2 Furman Street in Brooklyn seen from the Brooklyn Promenade. Image credit: CityLaw.

Development corporation constructed buildings in Brooklyn Bridge Park that blocked view of the Brooklyn Bridge from the Brooklyn Promenade. In 2005 Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corporation and Empire State Development Corporation adopted a general project plan for Brooklyn Bridge Park that included the development of a hotel, restaurant, and residential units upland of Brooklyn’s Pier 1. Community members demanded during the initial environmental review that the new buildings not block the view of the Brooklyn Bridge from the Brooklyn Promenade.  The final environmental impact statement limited the northern building to a height of 100 feet and the southern building to a height of 55 feet.  (more…)

Atlantic Yards development site along Atlantic Avenue.

Court found ESDC’s environmental analysis insufficient due to change in Atlantic Yards project, but refused to halt project. In 2006, the Empire State Development Corporation approved the general project plan for Forest City Ratner Companies’ Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. The $4 billion project includes a sports arena and sixteen high-rise buildings. Ratner agreed to purchase air rights from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority at the beginning of the project in order to facilitate the development of six of the buildings. The project’s environmental review assumed a ten-year build-out for the project and a completion date of 2016.

In June 2009, Ratner and the MTA renegotiated the terms of their agreement to permit Ratner to acquire the air rights over a fifteen-year period extending to 2030. In September 2009, ESDC adopted the project’s modified general project plan, but continued to assume a ten-year build-out with an estimated project completion date of 2019. As such, ESDC concluded that no additional environmental review was required.

Two community groups, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn and the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council, filed a petition claiming that ESDC ignored the impacts of the renegotiated MTA agreement on the project’s time frame for construction (more…)

Court of Appeals reversed First Department’s strongly worded opinion. In 2001, Columbia University contacted the City’s Economic Development Corporation in an effort to redevelop West Harlem as part of a campus expansion. Not long after, EDC issued a West Harlem Master Plan that stated that West Harlem could be redeveloped through rezoning. EDC, after it issued the master plan, hired a private firm to examine the neighborhood conditions of West Harlem. The study concluded that the area was blighted.

While the study was ongoing, Columbia began purchasing property to effectuate its own redevelopment plan. Two years after the purchasing began, Columbia met with the Empire State Development Corporation and EDC to discuss its plan and the proposed condemnation of privately owned land. Empire State retained the same consultant that Columbia had used, who also found the area suffered from blight. Empire State later hired a second consultant with no connection to Columbia to conduct another blight study. The study also found blighted conditions throughout the area. Shortly after, Empire State authorized the acquisition of property through eminent domain, and several affected property owners filed petitions challenging the determination. (more…)

Property owners challenge ESDC’s authority to use eminent domain on behalf of Columbia. Looking to expand in West Harlem, Columbia University teamed up with the City’s Economic Development Corporation in 2001 to redevelop the area. Not long after, EDC issued a West Harlem Master Plan. The plan stated that West Harlem could be redeveloped through rezoning, and did not mention any blighted conditions in Manhattanville. Columbia began purchasing property in the area in 2002 for its own redevelopment and expansion plan. The seventeen-acre project site, bounded by West 133rd Street on the north, West 125th Street on the south, Broadway and Old Broadway on the east, and Twelfth Avenue on the west, would include sixteen new buildings, and a contiguous below-grade support facility.

Two years after the purchasing began, Columbia met with the Empire State Development Corporation and EDC to discuss Columbia’s plan and the condemnation of land. Subsequently, EDC issued a study concluding the area was blighted. ESDC retained Columbia’s consultant, who also found the area suffered from blight. ESDC later commissioned a second blight study with a consultant without ties to Columbia. The study also found blighted conditions throughout the area. Seven months after the second study, ESDC authorized the acquisition of certain property through eminent domain, and several affected property owners filed petitions challenging the determination. (more…)

Community groups gain access to withheld documents since Columbia University and ESDC hired same consultant. Columbia University hired AKRF, a prominent planning firm, to help gain agency approvals for its controversial expansion into Manhattanville. Two months later, the Empire State Development Corporation hired AKRF to conduct a blight study needed to determine if the use of eminent domain as part of Columbia’s plan was appropriate. Columbia paid AKRF’s consulting fees for preparing the blight study under an agreement between ESDC and Columbia.

Both the West Harlem Business Group and Tuck-It-Away Inc. filed FOIL requests, seeking documents in connection with Columbia’s expansion plan and its agreement with ESDC. ESDC denied both FOIL requests, stating the documents were exempt because all communications between agencies and independent consultants are protected under the intra/inter agency exemption. Both groups filed article 78 petitions.

The lower court found that the intra/inter agency exemption did not apply because the consultant’s work for ESDC could not be characterized as impartial since AKRF was working for Columbia to gain ESDC’s approval.

On appeal, the First Department agreed with the lower court. It found that the exemption was not applicable because AKRF could not have offered perfectly objective advice to ESDC since Columbia hired AKRF to help gain ESDC’s approval. Even though ESDC claimed AKRF had effectively implemented a “Chinese Wall” so that consultants working on the blight study did not confer with those working to secure ESDC approval, the First Department disagreed. It seriously doubted AKRF’s neutrality, and resolved the matter in favor of disclosure.

Matter of Tuck-It-Away Assoc., L.P. v. Empire State Dev. Corp., 2008 NY Slip Op 06279, (July 15, 2008) (Attorneys: Carter Ledyard & Millburn LLP, for ESDC; McLaughlin & Stern LLP, for WHBG and Tuck-It-Away).