Court Strikes Down “Save The View Now” Lawsuit; Injunction Lifted

By on June 14, 2015 1:13 pm in brooklyn bridge park, Development, Environment, Legal, Real Estate

Word has reached us that on Friday, June 12, Justice Knipel of the New York Supreme Court issued his decision in the litigation brought by Save The View Now and other plaintiffs seeking to rectify the blocking of views from the Brooklyn Heights Promenade and other locations by the Pierhouse structure under construction at Pier 1, Brooklyn Bridge Park. The decision holds that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the provisions limiting the height of structures at that location are not enforceable. The lifting of the preliminary injunction means that construction of the penthouse portion of Parcel B, the part of the structure south of the pedestrian bridge, may now proceed.

STVN and its allies are considering an appeal. We have been promised a copy of the decision and of the Brooklyn Heights Association’s response soon, and will report further when it is available. DEVELOPING

Photo for BHB by Carrie Hamilton.

Share this Story:

, , , , ,

← 
Newer Comments  →
  • Andrew Porter

    *Sigh*… well, the Heights is screwed now. I am so depressed by this building that I’ve stopped walking on the Promenade and Columbia Heights near this towering finger in our collective eyes.

    BTW, anyone notice that the south end of the building in the photo above is actually even taller now?

  • Jorale-man

    I have noticed. It’s really awful what’s happened. Today I was showing the area to out of town relatives who were visiting and as we walked to the north end of the promenade one wanted to get a shot of the Brooklyn Bridge. But he couldn’t get more than about half of it in the camera lens because of these things blocking the views. From up close it’s truly overwhelming in its size.

  • DIBS

    Where would you rate this issue in the spectrum of problems around the world today??? Or even just in Brooklyn???

  • Willow Street Watch

    No surprise in any of this….

    Anyone who tries to treat a cancer with aspirin can expect death.

    You want to select “leaders” to represent your interests who use
    Some of the “solutions” we’ve seen here?? Well you can now SEE
    The results….

    If you ever want to talk about some methods which HAVE a good
    record of success in many communities under siege, there ARE
    people available who will really help.

    Or you can continue to use the “leaders” selling aspirin…..

  • Reggie

    “The decision holds that the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the provisions limiting the height of structures at that location are not enforceable.” Clearly the decision reaches the first conclusion but I read it to say, the buildings comply with the height restrictions as they were codified in the general project plan. In other words, complainant has nothing.

  • Willow Street Watch

    In other words, according to what you say, the effort was invalid. OK,
    I would now like to hear from the parties who brought the legal action to hear their side of what they say happened.

    But the bottom line of all this is so far relying of the present “leadership”
    sums to ZERO. And as above, we’ve got to stop using aspirin on cancer.
    There ARE far better more effective method folks

  • Reggie

    That’s not what I say; it’s what the judge determined. Since you asked, the parties who brought the action have written,

    “On Friday, Judge Knipel issued his interim decision to deny STVN our request for a preliminary injunction on the Pierhouse. We are deeply disappointed in the outcome, and strongly disagree with the Judge’s findings, most notably that the agreements reached with the community in 2005/2006 are not legally enforceable. What is the purpose of negotiating and reaching agreements with the public if they are not meant to be binding? Judge Knipel opens his decision with the following “Beyond peradventure, the vision of the New York Harbor from the Brooklyn Promenade is an iconic, world class view, worthy of the maximum protection the law can afford.” There is no doubt that “the casual passerby walking along Brooklyn’s majestic Promenade is struck with the indelible impression that these buildings, now nearing completion, are simply too large.” While denying our request over legal technicalities, what is most disturbing in Judge Knipel’s finding is that, despite the worthiness of maximum protection, “When our government had the opportunity to significantly improve the view, a conscience decision was made not to do so.” This conscience decision by our government defies logic, patriotism and respect for the opinions expressed by the community. We will be consulting with our attorney, and our legal committee to determine what our next steps will be. We will update you accordingly. Thank you for your continual support.”

  • 1ifbyrain2ifbytrain

    The height of a stack of 1,000,000 one dollar bills measures 4,300 inches or 358 feet – about the height of a 30 to 35 story building.

  • Willow Street Watch

    No surprises, the group is dissapointed in the decision.

    Now, what do they…or you say should be done next..something? Nothing?!?!

