« More Bondage | Main | event wrap up and bond news »
December 16, 2009
Still more EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!
inversecondemnation.com, NY Times Editorial On Eminent Domain: Columbia Case "Completely Out Of Step With Eminent Domain Law" And Is "Weakly Reasoned." Really?
It should not be a huge surprise that the Times ends up cheerleading for the wrong team in both of these cases. As you may recall, the paper was the private beneficiary of a similar eminent domain action (as noted here), so at least it cannot be accused of being inconsistent. But let's give the editorial board the benefit of the doubt and assume that its opinion wasn't driven by crass self-interest, but by a genuine belief that the Kaur decision "conflicts with the relevant law."
It is still wrong.
...When the Times castigates the Kaur opinion as "weakly reasoned," you have to wonder whether the editors read the same decision we did, since all Kaur did was look at the facts. Unlike Goldstein, the Kaur court did not ignore Kelo's baseline and refuse to even look at the facts in the record. Goldstein washed its hands of the inquiry, holding that courts must accept an agency's determination that a parcel is in fact blighted. How Goldstein's interpretation of the New York Constitution's public use clause is above Kelo's Fifth Amendment baseline was never explained by the court.
...Thus, the Times editorial is 180 degrees off the mark: it is the Court of Appeals' abdication of the rule of law in Goldstein -- and not the Appellate Division's opinion in Kaur -- which "conflicts with the relevant law," and which is is "completely out of step with eminent domain law."
NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS, Empire State of Mind
These cases highlight just how much of a mess eminent domain proceedings are in the wake of 2005’s U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London. Supreme Court decisions are no stranger to controversy, but the outrage surrounding Kelo transcended party or ideology, and led to forty-three states adopting restrictions on their own eminent domain powers.
New York, of course, is one of the seven "holdouts."
In the Brooklyn case, the issue is identical to Kelo. Bruce Ratner wants to tear down a significant portion of a vibrant neighborhood, and replace it with private economic developments including office towers, a shopping complex, and a basketball arena, which will likely be financed with a significant public subsidy.
...The majority’s reliance on the ESDC study is quite controversial, because it’s quite possible that the ESDC has significant conflicts of interest, if not outright corruption. These problems came to light in the Columbia University case.
Amsterdam News via The Black Urban Times, Judge gives Columbia University red light
Once in a while in the big bad city, the little guy wins.
Last Friday, an appeals court blocked New York State from seizing private property in order to further the planned $6.3 billion expansion of Columbia University. The 3–2 ruling by the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan backed charges against the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), saying that by allowing the use of eminent domain, ESDC was giving the Ivy League school an unfair advantage over commercial property owners of the land.
Posted by eric at December 16, 2009 9:55 AM