What's happening
This bill establishes clear, objective criteria for defining "blight" in eminent domain cases and strengthens protections for property owners and tenants.
Why it matters
Creates strict, objective standards for "blight". By replacing vague definitions with specific, measurable conditions (e.g., structural unsoundness, severe code violations, prolonged abandonment), the bill makes it much harder for governments or developers to claim a property is "blighted" unless it truly poses a threat to health and safety. This reduces the risk of eminent domain abuse for economic development projects that primarily benefit private interests.
Requires transparent, written findings. Before an area or property can be officially labeled blighted—and thus subject to condemnation—the condemning authority must provide detailed, written documentation of which exact conditions are present. For multiple-property takings, at least 75% of parcels must individually meet these strict criteria, and each must be specifically identified.
Adds protections for rural, agricultural, and certain urban properties. The bill specifically exempts vacant, unimproved rural land and agricultural land from ever being declared blighted, and also prevents blight designations if neglect stems from government or developer inaction (e.g., failure to provide utilities, or deliberate neglect by a developer). This protects vulnerable property owners from unjustified condemnation.
Improves rights and compensation for displaced tenants and businesses. The bill strengthens requirements that all displaced residents and businesses receive assistance to relocate to "substantially comparable" properties—ensuring they are not left worse off. It mandates efforts to minimize displacement, fair compensation, and supports relocation within the same or similar communities, directly addressing past injustices where eminent domain disproportionately harmed low-income and minority groups.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Define Blighted Properties Fairly
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to judiciary
- Referred to judiciary
Full text
11 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
2557
2019-2020 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
January 28, 2019
Introduced by Sen. BAILEY -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary
AN ACT to amend the eminent domain procedure law and the New York state urban development corporation act, in relation to defining blight; and to repeal certain provisions of the New York state urban development corporation act relating thereto
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Legislative findings and intent. The legislature hereby finds and declares that eminent domain, while a meaningful tool for government to move forward on important projects, has come under a great deal of criticism in recent years for many alleged abuses that have occurred within the state of New York. Traditionally, the right of eminent domain, or the state's ability to seize private land was limited for "public use". However, over the years, phrases such as "public use" and "blighted" have taken on more expansive meanings.
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", fortythree states have passed eminent domain reform legislation. New York has thus far failed to take such action but continues again and again to approve eminent domain condemnation for projects that benefit private entities at the public's expense. A 2009 report by the Institute for Justice entitled "Building Empires, Destroying Homes: Eminent Domain Abuse in New York" detailed widespread eminent domain abuse throughout the state.
Furthermore, two recent court decisions, Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation and Kaur v. New York State Urban Development 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
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD05506-01-9
S. 2557 2
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 imperative 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. There also needs to be better protections in place so that tenants and low income residents are ensured 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 neighborhoods. 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.
§ 2. Section 103 of the eminent domain procedure law is amended by adding five new subdivisions (H), (I), (J), (K) and (L) to read as follows:
(H) "Blighted property" and "blighted area" mean property that is declared blighted under section two hundred four-a of this chapter.
(I) "Slum" means property that is declared blighted under section two hundred four-a of this chapter.
(J) "Substandard and insanitary property" means property that is declared blighted under section two hundred four-a of this chapter.
(K) "Unfit for human habitation" means premises which have identifiable conditions that endanger the life, health and safety of the owners, occupants, or the public. Conditions rendering property unfit for human habitation include, but are not limited to, substantial structural defects or deterioration, vermin infestation, lack of necessary utilities, and fire hazards.
(L) "Abandoned property" means:
(1) unoccupied property which has been tax delinquent for at least two years; or
(2) a building:
(a) that is unoccupied by owner or tenant;
(b) that is unfit for habitation;
(c) that has deteriorated to the point where:
(I) the building is structurally unsound or poses an immediate threat to life or other property; or
(II) the cost of rehabilitation significantly exceeds the post-rehabilitation market value; and
(d) the owner is unknown or the owner fails to respond within six months to a violation notice from the appropriate governing body requiring the owner to:
(I) rehabilitate the building to conform to minimum code habitability requirements; or
(II) demolish the building for health and safety reasons; or
(3) a vacant lot on which a building has been demolished and for which a municipal lien for demolition costs remains unpaid for six months.
§ 3. Paragraph 4 of subdivision (B) of section 204 of the eminent domain procedure law is amended and a new paragraph 5 is added to read as follows:
(4) such other factors as it considers relevant[.];
S. 2557 3
(5) the findings required pursuant to subdivision (D) of section two hundred four-a of this article.
§ 4. The eminent domain procedure law is amended by adding a new section 204-a to read as follows:
§ 204-a. Blighted properties and areas. (A) Subject to the exceptions listed in paragraph two of subdivision (B) of this section, any single property may be declared blighted if it meets any of the following conditions:
(1) Any premises, which because of dilapidation, deterioration, structural defects, vermin infestation, health hazards, fire hazards, lack of utilities, lack of facilities or equipment required by statute or municipal code, neglect, or lack of maintenance:
(a) is unfit for human habitation;
(b) has deteriorated to the point where:
(I) the building is structurally unsound or poses an immediate threat to life or other property; or
(II) the cost of rehabilitation significantly exceeds the post-rehabilitation market value; and
(c) the owner fails to remedy the problem within a reasonable time after receiving notice of violation by the appropriate governing body requiring the owner to:
(I) rehabilitate the building to conform to minimum code habitability requirements; or
(II) demolish the building for health and safety reasons.
