Last property owners at Pacific Park to leave within two months

Seven properties making way for Forest City Ratner Companies' and Greenland Holdings' development

From left: Greenland's Zhang Xuliang, a rendering of Atlantic Yards rendering (Credit: SHoP) and Bruce Ratner
From left: Greenland's Zhang Xuliang, a rendering of Atlantic Yards rendering (Credit: SHoP) and Bruce Ratner

Greenland Holdings and Forest City Ratner are pushing out the last set of property owners at the site of the massive Pacific Park development. The small group of owners will have to leave their properties within two months. 

The owners thought they’d have more time, the New York Times reported, due to lawsuits and setbacks on Forest City’s end. Greenland Holdings, the Chinese company that bought a majority stake in Atlantic Yards and renamed it, however, is looking to move forward. Greenland Holdings wants to finish the development within a decade, according to the newspaper.

“We’re so lucky to have found a partner who is impatient, just like we are, and their message to us is let’s get this done,” Forest City Ratner’s vice president for external affairs, Ashley Cotton, told the Times. “We know our neighbors, we’re sympathetic to whatever experience they’re having, but this is really another enormous milestone on the path of Pacific Park.”

Sign Up for the undefined Newsletter

By signing up, you agree to TheRealDeal Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy.

The Empire State Development Corporation is in charge of the eminent domain proceedings. A Brooklyn Supreme Court ruling last fall determined the compensation for the owners of the seven properties Located Between Sixth Avenue and Carlton Avenue. The compensation coming to the property owners is less than what Forest City once offered when they first tried to buy out the locals, the newspaper reported.

“I honestly had a firm belief in the rule of law and the project, which, as described, seemed a genuinely good thing for the neighborhood,” Jerry Campbell, one of two homeowners left at the site who owns a couple of row houses, told the Times. “As long as I could replace what I had afterward, I had no reason to object.” [NYT] — Claire Moses