which is all i care about.

If you are a true Nets fan, I don't see how you can be opposed to this move... we'll be able to sign large contracts like the Knicks and not care. We will be a enticing team in a new arena and an actual audience for our games which will drive players to want to play for the Nets. Once the arena breaks ground... it will be an exciting time for the franchise when the arena is actually commenced to be built.

The extra 30 minute drive for me to get there is nothing compared to what it is going to do for this franchise.</div>
Even if everyone gets a new home, what if you do not want to move?

Since there are government subsidies involved, we don't KNOW that people will significantly benefit from this project.

Yes, I'm a Nets fan. What does that have to do with it. We know the move will probably benefit the Nets, that has nothing to do with my point.

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ May 29 2008, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 25 2008, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Come on NI, didn't you know that a multi-billion dollar development project in a tight economy isn't going to employ anyone.

It is meaningless that governments once upon a time had huge public works projects to build things to improve areas and now use subsidies to allow private businesses to accomplish the same goals instead of paying for them directly.

Screw progress, forget the greater good, and let the special interest misuse the moral and ethical cards.

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!

Come on chant it with me

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!</div>

I'll chant it with you because I don't really see why the government should be taking from one group to give to another. Ugly vs. pretty is irrelevant. The "moral and ethical cards" aren't being any more properly used by the rich guys who stand to get richer by using eminent domain.
</div>

This is about risk management. The vast majority of municipalities can't afford such huge public works projects anymore or if they attempt to fund them, they become ridiculous like the Big Dig in Boston. The eminent domain would have been used anyways, but now the government body is saving money.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 29 2008, 06:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ May 29 2008, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 25 2008, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Come on NI, didn't you know that a multi-billion dollar development project in a tight economy isn't going to employ anyone.

It is meaningless that governments once upon a time had huge public works projects to build things to improve areas and now use subsidies to allow private businesses to accomplish the same goals instead of paying for them directly.

Screw progress, forget the greater good, and let the special interest misuse the moral and ethical cards.

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!

Come on chant it with me

Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly! Keep Brooklyn Ugly!</div>

I'll chant it with you because I don't really see why the government should be taking from one group to give to another. Ugly vs. pretty is irrelevant. The "moral and ethical cards" aren't being any more properly used by the rich guys who stand to get richer by using eminent domain.
</div>

This is about risk management. The vast majority of municipalities can't afford such huge public works projects anymore or if they attempt to fund them, they become ridiculous like the Big Dig in Boston. The eminent domain would have been used anyways, but now the government body is saving money.
</div>
I know why they are doing it. It still doesn't make it right.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 25 2008, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, you implied it all in your new post.

It is neither unjustified nor inherently wrong. It is correct, as decided in Kelo, and it is a great tool for turning a piece of underutilized (and in this case ugly) property into something that benefits the greater good. I would like to see more of it...wholesale if needed to renew city centers.

You should now return to the Ron Paul board.</div>

I'm no Ron Paul supporter (far from it), and I won't argue that in terms of taking something bad and turning it into something good is a good or a bad thing.

But I think the problem is you are giving this property to the private sector as opposed to the government, making the people who own this land unaccountable to the people who live there, and that has set a dangerous precedent of having abuses of those in the private sector who take the land and misuse it.

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ May 29 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I know why they are doing it. It still doesn't make it right.</div>

Yes it does. It would be proper use if the government built the arena with their own money. This is the same thing.

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 29 2008, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 25 2008, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, you implied it all in your new post.

It is neither unjustified nor inherently wrong. It is correct, as decided in Kelo, and it is a great tool for turning a piece of underutilized (and in this case ugly) property into something that benefits the greater good. I would like to see more of it...wholesale if needed to renew city centers.

You should now return to the Ron Paul board.</div>

I'm no Ron Paul supporter (far from it), and I won't argue that in terms of taking something bad and turning it into something good is a good or a bad thing.

But I think the problem is you are giving this property to the private sector as opposed to the government, making the people who own this land unaccountable to the people who live there, and that has set a dangerous precedent of having abuses of those in the private sector who take the land and misuse it.
</div>

There have been bunches of documented cases of abuse of this for the benefit of the private sector. A lot of those have been for things like shopping malls.

Arenas and stadiums for major league sports are a different animal

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 29 2008, 07:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 29 2008, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 25 2008, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, you implied it all in your new post.

It is neither unjustified nor inherently wrong. It is correct, as decided in Kelo, and it is a great tool for turning a piece of underutilized (and in this case ugly) property into something that benefits the greater good. I would like to see more of it...wholesale if needed to renew city centers.

You should now return to the Ron Paul board.</div>

I'm no Ron Paul supporter (far from it), and I won't argue that in terms of taking something bad and turning it into something good is a good or a bad thing.

But I think the problem is you are giving this property to the private sector as opposed to the government, making the people who own this land unaccountable to the people who live there, and that has set a dangerous precedent of having abuses of those in the private sector who take the land and misuse it.
</div>

There have been bunches of documented cases of abuse of this for the benefit of the private sector. A lot of those have been for things like shopping malls.

Arenas and stadiums for major league sports are a different animal
</div>

Yeah, I understand that. I understand it will have its benefits. There's no doubt about that.

