While the fate of a sprawling 17-acre campus is at stake amid a protracted legal battle, for one Harlem politician, important legislation is on the line as well.
State Senator Bill Perkins, a Harlem representative opposed to the use of eminent domain for Columbia's campus, has long been an advocate of reforming New York State laws concerning eminent domain—the process by which the state can seize private property for “public use” in exchange for market-rate compensation. New York State’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law lacks transparency, accountability, and a set of explicitly defined terms, according to Perkins. He has argued that it is a system rigged in favor of condemnors, who use the system’s ill-defined language and numerous loopholes to unlawfully seize private property.
But the time is ripe for change, Perkins says. Spurred by the case Parminder Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, which is winding its way through the courts, Perkins has embarked on a campaign to change how eminent domain works in New York—or rather, doesn’t work, he argues. The New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division’s decision in December that declared eminent domain in the 17-acre expansion zone illegal was only the tip of the iceberg, he says. If substantial change is going to be implemented in the way eminent domain operates in New York, it must begin with a revision of the law.
And now, Perkins is hoping to do just that. He has drafted S.6791, a bill intended to redefine “blight”—the condition of disrepair beyond the potential for natural relief. Currently, under New York State law, blight is simply associated with the terms, “substandard and unsanitary,” terms which are wanting in elaboration, according to Perkins.
“Right now, blight is almost conspiratorially defined to guarantee that institutions like Columbia will be able to get their way,” Perkins said in a recent interview. “Blight is in the eye of the beholder.”
Perkins’ impetus for reform came on the heels of the appellate division’s December ruling, when he kicked off a series of public hearings calling for a critical look of New York’s Eminent Domain Procedure Law. A Jan. 6 public hearing drew Harlem residents, business owners, and University and state officials to the Adam Clayton Powell State Office Building—mere blocks away from the footprint of the proposed expansion. The meeting featured a slew of testifiers and witnesses who spoke to the need for legislation to reform the state’s eminent domain laws.
“Today is the first step in shifting the pendulum of power away from the unrestricted and abusive use of eminent domain, back to a proper balance that protects the rights of tenants, property owners, and businesses,” Perkins said at the hearing.
Perkins’ legislation, which has yet to be signed into law, seeks to clarify Eminent Domain Procedure Law by clarifying and contextualizing such terms as “blighted property,” “slum,” “abandoned property,” “unfit for human habitation,” “public use,” and a host of other phrases which have been used what he considers inconsistently in eminent domain cases.
“It is imperative that the legislature enact objective criteria to ensure that blight determinations are consistent, predictable, and based on factors actually related to the public’s health and safety,” he states in the bill.
But some say that Perkins’ vision for substantial change may be an uphill battle, as it contends with the difficulties posed the American legal system. Federalism, by which the national and state governments operate parallel to one another, often pit these dual governments against one another, as differences in the national and state constitutions embroil the two in bitter disputes over legal semantics. The question, then, comes down to whether New York State courts should privilege the state’s laws, or rely on the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents when ruling on eminent domain disputes.
“When advocates debate Columbia versus Atlantic Yards, they’re having a debate primarily about New York State Law, so there’s these two very different sets of decisions, but then there’s also the larger issue of the U.S. Supreme Court and what it’s likely to do,” Julia Vitullo-Martin, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and director of the Center for Rethinking Development, said in a recent interview. “So we have the state laws and then as the ultimate arbiter the U.S. Supreme Court—it’s an unusual legal system."
Many of the inconsistencies which Perkins wishes to resolve in New York’s eminent domain law stem from these often conflicting governmental systems. In the 2005 landmark Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that land could be transferred from one private owner to another through eminent domain to promote “economic rejuvenation,” as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his decision.
“The public end may as well or better be served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government,” the Supreme Court concluded in its ruling, adding, “public ownership is [not] the sole method of promoting the public purposes of community redevelopment.”
With this statement, the Supreme Court at once broadened what constitutes a “public use,” paving the way for lower courts to likewise use an expansive interpretation of eminent domain. Just a week before the December Appellate Court case on Manhattanville, the New York Court of Appeals decided in a 6-1 ruling to uphold the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards site in Brooklyn, a mixed-used commercial and residential development.
Following in the footsteps of the Kelo justices, the Court of Appeals judges broadly applied the takings provision of the New York State Constitution and loosely interpreted the word “blight,” concluding that blighted areas “are not limited to slums,” and that it is not necessary for “a finding of blight…[to] be based upon conditions replicating those…in the midst of the Great Depression.”
But with the Appellate Divisions’ rejection in December of many aspects of both of these court cases, Perkins now finds himself at the crossroads of conflicting legal rulings. On the one hand, there remains the pivotal Kelo case followed by Atlantic Yards—alongside past U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Berman v. Parker—all of which ruled in favor of eminent domain and consequently broadened the interpretations of specific eminent domain terminology. On the other hand, the Appellate Division’s recent ruling in the Manhattanvile case defied such expansive readings, calling instead for a closer read of eminent domain law, as the justices declared that the “time has come to categorically reject eminent domain takings solely based on underutilization” of property.
Just how Perkins will reconcile the broad interpretations of the ultimate arbiter of the land with his own more narrowly defined terms and criteria remains to be seen, as lower courts generally—and, according to legal protocol, should—obey the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents. And even if Perkins’ bill is ultimately signed into law, there still remains the inevitable struggle that a dual government system can cause.
“This case will have a very significant bearing on my legislation—my legislation is basically crafted on the basis of this case, of the issues that are involved in this case,” Perkins said of the June 1 Court of Appeals hearing, which he plans to attend. He will also be holding a press conference. “That this case is moving forward underscores the significance of the legislation,” he added.
And the Court of Appeals case may have a positive bearing on Perkins’ proposed legislation, regardless of what the court ultimately decides, he said. As the dispute over eminent domain jargon makes its way before yet another set of judges, the ruling will in some way raise questions about the consistency—or lack thereof—of eminent domain terminology as it applies to the law. This fact, Perkins said, underscores the necessity of revising the current laws.
He said, “It’s a win-win situation, but it’s a slam dunk if we win the case."
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy