 |
||||
|
|
||||
|
  |
Eminent Domain
Eminent domain is a power granted to the government to take private property belonging to private citizens for purposes that constitute "public use". (for an in-depth description of the power of eminent domain, click here)
Most federal and state constitutions say that property can only be condemned for 'public use.' For many years, governments applied that term to mean that property could be taken only for public projects like schools, highways, and public buildings. However, starting with a landmark decision in 1954, courts began ruling that states could exercise eminent domain on behalf of private companies, provided that those companies intended to use the property for purposes that would, in one way or another, serve a "public purpose" and thereby satisfy the "public use" clause of the Constitution. For example, to combat deteriorating conditions in urban areas of the United States, courts would allow the state to condemn an area that had been declared a slum or blighted by using eminent domain, and then transfer the property to a private party for increased development. The development would result in economic increases for the state, a decrease in the unsafe and unhealthy conditions caused by blight and slum, and general improvement in the welfare of the surrounding community. These ends were determined to be of "public use" and therefore legitimized the exercise of eminent domain. It is important to understand that in these circumstances, "slum-clearance" was the primary goal and the use of eminent domain was the only vehicle by which that goal can be accomplished, with the resulting private economic benefit being only a by-product of this process. However, increasingly over the second half of the twentieth century, local governments have tried to use eminent domain to transfer land to private companies in order to satisfy the economic desires of the companies themselves. In doing so, they have inverted the purposes for which eminent domain was intended. The economic welfare of the private party becomes the goal, eminent domain remains the vehicle, and the public benefit becomes the convenient "by-product" that makes it all possible. Several states permit condemnations for economic development, but some do not. (for more on the power of eminent domain, click here)
Columbia has publicly insisted that, as a private entity, it does not hold the power of eminent domain and could therefore not be considering its use. Mark Burstein, Columbia's Vice President for Facilities Management has even called the business owners' concerns "a real miscommunication" (See "West Harlem Businesses Not Planning to Sell to CU", Columbia Spectator, November 21, 2003). In fact, as recently as April 26, 2004, Columbia University denied it had considered or threatened the use of Eminent Domain against the property owners of West Harlem. While it is true that Columbia is not a government agency and does not actually themselves have any powers of Eminent Domain, in the August 5th-12th edition of "Time Out New York" Magazine, the Univeristy publicly announced that they had begun negotiations with The Empire State Development Corporation. The Empire State Development Corporation has authority to initiate ED actions in New York on behalf of the State in order to acquire private property for “public use” where just compensation is paid to private owners. In some of the most troubling ED cases in history, New York courts have ruled that almost any public benefit, even increased tax revenue, can constitute a “public purpose”, rubber-stamping the exercise of ED on behalf of private corporations. Should Columbia University have their way, they will be the next private company to join that list. We are concerned that the ESDC will determine that the area is “blighted “and initiate ED proceedings. New York courts have held that it is in the State’s police power to clear and develop blighted areas for general public health and safety purposes. At this point, the New York City Economic Development Corporation claims to have a “blight” study “in draft form” for the 17-acre parcel of land . Is There Hope? In recent years several important decisions have been handed down that demonstrate a nation-wide re-evaluation of the “public use” clauses of the state and national constitutions. In 2001, in the California case of 99 Cents Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency 237 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2001) the court ruled that “the naked transfer of property from one private party to another” does not satisfy the terms of eminent domain. In Southwestern Ill. Dev Auth. v. National City Environmental, L.C.C. 768 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2002) the court ruled that the public use limit on eminent domain was not satisfied by “the economic by-products of a private capitalist’s ability to develop land” and that “the public must be entitled to use or enjoy the property, not as a mere favor or by permission of the owner, but by right”. Finally, and most recently, in County of Wayne v. Hathcock 469 Mich. 952, 671 N.W.2d 40, (Mich. 2003) on July 30th, 2004, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a controversial 1981 exercise of eminent domain and stated in no uncertain terms that they hoped, with this decision, “to vindicate our Constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law." According to Michigan’s highest court, “the transfer of condemned property to a private entity…would be appropriate in one of three contexts: 1) where “public necessity of the extreme sort” requires collective action; 2) where the property remains subject to public oversight after transfer to a private entity; and 3) where the property is selected because of “facts of independent public significance,” rather than the interests of the private entity to which the property is eventually transferred.” (County of Wayne v. Hathcock et al., page 37.) These decisions, and others like them firmly suggest to courts nationwide that a renewed look at the concept of “public use” in eminent domain is warranted a. Since private citizens and courts around the country are interested in stopping the abuse of Eminent Domain, let’s make sure that Eminent Domain is no longer abused. What We're Fighting For Columbia University must guarantee the six existing businesses in the West Harlem Business Group that the University will not resort to the use of eminent domain to condemn the land the businesses currently occupy. Click Here to GET INVOLVED Click Here to find out more about our businesses or Click Here to find out more about the University's Plans
|
|||
Send mail to
contact@westharlembusinessgroup.com with questions or comments about this web site.
|
||||
