Atlantic Yards Report: The next eminent domain donnybrook? AY controversy goes to court
Array Here is a short summary of their findings.By: Matthew Louie and Cali TranENTREPRENEUR-INVESTORSWithin the investor pool who responded to the survey, 16 of the 81 investors were entrepreneurs before they became venture capitalists. The entrepreneur-turned-investor has expectations of their role more closely aligned to the entrepreneur than to their non-entrepreneur investor peers.For example, the entrepreneur-investor does not think they provide enough sales support to their portfolio companies than their pure-investor counterparts: 92% of the non-entrepreneur investors think they offer just the right about of sales support vs.
link
UPDATE — CALL IT MARRIAGE: In part, excellent:HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.Call it marriage. That’s what it is. At a very quick glance, the Court appears to get the main point right, but it also seems to avoid the apparently insurmountable problem of terminology:At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples. Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.From a bit further on, this is the line the Court is treading:13. The equal protection requirement of Article I, Paragraph 1 leaves the Legislature with two apparent options. The Legislature could simply amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples, or it could create a separate statutory structure, such as a civil union. Because this State has no experience with a civil union construct, the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude. New language is developing to describe new social and familial relationships, and in time will find a place in our common vocabulary. However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship. (pp. 57-63)14. In the last two centuries, the institution of marriage has reflected society’s changing social mores and values. Legislatures, along with courts, have played a major role in ushering marriage into the modern era of equality of partners. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process. Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs’ quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives. (pp. 63-64)15. To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision. (p. 65)My initial judgment is that this outcome is good, but not good enough. To grant all the rights and benefits of marriage, but to refuse to use the word to refer to same-sex unions, reveals the continuation of discriminatory and indefensible attitudes. Since in fact it will be marriage, then call it that.Aside from the atavistic racists among us, do we refer to African-Americans as compatriots or colleagues, rather than as citizens? It’s the same issue.Do it right. Call it marriage.The release of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage is expected later today. Given the impending arrival of this news, I’ve republished below an essay from February 1, 2004, about certain issues raised by this subject. In fact, as we all now know, Bush did explicitly endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment after this piece was written.I hadn’t read this article myself in quite a while. I was very struck by this paragraph, in light of events over the last year in particular:Welcome to George Bush’s America: an America which spits in its own face, which disgraces a history which expanded the rights of all people, and which now dares to lecture other countries — and even to impose our will on them through military might — all in the name of democracy and freedom, while our President himself acts directly against our own recognition of individual rights and equality on the most fundamental level.Bush’s support for the Federal Marriage Amendment is only one of many instances of this phenomenon. To that particular abomination, we must now add the Military Commissions Act, which not only destroys habeas corpus, the most fundamental right upon which all our liberties depend, but also damnably embraces torture. Keeping in mind what torture actually is, my earlier argument was, if anything, seriously understated.Many hawks accuse those who dare to disagree with our decision to invade and occupy Iraq or with Bush’s foreign policy in general of being traitors. The manner in which they do so is unconscionable and recklessly careless. But, for the reasons explained in this essay and many other pieces I’ve written, the word traitor can be applied with full and complete accuracy to Bush himself. I grant that it is altogether extraordinary that our President should be the greatest betrayer of the fundamental principles underlying our form of government to be found in the United States itself, but that is the truth of the situation in which we find ourselves. It is our curse to live in such extraordinary times.Given my support of state-sanctioned gay marriage, I should perhaps mention the following. In terms of popular labels, it would probably be closest to the truth to describe my overall political position as being leftist-anarchist-libertarian. Theoretically, I unquestionably find anarchism to be the preferable alternative. History demonstrates over and over again that once any state is granted power, it will always seek to expand that power, until it finally tramples all traces of liberty underfoot, if it does not destroy them altogether. But as I indicate, that is only theory. For this historical moment, and certainly for another several hundred years at least, states as organizing political entities are here to stay. We shall see if the human race manages to survive them. With regard to the gay marriage issue, my argument is informed by an approach I have referred to as contextual libertarianism — which I have described in some detail in this essay (which discusses general considerations and foreign policy), and in this follow-up (which