Judge: Long Beach owes landowners $5.5M [LIBN.COM]

You need to subscribe to Long Island Business News to read the entire article, but you can get some info here:

and here are some highlights from the LIBN article:

“On Jan. 14, a state appellate court upheld the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling that real estate investors Louis Bombart and Steve Silverberg, who owned less than an acre of the six-acre “Superblock” project site, are owed an additional $5.5 million plus interest over the $3 million they initially got from the city when Long Beach condemned the property in 2006. [LINK]

City vows to appeal award for condemned property [LINK]

and regarding iStar:

“They have always said that shovels will be in the ground this summer,” said Long Beach Corp. Counsel Rob Agostisi.

An iStar executive didn’t respond to a request for comment. [LINK]

Read more: http://libn.com/2015/01/30/judge-long-beach-owes-landowners-5-5m/#ixzz3SgH3XMZB

Please read the terms of service before you comment.

comments

11 thoughts on “Judge: Long Beach owes landowners $5.5M [LIBN.COM]”

  1. Tell me again how your real estate agent is gassing you.

    “The alleged flaws in the claimants’ appraisal noted by the City were either unsupported by evidence at the trial or already considered by the Supreme Court in downwardly adjusting the claimants’ valuation (see Matter of Metropolitan Trasp. Auth., 86 AD3d at 326; Masten v State of New York, 11 AD2d 370, 372-373, affd 9 NY2d 796). Moreover, since condemned properties must be valued as of the date of the taking, the subsequent drop in real estate values cannot properly affect the award (see Arlen of Nanuet v State of New York, 26 NY2d 346, 354-355).”

  2. According to the ruling “The petition was granted, and title vested in the
    City in April 2006.” Does anyone know which merry band of fools was in control of the City Council in April of 2006?

  3. Oh but worry not! The city vows to appeal. How much do appeals cost? I ask because they will be throwing that money away, paying opposing attorney fees on top of the 5 and a half million! They will tie this up until Istar leaves. The City really doesn’t care about the judgement, though. What they care about is this:

    “The fact that the most profitable use of a parcel can be made only in combination with other lands does not necessarily exclude that use from consideration if the possibility of combination is reasonably sufficient to affect market value”

    It’s a zoning crisis! The land, by itself IS NOT WORTH WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE IT IS WORTH! It is what is built on the land that actually effects it’s value, even if it is only the possibility of what could be built on the land. In other words, the next time someone tells you- Location, Location, Location- ask yourself what you are REALLY buying. You want to know WHY Long Beach is not like the Hamptons. Easy, it’s because Long Beach is only faking it without ever REALLY trying to make it.
    Location! Location! Location!

  4. Wow. Interesting… Especially the moratorium part. An I understanding that correctly, the city had a moratorium refusing development on these lots (owned by multiple persons) …I wonder what the basis of the regulations were for such a moratorium.. So .. The owners couldn’t build.. And I understand the city seemed intent to condemn them, so if they oppressed development, the property values wouldn’t increase, thus … Ultimately the lawsuits would presumingly be for less, then if the owners up and went ahead developing on their land?

  5. So between the two judgments the city is on the hook for about $17,000,000 plus apparently legal costs of the plaintiffs. How are we going to pay this??????????

    How much did the city get when they sold the superblock if anybody knows?

Comments are closed.