Development Beat: Perkins, Brodsky, Alesi And Long Build Coalition On Eminent Domain Reform
In wake of court decisions, legislators look to re-empower property owners through state law
Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:27:00
Bill Perkins, chair of the Senate Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, is proposing sweeping new laws that would severely cramp the state’s eminent domain ability to seize private property. Perkins wants to put some power back into the hands of property owners and create greater transparency when governments seek to invoke eminent domain.
“The human cry has been heard,” Perkins said. “It seems as if the climate is right for us to pass something to make the process better.”
As the law stands, the criteria to name an area blighted, something necessary to invoke eminent domain, remains unclear.
“The law is vague,” said civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, who has been involved with lawsuits pushing back on eminent domain seizures. “Vagueness invites subjectivity, subjectivity invites selective enforcement, selective enforcement invites favoritism—and that’s no good. We need to draft better laws that ask, ‘What defines blight?’”
Perkins said that addressing how an area gets determined as suitable for state takeover is a priority, but he declined to address specifics. However, that idea is popular on both sides of the aisle.
State Sen. James Alesi held a series of hearings on eminent domain after the landmark 2005 Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London, and remains committed to seeing changes.
“New York should have a commission or board made up of experts in the field,” Alesi said, “and take it out of the hands of legislators, to figure what constitutes blight more objectively.”
The Perkins bill will also likely attempt to address the rights of owners disputing terms on deals provided by government officials for their property. Currently, only the face value of the property is assessed, and not costs the property owner would have to incur in moving their small businesses and reestablishing client bases elsewhere. Some legislators, like Assembly Member Richard Brodsky, have called for the appointment of an eminent domain ombudsman to oversee negotiations between officials and property owners.
Legislators also expressed interest in reforming a law that prevents property owners from taking their case to trial court. Now, property owners are referred to the Appellate Court, where they are allotted only 15 minutes to make their cases.
But some worry that efforts to reform eminent domain may go too far and could hinder development in the state.
“Eminent domain is an important procedure and right that the government has that they should use sparingly and in rare cases, but it is critical that it be available,” said Steve Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York. “It’s a necessity in order to open the path for significant investment and changing neighborhoods for the better.”
The Empire State Development Corporation, the governmental agency responsible for enforcing eminent domain, declined comment.
The push to pass new legislation regarding eminent domain comes on the heels of an Appellate Court’s decision to call the use of eminent domain illegal during Columbia University’s attempts to build a new campus in West Harlem. The issue surrounds the hiring of a consulting firm that was used by both ESDC to determine that the area was blighted and by Columbia to outline a development plan and draft an environmental impact statement.
This decision has since been appealed to New York’s Court of Appeals and a verdict is pending.
This move also comes in the wake of a decision in November 2009 by the Court of Appeals, which called the use of eminent domain legal for the $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards mega-development project in Brooklyn. A judge will rule later this month on whether the property in the 22-acre footprint will be transferred to developer Bruce Ratner’s company, Forest City Ratner.
But regardless of what happens in the courthouse, reform seems inevitable soon in the State Senate. Even though the bill is being pushed by a liberal Manhattan legislator, it has received the support of Conservative Party state chair Mike Long.
“Clearly [eminent domain] should never be used for the purpose of the private sector,” he said. “Individuals should be protected, and I think we’re moving down the road for commercial use and the government taking away their homes for purpose of community development.”
Alesi agreed.
“The bedrock of living in America is the right to own property and not worry about the government taking it,” he said. “People do get screwed with eminent domain. There’s no question about that.”
“The human cry has been heard,” Perkins said. “It seems as if the climate is right for us to pass something to make the process better.”
As the law stands, the criteria to name an area blighted, something necessary to invoke eminent domain, remains unclear.
“The law is vague,” said civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, who has been involved with lawsuits pushing back on eminent domain seizures. “Vagueness invites subjectivity, subjectivity invites selective enforcement, selective enforcement invites favoritism—and that’s no good. We need to draft better laws that ask, ‘What defines blight?’”
Perkins said that addressing how an area gets determined as suitable for state takeover is a priority, but he declined to address specifics. However, that idea is popular on both sides of the aisle.
State Sen. James Alesi held a series of hearings on eminent domain after the landmark 2005 Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London, and remains committed to seeing changes.
“New York should have a commission or board made up of experts in the field,” Alesi said, “and take it out of the hands of legislators, to figure what constitutes blight more objectively.”
The Perkins bill will also likely attempt to address the rights of owners disputing terms on deals provided by government officials for their property. Currently, only the face value of the property is assessed, and not costs the property owner would have to incur in moving their small businesses and reestablishing client bases elsewhere. Some legislators, like Assembly Member Richard Brodsky, have called for the appointment of an eminent domain ombudsman to oversee negotiations between officials and property owners.
Legislators also expressed interest in reforming a law that prevents property owners from taking their case to trial court. Now, property owners are referred to the Appellate Court, where they are allotted only 15 minutes to make their cases.
But some worry that efforts to reform eminent domain may go too far and could hinder development in the state.
“Eminent domain is an important procedure and right that the government has that they should use sparingly and in rare cases, but it is critical that it be available,” said Steve Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York. “It’s a necessity in order to open the path for significant investment and changing neighborhoods for the better.”
The Empire State Development Corporation, the governmental agency responsible for enforcing eminent domain, declined comment.
The push to pass new legislation regarding eminent domain comes on the heels of an Appellate Court’s decision to call the use of eminent domain illegal during Columbia University’s attempts to build a new campus in West Harlem. The issue surrounds the hiring of a consulting firm that was used by both ESDC to determine that the area was blighted and by Columbia to outline a development plan and draft an environmental impact statement.
This decision has since been appealed to New York’s Court of Appeals and a verdict is pending.
This move also comes in the wake of a decision in November 2009 by the Court of Appeals, which called the use of eminent domain legal for the $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards mega-development project in Brooklyn. A judge will rule later this month on whether the property in the 22-acre footprint will be transferred to developer Bruce Ratner’s company, Forest City Ratner.
But regardless of what happens in the courthouse, reform seems inevitable soon in the State Senate. Even though the bill is being pushed by a liberal Manhattan legislator, it has received the support of Conservative Party state chair Mike Long.
“Clearly [eminent domain] should never be used for the purpose of the private sector,” he said. “Individuals should be protected, and I think we’re moving down the road for commercial use and the government taking away their homes for purpose of community development.”
Alesi agreed.
“The bedrock of living in America is the right to own property and not worry about the government taking it,” he said. “People do get screwed with eminent domain. There’s no question about that.”