concerned whether pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to provide contraceptive devices because of their personal views; for the reasons I explained, I maintained they should not).I will be writing more on the following point shortly, so now I only mention this glancingly: for anarchy even to be possible (and to be a positive good, rather than only immensely destructive), a profound transformation of human consciousness would be required. I don’t mean that fancifully; I intend it quite literally. The disavowal of a single overriding authority — a power that commands the obedience of all under its sway, under penalty of law — could only rest on a radically different conception of our own nature and, of equal importance, of how we relate to one another, in contrast to the ideas almost all people accept today. In fact, I think evolution may take us to that point at some time in the future; there are small indications supporting that possibility to be found here and there. But I doubt it will occur on any significant scale when you or I will see it.Here’s the earlier essay.********************GEORGE W. BUSH — TRAITORFebruary 1, 2004Our contemptible Panderer-in-Chief comes a bit closer to revealing his hatred for individual rights, equality before the law, and the founding principles of the United States:After three days of private strategy sessions, the Republican leaders of the Senate have decided to scale back two of their major legislative initiatives: the energy bill and a measure that would impose strict caps on jury awards in medical liability cases.The decision came at the annual retreat of Republican members of Congress, which featured presentations by lawmakers and pollsters, entertainment by the comedian Dennis Miller and a speech on Saturday by President Bush. …Mr. Bush’s 11-minute talk, delivered in a folksy style to an admiring audience of lawmakers, spouses and their children, was the only event at the retreat open to journalists. The question-and-answer session that followed was closed to reporters.But during the session, Mr. Bush took the opportunity to clarify his position on an issue dear to some conservatives, a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, according to both Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado, and a White House spokesman.Mr. Bush said that if necessary, he would support the version of an amendment sponsored by Ms. Musgrave, the spokesman said. The specificity of his comments moved him a small step closer to backing an amendment. But they stopped short of satisfying some of the most determined Christian conservative groups. Many argue that a Massachusetts court ruling in favor of gay marriage makes an amendment an urgent necessity, and some are holding out for stronger language banning same-sex civil unions as well.Oh, please. Of course, he’ll support a constitutional amendment — if necessary, which in this instance, as in every other one, means if I conclude that my political well-being and my reelection require it. I commented on the philosophical implications and meaning of Bush’s stance on this issue before, where I offered Bush my personal judgment of eternal damnation. I repeat that judgment again. In fact, if there were a punishment greater than eternal damnation, Bush has now fully earned that punishment as well.In case you haven’t seen the text of the proposed amendment, here it is:FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.To appreciate the depth of the perfidy in which Bush is engaged, a brief historical review is required.With a few notable (and deplorable) exceptions, all of the amendments to the Constitution expand individual rights. The first ten amendments — the Bill of Rights — are widely recognized as an important, indeed essential, check on the powers of a centralized government.The Thirteenth Amendment famously states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.The Fourteenth Amendment provides: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
link
The rostrum in rorquals is long and tapers to a point (though it is comparatively broad in blue whales) and, in contrast to other mysticetes, a stout finger-like extension of the maxillary bone extends posteriorly, overlapping the nasals and abutting the supraoccipital (the shield-like plate that forms the rear margin of the skull). Exceeding 7 m in blue whales, rorqual lower jaws are the largest single bones in history (ha! Occasionally rorqual skulls have been discovered in which the long lower jaws have been stuck wedged inside various of the skull openings and with their tips protruding like tusks. Moving back to the morphology of the rorqual lower jaw, a tall, well-developed coronoid process â way larger than that of any other mysticete â projects from each jaw bone and forms the attachment site for a tendinous part of the temporalis muscle, termed the frontomandibular stay. As a rorqual lunge-feeds, an immense quantity of water (hopefully containing prey) is engulfed within the buccal pouch, transforming the whale from âa cigar shape to the shape of an elongated, bloated tadpoleâ (Orton & Brodie 1987, p. While a rorqual uses its muscles to open its jaws, the energy that powers the expansion of the buccal pouch is essentially provided by the whaleâs forward motion, and not by the jaw muscles. It seems that rorquals possess batteries of sensory organs within and around the buccal pouch: there are laminated corpuscles closely associated with the ventral grooves that might serve a sensory function, and located around the edges of the jaws, and at their tips, are a number of short (12.5 mm) vibrissae. Rorqual baleen plates number between 219 to 475 in each side of the jaw (the number of plates is highly variable within species, with sei whales alone having between 219 to 402), and each plate ranges in length from 20 cm (in the minkes) to 1 m (in the blue).
link
For years, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) has complained that the process behind the Atlantic Yards project was a sham. Yesterday, the community coalition put some legal muscle behind it. Ten plaintiffs—three property owners, one commercial tenant, and six residential tenants—filed suit in federal court, calling the planned use of eminent domain unconstitutional.(Photo of attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff by Jonathan Barkey)In doing so, they asked that the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) halt any action to approve the project. (Developer Forest City Ratner (FCR) has predicted approval next month.)Named as defendants are FCR and associated entities, the ESDC, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), as well as Gov. George Pataki, ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, NYCEDC officials Andrew Alper and Joshua Sirefman, and FCR’s Bruce Ratner and Jim Stuckey. All of the plaintiffs are in blocks below the MTA’s Vanderbilt Yard, including two from this block of five houses on Dean Street just east of Sixth Avenue.At a press conference yesterday afternoon outside City Hall, plaintiffs’ lead attorney Brinckerhoff called the planned project a violation of the 2005 Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. New London case: “This lawsuit presents a textbook example of what the Fifth Amendment expressly prohibits: the taking of one citizen’s property in order to benefit a powerful and influential private citizen,”(His firm, Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady (ECBA), has won some significant victories challenging government action, gaining New York City to pay .8 million to Housing Works, after the city terminated the group’s funding in response to its criticism of the city, and obtaining 0 million settlement from the city in a class action suit representing more 60,000 people arrested for minor violations who were strip-searched. It has also helped preserve the historic High Line on the West Side, which had faced demolition.)Kelo permitted the use of eminent domain, but it indicates that there must be a planning process—which differs from the process in Brooklyn, according to the complaint. (The opinion stated: The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan… Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence emphasized that respondents reviewed a variety of development plans and chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand.) Brinckerhoff acknowledged that the Kelo decision did erode some rights, but emphasized that “the Supreme Court has always said you cannot take private property for a private benefit.” Jurisprudence has evolved to allow a broadly-defined public purpose, however.Added plaintiff and DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein, “When Bruce Ratner went to Governor Pataki and asked if he could take our homes and businesses, and the governor said ‘sure,’ what he did was create the lawsuit you see today.”(Photo of Goldstein by Jonathan Barkey)Why sue now, even before the ESDC has voted? Brinckerhoff responded, “The plantiffs have an absolute right to have claims heard in federal court. If we wait, that would be jeopardized.” While he said that the plaintiffs have enough evidence to go to trial, he predicted that, during the discovery phase, “We will find documents that support our theory that this decision was made years ago.” By filing in federal court rather than state court, the plaintiffs also seek redress in a forum that is more insulated from the local political winds.(The judge assigned is Nicholas Garaufis, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 2000 after serving as the Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington, D.C. and before that counsel to Queens Borough President Claire Shulman.)Goldstein said the issue was of national importance and, indeed, DDDB offered a statement of support from the Institute of Justice (IJ), the libertarian law firm that has led the fight against eminent domain abuse. IJ attorney Dana Berliner, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the Kelo case, pointed out that the city of New London did not have a developer in mind when it came up with the project; she told the New York Law Journal: Kelo left open the possibility that a pure one-to-one transfer, or a condemnation that was made not according to the proper planning procedures, would not pass constitutional muster.link
Array Here is a short summary of their findings.By: Matthew Louie and Cali TranENTREPRENEUR-INVESTORSWithin the investor pool who responded to the survey, 16 of the 81 investors were entrepreneurs before they became venture capitalists. The entrepreneur-turned-investor has expectations of their role more closely aligned to the entrepreneur than to their non-entrepreneur investor peers.For example, the entrepreneur-investor does not think they provide enough sales support to their portfolio companies than their pure-investor counterparts: 92% of the non-entrepreneur investors think they offer just the right about of sales support vs.
