Judge Garaufis Sides With Atlantic Yards Developers

Rich developers got a huge boost in their quest to build the Atlantic Yards from Judge Nicholas Garaufis today. He ruled against a small community of tenants, businesses and homeowners who would have to watch their little pieces of Brooklyn be demolished. The Judge claims that the area is "blighted" and therefore justifies the takeover of the area to make way for the new Nets basketball arena and high priced office and rental space.

From WNBC:

"Because plaintiffs concede that the project will create large quantities of housing and office space, as well as a sports arena, in an area that is mostly blighted," he wrote, no reasonable juror could conclude "that the 'sole purpose' of the project is to confer a private benefit."

Ratner released a statement calling the ruling "an important victory" for Brooklyn.

An attorney for the residents, Matthew Brinckerhoff, said he will appeal.

"We are confident that the appellate court will allow this case to proceed to trial, at which the citizens of New York will finally learn the real reason plaintiffs' properties were selected to be forcibly taken, and why Ratner was chosen to reap an unprecedented financial windfall," he said in a written statement.

The only victory here is for people like Ratner and his developer buddies. There is no joy here for Brooklyn.

It is a shame that Judge Garaufis decided that razing neighborhoods was a way to cure "blight." You know Judge, there are better ways of making a neighborhood better than just bulldozing it and giving it over to people like Bruce Ratner. NBA owners have enough money and this one doesn't need anymore, especially at the expensive of longtime Brooklyn residents. Thankfully this will go to the appellate court where some common sense can hopefully be found.

Loitering Is Free Speech

A Supreme Court decision in 1992 deemed loitering and begging a right provided for in the first amendment of the bill of rights. Despite that ruling, hundreds of the less fortunate among us have been arrested for their (in)activity. Eric Hoffstead is now fighting his arrest and his lawyer, Carl D. Birman and now Matthew D. Brinckerhoff are trying to turn the case into a class-action suit. Nearly 800 summons have been issued from June of 2005 to February of 2007, using considerable city resources in order to do so.

From The New York Times:

The United States Supreme Court has struck down several loitering statutes, but it has never considered the particular issue of loitering for the purpose of begging, and whether prohibiting it constitutes a violation of the First Amendment, said Michael C. Dorf, professor of constitutional law at the Columbia University School of Law.

In upholding the 1992 New York City case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said begging constituted “protected communicative conduct, and city streets and parks were classified as a traditional public forum.”

“A lawyer is certainly entitled to make the argument that the lower federal courts have ruled the law unconstitutional and tell the state it should be persuaded by this ruling,” Professor Dorf said. “The state, however, is free to issue a decision based on its own interpretation of the Constitution.”

So even with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the matter is up in the air here in New York. The state contends that these misdemeanors are often accompanied by other crimes, such as Mr. Hoffstead having possessed a crack cocaine pipe at the time.

Instead of using this as an excuse to put the homeless in jail, the situation is evidence that the problem of loitering and begging needs to be dealt with in a more productive manner. It has often been shown that treating and rehabilitating the thousands of people on the streets is more cost efficient from a budgetary perspective. More importantly, it is better from a humanitarian perspective.