« REMINDER: Today, Noon Press Conference and Protest of NBA's Approval of Prokhorov as Nets Owner | Main | PRESS RELEASE: New York’s High Court Slams Door On Property Owners in the Empire State »
June 24, 2010
NY Top Court OKs Columbia's West Harlem Expansion
NY Observer
by Eliot Brown
Rest easy, New York's powerful, wealthy, politically connected developers (and private universities)! The state's highest court has reversed the Appellate Division's moment of temporary sanity, and reaffirmed that no one's property is safe in New York if somebody richer lays an eye on it.
For Nick Sprayregen, the owner of a set of West Harlem warehouses in the footprint of a 17-acre expansion planned by Columbia University, there was a brief glimmer of hope earlier this year. The landlord, to the surprise of most everyone watching, won a state appellate court case that challenged the state's use of eminent domain to take his property for Columbia's campus, with a judge writing a blistering opinion that excoriated the state agency leading the process. Contrary to most precedents, it seemed possible that Mr. Sprayregen might actually stave off a land-taking and defeat the university.
Today, the narrative returned to its expected track.
New York's top court Thursday morning issued a decision that overturned the lower court's decision, ruling that eminent domain could indeed proceed.
The Court of Appeals, in a 7-0 decision, found that the Manhattan appellate court was improper in ruling for Mr. Sprayregen, as precedent clearly is on the side of the state, the area is indeed blighted, and the courts generally are deferential to the state agency.
...Even the member of the court who is most skeptical of the use of eminent domain, Robert Smith, approved, issuing a concurring opinion. Mr. Smith was the lone dissenter in a case that challenged the use of eminent domain to build a basketball arena and housing in Brooklyn, brought by Daniel Goldstein and other landowners.
"The finding of 'blight' in this case seems to me strained and pretextual, but it is no more so than the comparable finding in Goldstein," Mr. Smith wrote. "Accepting Goldstein as I must, I agree in substance with all but section VI of the majority opinion."
Related coverage...
Columbia Spectator, Court OK'S Manhattanville expansion
In a blow to opponents of Columbia’s Manhattanville expansion, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that eminent domain can be used to obtain private properties in the area.
The opinion, written by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, overturned the December 2009 ruling by the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, in which Justice James Catterson had stated that the Empire State Development Corporation’s finding of blight in Manhattanville was made “in bad faith,” and that the expansion of an “elite” private university did not constitute a public use, as required by eminent domain law. Ciparick dismissed that ruling in harsh terms.
The expansion of a private university can serve the public good, Ciparick wrote: “The indisputably public purpose of education is particularly vital for New York City and the State to maintain their respective statuses as global centers of higher education and academic research,” the ruling reads. “The purpose of the Project is unquestionably to promote education and academic research while providing public benefits to the local community. Indeed, the advancement of higher education is the quintessential example of a ‘civic purpose.’”
The two remaining private property holdouts in the 17-acre expansion zone—Tuck-it-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen and gas station owners Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur—had also argued that ESDC’s decision to hire consulting firm Allee King Rosen and Fleming to conduct a blight study constituted “collusion,” since AKRF was also a consultant for Columbia. That was one of the primary bases on which the Appellate Division had condemned eminent domain, but the Court of Appeals defended ESDC, noting that it hired a second, independent consultant, Earth Tech, to replicate the study, and Earth Tech also found the area blighted.
“Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, Earth Tech did not merely review and rubber stamp AKRF’s study, but conducted its own independent research and gathered separate data and photographs of the area before arriving at its own conclusions,” Ciparick wrote. “Further, unlike AKRF, Earth Tech had never previously been affiliated with or employed by Columbia. Simply put, petitioners' argument that ESDC acted in 'bad faith' or pretextually is unsubstantiated by the record.”
NoLandGrab: Wait, you mean the ESDC's other paid consultant conducted its own "independent research" (even taking photographs!) and found the same "blight" the ESDC hired it to find, completely independently of AKRF? Well, that settles it.
Reason Hit & Run, New York's Highest Court Upholds Columbia University's Eminent Domain Abuse
New York’s Court of Appeals—the state’s highest court—issued its decision today in the Columbia University eminent domain case, upholding the state’s controversial land grab on behalf of the elite private university. Exactly as it did in last year’s disastrous Atlantic Yards ruling, the Court of Appeals shirked its judicial responsibility and ruled that the Empire State Development Corporation’s flawed and pretextual blight findings “were rationally based and entitled to deference.” So much for an independent judiciary that stands up for constitutional rights.
New York Law Journal, Breaking News: In Eminent Domain Case, High Court Puts Columbia Expansion Back on Track
The Court also held that under §6260(d) of the Urban Development Corporation Act, the development corporation is empowered to acquire property for a range of projects, including "educational, cultural, recreational" and for other purposes.
The potential public good of the Columbia project is "at least as compelling in its civic dimension" as the Atlantic Yards construction given the go-ahead in Goldstein, the Court held today.
NoLandGrab: That's not setting the bar very high, is it?
The New York Times, Court Upholds Columbia Campus Expansion Plan
The ruling cited a decision in a similar eminent-domain case last year involving the Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn, where the state was condemning property on behalf of a developer who planned to build a basketball arena for the Nets and up to 6,000 apartments. “We ruled for Atlantic Yards, and if we could rule in favor of a basketball arena, surely we could rule for a nonprofit university,” the court said Thursday in its decision, which was written by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick.
NLG: That's kind of the whole point, isn't it?
The complete 34-page decision can be found here. [PDF]
Posted by eric at June 24, 2010 1:18 PM