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.

This Friday, I will be speaking at an academic conference on eminent domain in New York at Fordham Law School, 140 W. 62nd Street. The event is sponsored by the Fordham Urban Law Journal. My panel will be at 10 AM, and I will be speaking about the New York Court of Appeals controversial recent blight condemnation decisions in the Atlantic Yards and Columbia cases.

The conference will also include presentations by many well-known property scholars, including Michael Heller, Lynne Sagalyn, Chris Serkin, and my colleague Steve Eagle.

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.

The New York Court of Appeals (which, despite the misleading name, is New York’s state supreme court), held oral arguments yesterday in Kaur v. New York Urban Development Corporation, the case in which New York City is trying to condemn a large amount of property in the Manhattanville neighborhood in order to transfer it to Columbia University. The Columbia Spectator has an interesting summary of the oral argument here.

Columbia and the government’s Urban Development Corporation are claiming that the property can be taken because it is “blighted.” However, a lower court decision recently invalidated the takings because that the studies that supposedly prove the existence of blight are flawed and may have been deliberately cooked up to justify a bogus taking.

I have been very critical of both the Columbia takings specifically (see here for the most recent post and links to earlier ones), and the more general use of broad definitions of “blight” to justify condemnation of virtually any property that might be coveted by politically influential businesses and other interest groups.
At the same time, for reasons I discussed here, I am not optimistic that the Court of Appeals will uphold the lower court’s decision.

In the recent Atlantic Yards case, the court endorsed the constitutionality of condemnations under an extremely broad definition of “blight” that would allow the taking of any property that might be “underdeveloped.” I think the Atlantic Yards decision was badly misguided. Among other things, it grossly misinterpreted the blight provision New York’s state constitution, which only allows condemnation of “substandard an insanitary” areas. Nonetheless, it is difficult to distinguish the Atlantic Yards case from Kaur. However, the Spectator’s description of the oral argument suggests that the judges were tough on both sides, which may indicate that they have some skepticism about the government’s position.

The issue of broad definitions of “blight” is not limited to New York. It undermines protection for property rights in many other states as well. Since the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Kelo v. City of New London, some 43 states have enacted laws banning or limiting the condemnation of private property for transfer to other private individuals in order to promote “economic development.” Unfortunately, as I explained at length in this article, most of these states’ laws define blight so broadly that virtually any area can still be designated as blighted and condemned. In other words, any property that government might want to take under an “economic development” rationale can instead be taken under a blight rationale.

UPDATE: NYU lawprof Rick Hills comments on the case and the more general questions it raises here. I disagree with several of Rick’s points and will try to address them in a later post, time permitting.

The last property owner in the condemned Atlantic Yards area of Brooklyn, New York has agreed to sell his land in order to avoid the condemnation of his property by the city government [HT: Josh Blackman]:

The last man standing in front of the Atlantic Yards bulldozer has stepped aside.

Daniel Goldstein — founder of the anti-Atlantic Yards group Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn and plaintiff in numerous unsuccessful suits against the $4.9 billion project — has reached an agreement with the project’s developer, Forest City Ratner, to move out of his condo on Pacific Street in Prospect Heights.

Mr. Goldstein confirmed that he would receive $3 million from Forest City. He bought his condo in 2003 for $590,000, but the state seized title to it under eminent domain last month, leaving Mr. Goldstein facing eviction. Mr. Goldstein said he would move by May 7.

He had told The Brooklyn Paper in an article published Wednesday morning that his lawyer would fight the condemnation or “get fair market value and just compensation” for the apartment, as eminent domain law requires when the state seizes property. He had said the state had previously made a lowball offer of $510,000 to him.

Goldstein may have received a higher than market value price for his land in exchange for agreeing not to speak out against the development project anymore:

According to executives who have been briefed on the negotiations, Mr. Goldstein also agreed to a highly modified form of the gag agreement that Forest City had initially imposed on those it bought out, under which he would step down as spokesman for Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn.

Mr. Goldstein said that he retains his right to free speech but is no longer allowed to “actively oppose the project.”

“There’s no end to the criticism and opposition to the project,” he said.

The release from Forest City was short on specifics and did not even speak Mr. Goldstein’s name.

“We are not going to discuss the details of the agreement,” Joe DePlasco, a spokesman for the developer, said in the statement.

