The Volokh Conspiracy

My new article, “Let There Be Blight: Blight Condemnations in New York after Goldstein and Kaur” is now available on SSRN. It critiques the New York Court of Appeals’ recent controversial blight takings decisions in the Atlantic Yards and Columbia University eminent domain cases. It was part of a Fordham Urban Law Journal symposium on Eminent Domain in New York. Here is the abstract:

The New York Court of Appeals’ two recent blight condemnation decisions are the most widely publicized and controversial property rights rulings since the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London. In Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., and Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., the Court of Appeals set new lows in allowing extremely dubious “blight” condemnations. This Article argues that the New York Court of Appeals erred badly by allowing highly abusive blight condemnations and defining pretextual takings so narrowly as to essentially read the concept out of existence.

Part I briefly describes the background of the two cases. Goldstein arose as a result of an effort by influential developer Bruce Ratner to acquire land in Brooklyn for his Atlantic Yards development project, which includes a stadium for the New Jersey Nets basketball franchise and mostly market rate and high-income housing. Kaur resulted from Columbia University’s attempts to expand into the Manhattanville neighborhood of West Harlem. When some of the landowners refused to sell, Ratner and the University successfully lobbied the government to declare the land they sought to be blighted and use eminent domain to transfer it to them.

Part II addresses the issue of blight condemnation. Goldstein and Kaur both applied an extraordinarily broad definition of “blight” that included any area where there is “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation.” In addition, the court opened the door for future abuses in three other, more novel, respects. First, it chose to uphold the condemnations despite evidence suggesting that the studies the government relied on to prove the presence of “blight” were deliberately rigged to produce a predetermined result. Second, it dismissed as unimportant the fact that the firm which conducted the blight studies had previously been on the payroll of the private parties that stood to benefit from the blight condemnations. Finally, the court refused to give any weight to extensive evidence indicating that Ratner and Columbia had themselves created or allowed to develop most of the “blight” used to justify the condemnations. The court’s approach opens the door to future abusive condemnations and violates the text and original meaning of the New York State Constitution.

Part III discusses Goldstein and Kaur’s treatment of the federal constitutional standard for “pretextual” takings. In Kelo and earlier decisions, federal courts made clear that “pretextual” takings remain unconstitutional despite the Supreme Court’s otherwise highly deferential posture on “public use.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been extremely unclear as to what constitutes a pretextual taking. As a result, courts have taken widely differing approaches to the issue. Nevertheless, Kaur and Goldstein are outliers in this area, deferring to the government more than almost any other court that has addressed the question since Kelo. They virtually read the concept of pretext out of existence.

Sadly, the Supreme Court has refused to hear the Columbia University blight takings case. This New York state supreme court decision was a particularly egregious instance of the abuse of “blight” condemnations to take property that was not blighted in any meaningful sense and transfer it to a powerful private interest group. I wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Cato Institute, Institute for Justice, and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty urging the Court to take the case. As we pointed out in the brief, the case represented a valuable opportunity for the Court to clear up the massive confusion in state and federal courts over the issue of what qualifies as an unconstitutional “pretextual taking” – a condemnation where the official rationale is a mere pretext for a scheme to benefit a private party. Even in Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court emphasized that such pretextual takings are still forbidden by Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But it gave very little guidance on the question of what counts as “pretextual.”

I share Megan McArdle’s frustration about the Court’s refusal to take the case. But I do quarrel somewhat with her lament that “this is an issue that only fires up libertarians.” Among the amicus briefs urging the Court to take the case was this one, by liberal Democratic New York state Senator Bill Perkins, a prominent critic of eminent domain abuse in the state. The Becket Fund, one of my own clients in this case, is certainly not a libertarian organization. More broadly, among those strongly opposing the Kelo decision were such liberal groups and activists as the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Ralph Nader, Howard Dean, and Representative Maxine Waters, as well as various conservatives. It is certainly true that libertarians have been the leaders in the campaign to protect property rights against eminent domain. But concern about the issue is hardly limited to us, and it is not too late to form a broad cross-ideological coalition to address it.

