Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Real Estate & Property Law
: inversecondemnationBlighting Property by Inequitable Precondemnation Activities
By rht
Thanks to No Land Grab for informing us of the latest eminent domain action from New York City, this time with an interesting twist. In Willets Point Industry and Realty Ass'n v. City of New York, No. 08-1453 (E.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 9, 2008), land and business owners in Queen's, N.Y. filed a federal court complaint alleging that the City purposefully withheld vital infrastructure improvements such as sewers, paved streets, and trash removal, among other things.
4. Why are the City Defendants waging this campaign of neglect against one of the City's own neighborhoods? The reasons probably have changed over the decades but, on information and belief, at least one of the reasons behind the current campaign is clear.
5. New York City is undertaking a project to acquire Willets Point, evicting the existing businesses (which likely will lead to their destruction), and replace them with businesses that the City deems more desirable. The City Defendants can help this project by driving down the value of the existing businesses and their property, so that the City more easily can justify and finance the exercise of its powers of eminent domain.
Complaint at 2. Would municipal condemnocrats* do such outrageous things? Well, allegations like those in the latest case are hardly a new story; check out Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (per curiam) where the Court held that a landowner who asserted that local officials retaliated against her for winning an earlier lawsuit against the village was entitled to bring a "class of one" equal protection claim, for example. See also Klopping v. City of Whittier, 500 P.2d 1345, 1350 n.1 (Cal. 1972), where the court noted:
it would be manifestly unfair and violate the constitutional requirement of just compensation to allow a condemning agency to depress land values in a general geographical area prior to making its decision to take a particular parcel located in that area. The length of time between the original announcement and the date of actual condemnation may be a relevant factor in determining whether recovery should be allowed for blight or for other oppressive acts by the public authority designed to depress market value.
*My colleague Mark Murakami's term for bureaucrat/condemnors.
Full post as published by inversecondemnation on April 13, 2008 (boomark / email).
Nanotechnology Law
Intellectual property laws
Property ID Class Action
Settled for $39 Million
Chicago Golf Course
101 Year Old Owner Must Get $25 Million for Property
Zurn Pex Inc.
alleging faulty and defective plumbing led to property damage.
Sony Lithium Ion Batteries Recalled
Reports of Overheating, Burns and Property Damage
Marshall Astor
Over $1.35 million in property, art and jewelry returned in elder care abuse lawsuit.
US Government
alleging land surveyors should not be allowed on private property to build a US Mexican border wall.

Important Inequitable Conduct Decision: Defendant Must Prove its Case
AG Mukasey Takes on Intellectual Property Crime
Inequitable Conduct Standard Remains Fluid in Praxair v. ATMI
The Clarified Law of Inequitable Conduct
Eisai Co. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008)








