Defines blighted properties and areas; repealer

Provisions

Section one is the legislative intent.

Section two amends Section 103 of the eminent domain procedure law (EDPL) by adding and defining the terms "blighted property," "blighted area," "slum," "substandard and insanitary property," "unfit for human .habitation," and "abandoned property."

Section three amends Section 204 of the EDPL to mandate an additional requirement upon the condemnor pursuant the new blight definition in the determination and findings section.

Section four creates a new Section 204-a in the EDPL establishing a. concrete definition for "blighted properties," as well as "multiple properties and project areas." Additionally, this section enumerates the circumstances where property may not be declared blighted.

Section five amends section 2 of section-1 of the Urban Development Corporation,Act (UDC Act) of 1958 to make the public authority's powers consistent with the aforementioned reforms to the EDPL. Specifically, this section clarifies the vague and expansive purposes of the Urban Development Corporation (UDC). Furthermore, this section modernizes the UDC Act, empowering this important entity to work with communities across the state by incorporating amongst other considerations: environ- mental factors, comprehensive planning, and ensuring greater protections for affected individuals.

Section six amends section 3 of section 1 of the UDe Act by making consistent the definitions of "blighted property," "blighted area," and "slum" in the UDC. Act with the new section, EDPL 204-a.

Section seven amends subdivision 12 of section 3 of section 1 of the UDC Act by repealing the existing definition of "substandard and insanitary" and defining it as provided in the proposed section 204-a of the EDPL.

Section eight amends subdivision 7 of section 5 of section 1 of the UDC Act by requiring that actions to acquire and contract land and lease- holds amongst others, comply with the limitations established with proposed section 204-a of the EDPL.

Section nine amends section 10 of section 1 of the UDC Act by making the "findings" consistent with the requirements established in the amended sections of the EDPL. Specifically, this section requires the UDC to determine an area blighted as defined in the EDPL before undertaking an acquisition., construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or improve- ment of a project. This includes the following projects: industrial, land use improvement, civic, industrial effectiveness, small and medi- um-sized businesses assistance. In addition, this bill mandates that residents and businesses be displaced, to the minimum extent possible and efforts be made to relocate those displaced to substantially compa- rable properties.

Section ten requires this bill take effect immediately.

Justification

Since Kelo v. City of New London, the 2005 decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court approved the forcible transfer of property from one private owner to another in the name of "economic development," forty-three states have passed eminent domain reform legislation. New York has thus far failed to take such action but continues to repeatedly approve eminent domain condemnation for projects that benefit private entities at the public's expense.

Furthermore, two recent court decisions, Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation and Kaur v. New York State Urban Develop- ment Corporation demonstrate the need to balance the rights of property owners without stifling positive economic development programs. Instead, New Yorkers suffer under an inequitable system of eminent domain laws that greatly favors private developers partnered with public actors at the expense of homeowners, businesses, and tenants.

The use of "blight" as a basis for condemnation is vaguely defined and in need of clarification. Under the loose standards of existing law practically anything can qualify as blighted. Consequently, it is imper- ative that the Legislature enact objective criteria to ensure that blight determinations are consistent, predictable, and based on factors actually related to the public's health and safety. This bill ensures better protections for tenants and property owners and guarantees that they are not excluded from the development process.

As Judge Catterson notes for the majority in the Kaur decision, it has been well documented that the urban renewal schemes of the 1950s and 1960s displaced millions of people and destroyed hundreds of neighbor- hoods. By and far, these programs disproportionately-harmed low income and minority families. Legislative reforms are needed to prevent a repeat of these injustices. It is now time for New York to make the necessary reforms that will ensure a fair and equitable use of our eminent domain laws.

Legislative history

New bill.

Effective date

Immediately.