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
: inversecondemnationCert Petition In Columbia "Blight" Case: Are There Any Limits To Eminent Domain In New York?
By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
In a case that could write the next chapter in the Kelo saga, the property owner recently filed this cert petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in the Columbia "blight" case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010).
This is the case in which the Court of Appeals held that de novo judicial review of the factual record leading to an exercise of the eminent domain power was improper, and whether property can be taken because it allegedly is "substandard or insanitary" is a question for taking agencies, not courts. As we noted in several posts criticizing the decision (see here and here) and in a post lauding the Appellate Division's decision (which struck down the taking as pretextual), "in other words, 'blight' is whatever the agency says it is. Just drum up a 'study' or two, and you're insulated from judicial review."
The cert petition poses two Questions Presented:
This Petition should be granted to address two urgent questions arising from the Court of Appeals of New York's dismissal of Petitioners' challenge to the legitimacy of the governmental takings at issue in this case:1. Whether it was error for the Court of Appeals of New York to disregard the principles enunciated in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) in sanctioning the use of eminent domain for the benefit of a private developer, when the circumstances presented by the instant case exemplify the very bad faith, pretext, and favoritism that this Court warned could result if Kelo's safeguards were ignored?2. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States imposes any minimum procedural standards, in accordance with the requirement of fundamental fairness, to preserve a property owner's meaningful opportunity to be heard within the context of an eminent domain taking?
The petition suggests that the Court should review the case "to clarify the circumstances under which the principles of Kelo should inform judicial review of eminent domain takings." Petition at 17.
More, after we've had a chance to review the petition in more detail. More background from the Columbia Spectator: Property holdouts look to Supreme Court.
Full post as published by inversecondemnation on September 23, 2010 (boomark / email).
Dumb New York Laws
Stupid Laws in the Empire State
New York Building Codes
Building and constructions laws in New York
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Eminent Domain
University of Akron pays property owner $443,000 settlement.
The Plainfield School District
$10,500 settlement resolves eminent domain dispute.
Downtown Improvement
Springfield to pay more than $2.5 million settlement in eminent domain lawsuit.
Condo Eminent Domain
Maui pays $4.1 million settlement to property owner.
Landfill Eminent Domain
Surry County pays $800,000 settlement to purchase farm land for town dump.
Stadium Eminent Domain
City of Arlington agrees to $2 million Dallas Cowboys stadium settlement.

Gelinas on blight justifications for eminent domain in NY
New York Court Rejects Eminent Domain for Columbia Project
The Misguided Battle over Eminent Domain in New York
WSJ on Blight and Eminent Domain
Is the Debate Over Eminent Domain Empty and Incoherent








