Last Call at Freddy's Bar

Freddy's, the great Brooklyn bar that has been fighting the good fight against New York's eminent domain abuse in the Atlantic Yards case, will be closing its doors at the end of the month, with April 30th set as the last day of business. As bar manager Don O'Finn explains:

The move is about the employees, and the business.  We're little guys.  We can't run our business into the ground as Ratner has and still survive. We have a lot of mouths to feed and we are not billionaires. The move is strategic. Very soon "Freddy's Next Bar" will be standing tall, and Ratner will be in rubble, with no stadium, and hopefully with justice and karma finding him.  This is a guy who closed a family homeless shelter in the dead of winter.

In order to assure our capacity to keep Freddy's alive in a another location, and keep people employed… we have to move the contents of the bar in a particular timely fashion to "Lock down' the next space, and thus we will not be facing an eviction situation in which a protest by chaining ourselves could happen. The Chains ("The Chains of Justice") have served their purpose…to raise awareness of corruption, and they will move with us, forever installed on that bar as a symbol of a united community and that community's power for affecting change.

Bad news, but hardly shocking, given that Freddy's, homeowner Daniel Goldstein, and the other heroic resisters were battling the combined forces of New York state, New York City, the Borough of Brooklyn, the Empire State Development Corporation, and politically-connected developer Bruce Ratner.

For more on why they fought, check out Reason.tv's "Billionaires vs. Brooklyn's Best Bar."

Comments

[P Brooks]

But if we keep government small and weak then who is going to protect us from those who have power? asks Dan T.

How's that working out in Brooklyn, Danny? It's nice to know Leviathan is out there protecting the interests of poor, powerless guys like Bruce Ratfuck.

Thanks, Big Government! Yer doin' a heckuva job!

[J sub D]

With special thanks to the author of the Kelo decision, a liberal icon who spent decades on the bench protcting the weak and powerless.

Thanks John Paul Stevens, you state cocksucking bastard,

[Nathan]

I'm curious as to your education level. Are you in high school still? Is it public? Have you had any economic courses? Have you travelled outside of your state? No offence intended but you seem like someone very young and wet behind the ears. if so your ignorance is understandable.

[Nathan]

That was directed at Dan T

[Dan T.]

I guess I could ask you how it's working out to have Small Government not get in the way of people accumulating massive amounts of wealth?

And remember, whatever influence this Ratner guy used to sway the government onto his side was just him using his "Freedom of Speech".

[J sub D]

Yeah. Small government has always been New York's bane.

Do you have a prescription for those stupid pills you take before getting on the internet?

[Dan T.]

You're right that NYC is not known for it's small government. That's why nobody wants to live there, and why everbody is moving to small-government paradises like Mississippi.

[Roger Murdock]

Fuck You. Really. I'm sick and tired of every elitist douchebag dumping on Mississippi. I'm curious, the clothes you wear (assuming they're not all polyester)the fibers came from where? The food you eat came from where? Even the computer that you're using to spout your vitriol, you made that yourself, right?

Maybe if you once in your miserable life you crawled out of your mother's basement and actually tried to make your own way in the world your little elitist worldview would collapse around you as one by one what you've been spoonfed turns out to be a lie.

Yeah, Mississippi, we're a bunch of backwards hicks. Except for pioneering aerial refueling, many different transplant surgeries, Faulkner, Welty, "Tennessee" Williams, and on and on. But you know that from the extensive amount of time you've spent here.

I hope you die of syphillis. Mad & Blind. This may not be paradise, but it's certainly nicer without having rub elbows with dicknecks like you.

[R C Dean]

I guess I could ask you how it's working out to have Small Government not get in the way of people accumulating massive amounts of wealth?

I wouldn't have any idea, since I don't live in a country with Small Government.

You will agree, though, that wealthy people + Big Government = Bad Things?

[Dan T.]

I wouldn't have any idea, since I don't live in a country with Small Government.

Then why don't you move to a place that does?

And I'll remind you that the US started with a very small and powerless federal government. Why do you think it failed if it was such a good idea?

[Paul]

And I'll remind you that the US started with a very small and powerless federal government. Why do you think it failed if it was such a good idea?

