The Atlantic antics continue! In a most recent debacle with Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB), the outspoken anti-Atlantic Yards blog, the fights spilled over into the courts. DDDB along with 20 other Brooklyn Community groups filed a lawsuit on Oct. 19 against the Empire State Development Corporation, a major player int he Atlantic Yards deal.
ESDC is a a public authority that works in conjunction with the New York State government http://www.empire.state.ny.us/default.asp). It handled many projects over the years, from the construction of housing project to the building of the Apollo Theater. ESDC has been granted a huge wealth of economic and legal power that include the ability to issue its own, tax-free bond, use of eminent domain, and the power to overrule zoning laws. This helps it bypass issues that would impede private development corporations. ESDC has been working with Forest City Ratner, the Yards development group, by providing support int he form of financing and political push.
The recent suit claims misconduct and misguidance on the part of ESDC. It touches on multiple points. Here's a quick summary. A more in-depth look into the suit can be found on DDDB's website (http://dddb.net/php/latestnews_Linked.php?id=2398).
1) "The ESDC Has Abandoned the Legally Mandated Purpose of the Project:"
"The ESDC has designated the entire non-arena portion of the project as a Land Use Improvement Project (LUIP) under the Urban Development Corporation Act (UDCA). But the ESDC's 2009 MGPP fails to meet, and thus violates, the requirements of the UDCA because it does not present a plan to alleviate the alleged blighting and blighted conditions at the project site, and therefore cannot be an LUIP."
When the Atlantic yards deal was made, ESDC aggree to improve the surrounding neighborhood, removing "blight." But a new mandate issued by the ESDC claims that the project may take until 2030 to finish. DDDB claims that "the reality is that, at a minimum, the project area will remain either undeveloped or in a long term construction phase stretching decades that will not alleviate blight but rather exacerbate it and make it a permanent condition. The ESDC has made an illegal determination under the UDCA and, therefore, has no authority to approve or oversee the project."
2) The ESDC's Approval is Inconsistent on Conditions for Affordable Housing
"The ESDC's Modified General Project Plan, approved on September 17, 2009, requires the construction of 2,250 "affordable housing" units within the project. This is an unconditional requirement in the MGPP. But the ESDC is apparently poised to approve a "development agreement" in contradiction with the MGPP, which states that construction of those "affordable" units are "subject to governmental authorities making …affordable housing subsidies" available to Forest City Ratner."
This section deals with the proposed affordable housing. ESDC agreed to construct 2,250 afforable housing units in the vicinity of the Yards. But DDDB claims the corporation has intentions opposite this, and is planning ot revise their plan to construct those units only if the government provides the subsidies.
3)The ESDC Abused Its Discretion When it Failed to Issue a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)
"The ESDC irrationally and unreasonably maintained that the project would take ten years to construct by ignoring the fundamental changes brought about by the new MTA transaction and other clear, expert evidence that completion of the project would extend decades, if ever completed at all.The new deal with the MTA constituted both a substantial change in the project and in circumstances, which raised new issues concerning both the timing and completion of the project."
When the ESDC originally stated the plan would be completed within about 12 years. But more recently, they've extended that time-frame to somewhere around 2030. This, according to DDDB, makes void their original Environmental Impact statement (a statement which assesses all the impacts, positive and negative, the project would have had on the environment). They've failed to issue a new statement for the new time-frame.