Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report

The mainstream press and public officials are interested in critiquing the Columbia University Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), linked to the university's West Harlem expansion, even as the Atlantic Yards CBA is vulnerable to more criticism . In a 10/30/11 exclusive headlined Harlem group sitting on Columbia-aid cash , the New York Post reported: Columbia University gave a West Harlem group $3.5 million, and all the community got for its money were some consultants and a temporary job program for teens. The money is part of a $76 million pot of cash Columbia has pledged to the community to ease the burden of its controversial $6.3 billion expansion in the Manhattanville neighborhood.  But organizational problems continue to plague the group in charge of doling out the money. The West Harlem Local Development Corp. was set up in 2006, but the group still has no executive director, no Web site and no means for the community to apply for the money. “In these desperate econ...

The effort to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal on the eminent domain ruling in the Columbia University expansion has been denied , without comment. Thus the court passes for now on the opportunity to clarify the meaning and legacy of its controversial 5-4 Kelo vs. New London decision in 2005. While the federal appellate court hearing an appeal in the Atlantic Yards litigation interpreted Kelo quite narrowly, denying the challenge, courts in other states have used language in Kelo to more closely examine the actions of governmental agencies pursuing eminent domain. The Supreme Court also passes on an opportunity to pronounce on eminent domain law as practiced in New York State, seen as an outlier among states, given that all challenges start in the state's appellate division, with no opportunity for testimony under oath, further evidence-gathering, or cross-examination.

The Columbia University expansion case should reach a reckoning this week at the U.S. Supreme Court, which, if in the unlikely case it accepts the appeal, could place a check on eminent domain as practiced in New York State. As I wrote in September, after seeing a surprising Appellate Division victory o verturned unanimously by the state Court of Appeals, which relied on its Atlantic Yards decision, Tuck-It-Away owner Nick Sprayregen and the Kaur/Singh family are trying to get to the Supreme Court. On his Inverse Condemnation blog, land use attorney Robert Thomas has posted the entire set of briefs in the petition for certiorari ( Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. ) at the United States Supreme Court. Will cert be granted? The justices will meet December 10 to consider a number of cases and are expected to announce December 13 which cases they will accept (aka "grant certiorari"). It's always a long shot to get a case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Pl...

As plaintiff Nick Sprayregen of Tuck-It-Away Storage pledged, he'd go to the U.S. Supreme Court to fight the state's pursuit of eminent domain in the Columbia University. Now, after seeing a surprising Appellate Division victory overturned unanimously by the state Court of Appeals, which relied on its Atlantic Yards decision, Sprayregen and the Kaur/Singh family that owns a gas station on the project site have filed their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (below), the request for the court to hear the case. It's always a long shot--fewer than 1% of petitions are granted --but this petition, authored by attorney Norman Siegel and a host of others, hammers home the state court's failure to address the guidelines seemingly set forth in Justice John Paul Stevens's majority opinion and Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in the 2005 Kelo v. New London case, in which the court upheld eminent domain by a 5-4 margin. Ignoring Kelo ? The petition states: In sharp c...

After watching the oral argument June 1 in the eminent domain case involving the Columbia University expansion, I suggested that Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman was being either incredibly ignorant or faux-naive when he asked if there is "statutorily-provided discovery in this kind of situation." The answer, of course, is no, and that's why the law favors condemnors more than in any other state. Deference, and new law The court's decision last week offered deference to the Empire State Development Corporation's (ESDC) blight findings. Also, as attorneys at ESDC co-counsel Sive, Paget & Riesel admit , it created new law by "holding that 'civic projects' under the UDC [Urban Development Corporation] Act are not limited to public institutions, and may in fact include projects proposed by private educational institutions." (What about trade schools and Shoot the Freak ?) Actual ignorance It also included a line that was not f...

In less than four weeks after a contentious oral argument, the state Court of Appeals brought an unsurprising end to the Cinderella story that was the Columbia University eminent domain case, ruling unanimously --though with a very reluctant concurrence--that the courts should defer to the Empire State Development Corporation in its finding of blight. As I reported after watching the oral argument in Kaur v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp. , the judges--including Atlantic Yards dissenter Robert Smith--felt bound by their decision in the Atlantic Yards case last November, a decision that was glaringly ignored by the two-judge plurality who shortly afterward ruled against the ESDC in the Columbia case. Wrote Smith: I concur in the result on constraint of Matter of Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. Corp . 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 . Accepting Goldstein as I must, I...

After watching the newly-posted webcast of the June 1 oral argument in the eminent domain case ( Kaur v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp. ) at the Court of Appeals regarding the Columbia University expansion, I've expanded and amended my original post , which was based solely on an audio file. The 40-minute argument is well worth watching. Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) attorney John Casolaro, cerebral and persistent, seemed aggrieved when he had to defend weaker positions. The property owners' attorney, Norman Siegel, was about as passionate as you can get in the relatively restrained confines of an appellate court. Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, with the help of a few colleagues, did a good job ensuring that the major issues got highlighted. (The Atlantic Yards oral argument got bogged down in places, by contrast.) And Judge Robert Smith, the dissenter in the AY case ( Goldstein v. N.Y.S. Urban Development Corp. ), more than once played devil's advocate, chal...

Updated, amplified, and clarified 6/7/10 after oral argument webcaast video was released. See more analysis here . In the highly contested 40-minute oral argument ( webcast ) yesterday in the Columbia University eminent domain case, attorneys significantly reprised arguments in the briefs , with frequent references to the Atlantic Yards case the Court of Appeals decided last November. I didn’t make it to Albany and none of the city’s three daily newspapers sent a reporter, but I've since amplified my initial report--based on a recording--with a look at the webcast. The lack of coverage is dismaying, given that the Appellate Division’s surprising and contested rejection of the Empire State Development Corporation’s eminent domain findings was big news last December. The bottom line of the argument is unclear, given there are various strands of argument. In other words, if the court upholds the ESDC on its finding of blight--as is not unlikely, given its decision in the AY case--it c...