« Forest City in the News | Main | TODAY: City Holds Second Hearing on Eminent Domain Demolition of Historic Homes in Downtown Brooklyn »
October 29, 2007
EMINENT DOMAINIA
DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN
From MetroNY, print version only:
Public hearing on eminent domain The city is expected o hold a second public hearing today on the possible use of eminent domain to seize historic homes in Downtown Brooklyn. The homes on Duffield Street are believed to be on th sites of Underground Railroad tunnels.
UPSTATE
AP, via Newsday.com:
A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by New York Regional Interconnect challenging a state law intended to protect home owners from the use of eminent domain by private transmission companies, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office said.
From the Daily Star:
The narrowly drawn bill, signed into law last year by then-Gov. George Pataki, was seen by many as directed against New York Regional Interconnect Inc., a firm that is trying to build a massive $1.6 billion electric transmission line from Marcy to New Windsor.
HEADLINES:
Newsday.com, Judge dismisses NYRI lawsuit challenging eminent domain law
The Oneonta Daily Star, Judge tosses NYRI suit
The Syracuse Post-Standard, Federal judge tosses NYRI suit
Times Herald-Record, NYRI's claim against law is dismissed
CatskillsNews.com, NYRI loses court case in effort to build power line
NoLandGrab: Even though former Governor Pataki supported the use of eminent domain for his pal Bruce Ratner, he acquiesced to Upstate conservatives on the NYRI land grab. Power transmission lines might seem like a more traditional use of eminent domain (i.e. for critical infrastructure projects) than a private development project, but this was a case where the devil was in the details and the land grab proved hard to defend in the court of public opinion.
URBAN RENEWAL AMERICA
From the Cato Institute, "Bulldozing the American Dream":
'Urban renewal' schemes that rely on eminent domain disproportionately harm the poor.
When it comes to urban renewal plans, who benefits and who doesn't is quite predictable. The question is, why is this practice allowed to persist?
Posted by lumi at October 29, 2007 7:15 AM