Melodic-Upstairs7584 t1_j9vw7tc wrote on February 24, 2023 at 10:55 PM

Reply to comment by HawtGarbage917 in MSG could force taxpayers to pay $8.6 billion if NYC doesn't renew its permit by HawtGarbage917

I think this is also relevant:

“Alexandros Washburn, executive director of the Grand Penn Community Alliance, which calls for MSG to relocate, said that 10 years was long enough for MSG to have found a new location and planned a new arena. The complaint of no progress is a “self-inflicted hardship,” he said.

Washburn, a city planner under former Mayor Mike Bloomberg, was among three architects who last month presented their visions for a better Penn Station, all three of which relied on MSG relocating. Around 100 people showed up for their presentation at the Great Hall in Cooper Union.”

I don’t have much of an opinion on whether or not msg should be moved, but this isn’t an issue of eminent domain. No one is asking Dolan to transfer ownership and no one is saying he can’t operate sporting events. MSG has a special permit allowing for increased capacity that lasted for a period of ten years. Dolan wanted the original permit to be permanent because he was aware then, as he is today, that the city could decline to renew it for any reason. If Dolan ever transferred the stadium to a new owner, that entity would also be aware that permits can be revoked, even if they felt it was very likely to be renewed. That would be factored into the sale price, so the value of the property is unaffected.

Not sure why they asked an eminent domain attorney for an opinion. Shaping this as an eminent domain argument is interesting, but a complete non-starter.

vinnizrej t1_j9we8i2 wrote on February 25, 2023 at 1:06 AM

Inverse condemnation is a government taking.

Melodic-Upstairs7584 t1_j9wo8gk wrote on February 25, 2023 at 2:24 AM

Fair enough, what valid inverse condemnation claims in NY state have you observed that resulted from the revocation of a temporary permit? I can give you two common circumstances off the top of my head where these claims always fail:

A) I’m a restaurant owner and my liquor license was revoked, my business has been irrevocably damaged and I demand just compensation. These are denied because no business in NY state has an inalienable right to sell alcohol, they receive a permit which can be revoked at any time.

B) I’m a concert / event organizer and my permit to conduct my event was revoked by a county/municipality/etc. My brand is inseparable from the location where said event was held, so I demand just compensation. These are denied because no business in NY state has an inalienable right to host a high-capacity concert, they receive a permit which can be revoked at any time.

Valid inverse condemnation claims have a pretty high bar and involve assets that have been damaged due to material and reasonably unforeseeable changes (i.e an international airport is opened up next to a nature preserve for exotic birds). There were interesting inverse condemnation claims that were filed during the construction of the USA/Mexico border wall by effected property owners, for example.

Not renewing a permit is not a material change of circumstance. The permit is inherently temporary. It has an expiration date, renewal terms, cancelation clauses (I’m assuming).

If James Dolan sold you MSG under the pretense that the permit was guaranteed forever, you would have a valid legal claim against him. The city is under no obligation to renew the permit in perpetuity, therefore there has been no change to the value of the property, therefore no claim.