Goldstein’s land and a great deal of other property in the area was condemned in order to transfer it to politically influential developer Bruce Ratner, under an extremely dubious rationale of alleviating “blight.” I criticized the recent New York state supreme court decision upholding the condemnation in this post; back in 2008, I commented on the federal court decision upholding the condemnation against challenges under the Takings Clause of the federal Constitution.

In my view, that federal decision was probably dictated by the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision upholding economic development takings in Kelo v. City of New London. The state decision, by contrast, was deeply flawed because it was based on a ridiculously broad definition of “blight” according to which virtually any area could be declared blighted and condemned; for reasons I explicate in my earlier post, such blight condemnations almost certainly violate the New York state constitution. Unfortunately, many other states also define “blight” just as broadly. Ultra-expansive definitions of blight have undermined the effectiveness of the majority of the many eminent domain reform statutes enacted since Kelo.

On the plus side, Goldstein’s dogged resistance to these condemnations helped focus public attention on the problem of eminent domain abuse. The state court decision upholding it is an important setback for property rights. However, many other state courts have gone the other way over the last 15 years. During that time, numerous state supreme courts have invalidated Keo-like “economic development” takings under their state constitutions – including Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Carolina (see this article for cites to these cases). Only the Atlantic Yards case and the Connecticut Supreme Court’s narrow 4-3 decision in Kelo itself have gone the other way.

UPDATE: Please don’t bother pointing out that the New York state supreme court is officially called the Court of Appeals. I know this, and was using the term “supreme court” as a generic term for the highest court of a jurisdiction. That way, I can avoid confusing readers who are not familiar with New York’s extremely confusing terminology.

UPDATE #2: Goldstein has issued this statement about the agreement, in which he denies agreeing to stop criticizing the Atlantic Yards takings and development project [HT: Scott Bullock]:

Contrary to press reports I have not given up my First Amendment rights or my involvement with Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn. (Ratner, though he tried to hide it, did require this of nearly all those who sold their homes to him years ago, and they agreed to it.) Ratner and ESDC tried very hard to force me to agree to give up those rights and the work I do with the organization I helped found. It wasn’t enough, I guess, for Ratner to decimate my neighborhood, take my home, and kick me out, they also felt they had to cut out my tongue. For nearly 3 hours of talks mediated by Judge Gerges I refused to accept any kind of gag order. I would not have taken any amount of money to do that, and I did not.

I did agree to give up my title as “DDDB spokesman”, but that’s just a title. And I did agree to remove my name from one outstanding lawsuit which remains in court despite that. Otherwise I can do and say whatever else I want, and my agreement explicitly states that I have maintained my First Amendment rights.

Nicole Gelinas has an interesting article on the expansive use of “blight condemnations” in New York. As she points out, New York courts have defined blight so broadly that virtually any area can be designated as such, and then condemned. This has created massive opportunities for abuse by politically connected interest groups who can use eminent domain to get the government to take property they covet.

Gelinas has an extensive discussion of two famous recent New York blight condemnation cases: the Atlantic Yards case, and Columbia University’s efforts to acquire property through condemnation in Manhattanville. I have written about both extensively. See here for my analysis of the Atlantic Yards decision, and here for the Columbia case. Both posts include links to earlier cases.

Unfortunately, New York is far from the only state that defines blight broadly enough to justify the condemnation of almost any area. As I discuss here and here, numerous other states have similar laws. This enables many state legislatures to pretend that they have banned Kelo-style “economic development” condemnations even as they allow them to continue under the guise of alleviating blight.

George Will has written a Washington Post column on the abuse of “blight” condemnations in New York:

On Aug. 27, 1776, British forces routed George Washington’s novice army in the Battle of Brooklyn, which was fought in fields and woods where today the battle of Prospect Heights is being fought. Americans’ liberty is again under assault, but this time by overbearing American governments.

The fight involves an especially egregious example of today’s eminent domain racket. The issue is a form of government theft that the Supreme Court encouraged with its worst decision of the past decade — one that probably will be radically revised in this one.

The Atlantic Yards site, where 10 subway lines and one railway line converge, is the center of the bustling Prospect Heights neighborhood of mostly small businesses and middle-class residences. Its energy and gentrification are reasons why 22 acres of this area — the World Trade Center site is only 16 acres — are coveted by Bruce Ratner, a politically connected developer collaborating with the avaricious city and state governments.