I recently wrote an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the Columbia University blight takings case, on behalf of the Institute for Justice (the public interest law firm that litigated Kelo v. City of New London, among many other important property rights cases), The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Cato Institute. The brief is available here. As I explained in this post, the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in the Columbia case is an extreme example of a very common problem: the use of dubious “blight” condemnations to transfer property from the politically weak to the locally powerful interest groups – in this case a major university.

The case also represents an important opportunity for the Court to address a major unresolved issue in eminent domain law. In Kelo, the majority ruled that “economic development” counts as a public use that justifies the use of eminent domain to transfer property to private parties. But the Court also noted that “pretextual” takings – condemnations where the official rationale is “a mere pretext…. when [the] actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit” – are unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Court was extremely unclear about what qualifies as a pretextual taking. As we explain in Part I of the brief, lower federal courts and state supreme courts have been all over the map in trying to develop rules for what counts as a pretext. The New York Court of Appeals decision in the Columbia case is at an extreme end of a continuum, defining pretext so narrowly that it is almost impossible to imagine a successful pretext case. Other courts – including the supreme courts of Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, and the federal Ninth Circuit – have defined pretext more broadly. But they disagree among themselves about what kind of evidence matters.

The Columbia case is particularly notable because it features all four of the factors that the Supreme Court and various lower courts have said might prove the presence of a pretextual taking: evidence of pretextual motive, benefits that flow primarily to a private party, an identifiable private interest that benefited from the taking whose identity was clear in advance, and the absence of a thorough and unbiased planning process. For details, see pp. 12-18 of the brief. For this reason, it’s a great opportunity for the Supreme Court to determine how important each factor is, and establish a clear rule for lower courts to follow.

Legal journalist Damon Root, who has written several articles about the case, has a good discussion of its connection to the pretext issue here (though he errs slightly in regarding Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Kelo as binding, since Kennedy also joined the majority opinion; regardless Kennedy is certainly a key swing voter on property rights issues).

Ilya Shapiro (no relation), who helped out with the brief on behalf of Cato, has a post about it here.

UPDATE: The Pacific Legal Foundation has also filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear this case. It is available here.

In Kaur v. New York Urban Development Corporation, its recent decision upholding the condemnation of property for transfer to Columbia University, the New York Court of Appeals claimed that the use of eminent domain to transfer land to a private university is more defensible than its use to transfer land to commercial corporations, as in the Atlantic Yards case:

Unlike the [New Jersey] Nets basketball franchise [one of the key beneficiaries of the Atlantic Yards takings], Columbia University, though private, operates as a non-profit educational corporation. Thus, the concern that a private enterprise will be profiting through eminent domain is not present. Rather, the purpose of the Project is unquestionably to promote education and academic research while providing public benefits to the local community. Indeed, the advancement of higher education is the quintessential example of a “civic purpose”…. It is fundamental that education and the expansion of knowledge are pivotal government interests.

I think this line of argument is seriously flawed. I tried to explain why in one of my earliest posts on the Columbia University takings back in 2006:

…Columbia President Lee Bollinger and [others] defend the use of eminent domain to transfer property to universities on the ground that universities create “public benefits.” While universities do provide important benefits to society, this does not justify allowing them to condemn property.

Most of the benefits provided by universities are “private goods” that are fully captured by their students and faculty. For example, going to college greatly increases a student’s earning prospects, but that student will himself capture the benefits. Basic economics shows that there is no need for government subsidies for these kinds of private goods.

Universities do also provide some “public goods” – benefits to society that the university, its faculty, and its students cannot fully capture. Perhaps the most important is basic scientific research. Another might be educating underprivileged students, though this is less clearly a public good than basic research is, since most of the benefits are captured by the students themselves. However, both research and student tuition are already heavily subsidized by the government through a wide variety of programs… There is no reason to believe that they require the additional subsidy provided by the use of eminent domain. Even if additional public subsidy is warranted, the best way to provide it is to allocate additional funds earmarked for research or education, not allow universities to use eminent domain. Condemnation of property is rarely if ever actually useful for the purposes of advancing research or educating poor students. In general, research can be undertaken and students educated just as well on voluntarily purchased land. Education and research can be conducted in a wide variety of locations and thus are not vulnerable to the “holdout” problems usually cited as a justification for condemning property. Even if holdouts do become an issue, universities can and do use secret purchase and other market-based methods to get around them without resorting to eminent domain….

Obviously, students and faculty sometimes can benefit from acquiring land through condemnation. But the benefits in question (primarily esthetic and lifestyle-related) are not public goods that should be subsidized by the state. If universities wish to pursue these goals by acquiring additional land, they should do it by competing with other potential buyers in the real estate market.

Finally, a possible argument for allowing universities to use eminent domain is that they supposedly act only for the public interest. As President Bollinger puts it, “We are not a profit-making institution looking out for our own advantage… We are trying to do things that help the world more broadly.” Unfortunately, this claim is at best a half-truth. Universities do sometimes “help the world more broadly,” but their policies are also heavily influenced by the self-interest of faculty, administrators, and…. students. Anyone familiar with academic politics knows that self-interest plays a major role. The mere fact that a university is a nonprofit entity does not prove that it acts only out of altruism. Self-interested behavior by universities is often perfectly legitimate, but it does undercut claims that universities should be allowed to use eminent domain because they do not “look out for [their] own advantage” and only “do things that help the world more broadly.”

Given the Court of Appeals’ ultradeferential approach to blight condemnations, I have no doubt it would have reached the same result even if Columbia were a for-profit corporation. I just wanted to make the point that such judicial abdication does not become more defensible merely because the new owner of the condemned property is a university.

UPDATE: I have fixed what was previously an incorrect link to my 2006 post on this subject.

In today’s decision in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., The New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) has upheld the condemnation of property in the Manhattanville area of New York City for transfer to Columbia University. This outcome is not surprising. In fact, I predicted it back in December. In the recent Atlantic Yards case, the Court of Appeals had already held that state and local officials could declare virtually any area “blighted” and thereby make it eligible for condemnation and transfer to favored private interest groups.

The problem of over-broad definitions of blight is hardly limited to New York. It is present in numerous other states too, including many that have enacted post-Kelo eminent domain reform laws. Nonetheless, the Atlantic Yards and Kaur cases set a new low in this field. Not only has the New York Court of Appeals applied an extraordinarily broad definition of blight, it has also endorsed blight designations based on studies that are probably rigged in favor of private interests who benefit from condemning the areas in question. Moreover, it has opened the door to condemnations based on the presence of “blight” created by the very people who will get to own the property after it is taken.

UPDATE: Tim Sandefur and the Inverse Condemnation blog have further comments on the decision.

UPDATE #2: Matt Festa of the Land Use Prof blog comments here:

I expected the standard Kelo-style deference to legislative and executive officials to determine what things are in the public benefit (although I thought the Court rather passively accepted the argument that Columbia = education (nonprofit!) and education = good = constitutionally sufficient public benefit). But I was still a little surprised at the extent to which the Court seems to bend over backwards to disclaim any competence at all to evaluate the sufficiency of a “blight” determination by the government (which also gets to decide to use eminent domain). That’s the rational basis test taken to its logical extreme.

In Kaur v. New York Urban Development Corporation,a close 3-2 decision [HT: Neighborhood Retail Alliance], a New York intermediate appellate court has invalidated the taking of property in the Manhattanville neighborhood of New York City for transfer to Columbia University. Columbia and the government claimed that the land in question was blighted. However, the court ruled that there was no evidence of any real blight (especially before Columbia acquired much of the surrounding area after 2002), other than claims of “underutilization” of property. And mere “underutilization,” the majority concludes, is not enough to justify the condemnation of property as “blighted.” As the court puts it, “[t]he time has come to categorically reject eminent domain takings solely based on underutilization.” I wholeheartedly agree with this general sentiment. Indeed, I have often argued against broad definitions of blight that allow virtually any property to be condemned on the grounds that some other use might lead to increased development (see, e.g., here). Overbroad definitions of blight undercut many of the eminent domain “reform” laws enacted in response to the US Supreme Court’s decision upholding “economic development” takings in Kelo v. City of New London. I also think the majority makes a strong case that the blight determination in this case severely flawed, and in large part the product of the government’s desire to transfer property to a politically influential university. Indeed, I have often criticized Columbia’s plans to use eminent domain in Manhattanville, in a series of posts going back to 2006 (see here for the most recent post, and links to earlier ones).

There is, however, one major problem with the Kaur decision: it seems to contradict the New York Court of Appeals’ (the state supreme court) recent decision in the Atlantic Yards case, Goldstein v. New York Urban Development Corporation, which specifically ruled that a property can be declared blighted and condemned if there was “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” in the area. As I explained in this post, Goldstein allows state officials to designate almost any area as blighted and then condemn property within it. As an intermediate appellate court the, Kaur court is required to follow state supreme court rulings. Unfortunately, the Kaur majority barely even mentions Goldstein, except for noting that the same private consultant conducted the study allegedly proving the existence of “blight” in both cases. Perhaps this neglect is explained by the fact that the Atlantic Yards opinion was only issued last week. If so, the Kaur court should have taken more time to fully consider it. The contradiction with Goldstein is in fact noted by the Kaur dissenters, who point out that the state supreme court ruling requires broad deference to administrative blight determinations, even if there is considerable evidence that the determination was flawed.

It might still be possible to invalidate the Manhattanville takings in a way consistent with Goldstein. For example, the Kaur majority based its ruling in part on the fact that the government failed to follow some of the procedural requirements of New York’s blight statute.

However, the central holding of Kaur - that “underutilization” isn’t enough to prove blight – is in clear tension with the Atlantic Yards decision. The fact that the same consultant conducted both blight studies and used similar arguments to justify his findings only accentuates the tension. Indeed, “underutilization” was the main evidence for the existence of blight in the Atlantic Yards project area, as well as in the part of Manhattanville condemned for transfer to Columbia.

In sum, I think that Kaur is a much better reasoned decision than Goldstein (except for its neglect of Goldstein itself). Unfortunately, the court that reached the wrong result is also the higher of the two. Thus, I fear that Kaur may well eventually be overruled by the Court of Appeals. At the very least, the Kaur majority should have taken more time to produce their opinion, and clearly explained why this case differs from Goldstein.

UPDATE: Perhaps it isn’t necessary to point this out. But in the title of the post, I was using “state supreme court” in the colloquial sense in which “supreme court” is used to indicate the highest court of the jurisdiction in question, regardless of its official name. I am well aware that the official name of New York’s supreme court is “Court of Appeals.” Similarly, one can use “head of state” as a generic term referring to the top official in a government, even though the official title may be “president” or “king” or whatever. Using “court of appeals” in the post title would have been confusing, because readers unfamiliar with New York’s strange nomenclature wouldn’t realize that I was referring to state’s highest court.

UPDATE #2: I have fixed an annoying typo in the title of the post.

UPDATE #3: Rick Hills at Prawfsblawg interprets Kaur as striking down the Columbia takings on federal constitutional grounds under Kelo v. City of New London, rather than on the state constitutional ground that there was insufficient proof of blight. Rick argues that the opinion ultimately holds that this is a “pretextual” taking forbidden by Kelo because the true purpose was to benefit Columbia, not alleviate blight. I don’t think this is correct. If the court merely sought to show that the taking failed to meet federal pretext standards, there would have been no need for the extensive discussion of state blight requirements. Moreover, the court at no point specifies that is ruling depends on the federal Constitution and not the state one, and indeed cites both at different times. In any event, the federal justification of the court’s decision is actually much weaker than the state justification. As Rick emphasizes, Kelo is extremely permissive. Moreover, Kelo explicitly focused on “economic development” takings rather than blight condemnations, setting up extremely permissive standards for the former, which are generally viewed as much more problematic than the latter.