It didn't. We became the envy of the world because of small government while oligarchies, monarchies, socialisms and communisms withered and died under their own weight.

[Steff]

You didn't answer the question. How were these people protected?

[The Gobbler]

STFU, Shit Facktory.

[Nick]

You cum guzzling diseased cunt full of rancid statist shit. Ratner accumulates massive amounts of wealth with the delightful assistance of Big Government taking from other citizens which he would not be able to do on his own. He is not like the rich people who accumulate it from an honest living which everyone should celebrate and emulate no matter how much money they have.

Government shouldn't get in the way of people acquiring wealth unless they commit actual crimes against others in the process. They sure as hell shouldn't assist them or as in this case, do their dirty work for them.

[Dan T.]

No one becomes rich without committing a crime. Since they only have money because of a crime, it is not stealing to take it back from them.

[skeptic]

"No one becomes rich without committing a crime. "

Uhh, huh?

[Bronwyn]

Waitaminnit... does this crime = wealth relationship of yours increase proportionally? If so, then isn't Ratner the greater criminal, by your own (I hesitate to call it this) logic?

And if you can't be bothered to read, shut your pie hole.

[Michael Ejercito]

No one becomes rich without committing a crime. Since they only have money because of a crime, it is not stealing to take it back from them.

So what are you going to do about the wealth that was accumulated by celebrities?

[Groovus Maximus]

THIS

[ClubMedSux]

I wish liberals would realize that money isn't the problem. It's money combined with a large government that can be swayed by said money and then take actions that abrogate the rights of other citizens without so much money.

If government couldn't just take people's land, the worst the wealthy could do is buy off people like Goldstein. And what would you rather have, the government dicking you over and leaving you with squat, or some rich dude "dicking you over" by offering you so much money that you can't say no?

[Michael Ejercito]

I guess I could ask you how it's working out to have Small Government not get in the way of people accumulating massive amounts of wealth?

So now the issue is accumulation of wealth?

Should the government have stopped celebrities from earning their millions?

[J sub D]

Should I ever find myself in Brooklyn I'll stop into Freddy's Next Bar and tip a few.

Then I'll wander over to Ratner's exttorted/stolen property and take a dump.

[Nick]

Same here.

[Sandi]

Not me. My shit's too good for that fuck.

[Marshall Gill]

That is hard to believe, yet believable at the same time. If Sandi won't shit on you, you must be pretty low.

[Max]

Remember Oklahoma! Down with anti-government right-wing fanatics! Fucking loser creeps.

[ed]

Yesterday evening on his show, Keith Olbermann asked this leading question of his guest: "Everyone agrees that the role of government is to protect us from business, so..." The guest did not challenge the premise, of course. But then, they were not discussing eminent domain. It was all about so-called Wall Street "reform" (again).

[P Brooks]

I could ask you how it's working out to have Small Government not get in the way of people accumulating massive amounts of wealth?

As long as that wealth is not made possible by government-sponsored theft, I have no problem with it.

Fuck off, slaver.

[Steff]

Exactly.

[Ken Shultz]

It really is extraordinary how resilient and adaptable small businesses can be. If a small establishment like that can thrive despite having their most important asset, their location, stolen from them... But it's a disgrace that people cite the resiliency of small businesses like that as an excuse to screw them over.

No, you can't keep every small business down, but shame on anybody who robs them like that, just because they can.

The redevelopment plans always look pretty on the renderings, but forcing people to conform to someone else's vision, the reality of that is always and necessarily ugly.

When did individuals and their rights become less important than some joker's Big Idea?

[boomshanka]

thank you for watching another episode of money and politics.

[SIV]

Victory for free speech in Supreme Court decision

Supreme Court voids law aimed at banning animal cruelty videos

[The Gobbler]

"This is a guy who closed a family homeless shelter in the dead of winter."

No. NEW YORK CITY closed a family homeless shelter in the dead of winter.

Ratner simply asked them to.

[Dan T.]

New York City was in thrall of Ratner's billions. If no one was rich, then it wouldn't matter how much power government had.

[Tomcat1066]

Yes it would.

[Spoonman.]

If there weren't chances to get rich, nobody would join the government.

[Paul]

If no one was rich, then it wouldn't matter how much power government had.

