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 (read more…)

Court orders ESDC to consider whether extended timetable for project’s completion requires supplemental environmental review. 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 tenyear 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 fifteenyear period extending to 2030. In September 2009, ESDC adopted the project’s modified general project plan. ESDC continued to assume a ten-year build out with an estimated project completion date of 2019, and concluded that no additional environmental review was required. Two community groups, Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn and the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council, challenged ESDC’s adoption of the modified general project plan. The groups claimed that ESDC ignored the impacts of the renegotiated MTA agreement on the project’s time frame for construction and should have concluded that additional environmental review was warranted. (read 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. (read more…)

City-controlled operating entity will be responsible for implementing island’s recently released redevelopment master plan. On April 11, 2010, the City and State announced an agreement that would transfer to the City primary responsibility for operating Governors Island and for implementing the development goals of the Governors Island Park and Public Space Master Plan. The City and State have jointly operated the island since 2003, when the federal government transferred control of the island to the Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation, a subsidiary of the Empire State Development Corporation. The newly created Governors Island Operating Entity will now oversee the development and operation of the island. The entity’s thirteenmember board will include nine mayoral appointees, and appointees of the Governor, the 64th District State Assembly Member, the 25th District State Senator, and Manhattan Community Board 1.

The 172-acre island’s northern 92 acres were designated as the Governors Island Historic District by Landmarks in 1996 and includes the 22-acre Governors Island National Monument managed by the National Park Service. The island’s remaining 80-acre southern portion, which is closed to the public, is slated for redevelopment and features parking lots, abandoned warehouses, and former military barracks. (read 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. (read more…)

ESDC’s determination upheld that three blocks outside urban renewal area were blighted. In 2003, Forest City Ratner proposed to redevelop a 22-acre site in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn. The site included portions of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area and portions of three privately-owned blocks outside the renewal area. After Ratner’s proposal was accepted, the Empire State Development Corporation designated itself as lead agency for the project under state environmental law. ESDC prepared an environmental impact statement and a blight study, and later approved the findings in both documents, including the finding that portions of the three privately-owned blocks were blighted. A coalition of local business owners and residents challenged ESDC’s blight finding in the non-renewal area and the sufficiency of the environmental impact statement. Supreme Court Judge Joan A. Madden rejected the challenge, and the decision was appealed. 5 CityLand 16 (Feb. 15, 2008).

On appeal, the coalition argued, among other things, that ESDC arbtrarily selected build years that distorted the project’s potential environmental impacts. The coalition also argued that ESDC’s failure to consider the positive real estate trends in the non-renewal area led it to unreasonably conclude that the proposed project was uniquely capable of alleviating blight in the non-renewal area. The coalition further claimed that ESDC’s finding of blight for the non-renewal area was unsubstantiated. (read more…)