Quantcast

The DNAinfo archives brought to you by WNYC.
Read the press release here.

Columbia University's Expansion Plan Dealt Blow by Court's Eminent Domain Ruling

By DNAinfo Staff on December 4, 2009 2:16pm

By Mariel S. Clark

DNAinfo Reporter/Producer

MANHATTAN — In a big blow to Columbia University's controversial $6.3 billion expansion plan, a court on Thursday blocked the state from using eminent domain to acquire West Harlem property on behalf of the school.

In the scathing 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of property owners who had refused to sell to the university saying the state's use of eminent domain was unconstitutional.

"The record overwhelmingly establishes that the true beneficiary for the scheme to redevelop Manhattanville is not the community that is supposedly blighted but rather Columbia University, a private elite education institution," the decision said.

The Empire State Development Corporation had approved the use of eminent domain after its study showed the Manhattanville area was blighted. Eminent domain allows the state to appropriate private property for public use while compensating the owners.  

In this case, the court said the "ESDC/Columbia steamroller" partnered to construct results that made the area a candidate for eminent domain.

There was "no evidence whatsoever that Manhattanville was blighted prior to Columbia gaining control over the vast majority of the property therein," the decision said.

In 2002, Columbia began buying property in West Harlem for an expansion plan that included laboratories, classroom buildings and community spaces such as restaurants and music clubs. The plan covers 17 acres spanning from 125th Street to 133rd Street and from Broadway to Twelfth Avenue. Columbia now owns or controls roughly 91 percent of the expansion area.

The ruling was a big win for business owners who refused to sell.

“Rich or poor, the government should treat you equally,” gas station owner Parminder Kaur told the Columbia Spectator. “I feel like today is justice.”

The ruling was "wrong and inconsistent with established law," Warner Johnston, a spokesperson for the ESDC, told the Spectator. Johnston said the agency plans to appeal the decision to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.