NY to use eminent domain power for Columbia

[Columbia2002]

<p>State</a> Officials Approve Columbia Expansion - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com</p>

<p>Rather troubling...</p>

[Denzera]

<p>that’s a shame, but two points to consider:</p>

<p>1) it really is just a negotiating tactic. The holdout landowners were basically just trying to shake columbia down for a buyout price that’s 10 times what the property is worth instead of the mere 3 times what it’s worth that they were offered. This is a countertactic. Against people who aren’t trying to get a fair price for their property (or even an excellent price), but are trying to squeeze you to a ridiculous extent, upping the ante may be justified.</p>

<p>2) If you walk through that neighborhood, from 125th st north betw broadway and the west side highway underpass, it really IS blighted. There is no appreciable commercial activity going on there aside from the gas station, and it has the appearance of a slum. The massive housing project on 133rd betw broadway and 12th ave doesn’t help things either. So I find it reasonable for eminent domain to be used as a tool to revamp that area, but it should be used in favor of the creation of parks, mixed-income housing, and so on. The use by the University is, I’ll agree, of dubious public purpose.</p>

<p>Now, if ESDC were to use eminent domain to purchase the property and then auction it to the highest bidder - as long as they promised to use the land for some well-defined (and contractually obligated) public purpose - then I would think that’s reasonable. Unfortunately even my charitable interpretation isn’t quite what they’re doing here.</p>

[jaykoblives]

<p>So I guess Columbia University is becoming a public school now. Seems to me like that’s the only possible way they could constitutionally invoke eminent domain. This whole thing reeks.</p>

[cerberus08]

<p>^^ Not necessarily.</p>

<p>Wikipedia (forgive me, I’m not of this country) said that the property seized under eminent domain can be handed off to a third party for “public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development”. I’m assuming that Columbia’s invoking the law to do the latter. </p>

<p>If that’s the case, and Columbia loses the lawsuit, then it’s entirely likely some real estate investor is going to step in and invoke eminent domain, take advantage of the low prices as an investment opportunity, purchase the property at a lower valuation than what Columbia is offering and leave the homeowners in the area with less money than Columbia’s offering</p>

<p>Someone’s going to take over the area eventually.</p>

[Fastfood15]

<p>i’m far from an expert, but i think John Locke would be okay with this.</p>

[Denzera]

<p>

Wikipedia (forgive me, I’m not of this country) said that the property seized under eminent domain can be handed off to a third party for “public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development”. I’m assuming that Columbia’s invoking the law to do the latter.

</p>

<p>Here’s your problem:</p>

<p>[Kelo</a> v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London]Kelo”>Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Note the epilogue paragraph:

Prior to Kelo only eight states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight: Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington[12]. By July 2007, 42 states had enacted some type of reform legislation in response to the Kelo decision. 21 of those states enacted laws that severely inhibit the takings allowed by the Kelo decision, while 21 others enacted laws that place some limits on the power of municipalities to invoke eminent domain for economic development. The remaining eight states have not passed laws to limit the power of eminent domain for economic development.

</p>

[Columbia2002]

<p>

i’m far from an expert, but i think John Locke would be okay with this.

</p>

<p>Madison would be far from okay with this.</p>

<p>

1. it really is just a negotiating tactic. The holdout landowners were basically just trying to shake columbia down for a buyout price that’s 10 times what the property is worth instead of the mere 3 times what it’s worth that they were offered. This is a countertactic. Against people who aren’t trying to get a fair price for their property (or even an excellent price), but are trying to squeeze you to a ridiculous extent, upping the ante may be justified.

</p>

<p>Even if what you say is true – that Columbia will likely never actually use the ED power because they can just threaten to use it and get what they want – it’s still a shame. A private citizen shouldn’t be able to use the threat of state power to get a better deal for some other private citizen’s land.</p>

<p>

2. If you walk through that neighborhood, from 125th st north betw broadway and the west side highway underpass, it really IS blighted. There is no appreciable commercial activity going on there aside from the gas station, and it has the appearance of a slum. The massive housing project on 133rd betw broadway and 12th ave doesn’t help things either. So I find it reasonable for eminent domain to be used as a tool to revamp that area, but it should be used in favor of the creation of parks, mixed-income housing, and so on. The use by the University is, I’ll agree, of dubious public purpose.

</p>

<p>Your last two sentences raise the slippery slope that has become of eminent domain over the last 100 years. Eminent domain used to be for public use (those are the exact words in the 5th amendment) – classically roads, schools, riparian waterways, etc. Then public use became transformed to mean a public purpose – such as urban development and removing blight. And then public purpose became so expanded to include a private purpose that will benefit the public because it might generate more tax revenue – that’s the Pfizer plant in the Kelo case that still hasn’t been built and still hasn’t generated a dime of income for the City of New London.</p>