(2) Any abandoned property as defined in subdivision (L) of section one hundred three of this chapter.
(3) Property that is environmentally contaminated and that requires remediation for current or future use under state or federal law, if the owner fails to remedy the problem within six months of receiving notice of violation from the appropriate governing body.
(4) A premises which, because of physical condition or use, is regarded as a public nuisance at common law or has been declared a public nuisance under a statute or an applicable municipal code, and the owner fails to abate the nuisance within six months of receiving notice of violation from the appropriate governing body.
(5) Any well, shaft, basement, excavation, or unsafe fence or structure that, because of physical condition, use or occupancy, is deemed an attractive nuisance to children, and the owner fails to abate the nuisance within six months after receiving notice of violation from the appropriate governing body.
(6) Vacant property that has become overgrown with weeds, is a place for the accumulation of trash and debris, or a haven for vermin, if the owner fails to remedy the problem within six months after receiving notice of violation by the appropriate governing body requiring the owner to rehabilitate the property to conform with minimum code requirements.
(7) Defective or unusual conditions of title that make the free transfer or alienation of the property impossible.
(8) Occupied or unoccupied property that has tax delinquencies exceeding the value of the property.
(9) Property that is used for pervasive and persistent criminal activity. For purposes of this section, such activity shall be defined as two or more convictions of any person or persons had, within a period of one year, for any of the following penal law offenses arising out of conduct engaged in at the property:
S. 2557 4
(a) sale of a controlled substance described in sections 220.31, 220.34, 220.39, 220.41, or 220.43 of the penal law; or
(b) offenses related to the crime of prostitution as described in article two hundred thirty of the penal law; or
(c) offenses related to the crime of gambling as described in article two hundred twenty-five of the penal law; or
(d) enterprise corruption as defined in article four hundred sixty of the penal law.
(10) Property that does not otherwise meet any of the conditions listed in this section may not be declared blighted.
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (A) of this section, the following exceptions shall apply:
(1) Property shall in no case be declared blighted if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
(a) Vacant and unimproved property located in any rural or suburban area which is not served by existing utilities.
(b) Property which satisfies the definition of "farm woodland", "land used in agricultural production", "unique and irreplaceable agricultural land", or "viable agricultural land", as those terms are defined in section three hundred one of the agriculture and markets law.
(2) For purposes of this section, if a developer or condemnor involved in a redevelopment project has caused or brought about by action or inaction or maintained for more than seven years a condition listed in subdivision (A) of this section within the proposed project area, that condition may not be used in the determination of blight.
(3) For purposes of this section, if property located in an urbanized area generally served by municipal infrastructure and utilities meets one or more of the conditions listed in subdivision (A) of this section due to failure on the part of the appropriate governing body to provide necessary utility services and/or infrastructure, that condition may not be used in the determination of blight.
(C) Multiple properties and project areas may be declared blighted if they meet any of the following conditions:
(1) For purposes of acquiring multiple units of property by eminent domain, an area may be declared generally blighted only if:
(a) the area is located in an urban or suburban area generally served by existing utilities and infrastructure; and
(b) seventy-five percent of the individual parcels in the area are declared blighted under subdivision (A) of this section.
(2) A condemnor may use eminent domain to acquire any unit of property within a blighted project area.
(3) Properties owned by a developer or condemnor involved in a redevelopment project may be included in any blighted project area determination.
(4) For purposes of this section, a building containing multiple units shall be treated as a single property.
(D) The following findings shall be required before a property or project area may be declared blighted:
(1) To declare any single property blighted, the condemnor must make written findings identifying the specific conditions which render the property blighted under subdivision (A) of this section.
(2) To declare multiple properties or project areas blighted, the condemnor must make written findings demonstrating that the requirements of subdivision (C) of this section have been met. To demonstrate that seventy-five percent of the parcels in the area are individually blighted, each blighted parcel must be identified and the specific conditions
S. 2557 5
rendering it blighted under subdivision (A) of this section must be identified.
(E) Any declaration made pursuant to subdivision (D) of this section shall be valid for a period of ten years.
§ 5. Section 2 of section 1 of chapter 174 of the laws of 1968, constituting the New York state urban development corporation act, the ninth undesignated paragraph as added by chapter 280 of the laws of 1984 and the tenth undesignated paragraph as amended by chapter 747 of the laws of 2005, is amended to read as follows:
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the eminent domain procedure law and the New York state urban development corporation act, in relation to defining blight; and to repeal certain provisions of the New York state urban development corporation act relating thereto
Purpose
A bill redefining the meaning of blight and creating objective standards and criteria for classifying a single property as well as multiple prop- erties and project areas for purposes of the eminent domain procedure law. The bill also clarifies and modernizes the purposes of the Urban Development Corporation Act.
Provisions
Section one is the legislative intent.
Read the full memo (857 words)
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 1968 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 UDC Act by making consistent the definitions cf "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 improvement of a project. This includes the following projects: industrial, land use improvement, civic, industrial effectiveness, small and medium-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 comparable proper- ties.
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. A 2003 report by the Institute for Justice entitled "Building Empires, Destroying Homes: Eminent Domain Abuse in New York" detailed widespread eminent domain abuse through-out the state.
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
2015-16: S.3868 - Referred To Judiciary
2017-18: 8.5001 - Referred To Judiciary
Effective date
Immediately.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.