Skip to main content

As Columbia plan gets approved, a fight over blight and eminent domain emerges

Well, as the New York Times reported Friday, in an article headlined State Officials Approve Expansion by Columbia, the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), as expected, approved the Columbia University expansion project in West Harlem, aka Manhattanville.

The vote, however, "came after two hours of impassioned testimony against the plan by more than two dozen people, including residents, local business owners and their lawyers." (I don't think testimony was allowed when the ESDC approved the Atlantic Yards plan two years ago. Post-Gargano progress?)

Civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel, who represents Tuck-It-Away storage company owner Nick Sprayregen, the main (of two) landowners resisting eminent domain, said he'd file a lawsuit. Approval by the state's Public Authorities Control Board (PACB) is still necessary.

Sponsor blight?

The Times quoted Sprayregen:
He claims that the university purposely blighted the area by buying up property and then neglecting and “warehousing” it. Central to the suit, he said, would be recently acquired documentation that “paints a damning picture of the process, including collusion between Columbia and New York State, and conflicts of interests.”

Some of these issues came up last year, he said, in a case in which a state judge questioned the independence of the state development corporation, citing the appearance of collusion between the corporation and Columbia after the agency hired a consultant who was already working for Columbia on the Manhattanville project.


The back story

I'm hardly as up to speed on the Columbia situation as I am on AY, but, if Sprayregen's contentions are accurate--and so far, the courts have been sympathetic--the Columbia case may be even more outrageous than the AY case when it comes to blight.

After all, with Atlantic Yards, the state punted when asked to acknowledge that government agencies were responsible for the blight along the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Vanderbilt Yard. With Columbia, the university seems to be responsible for a large portion of the blight.

That's the theme of Columbia University, Slumlord, a long article in the conservative Weekly Standard, which might be expected to take a withering look at eminent domain.

Jonathan V. Last writes:
It’s a curious situation—the government punishing a landowner who takes care of his property and rewarding an owner who does not. But this is the through-the-looking-glass world of New York eminent domain law.

Interestingly, while Columbia owns 70 percent of the land it seeks and public agencies control 26 percent, 4 percent is owned by Sprayregen and the Singh family, which owns two gas stations. (With Atlantic Yards, about 14% of the amount of footprint land is not owned or controlled by the developer or the government. More on this tomorrow.)

The blight fight

Last points out the uphill battle facing those challenging blight designations, issues pointed out at a State Senate hearing in September:
In New York, blight is essentially whatever the government says it is.

...But New York makes challenging eminent domain even more difficult. State law does not allow property owners to challenge eminent domain claims in a trial court. In every other state in the Union, owners have the right to challenge the government’s assertion of eminent domain before a trial judge—meaning that they get the chance for discovery, to call witnesses on their behalf, to introduce evidence, and to challenge the government’s assertions. New York routes challenges to eminent domain takings directly to an appellate court, where property owners are given 10 minutes to argue their case before a judge and cannot embark on any findings of fact—let alone challenge the facts asserted by the government. As Robert McNamara, a staff attorney for the Institute of Justice, wryly notes, “New York doesn’t just stack the deck against property owners. They don’t even let the property owners play.”


Sprayregen says he's committed to spending 3 million on legal fees for a case he expects to lose. That's well more than Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, which also has a volunteer legal team, has spent on various AY cases.

Last's article describes a series of blight studies, first conducted by a consulting firm called Urbitran--a study released only after Sprayregen's multiple Freedom of Information Law requests. Nearly all of these buildings within the zone of the Columbia expansion plan were owned by the university.

ESDC tried again, and used Columbia’s own consulting firm, AKRF:
The state of New York was charging a firm being paid significant amounts by Columbia University to make a determination of potentially great benefit to Columbia University. But, the ESDC was also more careful than the EDC had been. Before awarding the contract to perform the study, the ESDC asked AKRF to submit “preliminary” findings on blight in Manhattanville. This they did on August 23, 2006. The ESDC was pleased with what AKRF was suggesting it would find and, on September 11, 2006, signed a contract with AKRF to carry out the study.

As part of his fight to collect material from Columbia and the ESDC, Sprayregen went to court requesting documents pertaining to the ESDC’s relationship with AKRF.

In March 2007, Dennis Mincieli, an AKRF vice president, insisted in a court filing (arguing against one of Sprayregen’s FOIL requests) that there was nothing improper in the relationship because a “Chinese wall” had been erected between the teams working for Columbia and the ESDC. This was a dubious claim—after all, the same company benefited, even if the staffs were segregated—but it turned out not even to be true.


The ESDC, concerned that AKRF's study might be problematic legally, then hired another consultant, Earthtech, to replicate the AKRF study--which it did.

In the Atlantic Yards case, as I reported in August, ESDC hired AKRF after--not while--it had been working for Forest City Ratner. The ESDC's conflict-of-interest policy apparently doesn't address issues of consecutive representation. And AKRF was hired without any competitive bidding or public notice because the ESDC was convinced speed and continuity were important. AKRF never conducted a market study that was part of its contract scope.

Chutzpah

Last writes:
In its brief arguing against the temporary restraining order, the ESDC’s lawyers claimed that a delay in closing the Public Record might cost human lives:
"By 2011, this country will have a virtual tsunami of Alzheimer’s patients as baby boomers age. . . . Here, the first building to be constructed, the Jerome L. Greene Science Center, would be devoted to curing diseases, such as autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s and schizophrenia. The money is already available for the construction of that Center. How does one place a price tag in human suffering on delaying a possible cure of any such diseases by 18 months, 12 months, or 6 months?"

In the annals of eminent domain litigation, it’s hard to find a more brazen contention.


Well, it's certainly a lesser outrage, but it is just as brutally weird for the ESDC, as I wrote in September, in the litigation over the AY environmental review, to criticize the appellants by calling the AY arena the "Barclays Center," which just happens to be the name the developer uses.

Kelo redux?

Last thinks, as did AY opponents in their case, that the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London case may have an impact on the Columbia case. No, Sprayregen won't be able to establish that the ESDC was engaged in “impermissible favoritism” toward Columbia, given that such a designation is much more likely in a trial court. (That's why the Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn-organized lawsuit was first filed in federal court.)

Last thinks Sprayregen can argue that Columbia’s plan, unlike that endorsed in Kelo, is not “comprehensive” because Columbia has not made firm plans for the site. I'm not so sure; I suspect that the state will argue that the framework, at least, is comprehensive, and courts will defer to that.

And while courts have readily agreed to included non-blighted property to create contiguous sites, writes Last:
the Court has not been confronted with a case in which the neighborhood blight was directly caused by the party seeking the benefit of eminent domain.

Would that hold weight? I'm not sure, but it sure would be interesting to hear argued.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.