Sure It’s A Vacant, Dilapidated Building, But It’s My Vacant, Dilapidated Building!

We’re learning very quickly how the City views opponents of eminent domain abuse:

The Greater Jamaica Development Corporation held its annual membership meeting Tuesday afternoon and the event was anchored by a panel discussion on eminent domain that featured a lawyer for New York City and a planning director from Raleigh, N.C., who both lauded the practice as an essential tool that, when used judiciously, can invigorate urban economies.

. . .

Lisa Bova-Hiatt, deputy chief of the New York City Law Department, said Tuesday the public’s response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last June that upheld a city’s right to seize private property for economic development was “nothing short of hysterical.”

Bova-Hiatt said the case simply confirmed that economic development constitutes a “public benefit.” Bova-Hiatt said she is extremely concerned about a bill, currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate, that would prohibit city’s [sic] from using eminent domain for economic development. [Emph. added because I don’t think most property owners are acting in a “hysterical” manner]

Easy for her to say!

Goddamn Yankees

Unless something strange happens — something strange like, I don’t know, the City Council actually giving a shit about the residents living across the street from the site of a proposed new stadium or, say, someone in city government acting like they’re being responsible with public funds — the House That George Built Using Parkland And $135 Million Of City Money will move forward:

Last-minute haggling continued yesterday, but the Yankees’ plan to build a new $800 million stadium on appropriated parkland appears headed for approval tomorrow in the City Council.

Council insiders involved in the process said two committees are expected to approve the stadium project in the morning, allowing the full Council to give its approval at its afternoon session.

So far, only one of the eight Bronx Council members has publicly declared she will vote against the stadium plan — Helen Foster (D-Highbridge), whose district physically borders Yankee Stadium but doesn’t include it.

. . .

Under the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Process, the Council has until tomorrow to vote on the Yankees’ and city’s plan to build a new 53,000-seat stadium on 13 acres of parkland on 161st St. across from the Bombers’ current 83-year-old stadium.

. . .

The new stadium would occupy 13 acres sliced out of Macombs Dam Park and John Mullaly Park. Other pieces ofthe two parks also would be used for four new parking garages.

The city, in turn, has promised to spend $135 million to create 28 acres of new parkland and recreation space, including turning the House That Ruth Built into a “Heritage Field” baseball facility for youth teams.

The state will also spend $70 million to finance the construction of the four parking garages.

Is it supposed to be some kind of consolation that the Yankees are willing to spend $800 million on the new stadium when taxpayers will contribute $205 million in public money? Do you know what you could get for $205 million? It would just about cover, for example, the City of Newark’s entire contribution to the proposed arena for the Devils (according to sources, $210 million).

Still, the best part of the deal is that the Yankees are willing to spend a whopping $28 million over 40 years to support causes in the Bronx:

And though it’s not officially part of the plan the Council will vote on, the Yankees have offered a community benefits agreement that includes distribution of $28 million over 40 years — at $700,000 a year — to local nonprofit organizations, schools and sports groups.

Of course! We give you $205 million in infrastructure improvements and you give us $28 million over 40 years. What an idea . . . I’m glad this isn’t controversial or anything.

For your entertainment and/or to raise your blood pressure — Lukas Herbert’s Unnoffical Guide To The Yankee Stadium Draft Environmental Impact Statement (.pdf). An excerpt:

The Yankees have made it clear that they want a modernized facility, with more space and more amenities, for their team. No longer will the majority of the seats be on the upper deck. No longer will the seats be too narrow for today’s expanded waistlines. No longer will the concourses be crowded with people, and the lines to buy a hot dog too long. No longer would the Yankees have to share a weight room with the opposing visiting team. The new stadium would fix all of these problems — plus you’d get a stadium that reminds you of a past stadium that was destroyed . . . AND you’d get a cup-holder at your seat. There would also be more parking. And the team would not move to New Jersey, a perennial threat that most New Yorkers have learned to simply ignore.

But the worst thing — the worst thing — is that the new plan makes getting loaded at those skeevy-yobbo River Avenue bars that much less convenient. Bastards!

Sure, We’ll Stop Charging People To Park On Sundays — We Just Won’t Change The Signs!

After the City Council reversed the mayor’s short-lived Sunday parking meter scheme, the city has been slow to change parking signs, leading some to wonder if it is intentional:

Drivers no longer need to feed parking meters on Sunday but wouldn’t know it by looking at the city’s street signs.
Since the ban on Sunday parking meters became official last November, the Department of Transportation has corrected only 5,137 of its 15,062 Sunday parking signs — a mere one-third over four months.

The slow pace has motorists crying foul.

“The reason they’re not moving quickly is because they want the revenue,” said Glen Bolofsky, president of ticket-fighting Web site parkingticket.com. “They have false signs up encouraging people to insert money into a meter that legally is not even supposed to accept the money.

“The city is just reaping a windfall from unsuspecting people,” he said.

The most backlogged borough is Brooklyn, where only 57 of 3,520 signs have been corrected. Manhattan is next, with only 1,675 of 4,711 signs replaced, and Queens third with fewer than half of its 5,590 signs changed.

“The city was fast to put them up when they were going to make revenue,” said Craig Hammerman, district manager of Community Board 6, which covers Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill and Park Slope.

“It was as if a white tornado blew through the district,” he said of the 2002 policy change that required Sunday parking fees.

The city estimated the Sunday fees generated $7 million annually.

DOT could not estimate how much money it is still collecting on Sundays since the November ban.

If You Drink, Don’t Drive, But If You Do, Please Don’t Drive A Snow Plow

Every member of the Department of Sanitation should be commended on the good work done clearing the streets after the Blizzard of 2006 — everyone, that is, except this guy:

A sanitman who was assigned to push snow off the streets instead plowed drunkenly into a row of parked cars in Queens yesterday, authorities said.

Anatoly Zaborsky’s huge garbage truck, with a snow plow dangling from the front, smashed into the cars as it passed through the intersection of 85th Street and 34th Avenue in Jackson Heights, police said.

Three people in the cars were treated at the scene for minor injuries.

Sources said Zaborsky, 60, refused to take a Breathylizer test and was charged with drunken driving.

Damn Victorian-Era Divorce Laws

The Times reports that New York State may be closer to fixing its outdated divorce laws:

A commission appointed to look into New York State’s matrimonial laws called on Monday for an overhaul of divorce and child custody rules, including the authorization of no-fault divorces, which would put New York in line with all the other states.

By not allowing couples to end their marriages by mutual consent, New York has kept some of the strictest barriers to divorce in the nation. Currently, one party in the divorce must allege cruel and inhuman treatment, adultery, or abandonment — literal or sexual — for a year. That rule has often resulted in costly legal proceedings and bitter custody fights in cases where both sides want a divorce.

The Matrimonial Commission, which was appointed by the state’s chief judge in 2004 and has taken testimony around the state, called for a range of changes to bring New York’s matrimonial laws more in line with practices around the United States. In addition to allowing no-fault divorces, the panel called for an emphasis on mediation and procedures to move cases more swiftly through the system.

. . .

Some Roman Catholic and women’s groups have historically opposed no-fault divorces, and in recent years conservative groups have been pushing for more restrictive barriers to divorce. But in New York there has been a shift in sentiment in favor of no-fault divorce, with the Women’s Bar Association reversing its opposition in 2004.

See also: “Chief Judge Asks Legislature to Consider No-Fault Divorce,” New York Times, February 8, 2005.