The New York State Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, ruled today in favor of Forest City Ratner and the proposed Atlantic Yards development.  While this decision is being widely reported, the reasoning behind the decision could benefit from some further scrutiny.

The decision (warning: PDF) was based on the public benefit gained from the removal of blight, not the public benefit of the proposed use itself.  Much of the discussions surrounding eminent domain in recent years (stemming mainly from the Kelo v. New London case) has not had to do with blight specifically, but rather the benefit to the public gained from economic development projects.  The Atlantic Yards decision, however, focuses on blight and whether or not the Empire State Development Corporation (“ESDC”) made its case that this area was blighted. (more…)

The City Planning Commission yesterday put forward new proposed parking regulations that aim to prevent the utilization of front yards as parking spaces.  The proposed regulations will prohibit new “parking pads” in single and two-family districts and will also prohibit some new curb cuts.  [Curb cuts are literally breaks in a curb that lead to a driveway or parking area.]  Curb cuts allow for the creation of these “parking pads” while simultaneously eliminating an on-street public parking spot.  Prohibiting them allows City Planning to kill two birds with one stone.

Additionally, the citywide text amendment proposes to: (more…)

Is DOB’s new Appeals procedure appealing to developers?

Prior to a recent policy change at the DOB, a neighbor could challenge a building permit by bringing an “appeal” of a “final determination” of the DOB to the Board of Standards and Appeals (“BSA”).  Such an appeal was required to be submitted to the BSA within 30 days of a “final determination”.  Problem is, the phrase “final determination” was never defined.  And, neighbors would obtain a letter from the DOB responding to a complaint about, say, a new foundation – long after a permit had been issued.  Then, the DOB’s response to this letter would be their “final determination”. (more…)

In a blog entry yesterday, we discussed a major Bloomberg Administration initiative that is in limbo – the rezoning and subsequent development of the Gowanus Canal neighborhood.

Well, today we can report on another major Bloomberg initiative – the redevelopment of Coney Island.  This one, however, is faring much better. (more…)

There is a new twist in the ongoing saga of whether to list the Gowanus Canal on the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List – a/k/a Superfund.  The City will be potentially liable for a portion of the clean up costs.

For those not entirely familiar with the recent history of the proposed redevelopment and proposed clean up, here is a quick recap: (more…)

Lead regulations issued in 2008 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency will soon place additional responsibility on New York residential property owners and managers.    The regulations currently require that contractors use lead-safe work practices, such as containment of the work area,  minimization of dust and thorough cleanup, in connection with renovation, repair and painting projects that disturb lead-based paint in pre-1978 homes, child care facilities and schools.  Both contractors and property owners and managers are also obliged to distribute certain pamphlets and information concerning lead paint hazards before and during such projects, and to maintain records documenting compliance with the regulations.  (more…)

The Real Deal has published an article that looks at 8 ideas (4 good, 4 bad) whose goal is to get the NYC real estate world back on its feet.

Some notables in the good ideas column: (more…)

As the industry’s contribution to the City’s economy continues to shrink, city planners contemplate tinkering with the many nuances that comprise the Garment Center Special Zoning District.  Did you know that a famous clothing designer can’t have her corporate world headquarters in the District?  Zoning forbids it!  Such a use – while entirely devoted to the fashion industry – isn’t allowed.  Technically, it’s an office use, not a garment use.  New offices uses are not allowed; conversions are permitted, subject to a complex “preservation requirement” where building owners must promise to maintain a much higher percentage of (real) garment uses for every square foot of space converted to non-garment use. (more…)