But this project is more than an Arena, it's skyscrapers, it's office buildings. It's going to have a tremendous effect on the traffic and such in an already congested area. There is the possibility of overkill in this case, and there's nothing the people in Brooklyn can do about it, the residents that live in the area, and the residents that live in other neighborhoods in the borough. That's troubling IMO.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 29 2008, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 29 2008, 07:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 29 2008, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 25 2008, 01:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, you implied it all in your new post.

It is neither unjustified nor inherently wrong. It is correct, as decided in Kelo, and it is a great tool for turning a piece of underutilized (and in this case ugly) property into something that benefits the greater good. I would like to see more of it...wholesale if needed to renew city centers.

You should now return to the Ron Paul board.</div>

I'm no Ron Paul supporter (far from it), and I won't argue that in terms of taking something bad and turning it into something good is a good or a bad thing.

But I think the problem is you are giving this property to the private sector as opposed to the government, making the people who own this land unaccountable to the people who live there, and that has set a dangerous precedent of having abuses of those in the private sector who take the land and misuse it.
</div>

There have been bunches of documented cases of abuse of this for the benefit of the private sector. A lot of those have been for things like shopping malls.

Arenas and stadiums for major league sports are a different animal
</div>

Yeah, I understand that. I understand it will have its benefits. There's no doubt about that.

But this project is more than an Arena, it's skyscrapers, it's office buildings. It's going to have a tremendous effect on the traffic and such in an already congested area. There is the possibility of overkill in this case, and there's nothing the people in Brooklyn can do about it, the residents that live in the area, and the residents that live in other neighborhoods in the borough. That's troubling IMO.
</div>but, but, but the jobs!

I have nothing against development, but it should be done using the market, not by forcing you out of your home. Your right to own property should not be infringed upon because someone wants to put up an arena (partly with your tax dollars).

 

[BrooklynBound]

The answer is: we can't reconcile it.

Protect property rights.

 

[SportsTicker]

This is so very simplistic. EVERY government taking, EVERY single one has some benefit for private landowners. It's just indirect. A city buys land for a school and the nearby residents benefit when they sell their homes. A state buys land for a highway and the property owners near the right of way profit handsomely. A municipal authority takes an easement to build water and sewer lines and those along the lines benefit both in terms of the amenities as well as in the value of their property.

Libertarianism, Objectivism and their derivatives have such wonderful intellectual appeal. Too bad there's a real world where those of who aren't Ron Paul have to live.

Individual property rights have never been sacrosanct. There are always abridgments going back to English common law.

In any case, the Supreme Court will decide in conference Thursday morning whether to take the case. It is highly unlikely they will. If they don't, the critics will have lost at every level on their biggest, most significant challenge. They can keep filing suits, but at some point judges will stop giving out temporary restraining orders and the arena will move forward...and twenty years from now, no one will care.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 10 2008, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is so very simplistic. EVERY government taking, EVERY single one has some benefit for private landowners. It's just indirect. A city buys land for a school and the nearby residents benefit when they sell their homes. A state buys land for a highway and the property owners near the right of way profit handsomely. A municipal authority takes an easement to build water and sewer lines and those along the lines benefit both in terms of the amenities as well as in the value of their property.

Libertarianism, Objectivism and their derivatives have such wonderful intellectual appeal. Too bad there's a real world where those of who aren't Ron Paul have to live.

Individual property rights have never been sacrosanct. There are always abridgments going back to English common law.

In any case, the Supreme Court will decide in conference Thursday morning whether to take the case. It is highly unlikely they will. If they don't, the critics will have lost at every level on their biggest, most significant challenge. They can keep filing suits, but at some point judges will stop giving out temporary restraining orders and the arena will move forward...and twenty years from now, no one will care.</div>

Duly noted, and those benefits are great.

Like I said I'm no Ron Paul Libertarian, but the fact that the public can't hold Ratner accountable for any possible abuse is a concern no?

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ Jun 10 2008, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is so very simplistic. EVERY government taking, EVERY single one has some benefit for private landowners. It's just indirect. A city buys land for a school and the nearby residents benefit when they sell their homes. A state buys land for a highway and the property owners near the right of way profit handsomely. A municipal authority takes an easement to build water and sewer lines and those along the lines benefit both in terms of the amenities as well as in the value of their property.

Libertarianism, Objectivism and their derivatives have such wonderful intellectual appeal. Too bad there's a real world where those of who aren't Ron Paul have to live.

Individual property rights have never been sacrosanct. There are always abridgments going back to English common law.

In any case, the Supreme Court will decide in conference Thursday morning whether to take the case. It is highly unlikely they will. If they don't, the critics will have lost at every level on their biggest, most significant challenge. They can keep filing suits, but at some point judges will stop giving out temporary restraining orders and the arena will move forward...and twenty years from now, no one will care.</div>


Indirect benefits are all well and good. But again, they shouldn't come at the expense of property rights. And how do you measure the direct costs to the citizens? You can cite all of the court cases that you want. A court ruling forms law, it doesn't justify the law in itself.

Please don't compare a school, road, or sewer line to an NBA arena. Property rights should not be infringed for a sports facility.

If Ratner wants the property so bad, he is perfectly free to buy out every property owner. But hey, why not have the government FORCE people out of their homes at a below market price and FORCE the taxpayers to kick in subsidies? Yeah, that's not a corrupt abuse of power.

If anyone should get welfare at the taxpayers' expense, it's paupers like Bruce Ratner. Poor guy, he deserves a break.