Property owners challenge ESDC’s authority to use eminent domain on behalf of Columbia. Looking to expand in West Harlem, Columbia University teamed up with the City’s Economic Development Corporation in 2001 to redevelop the area. Not long after, EDC issued a West Harlem Master Plan. The plan stated that West Harlem could be redeveloped through rezoning, and did not mention any blighted conditions in Manhattanville. Columbia began purchasing property in the area in 2002 for its own redevelopment and expansion plan. The seventeen-acre project site, bounded by West 133rd Street on the north, West 125th Street on the south, Broadway and Old Broadway on the east, and Twelfth Avenue on the west, would include sixteen new buildings, and a contiguous below-grade support facility.

Two years after the purchasing began, Columbia met with the Empire State Development Corporation and EDC to discuss Columbia’s plan and the condemnation of land. Subsequently, EDC issued a study concluding the area was blighted. ESDC retained Columbia’s consultant, who also found the area suffered from blight. ESDC later commissioned a second blight study with a consultant without ties to Columbia. The study also found blighted conditions throughout the area. Seven months after the second study, ESDC authorized the acquisition of certain property through eminent domain, and several affected property owners filed petitions challenging the determination. (more…)

ESDC’s determination upheld that three blocks outside urban renewal area were blighted. In 2003, Forest City Ratner proposed to redevelop a 22-acre site in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn. The site included portions of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area and portions of three privately-owned blocks outside the renewal area. After Ratner’s proposal was accepted, the Empire State Development Corporation designated itself as lead agency for the project under state environmental law. ESDC prepared an environmental impact statement and a blight study, and later approved the findings in both documents, including the finding that portions of the three privately-owned blocks were blighted. A coalition of local business owners and residents challenged ESDC’s blight finding in the non-renewal area and the sufficiency of the environmental impact statement. Supreme Court Judge Joan A. Madden rejected the challenge, and the decision was appealed. 5 CityLand 16 (Feb. 15, 2008).

On appeal, the coalition argued, among other things, that ESDC arbtrarily selected build years that distorted the project’s potential environmental impacts. The coalition also argued that ESDC’s failure to consider the positive real estate trends in the non-renewal area led it to unreasonably conclude that the proposed project was uniquely capable of alleviating blight in the non-renewal area. The coalition further claimed that ESDC’s finding of blight for the non-renewal area was unsubstantiated. (more…)