Fuck... Dan T. is a troll. Fuckity fuck. Otherwise, the logical conclusion of Dan T.'s philosophy would be this. And I can't believe that Dan T. actually believes what he says.

[Dan T.]

Silencing Tactics 101

Call troll on anyone who doesn't blindly agree.

[Some poor Cuban]

Damn straight.

[Dan T.]

As much as you guys throw around the term "stolen", what exactly has been stolen here?

Doesn't the government have to compensate the property owners at market value in the case of eminent domain actions?

[Bronwyn]

Uh huh, so the government deems a property as "blighted" or condemns it, and suddenly *poof* there goes your property value, and the government oh so generously compensates you with pennies on the dollar.

That's stealing.

[Paul]

Doesn't the government have to compensate the property owners at market value in the case of eminent domain actions?

They didn't compensate them at market value. You do understand how economics works, don't you?

Price, Dan T., it's not what you say it is, it's what the market will bear. Ratner didn't want to pay the price, so he and the city of New York set their own 'price' and forced the owners out. That's theft.

Or wait, so you're saying that I can come to your house, force you out of it at bayonet point, but as long as I give you 'market value' as you chuck your filthy muck into the street, I haven't "stolen" anything from you?

[Dan T.]

Fair market value is determined by a judge. Obviously a judge can determine the value of something better than your Holy Market God.

[Paul]

No it is not. It never has been and it never will be. Fair market value is determined by free property owners setting a price for properties they wish to voluntarily sell, and getting it. If they get their price, then that was "fair market value".

If you think that a fucking judge behind a desk can set "fair market value" for every product that moves in our economy then you're very confused and sick.

[Dan T.]

Whatever. So the owners got a few less dollars for their properties. Who cares. They'll continue to enjoy a privileged life that 99% of the world cannot even fathom. If I'd been the judge the owners wouldn't have got a single penny. It's good to see these parasites humbled every now and then.

[Steff]

So, if it was your mother/brother/family being kicked out of their perfectly fine property after it had been deemed 'blighted' by a rich person wielding the hammer of government, you'd be cool with it?

Wow.

[Bronwyn]

If I may, I'd like to quote Ike, circa 10/09/2009. Full text copied here, because it bears repeating.

Ike|10.9.09 @ 3:42PM|#

First, in general, your first post mis-characterizes the issues: you assume that a 22-acre mega-project is a "good thing" and that one would not be possible without eminent domain power in the government. Second, your second post implies that there is something wrong with a land owner who is one of the last to sell their land asking more than the first or prior sellers. Third, you further imply that a refusal to sell their property in this situation is wrong, being predicated upon irrationality and emotions; additionally, that those reasons for not selling are somehow illegitimate, compared with, oh, "the greatest good for the greatest number"; some other unspoken but presumably rational and unemotional motivation. Then you label your presupposed outcome - that the implicitly wonderful 22-acre mega-project wouldn't be completed - as a market failure.

In order. (1) Land ownership is, by definition, a monopoly as it relates to a specific parcel of land. As the number of hold-out owners decreases, the value of the land - to the project proposer! - increases. That fact is inherent in the "market" for these 22 acres, assuming that the project is of the "all or nothing" variety requiring all the parcels in the 22 acres. So the alleged "monopoly rent" is a function of the market for this piece of land and not a failure. If that assumption is incorrect, then the alleged "market failure" does not occur in any event.

(2) That an owner or any owner of property may have a notion of valuation for his or her property which doesn't match your view or mine or anyone else's view of what the market price "ought" to be is irrelevant. It is their property and may not - from a libertarian viewpoint - be taken with or without compensation, in the absence of their freely given consent. A refusal to sell a piece of land under the hypothetical given does not amount to a "market failure". If it were the only possible location for some defense facility which would be able to protect the entire city, county, state or nation - now, that would be a market failure as that term is defined in economics these days. That some event doesn't meet your (or my or anyone else's) subjective judgement of what should have occurred does not constitute a market failure. True, such an event is a different outcome than you would want to happen and you're entitled to your opinion.

