Met Rooftop?
3 Likes
Yup, it’s open!
8 Likes
I’ve been missing our museums. Will visit soon.
8 Likes
This building is so beautiful. Those who rail against it are hard to fathom.
1 Like
Why is it not possible to find any information on the final legal settlement; an all other related information regarding the challenge to the zoning regulations on this project?
These things should not be settled behind closed doors, treated as some sort of private matter; the details of this case needs to be a matter of public record - as the courts, DOB and other related agencies are all tax payer funded.
If anyone knows where to go to get information on the final resolution, zoning changes, payments for damages, etc - pleas advise.
1 Like
robert walpole. You can have concerns about a building and still like it aesthetically. I find the permitting process tainted but i think the building is pretty good. Such is life.
2 Likes
I don’t think that there has been a final legal settlement. I was also wondering was it not the synagogue that had the zoning lot created? And if so, are they part of the legal entanglement since they would have profited from this oddly created lot.
2 Likes
Yes the synagogue set up the zoning lot when they were trying to get top dollar for the land their old building was on.
1 Like
I have just developed a perverse curiosity about the zoning and related legal battles taking place with this project; but the reporting on the status has gone suspiciously quiet. I really do not have an ax to grind either way; each side of the debate has valid points as far as I am concerned.
I do, however, believe that ‘full transparency’ regarding where/how tax payer money is spent is right of every citizen - every detail of these proceedings needs to be made public knowledge. Where or how a citizen gets this information I do not know; we should not be required to file some sort of FOIA freedom of information complaint - it needs to made public information.
It may simply be that the case is still in limbo, and there is nothing new to report other than the fact that the zoning/legal proceeding are still dragging on for years now - with no apparent end in sight.
1 Like
Infoshare–It just may be court sloth. They are slow to decide cases. This one is simply pending in the appellate division. It has to be briefed, a date for oral arguments has to be set, and the case has to be argued. After that the court may take its time deciding what to do and writing an opinion. This sort of thing typically takes a year or so, maybe longer. I don’t think anything sinister is going on.
2 Likes
I don’t like the building so much in the closeup photo, but then it’s not finished yet.
1 Like
Maybe this will all be sorted out in time for the next “up cycle”. When ever that will be. I would imagine the city would not give a certificate of occupancy even after completion if the removal of many floors would still be on the table. I hope these developers have really deep pockets.
1 Like
Yes, court sloth. It is however somewhat “sinister” when you ask who pays the bills on something like: governmental sloth, inefficiency, incompetence, mismanagement.
If the developer wins a settlement for the millions $ lost; it is a tax payer expense. The years of legal wrangling and courtroom deliberations; is a tax payer expense.
As only one member of the general public, I am not capable of holding our local government accountable for what here is clearly a case of incompetence, mismanagement, and bureaucratic malaise; the unnecessary taxpayer costs on this will be astronomical.
This is my small way of being a self appointed citizen watchdog on this case; I plan on following it to the final conclusion as a matter of both personal interest and public benefit.
1 Like
Hard to disagree Infoshare. But it is not only government that is at fault. The developer for pushing the envelop a bit may share in the blame, as do the folks who challenged the plans. For neither of them seemed in any more haste to resolve the issues than the government did. Everyone acted like there was a piggy bank waiting to pick up the pieces and pay for any harm. And I still am wondering what the insurance picture is and what the terms of the interim settlement between the opponents and the developer are. Perhaps there is a piggy bank buried in those areas as well.
2 Likes
19 Likes
If you are interested in following the legal actions regarding the supposed ‘zoning violations’ committed by the developers of 200 Amsterdam Avenue: this article is a very good general explanation of what has transpired so far. I was particularly - as a laymen - interested in the legal term “retroactive legislation” which gave focus and some sense of legitimacy to my outrage regarding what seems to me a grave injustice taking place on this project.
Those interested in taking a ‘deep dive’ into the legal morass resulting from claims of ‘zoning violations’ will find this article both informative and enjoyable.
2 Likes
Infoshare: Interesting essay. It definitely is on the conservative side. While I find the 200 Amsterdam situation to be troubling (as you know from our previous comments to each other), there are settings in which rulings labeled by Perry as retroactive may be fully justified. When a company continues with behavior even tho it knows full well that it places others at significant risk (like the black lung problem) legislation calling for compensation may be wholly justified. Companies have frequently gotten themselves in trouble for that sort of thing. Think cigarettes. 200 Amsterdam may well not fit into that sort of category. And there are some cases where changes in zoning rules enacted after construction has started have not been applied retroactively. As Perry suggests, the 200 case has issues. DOB really stretched the game in issuing its initial rules in cases like this. But even if the rules are illegal as the courts so far have held, that doesn’t answer your question about imposing that result on the developer in this case long after the building has come out of the ground. They are separate issues. The courts could tell DOB to totally get rid of its rule while letting 200 continue to exist. Or it could impose all the costs of demolition on the city for its derelictions.
As I’ve said before the blame for this can be widely spread–no one has shown any sensibility for the need for speedy resolution. So I would be surprised if the demo order stands. If it does I’m still curious about the terms of the interim settlement agreement reached between the plaintiffs and the developer some time ago. I’ve not seen any public description of the full terms of that arrangement.
2 Likes
Chused
I barely understand it all, and pick up random news & opinions as I come across articles doing only superficial inquires on the internet.
I can only say that I have found Richard Epstein’s take on this case to be the most compelling and intelligent commentary I have read thus far; if we were to have a ‘credibility contest’ at this point - I would declare him the winner. 
The more we all post publicly on this subject the better. I believe in the “wisdom of the crowd” is ultimately the best judge.
Thanks for the exchange.
2 Likes