« Two more Target robberies | Main | BREAKING: Last holdout accepts Ratner’s $3M! He’s out of footprint by May 7 »
April 21, 2010
EMINENT DOMAINIA: The Big Apple Bites!...
The Columbia Spectator, Eminent domain appeal set for June
On June 1, at the New York State Court of Appeals in Albany, the Empire State Development Corporation will appeal the surprise December court ruling that declared the use of eminent domain for Columbia’s Manhattanville expansion illegal, according to the Court of Appeals website.
In January, ESDC—the state body that approved, in December 2008, the use of eminent domain for the University’s Manhattanville project—formally appealed the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division decision of December 2009, which argued that the expansion of a private university does not constitute a “public use,” as required under eminent domain law.
...The two parties have exchanged legal briefs during the several months since ESDC filed its formal appeal. As the appellant, ESDC filed a brief on March 9, and the respondents will file their own brief on April 23. The respondents include Norman Siegel and David Smith, who represent Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen and gas station owners Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur, the only remaining private property owners in the expansion area who have not struck land deals with the University. ESDC will have a final opportunity to respond to the brief on May 10, before oral arguments are heard in Albany on June 1.
“We’re looking forward to the argument before the Court of Appeals,” Siegel said. “We feel strongly that the Appellant Division’s decision should be affirmed. This is an important case challenging the Empire State Development Corporation.”
But the Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of eminent domain in the recent past, which some say could be indicative of its upcoming ruling on Manhattanville.
“ESDC believes that the decision of the Appellate Division with respect to the Columbia Project is inconsistent with established law, as most recently articulated by the Court of Appeals in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., and we expect that it will be reversed,” Elizabeth Mitchell, public affairs officer for ESDC, said in an email, referring to the recent Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn.
But Smith said that there is reason to remain optimistic, pointing to the extensive legal research he and Siegel have been doing in preparation for the case.
“Any time you have an appeal of this magnitude, you are endeavoring to do the best job that you can,” Smith said. “We have built a huge record that contains thousands of documents that show the collusion between Columbia and the people who did the blight studies, as well as Columbia and the ESDC.”
...and the Garden State doesn't.
AP via 1010WINS, Appeals Court Reverses New Jersey Eminent Domain Ruling
A New Jersey court has dealt a setback to a shore city's efforts to redevelop its downtown area in the latest chapter in one of the state's longest-running eminent domain disputes.
In a ruling released Friday, a three-judge panel held that the city of Long Branch has not demonstrated that a downtown area it designated as blighted in 1996 is in need of redevelopment.
Property owners sued the city, but a lower court ruled in favor of Long Branch in 2007 and the city filed condemnation proceedings against the properties in 2008.
The Rev. Kevin Brown, whose Lighthouse Mission has been in the middle of the affected area since 1990, said he was "elated" by the decision.
"I knew what they were doing and I knew what they were doing was wrong," he said. "I had to decide to pack up and get out of the way or stick it through, and decided I would stick it through."
New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog, Eminent domain won't happen on Long Branch Broadway Corridor
Here the court arrived at a conclusion similar to the decision in City of Long Branch v. Anzalone, and City of Long Branch v. Brower, which both involved the MTOTSA neighborhood. The appellate panel, led by one of the judges who heard the Anzalone case and two who did not, invited Long Branch to revisit the blight issue and attempt to meet “the substantial, credible evidence” standard for proof of blight.
...The city will not be able to prove blight under this standard. Why not dismiss outright? That’s the law.
...This does not mean that redevelopment is dead, but it does means that eminent domain abuse, as practiced by some municipalities on behalf of politically connected developers, will not be tolerated. Municipalities will have to be more creative in their redevelopment efforts. This will force real negotiations for acquisition of properties.
Posted by eric at April 21, 2010 1:10 PM