The illusion of competing interests

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division’s decision to deny use of eminent domain in Manhattanville is not only good for the property owners involved, but it’s also good for the community of West Harlem, the City of New York, the underprivileged, and even for the University itself. Everybody won on Dec. 3, with the exception of University President Bollinger, whose fate, as pertains to this case, hangs in the proverbial balance, pending appeal. Why? Simply put, there is one main benefit, nondivorceable from any of our interests, that outweighs the rest in this matter: sound legal precedent. That is the argument I will be making: in response to the majority of critics I will show that this was not some slapdash, biased decision on the part of the appellate court. To put it more boldly, it would be most wise for President Bollinger to let sleeping dogs lie in this case by asking the Empire State Development Corporation, or ESDC—the legislative agency acting on Columbia’s behalf—not to appeal the decision, for consolidating this collective victory in such a moving show of humility would do much to cancel the dishonor and infamy brought upon the University in this legal charade, while moving to unravel it can only result in further damage to all our interests.

Such strong words demand similarly strong support. For sound basis I rely on the recent Atlantic Yards, AY, decision by the N.Y. Court of Appeals. Even ESDC spokesperson Warner Johnston suggests the AY case has crucial bearing: “ESDC believes the decision … to be wrong and inconsistent with established law, as consistently articulated … most recently with respect to ESDC’s Atlantic Yards project.” Is that really “the case”?

But the standard of review in the AY case is tailor-made to uphold the Manhattanville decision. As Chief Judge Lippman writes for the majority, “a public purpose or use—is ordinarily the province of the Legislature, not the Judiciary, and the actual specification of the use as public has been largely left to quasi-legislative administrative agencies [the ESDC]; where, as here, ‘those bodies have made their finding, not corruptly or irrationally or baselessly, there is nothing for the courts to do about it.’”

If corruption and/or irrationality on the part of the ESDC are all petitioners have to demonstrate, however, then the case is closed. At least that’s the gist of what Justice Catterson writes for the majority. In his decision, Catterson rejects the finding of systemic blight, noting, “It is critical to recognize that EDC’s 2002 West Harlem Master Plan which was created prior to the scheme to balkanize Manhattanville for Columbia’s benefit found no blight … in Manhattanville.” Words like “balkanize,” “preposterous,” and “idiocy” foreshadow Justice Catterson’s ultimate findings.

As public interest attorney and CPC member Kenny Schaeffer says: “ESDC approved the use of eminent domain in Manhattanville on two separate grounds—that there was a finding of ‘blight,’ and that Columbia’s expansion qualifies as a ‘civic’ purpose—and Justice Catterson’s opinion blasts both arguments out of the water.” Regarding blight, by early 2004, “Columbia either purchased or gained control over most of the properties … It also forced out tenant businesses, ultimately vacating … 50 percent or more of the tenants.” He notes the disrepair in the area was mainly Columbia-owned. ESDC delayed doing a blight study until long after Columbia had acquired the properties that would constitute the study. The eventual study would (a) end up being conducted by Columbia’s own consultant AKRF, (b) use subjective, more relaxed criteria than the AY blight study by the same firm, (c) thus create “an inseparable conflict”; and (d) for these reasons be duplicated by Earth Tech using “the same flawed methodology.” In other words, their finding is irrational at best, corrupt at worst, and entirely baseless. As to civic purpose, the most closely related case was the New York Stock Exchange, which obviously had a public purpose of increasing the financial power and prestige of the city. No such public benefit is attached to private universities; the benefit is mainly Columbia’s. He cites a case involving Pace University as support.

In conclusion, the record provided by the petitioners tells a withering story of bad faith and corruption on the part of the state, enough to void its findings by even the narrow AY standard. And this is a good thing! For students and faculty, it means that we don’t necessarily have to belong to an institution that runs roughshod over the constitution. For the community, it sets an important precedent in a type of situation that happens all too often in New York. For Bollinger, yeah, it’s not so good. But a prophetic quote from Justice O’Connor suggests that all hope for PrezBo is not lost: “Any private property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

Ben Totushek is a student in the School of General Studies. He is a member of Student Coalition on Expansion and Gentrification, SCEG. Tom Reed is a Columbia College junior majoring in English and comparative literature. He is also a member of SCEG.