link
UPDATE — CALL IT MARRIAGE: In part, excellent:HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.Call it marriage. That’s what it is. At a very quick glance, the Court appears to get the main point right, but it also seems to avoid the apparently insurmountable problem of terminology:At this point, the Court does not consider whether committed same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, but only whether those couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits afforded to married heterosexual couples. Cast in that light, the issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.From a bit further on, this is the line the Court is treading:13. The equal protection requirement of Article I, Paragraph 1 leaves the Legislature with two apparent options. The Legislature could simply amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples, or it could create a separate statutory structure, such as a civil union. Because this State has no experience with a civil union construct, the Court will not speculate that identical schemes offering equal rights and benefits would create a distinction that would offend Article I, Paragraph 1, and will not presume that a difference in name is of constitutional magnitude. New language is developing to describe new social and familial relationships, and in time will find a place in our common vocabulary. However the Legislature may act, same-sex couples will be free to call their relationships by the name they choose and to sanctify their relationships in religious ceremonies in houses of worship. (pp. 57-63)14. In the last two centuries, the institution of marriage has reflected society’s changing social mores and values. Legislatures, along with courts, have played a major role in ushering marriage into the modern era of equality of partners. The great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process. Although courts can ensure equal treatment, they cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs’ quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives. (pp. 63-64)15. To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision. (p. 65)My initial judgment is that this outcome is good, but not good enough. To grant all the rights and benefits of marriage, but to refuse to use the word to refer to same-sex unions, reveals the continuation of discriminatory and indefensible attitudes. Since in fact it will be marriage, then call it that.Aside from the atavistic racists among us, do we refer to African-Americans as compatriots or colleagues, rather than as citizens? It’s the same issue.Do it right. Call it marriage.The release of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage is expected later today. Given the impending arrival of this news, I’ve republished below an essay from February 1, 2004, about certain issues raised by this subject. In fact, as we all now know, Bush did explicitly endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment after this piece was written.I hadn’t read this article myself in quite a while. I was very struck by this paragraph, in light of events over the last year in particular:Welcome to George Bush’s America: an America which spits in its own face, which disgraces a history which expanded the rights of all people, and which now dares to lecture other countries — and even to impose our will on them through military might — all in the name of democracy and freedom, while our President himself acts directly against our own recognition of individual rights and equality on the most fundamental level.Bush’s support for the Federal Marriage Amendment is only one of many instances of this phenomenon. To that particular abomination, we must now add the Military Commissions Act, which not only destroys habeas corpus, the most fundamental right upon which all our liberties depend, but also damnably embraces torture. Keeping in mind what torture actually is, my earlier argument was, if anything, seriously understated.Many hawks accuse those who dare to disagree with our decision to invade and occupy Iraq or with Bush’s foreign policy in general of being traitors. The manner in which they do so is unconscionable and recklessly careless. But, for the reasons explained in this essay and many other pieces I’ve written, the word traitor can be applied with full and complete accuracy to Bush himself. I grant that it is altogether extraordinary that our President should be the greatest betrayer of the fundamental principles underlying our form of government to be found in the United States itself, but that is the truth of the situation in which we find ourselves. It is our curse to live in such extraordinary times.Given my support of state-sanctioned gay marriage, I should perhaps mention the following. In terms of popular labels, it would probably be closest to the truth to describe my overall political position as being leftist-anarchist-libertarian. Theoretically, I unquestionably find anarchism to be the preferable alternative. History demonstrates over and over again that once any state is granted power, it will always seek to expand that power, until it finally tramples all traces of liberty underfoot, if it does not destroy them altogether. But as I indicate, that is only theory. For this historical moment, and certainly for another several hundred years at least, states as organizing political entities are here to stay. We shall see if the human race manages to survive them. With regard to the gay marriage issue, my argument is informed by an approach I have referred to as contextual libertarianism — which I have described in some detail in this essay (which discusses general considerations and foreign policy), and in this follow-up (which concerned whether pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to provide contraceptive devices because of their personal views; for the reasons I explained, I maintained they should not).I will be writing more on the following point shortly, so now I only mention this glancingly: for anarchy even to be possible (and to be a positive good, rather than only immensely destructive), a profound transformation of human consciousness would be required. I don’t mean that fancifully; I intend it quite literally. The disavowal of a single overriding authority — a power that commands the obedience of all under its sway, under penalty of law — could only rest on a radically different conception of our own nature and, of equal importance, of how we relate to one another, in contrast to the ideas almost all people accept today. In fact, I think evolution may take us to that point at some time in the future; there are small indications supporting that possibility to be found here and there. But I doubt it will occur on any significant scale when you or I will see it.Here’s the earlier essay.********************GEORGE W. BUSH — TRAITORFebruary 1, 2004Our contemptible Panderer-in-Chief comes a bit closer to revealing his hatred for individual rights, equality before the law, and the founding principles of the United States:After three days of private strategy sessions, the Republican leaders of the Senate have decided to scale back two of their major legislative initiatives: the energy bill and a measure that would impose strict caps on jury awards in medical liability cases.The decision came at the annual retreat of Republican members of Congress, which featured presentations by lawmakers and pollsters, entertainment by the comedian Dennis Miller and a speech on Saturday by President Bush. …Mr. Bush’s 11-minute talk, delivered in a folksy style to an admiring audience of lawmakers, spouses and their children, was the only event at the retreat open to journalists. The question-and-answer session that followed was closed to reporters.But during the session, Mr. Bush took the opportunity to clarify his position on an issue dear to some conservatives, a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, according to both Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado, and a White House spokesman.Mr. Bush said that if necessary, he would support the version of an amendment sponsored by Ms. Musgrave, the spokesman said. The specificity of his comments moved him a small step closer to backing an amendment. But they stopped short of satisfying some of the most determined Christian conservative groups. Many argue that a Massachusetts court ruling in favor of gay marriage makes an amendment an urgent necessity, and some are holding out for stronger language banning same-sex civil unions as well.Oh, please. Of course, he’ll support a constitutional amendment — if necessary, which in this instance, as in every other one, means if I conclude that my political well-being and my reelection require it. I commented on the philosophical implications and meaning of Bush’s stance on this issue before, where I offered Bush my personal judgment of eternal damnation. I repeat that judgment again. In fact, if there were a punishment greater than eternal damnation, Bush has now fully earned that punishment as well.In case you haven’t seen the text of the proposed amendment, here it is:FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.To appreciate the depth of the perfidy in which Bush is engaged, a brief historical review is required.With a few notable (and deplorable) exceptions, all of the amendments to the Constitution expand individual rights. The first ten amendments — the Bill of Rights — are widely recognized as an important, indeed essential, check on the powers of a centralized government.The Thirteenth Amendment famously states: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.The Fourteenth Amendment provides: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
link
The rostrum in rorquals is long and tapers to a point (though it is comparatively broad in blue whales) and, in contrast to other mysticetes, a stout finger-like extension of the maxillary bone extends posteriorly, overlapping the nasals and abutting the supraoccipital (the shield-like plate that forms the rear margin of the skull). Exceeding 7 m in blue whales, rorqual lower jaws are the largest single bones in history (ha! Occasionally rorqual skulls have been discovered in which the long lower jaws have been stuck wedged inside various of the skull openings and with their tips protruding like tusks. Moving back to the morphology of the rorqual lower jaw, a tall, well-developed coronoid process â way larger than that of any other mysticete â projects from each jaw bone and forms the attachment site for a tendinous part of the temporalis muscle, termed the frontomandibular stay. As a rorqual lunge-feeds, an immense quantity of water (hopefully containing prey) is engulfed within the buccal pouch, transforming the whale from âa cigar shape to the shape of an elongated, bloated tadpoleâ (Orton & Brodie 1987, p. While a rorqual uses its muscles to open its jaws, the energy that powers the expansion of the buccal pouch is essentially provided by the whaleâs forward motion, and not by the jaw muscles. It seems that rorquals possess batteries of sensory organs within and around the buccal pouch: there are laminated corpuscles closely associated with the ventral grooves that might serve a sensory function, and located around the edges of the jaws, and at their tips, are a number of short (12.5 mm) vibrissae. Rorqual baleen plates number between 219 to 475 in each side of the jaw (the number of plates is highly variable within species, with sei whales alone having between 219 to 402), and each plate ranges in length from 20 cm (in the minkes) to 1 m (in the blue).