Government intervention to cure market failure is never a success because what actually occurs is that the owner's subjective judgement, however "irrational", is superceded by another person's subjective judgement, by force and without consent. What changes is the outcome and who gets to decide. The landowner has the moral and legal right to decide; not someone else.

The short answer is that a failure of free market events to conform to an observer's notions of what "ought" to happen or of what constitutes the "best and highest use" of some property is not a market failure. It is a result which should occur in a free nation with a free market, namely the protection by law of the rights of an individual against the preferences of others. Free enterprise is whatever happens when we are free to act with what is rightly ours without being compelled to act as others would have us act. This basic definition of freedom isn't altered by anyone's notions of what "ought" to be or "should" be. Not your notions, not my notions, not the notions of all the other inhabitants of whatever polity the owner inhabits.

And, by the by, there is no significant difference between eminent domain and eminent domain abuse. By libertarian definition, they are identical as they are other people forcing someone to do what the others want the one to do with what is rightly the property of the one. Hope that is sufficient answer for you.

[Dan T.]

tl;dr

[Steff]

Of course not. We wouldn't want to confuse you with intelligent discourse.

[Bronwyn]

Willful ignorance: it's the order of the day!

[Michael Ejercito]

Doesn't the government have to compensate the property owners at market value in the case of eminent domain actions?

So if you have a teenage daughter and a nithing chooses to forcibly rape her, it is okay as long as he pays the fair market value for teen prostitutes?

[Dan T.]

I really don't see the problem with this. The property owners were more than compensated. Meanwhile there are poor brown people eating paste just to survive. Cry me a river for the privileged white property owners. They got what they deserved.

[Bronwyn]

Please define "more than compensated". Use actual numbers and show your work.

[Paul]

Cry me a river for the privileged white property owners. They got what they deserved.

Oh, so now the truth comes out. it's not about a "public purpose", it's about shoving people out of their homes and businesses to soothe your sick sense of 'revenge'.

Revenge for what, Dan T. Why did they "deserve" to lose their property?

[Dan T.]

It is about justice, Paul. A concept privileged people like you cannot understand.

[Live Raw Sewage]

I have an anal wart that looks just like Dan T. But it's easy telling the two of them apart because the anal wart is markedly smarter.

[Groovus Maximus]

And smarter.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is about justice, Paul. A concept privileged people like you cannot understand.

Boy likes girl.

Girl does not like boy.

Boy rapes girl.

Just or unjust?

[Steff]

I'm starting to think this has to be a parody.

[Pip]

STFU, Robert Mugabe.

[Michael Ejercito]

I really don't see the problem with this. The property owners were more than compensated. Meanwhile there are poor brown people eating paste just to survive. Cry me a river for the privileged white property owners. They got what they deserved.

So you hate white people.

How are you different from the Ku Klux Klan? Or Hitler?

[P Brooks]

If no one was rich, then it wouldn't matter how much power government had.

Please desist from this incoherent babbling.

[R C Dean]

Cry me a river for the privileged white property owners. They got what they deserved.

By "privileged white property owners", I presume you mean Ratner. Nice to know you think he got what he deserved.

[guy in the back row]

Not to mention the Russian billionaire who bought the Nets.

[ClubMedSux]

Yeah, this is some pretty funny shit. A small business owner gets fucked over by the ?ber-rich--a classic example of how big government actually protects the rich and libertarianism represents the best interest of the little guy--and Dan T somehow turns it around such that it's an example of how the system works.

[Ken Shultz]

"Cry me a river for the privileged white property owners. They got what they deserved."

Wow, is there anything racists can't rationalize?

[ClubMedSux]

He forgot privileged white Jewish property owners. Anti-semite!

[Ken Shultz]

I wasn't saying anything like that.

But saying that people of a certain race deserve injustice is kinda the heart of what we're talking about when we're talking about racism, isn't it?

If you say property owners deserve injustice because of their race, then you are a racist.

[Live Raw Sewage]

Do you idiots really believe that were 22 acres of Brooklyn land owned EXCLUSIVELY by white people? Well, pre-Ratner anyway.

Dan T pwnds you daily.

[ClubMedSux]

I was referring to Dan T, not you Ken, and I don't honestly think Dan T is an anti-semite... I'm just taking a piss, as the Brits would say.

