...at least for the latest hurdle. but it was a huge hurdle!
Originally Posted by netsdaily
In a 6-1 decision, the New York Court of Appeals has turned down critics’ arguments that the state’s Empire State Development Corp. violated New York’s constitution in pursuing eminent domain to acquire land for Atlantic Yards, including Barclays Center. The ruling means the ESDC will now be free to begin condemnation proceedings against landowners. There is no appeal to the US Supreme Court.
oh, and this scares me:
Ratner must start building the arena before the end of 2009 or will lose out on $700 million of low-cost, tax-free debt.
OTOH, if you're a judge and rule with the protestors on one of the small cases that are left in this process then you might bring a lot of heat on yourself. NYC can almost taste the atlantic yards at this point and there's got to be a huge amount of profit, vested interest and public welfare at stake by now. everyone from the city, the state, the unions, large business partners, rich clientelle and probably many more have something at stake here.
meanwhile, the protestors have seen the writing on the wall more emphatically than ever, which is that they have lost and the ratner group has won. all they can do now is to talk the 'never surrender' talk and cast about for every little handful of dirt to throw into the face of the advancing locomotive.
so yea, i would think that if you're a judge who tries to save the 'little man' in this case, you'll probably want to go into the FBI witness protection program shortly thereafter.
not saying it's still impossible to lose at this point, but the odds just dropped into the basement with this ruling. maybe even through the basement. you also have to wonder how an international investment team that has hundreds of millions at stake would fail to fully vet the legal situation. unless they were drooling idiots they would have had a team of some of the best lawyers that money could buy fully research whether or not a protest could be successfully mounted against the project back in 2003. so far, the only way they seem to have miscalculated is in underestimating how much energy there would be to make the protests. but NOT that the protests would ever have a chance of winning.
This might be a dumb question but, When the nets move to brooklyn, why would they be called the Brooklyn Nets instead of the NY Nets? I was thinking about that the other day and i dont see why they would be named after a borough instead of a major city or state. It doesn't make sense like naming them the Yonkers Nets or the Bronx Nets. Brooklyn Nets has a ring to it, but if you look at every other team in the NBA they are either named after the State or a major city of the state:
Cities: Boston, Dallas, Houston, Memphis, Philadephia, San Antonio, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Phoenix etc.
from what i can see, "brooklyn nets" is just a working title. it could still turn out to be "new york nets" or, according to WP, jay-z wants to name it "brooklyn ballers". (hard to see that happening, tho)
as for why "brooklyn"? ...maybe because of tradition. after all, the brooklyn dodgers were one of the most popular teams in baseball before they moved to LA.
also, like you say, there is no rule that states a team has to be named after a city. so obviously, ownership has a license for creativity in these matters. i mean, look at the golden state warriors. for some reason they decided to go with a metaphor instead of the actual city or state name.
one other thing to consider is that NYC is one of the largest cities in the world, with five famous boroughs. so this is not like the sixers being named "the pattison sixers" for the small, local area they're located in. brooklyn is one of the most famous (and probably largest) subcities in the world.