link
For years, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) has complained that the process behind the Atlantic Yards project was a sham. Yesterday, the community coalition put some legal muscle behind it. Ten plaintiffs—three property owners, one commercial tenant, and six residential tenants—filed suit in federal court, calling the planned use of eminent domain unconstitutional.(Photo of attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff by Jonathan Barkey)In doing so, they asked that the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) and Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) halt any action to approve the project. (Developer Forest City Ratner (FCR) has predicted approval next month.)Named as defendants are FCR and associated entities, the ESDC, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), as well as Gov. George Pataki, ESDC Chairman Charles Gargano, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, NYCEDC officials Andrew Alper and Joshua Sirefman, and FCR’s Bruce Ratner and Jim Stuckey. All of the plaintiffs are in blocks below the MTA’s Vanderbilt Yard, including two from this block of five houses on Dean Street just east of Sixth Avenue.At a press conference yesterday afternoon outside City Hall, plaintiffs’ lead attorney Brinckerhoff called the planned project a violation of the 2005 Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. New London case: “This lawsuit presents a textbook example of what the Fifth Amendment expressly prohibits: the taking of one citizen’s property in order to benefit a powerful and influential private citizen,”(His firm, Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady (ECBA), has won some significant victories challenging government action, gaining New York City to pay .8 million to Housing Works, after the city terminated the group’s funding in response to its criticism of the city, and obtaining 0 million settlement from the city in a class action suit representing more 60,000 people arrested for minor violations who were strip-searched. It has also helped preserve the historic High Line on the West Side, which had faced demolition.)Kelo permitted the use of eminent domain, but it indicates that there must be a planning process—which differs from the process in Brooklyn, according to the complaint. (The opinion stated: The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan… Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence emphasized that respondents reviewed a variety of development plans and chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand.) Brinckerhoff acknowledged that the Kelo decision did erode some rights, but emphasized that “the Supreme Court has always said you cannot take private property for a private benefit.” Jurisprudence has evolved to allow a broadly-defined public purpose, however.Added plaintiff and DDDB spokesman Daniel Goldstein, “When Bruce Ratner went to Governor Pataki and asked if he could take our homes and businesses, and the governor said ‘sure,’ what he did was create the lawsuit you see today.”(Photo of Goldstein by Jonathan Barkey)Why sue now, even before the ESDC has voted? Brinckerhoff responded, “The plantiffs have an absolute right to have claims heard in federal court. If we wait, that would be jeopardized.” While he said that the plaintiffs have enough evidence to go to trial, he predicted that, during the discovery phase, “We will find documents that support our theory that this decision was made years ago.” By filing in federal court rather than state court, the plaintiffs also seek redress in a forum that is more insulated from the local political winds.(The judge assigned is Nicholas Garaufis, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 2000 after serving as the Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington, D.C. and before that counsel to Queens Borough President Claire Shulman.)Goldstein said the issue was of national importance and, indeed, DDDB offered a statement of support from the Institute of Justice (IJ), the libertarian law firm that has led the fight against eminent domain abuse. IJ attorney Dana Berliner, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the Kelo case, pointed out that the city of New London did not have a developer in mind when it came up with the project; she told the New York Law Journal: Kelo left open the possibility that a pure one-to-one transfer, or a condemnation that was made not according to the proper planning procedures, would not pass constitutional muster.link