Relates to blighted property and blighted areas; repealer

Summary of provisions

Section 1 amends Section 2 of the Urban Development Corporation Act ("UDC") to update the purpose of the UDC to include such important public policies as consideration for the environment, comprehensive planning and concern for those individuals and businesses displaced by redevelopment.

Section 2 amends Section (3) (12) to repeal the existing definition of "substandard and insanitary" and replace it with an objective definition of blight. A property or group of properties would be found to be blighted only if they met certain detailed criteria of deterioration. Further, in order far an area to be found to be blighted, 60 percent of the individual properties would have to be found to be blighted and these properties would have to represent a geographical majority of the redevelopment area. Finally, a declaration of blight would expire after 10 years.

Section 3 amends Section 10 of the UDC to make the "findings" required by the statute consistent with the new definition of blight.

Section 4 amends Section 103 of the eminent domain procedure law to amend the law's definition of blight to conform to the amended UDC.

Section 5 amends the eminent domain procedure law to add a section to define blight to conform to the amended UDC.

Section 6 amends the eminent domain procedure law to add a section to define blight to conform to the amended UDC.

Section 7 provides that the act will take effect immediately.

Effects of the present law which this bill would alter: This bill would replace the vague definition of "substandard and insanitary" found in the UDC and the eminent domain procedure law with an objective definition of blight.

Justification

That "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation" is a right guaranteed by the New York Constitution. The words "public use" are meant to protect property owners from the State's power to transfer property from one private property owner to another. Over the last decade, courts have considered the question of whether economic development constitutes a "public use." In the most notable of these cases, Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court allowed for the forcible transfer of

property from one private owner to another in support of economic development. This decision has prompted legislative reform in forty three states and it is time for New York to follow suit.

In a decision by the New York Court of Appeals addressing the use of eminent domain in the context of economic development, Chief Judge Lippman stated that "it may be that the bar has now been set too low' that what will now pass as 'blight,' as that expression has been come to be understood and used by political appointees to public corporations relying upon studies paid for developers, should not be permitted to constitute a predicate for the invasion of property rights and the razing of homes and businesses. But any such limitation upon the sovereign power of eminent domain as it has come to be defined in the urban renewal context is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts." Matter of Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev., (2009 NY Slip op 08677) (emphasis added). I am taking up Chief Judge Lippman's invitation to further define blight.

This bill provides objective, quantifiable standards by which to determine whether a property or area is indeed blighted. It will ensure that condemnors under the Urban Development Corporation Act and the eminent domain procedure law use consistent and predictable factors related to the public's health and safety to evaluate the blight status of a neighborhood. The bill requires that 50 percent of the properties within the redevelopment area be considered blighted and that these properties cover a majority of the geographical area of the project.

Eminent domain can be a useful and even necessary tool for urban redevelopment, particularly for older built-out cities like those in New York State. Its application, however, must balance the rights of property owners with the need for economic development. This bill provides much needed standards to be used when such rights are balanced against the need for development.

Fiscal implication

None.

Effective date

Immediately.