Posted on 02/20/2020 12:47:24 PM PST by karpov
A state judge has revoked, retroactively, a building permit at 200 Amsterdam on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. If the decision holds, the developer might have to lop off almost half of the 668-foot tower. The Municipal Art Society and other opponents of “super-tall” buildings are elated. But Judge W. Franc Perry’s ruling is likely not only wrongheaded but also a threat to basic fairness and legal predictability.
The problem: the developer received his building permit under an official guidance on the definition of zoning lots dating to 1978. That guidance may have been in error—the Department of Buildings (DOB) has since drafted, but not yet adopted, a new policy—but developers built 28 other buildings since 1978 in reliance on it. The 200 Amsterdam developer followed the rules, applying for and receiving a building permit in 2017 based on the city’s official view of the law. After dozens of prominent politicians protested, the DOB recanted, saying that its 1978 view was mistaken.
Is it fair or sensible to enforce the DOB’s new view of the law against a developer who has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in reliance on the DOB’s old view? The Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), the city agency in charge of interpreting the 1978 Zoning Resolution, argued that such a retroactive enforcement of a new interpretation against someone who took the DOB at its word was unjust. Judge Perry disagreed. He ruled that the BSA had no power to avoid such retroactivity. If the old view of the law was wrong, then the correct view must be enforced—against everyone.
This ruling, however, ignores the BSA’s discretion to decide that a new view of the law should be enforced only prospectively, “grandfathering” in those who had made commitments based on the old understanding.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
Ridiculous decision.
If he has to tear down half the building, then the board which gave him approval should have to pay.
It would be nice if the developer could sue the judge for damages.
A caution: don’t use the rules of other cities to interpret events in New York. It’s a fundamentally corrupt city where everyone is on the take. I recently met an old neighbor who is a builder and had just finished a major public project in New York. He said he was trying to break into the New York market for decades without paying bribes and finally gave in and paid everyone off and got the project, worth many millions.
It’s not a bad idea to assume everyone in this story (developer, buildings department, judge) either paid a bribe, received a bribe, or didn’t receive enough and got p*ssed.
Leftists are evil.
The Law is what the regulations say it is; not what the regulations said it is.
-classic Marxist-Leninist theory.
Why would this not be considered ex post facto enforcement?
“...the Department of Buildings (DOB) has since drafted, but not yet adopted, a new policy—but developers built 28 other buildings since 1978 in reliance on it.”
So those other buildings have to be truncated as well, don’t they?
It always comes down to “Rule of Law” or “Rule of Men”.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, the regulation is on the books. But the judge doesn’t like it.
I believe the issue here is that the legal challenge to the building permit was filed after the permit was issued but before construction began. The developer took a huge risk by starting construction before the case was resolved.
I guess he didn’t pay off the right bureaucrats.....................
I’m not a lawyer.
If the interpretation was reasonable that permitted such a building height, the interpretation should stand.
It is my understanding that if a defendant got a sentence of 40 months from a district judge, a court of appeals will not overrule the district judge even though the appeals judge would have given the defendant a 30-month sentence if he had been on the district court. It is sufficient to uphold the district judge that a judge could have reasonably given the defendant a 40-month sentence.
He should do a Howard Roark....................
“but before construction began”
That is in conflict with the title of the article.
“receiving a building permit in 2017”
In my part of Florida, work must be started with six months of the permit and a permit will expire if work is abandoned.
I think the pencil buildings are weird looking.
I also think they are aviation risks and block light for excessive distances.
Development density and height probably should compatible with the neighborhood. Limits might be no more than 50% of the average within 1000 feet.
But this is gonna cost the developers either way...legal bills or a bleeped up building.
The ex post facto clause only applies to criminal laws, not building codes, apparently.
“Level” the whole neighborhood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.