New York State Senator Bill Perkins (D-West Harlem), sent a letter to Governor David Paterson, CC ’77, urging him not to appeal the court decision that banned the use of eminent domain to seize private property in Manhattanville.
Perkins’ letter was written in light of last week’s 3-2 decision that declared use of eminent domain in the 17-acre expansion zone to be illegal, a major setback for the University’s campus development plans.
The Empire State Development Corporation, which approved eminent domain for the project last December, intends to appeal the decision to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
Perkins urged Paterson not to appeal the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division’s ruling, writing Tuesday that eminent domain is “part of an insidious form of discrimination and civil rights violations that must not stand.”
Eminent domain, the process by which the state can seize private properties for the “public good” in exchange for market-rate compensation, is a crucial component of Columbia’s campus expansion plan for Manhattanville. Given that the University has not been able to strike land deals with either of the two private property owners who filed the lawsuits decided last Thursday—Nick Sprayregen of Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage and gas station owners Gurnam Singh and Parminder Kaur—eminent domain would be the only way to acquire the area necessary to build according to the campus plan that was approved by the state.
The underground space—the so-called “bathtub”—planned to reach seven stories beneath the campus is also at stake. Though the area is currently owned by New York City, which is willing to grant the University below-grade control, Columbia can only legally obtain the space through eminent domain.
Perkins has weighed in on eminent domain use throughout the University’s path toward getting the plan approved, voicing his opposition at public forums and council hearings.
In 2005, Perkins stood alongside Paterson to protest the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmative decision on the use of eminent domain in the Kelo v. City of New London decision. That ruling, Perkins explained, contained language encouraging states to review their own eminent domain statutes, and in his letter he urged Paterson to do the same by imposing a statewide moratorium on further eminent domain actions in New York State.
He added in his plea to Paterson, “Your participation will be critical. An enlightened eminent domain procedure will be a significant victory for all involved.”
Comments
We're looking for comments that are interesting and substantial. If your comments are excessively self-promotional or obnoxious you will be banned from commenting. Consult the comment FAQ and legal terms.