[Michael Ejercito]

I was referring to Dan T, not you Ken, and I don't honestly think Dan T is an anti-semite... I'm just taking a piss, as the Brits would say.

Just give him time.

[virginia]

Mikhail Prokhorov has been exerting increased political power in Russia recently. It's not beyond Putin, et al to pull a Mikhail Khodorkovsky on him.

[Ted S.]

Why do you think Prokhorov is trying to expatriate his money?

[Dan T.]

As usual, when the Free Minds crowd is losing an argument they resort to spoofing.

Some things never change.

[Dan T.]

If you are going to spoof me, at least use my email address.

[Xeones]

It's so cute how Dan T. thinks he's intelligent, and has cogent points. Kind of sad, but cute.

[Isaac Bartram]

In general people who get their properties condemned generally get more money than their property would fetch in an open market transaction. In many cases they get additional compensation for damages.

That said. Money is not the issue in eminent domain cases.

The issue is whether or not people can continue enjoy property which to them has far greater non-tangible value than the few dollars that the city will pay them.

There are other values besides money.

Incidentally, one of the things I'm not seeing in this case is how much Ratner is paying the city, compared to what the city is paying the property owners. Even if he is paying what the city paid it is unlikely the city will ever get back it's legal and administrative costs.

Eminent Domain for these kinds of development projects turn into huge subsidies for the developers, in addition to the injustice visited upon the original property owners.

So Tony, how does it feel to be the only one here in favor of stealing money and property from regular working men and women and handing it over to rich bastards like Ratner? Ah, in the end the liberal shows who his cronies really are.

[Isaac Bartram]

I see that it was DanT rather than Tony that was the advocate for giving the politically connected unearned windfalls today.

Never mind, it was Chad that was boosting for Ratner here the last time the topic came up.

It seems that the DanT/Tony/Chad/s of this world just can't help it. They just can't stand the notion of people of modest incomes living within their means.

[Duke Vual]

Dan T.|4.20.10 @ 12:41PM|#
Fair market value is determined by a judge. Obviously a judge can determine the value of something better than your Holy Market God.

Could one of you frequent commenters assure this very infrequent commenter that one of you was spoofing this? Please? I have trouble believing this one was real.

[robc]

Dan T is a known troll. A few years ago he tried giving up trolling and having real discussions. It lasteed about a week, he got bored and went back to trolling. Then he disappeared for a long while. When he reappeared, it took my a while to realize he was more trolly than before and into my incif file he merrily went.

From what I can tell, since I cant see the posts, he is ratcheting up the trollishness to an insane level that he never did in the 07/08 time frame.

In fact, just seeing the responses has got so bad that I finally turned on the flag in incif that deletes the whole tree under deleted respondents.

I only see ones like this that arent nested.

[Jersey Patriot]

It's good to see that the liberals never change. A wealthy businessman and a corrupt government work together to steal land from families and small businesses, and liberals consider it a Teachable Moment on how small government leads to concentrated wealth. The stupid is breathtaking.

(BTW, New Jersey gladly welcomes good families and successful businesses. Just across the river, folks!)

[Keith Olbermann]

This is obviously the fault of the money hungry all powerful New York Republicans!

[Xeones]

(BTW, New Jersey gladly welcomes good families and successful businesses. Just across the river, folks!)

Haven't New York's good families and successful businesses suffered enough?

[Dan T.]

The white devils stole all the wealth from poor brown people. The government must reverse this injustice.

[Bruce Majors]

There is also a Freddie's in Crystal City, Virginia at 555 25th Street (Arlington). Fun! Gay, but straight friendly.

[Rhywun]

Whoever's playing the r?le of Dan today... bang-up job! I was most amused.

It's nice to know Leviathan is out there protecting the interests of poor, powerless guys like Bruce Ratfuck.

In this case, they're not even pretending to "protect the interests of the poor and powerless" -- they're championing more union jobs. And such is the power of the union/Democratic machine in local politics, they don't even have to mask their goals anymore. In the local news, whenever there's a story about this thing, the supporter is always a union shill or a local councilperson yammering about "jobs!".

[Rhywun]

? end blockquote fail - oops

[Custom Nike Dunk]

thanks