« Public authorities reform bill signed; why is Assemblyman Brodsky not mentioning the BALDC? | Main | A Million Little Cultural Pieces - A smattering of moments that changed the way we entertain ourselves. »
December 13, 2009
Law should be eminently clear - The public benefit issue especially needs rethinking
Crain's
This editorial notes conflicting eminent domain rulings and calls on the New York State Court of Appeals to resolve the conflict - in favor of eminent domain.
Last month, the state's highest court ruled that eminent domain was eminently justified to remove the holdouts at the controversial Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. The following week, an appeals court in Manhattan ruled against the use of that doctrine in Harlem, where Columbia University is about to build a major new campus.
These two rulings are completely at odds on appropriate use of eminent domain. The Court of Appeals should take up the Columbia ruling expeditiously to clarify the law and prevent this vital project from being harmed by months of uncertainty.
Consider the two decisions, both of which center on whether eminent domain can be used to aid private developments, how the public benefit of such a project should be evaluated, and how the courts should consider disputes about whether an area is blighted, which is the legal standard in New York when someone's property is to be forcibly purchased.
This analysis of the Court of Appeals decision allowing the use of eminent domain for the proposed Atlantic Yards project leaves out the court opinion that states, that, for eminent domain: "It may be that the bar has now been set too low..."
In the Atlantic Yards case, the Court of Appeals ruled that long-established precedents allowed the use of eminent domain to aid a private development, that the public benefit required of such a project should be regarded in a broad way, and, most important, that the courts should not second-guess a state agency's decision to declare an area blighted, except in the most extreme cases.
The majority in the Manhattan appellate court seemed to ignore the direction of the state's highest court. The majority in the 3-2 decision disparaged the public benefit of the Columbia project and clearly second-guessed the blight finding in a way that would seem to directly contravene the instructions of the higher court.
Here is the kind of argument heard often from those favoring eminent domain abuse. Columbia University's need for eminent domain is supported in general, but the specific public benefits for doing so are somehow not mentioned.
The public benefit issue especially needs rethinking. Higher education represents one of the sectors that can diversify the city's economy and produce the middle-class jobs politicians are constantly saying the city needs. It now employs as many people as manufacturing. Columbia can't compete with its rivals, because it needs more space. A vibrant Columbia is crucial to the city's future.
Posted by steve at December 13, 2009 6:16 AM