Content area
Full text
In 2009, two New York courts addressed the constitutionality of a taking resulting from a legislative agency's determination of blight. The courts agreed the eradication of blight was a public use purpose that justified the exercise of eminent domain. Both courts even acknowledged the wide range of factors that could be used to establish blight. The courts disagreed, however, as to how much deference the courts should give to legislative agencies' determination of blight when a credible argument exists that the property is not blighted. The divergent outcomes of these two cases suggest New York courts will soon have to reassess the issue of blight and set forth a clear standard for determining its existence.
In Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 921 N. E. 2d 164 (N.Y. 2009), the court held that when an individual's property is condemned for "public use," judges will not interfere with a reasonable finding by a designated legislative entity that such property was blighted, nor does the redevelopment of such blighted property constitutionally require the construction of low income housing when the cause for redevelopment was not the eradication of slums. The plaintiffs, Daniel Goldstein, et al., are property owners whose homes and businesses were condemned as part of the redevelopment area for the Atlantic Yards Project. The defendant, New York State Urban Development Corporation, doing business as Empire State Development Corporation ("ESDC"), is a legislatively designated public benefit corporation. The property owners challenged ESDCs condemnation of their property, alleging the taking violated provisions of the New York Constitution because their property was not condemned for public use and occupancy of the redeveloped property would not be limited to low income families. The appellate division held the eradication of blight from the condemned property constituted an adequate public purpose, and the eventual redevelopment of the property did not have to include low income housing.
In affirming the appellate court's decision, the court of appeals held ESDC did not violate the takings clause of the New York State Constitution in condemning the plaintiffs' property....