In 2003 Columbia University proposed a $6.3 billion expansion of its 36-acre campus by building an additional 6.8 million square feet of space for classrooms, research facilities, administration, housing, and parking, including redeveloping 17-acres in the West Harlem neighborhood of “Manhattanville” from W. 125th to W. 133rd streets. While Columbia owned or controlled almost all of the parcels in the project area, the owners of a gas station and the owner of a self-storage business challenged the State’s exercise of eminent domain on behalf of the private university. As reported on the blog earlier, the appellate court halted the project finding unconstitutional the use of eminent domain by the Empire State Development Corporation.
The Court of Appeals, in referring back to its recent decision in Matter of Goldstein (Atlantic Yards), reaffirmed the long standing doctrine of legislative deference in New York, meaning that so long as the legislature makes rational, non-arbitrary determinations as to blight and public purpose, the judiciary will not substitute its judgment for that of the legislative body. Turning to the standard for blight contained in the UDC Act, the Court noted that the term “substandard or insanitary area” is defined as “a slum, blighted or deteriorated or deteriorating area, or an area which has a blighting influence on the surrounding area.” The Court explained that the blight studies conducted by the consultants on behalf of ESDC did conclude that the area met the definition of blight, and that the argument asserted by the Plaintiffs that it was not simply raised a reasonable difference of opinion, and that a mere difference of opinion is not sufficient to supplant ESDC’s determination of blight. Further, the Court admonished the appellate court for having over-stepped its authority by conducting a do novo review of the record to reach their own conclusion as to whether the area was blighted.
Moving to the pretext argument, the Court of Appeals said that ESDC relied on objective data to reach its finding of blight and that the petitioners argument that ESDC acted in bad faith or pretextually had no basis in the record. Although ESDC hired AKRF to conduct the blight study, and AKRF had previously been engaged by Columbia to prepare the EIS for the project (author’s comment: note that this is not illegal, but it certainly opens the door for allegations of unethical dealings), the Court said this alone does not prove that the blight study was compromised. Further, the Court acknowledged that in response to criticism over the AKRF relationship, ESDC hired a second firm, Earth Tech to also review the project site, which led to the same conclusions.
With respect to the constitutionality of the UDC Act’s definition of “substandard or insanitary” the Court did not agree with the petitioners that the definition was too vague. Relying on prior decisions, the Court explained that a specific degree of deterioration or a precise percentage of mathematical measurement is not necessary to determine blight, since “blight is an elastic concept that does not call for an inflexible, one-size-fits-all definition.” The Court said that the statute did provide an understandable definition of the term “substandard or insanitary.”
The Court found that the ESDC did properly qualify the project as a public use or as “civic project” under the UDC Act. Further, if the project is defined as a civic project under the statute, the Court pointed out that ESDC is empowered to exercise eminent domain even where there is no blight. Although the petitioners argued that this could not constitute a “civic project” since Columbia is a private, not public, university, the Court looked to the statutory language which simply includes educational facilities in the list of possible uses that qualify for civic projects. Since the State legislature did not limit “educational facilities” to mean specifically public ones or to specifically exclude private ones, Court said that they would not read any qualifying language into the statute. Further, the Court explained that ESDC has a long history of involvement with civic projects that would also benefit private parties (e.g., the recent Atlantic Yards case), and that regardless, “the advancement of higher education is the quintessential example of a ‘civic purpose.’” The Court also focused on the other significant civic benefits to the public including the publically accessible park and the open-air market zone, upgrades to transit infrastructure, a financial commitment to another area park, and the projected 14,000 new construction jobs and 6,000 new permanent jobs that would be created.
Kaur v New York State Urban Development Corporation, 2010 WL 2517686 (NY 6/24/2010)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/2010/jun10/125opn10.pdf