    What concrete suggestions do or any body have? Or are all you “authorities” giving up/rolling over? Which is what I suspect….

  • skunky

    Clearly we should make sure there’s some sort of hotline for depressed Heights residents. The horror!

  • Andrew Porter

    Well, I understand that in 250 years or so this spot will be awash from climate change, but right now, there’s no point in rating this on a national, international, or interplanetary scale.

    All politics is local, it’s been said.

  • skunky

    “while denying our complaint over legal technicalities” aka “the law”

  • Andrew Porter

    US, Canadian, Australia, or Zimbabwe dollars?

  • skunky

    short of arming a mob with sledgehammers, what would you suggest? you seem to think there is some inexhaustible supply of options available to NIMBYs. I can see where you might have gotten that impression, but it is in fact not the case.

  • Reggie

    Don’t look at me. I predicted this outcome from the beginning.

  • ws gilbert

    Stick to Bucks County. I’m sure you have a lot to worry about there.

  • ws gilbert

    What real estate developer do you work for and how much are you paid to insert pro-developer blurbs into a neighborhood blog?

  • skunky

    None. I’m a longtime Brooklyn resident (40 yrs old, two kids) that went to school downtown and have been part of the community for years, and can’t afford to live here anymore because there isn’t enough housing for everyone who wants to live here. Meanwhile morons like the commenters on this site probably got lucky and have some rent-stabilized apartment or made a fortuitous purchase when I was still in short pants. I say build lots of luxury housing in the Dumbo area for dumbos who want to live there, a mile away from the nearest subway, and leave the rest for regular folks. And I get a park for my kids to play in!

  • RJG

    Statement from Steve Guterman, Save The View Now (BrooklynEagle.com, 6/15/2015)

    “….”When our government had the opportunity to significantly improve the view, a conscience decision was made not to do so.”

    This conscience decision by our government defies logic, patriotism and respect for the opinions expressed by the community.”

    * * * * * * * * * *

    Mr. Guterman’s playing with words to stir up his followers won’t impress justices on the Court of Appeals. It’s a bad idea to misquote the written decision of Justice Knipel.

    What Justice Knipel actually wrote:

    “When our government had the opportunity to significantly improve the view, a conscious decision was then made not to do so, for reasons relating to economic sustainability.”

  • skunky

    Someone needs to explain to either Guterman (or the Eagle, if they were the ones who go it wrong) the difference between “conscience” and “conscious”. If he doesn’t have a grasp on the English language, it shouldn’t be a surprise that he failed in his interpretation of the law.

  • RJG

    Mr. Guterman is the one playing games with words; the same wording appeared in Brownstoner.com

  • BrooklynCoffeeLover

    I am one of those morons who got lucky and have a rent-stabilized apartment! That’s me!!

  • Willow Street Watch

    There are a Lot of potential alternatives which have so far not explored. And snide, flippant remarks do not help. The only in
    dicate the rain puddle deep thinking, or hearts of some here….

  • Willow Street Watch

    This is not a humorous situation Mr Porter. This is a serious matter.

  • Willow Street Watch

    It would appear to both of you, especially Mr skunky, need to under
    Stand that the semantics, skill of presentation or grammer is not the core issue at this point.

    What should be your and everyone’s core concern is what Effective
    Methods now exist and that you sily need a better quality of leader
    ship…just like you tactically can’t bring a child’s water gun to a major battle. You can’t use people with thin backgrounds or incompetents
    to deal with a major very serious situation. So far, with the leadership
    and tactics you’ve been using you’re being walked on. Or worse…

    Doesn’t any of you sages, and more importantly, the hundreds of
    concerned Heights people reading this, feel that some change is in order? Or do we go on being trampled?……

  • skunky

    Can you cite one alternate course of action? Or are you just here to complain that others aren’t doing enough, whatever enough is.

  • DIBS

    Hardly. But I have two additional residences besides that so I move about.

    I’ll be in BH later this week for a long weekend so I’ll have a look at what you all have your panties in a bunch over.

  • DIBS

    LOL. It would seem so.

  • Eddyde

    Not exactly, just the judges interpretation of the law.

  • skunky

    well, seeing as their only job is to interpret the law in specific cases, this is in fact how “law” works.

←  
Newer Comments  →