It continues to have what may be the most permissive eminent domain law in the entire country. New York was one of only five states that made no changes at all. Some of these laws were effective, others much less so. New London (2005), many states enacted eminent domain reform laws to curb the taking of property for private development. In the aftermath of the US Supreme Court's controversial decision in Kelo v. But the right approach to this problem is simply to abolish or at least loosen the restrictions without simultaneously authorizing the use of eminent domain. Building restrictions are indeed a serious problem curtailing valuable development in New York and elsewhere. In this case, some beneficial development may occur because-as the Times notes-the "blight" designation can enable the state to get around local restrictions on the height and type of new buildings that can be constructed. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain. I go over these dangers in detail in my book The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. Among other things, rendering property rights insecure undermines incentives to invest, and thereby impedes longterm economic development. In addition to harming local property owners, such condemnations often actually destroy more economic value than they create. City of New London (2005)-that virtually any potential public benefit qualifies as a "public use." For its part, the US Supreme Court has ruled-in misguided decisions like Berman v. Sadly, little has changed since that time.īoth the New York state constitution and the Fifth Amendment federal constitutions only permit the use of eminent domain to take property for a "public use." But the state Court of Appeals has interpreted that to permit the taking of "blighted" property for transfer to private interests under the state's incredibly broad definition of blight. In a 2011 article, I went over two state Court of Appeals decisions that upheld even more abusive land grabs (the Court of Appeals is New York's highest court). This is far from the first time New York has used its blight statute to authorize dubious uses of eminent domain, including in situations where private parties who owned some of the "blighted" property stood to benefit. But the redevelopment plan put forward by the state government is likely to require the demolition of numerous existing structures, including a variety of businesses and a 150-year-old Catholic Church. In fairness, it is not yet clear to what extent eminent domain will be used in this case. The sites could give rise to some of the tallest buildings in the city. Of the eight sites that would be redeveloped, Vornado owns four of them and a share of another. Vornado, a public company that is among the city's largest owners of offices, has accumulated more than a dozen properties in the area over the last 20 years, holding onto them in anticipation of a larger redevelopment. Some properties with faulty conditions or unresolved violations are owned by Vornado Realty Trust, the neighborhood's largest landowner, which the state has said will develop some of the new towers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |