« The Brooklyn Paper tally: two Ratner/Nets announcements, no coverage of EB-5 | Main | Will the Supreme Court Hear the Columbia University Eminent Domain Case? »
December 11, 2010
Columbia University Expansion Project
Biersdorf & Associates
The Conflict: After announcing the project in 2003, Columbia University threatened “eminent domain” and quickly and amicably acquired all but 2 properties contained within the project’s footprint. Negotiations could not be reached with these owners, so In 2008, the State hired consultant AKRF to conduct a blight study. AKRF evaluated each of the 67 lots in the neighborhood and determined that there were high enough instances of physically poor conditions, emptied properties, and underdevelopment to label the area “blighted”. In New York, the blight designation provides government with the necessary means to use eminent domain to acquire property.
Is the property really blighted? The concept of “blight” is a controversial term at the heart of this case and other similar cases in New York. Because New York’s statutory definition of “blight” is so vague, government agencies can easily obtain a “blight” designation in order to use eminent domain to acquire property. Norman Siegel, civil rights attorney for Sprayregen and Sing said it best when he stated, “nobody really knows what it (blight) is”. He further emphasizes that understanding the inherent flaws in the blight law is essential—mainly that blight is a vague tool crafted to be whatever government wants it to be.
...
Unfortunately, New York is one of only seven states that have not passed post-Kelo reform aimed at curbing eminent domain abuse. Several New York lawmakers have attempted to do so, but failed after receiving opposition from the Bloomberg administration. Until New York passes eminent domain legislation addressing “blight” and the right to take, this type of abuse will continue.
Posted by steve at December 11, 2010 8:47 AM