To seize the acres for Ratner’s use, government must claim that the area — which is desirable because it is vibrant — is “blighted....”

The Constitution says that government may not take private property other than for a “public use....” In 1954, however, in a case concerning a crime- and infectious-disease-ridden section of Washington, D.C., the court expanded the notion of “public use” to include removing “blight.”

Since then, that term, untethered from serious social dangers, has become elastic in the service of avarice....

I discussed the state high court decision upholding the Atlantic Yards condemnations in this post. For my earlier analyses of the case, see here and here. Will’s column also discusses the recent court decision striking down Columbia University’s efforts to use eminent domain to acquire supposedly “blighted” property, a case I discussed here.

As I explained in the earlier posts linked above, New York jurisprudence is perhaps the most hostile to property rights in the entire country. However, the general problem of overbroad definitions of blight exists in many states. Unconstrained definitions of “blight” undermine the efficacy of many states’ post-Kelo eminent domain reform laws, which forbid “economic development” condemnations but allow the same types of takings to continue under the guise of blight alleviation, an issue I discussed in detail in this article.

It is fortunate that a columnist as prominent as Will has taken up this issue. Hopefully, his contribution will increase awareness of the problem.

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.

The New York Court of Appeals has issued its opinion in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, an important property rights case. The 6-1 decision upholds the condemnation of numerous properties in Atlantic Yards project area in Brooklyn for the purpose of transferring them to powerful developer Bruce Ratner, who plans to use most of the land to build a new stadium for the New Jersey Nets and to construct “luxury” housing. This outcome is not surprising. As I explained in this post, where I predicted the result, New York courts are among the most hostile to property rights of any in the country. New York is also one of only seven states that hasn’t enacted eminent domain reform of any kind since the federal Supreme Court’s controversial 2005 decision upholding “economic development” condemnations in Kelo v. City of New London.

Significantly the Court concluded that the property in question could be condemned because it is “blighted” and blight alleviation is a “public use” recognized by the New York Constitution, thanks to a constitutional amendment allowing the condemnation of slum areas. This despite the fact that it is very far from being a slum of any kind, and much of it is actually middle or lower middle class housing. Indeed, the opinion itself notes (pg. 14) that the Atlantic Yards area “do[e]s not begin to approach in severity the dire circumstances of urban slum dwelling” that led to the enactment of the blight amendment. To get around this problem, the Court held that “blight” alleviation is not limited to “’slums’ as that term was formerly applied, and that, among other things, economic underdevelopment and stagnation are also threats to the public sufficient to make their removal cognizable as a public purpose” (pp. 15-16, quoting a 1975 decision).

Obviously, virtually any area occasionally suffers from “economic underdevelopment” or “stagnation” and therefore could potentially be condemned under this rationale. Moreover, even under this expansive definition of blight, the decision states that courts can only strike down a condemnation if “there is no room for reasonable difference of opinion as to whether an area is blighted.” With respect to any neighborhood, there is nearly always “room for reasonable difference of opinion” as to whether the area is “underdeveloped” relative to some possible alternative uses of the land in question. Defining blight this broadly and then deferring to the government’s determination of whether such “blight” actually exists effectively reads the public use restriction out of the state constitution. I highly doubt that New York state constitutional amendment allowing condemnation of “substandard and insanitary areas” (Article XVIII, Section 1 here) would have passed had it been understood to mean that virtually any area could be declared blighted and condemned. As with most other blight condemnation laws, the amendment was sold to the public as a tool for eliminating “slums” (a point the majority concedes).

Allowing government agencies to declare virtually any area “blighted” and then condemn it at will is an abdication of judicial responsibility to protect constitutional property rights. As Judge Smith points out in his dissent:

The whole point of the public use limitation is to prevent takings even when a state agency deems them desirable. To let the agency itself determine when the public use requirement is satisfied is to make the agency a judge in its own cause. I think that it is we who should perform the role of judges, and that we should do so by deciding that the proposed taking in this case is not for public use.

Unfortunately, New York is not the only state that has come to define “blight” so broadly that virtually any property could be condemned. The same pattern is evident in numerous other states, including many that claim to have banned “economic development” takings since Kelo.

The case is also significant because it is the first major state supreme court defeat for property rights on a public use issue since Kelo. Over the last 10 years, the tide had been going the other way, with more and more state high courts applying restrictive definitions of “public use” and forbidding economic development takings of the kind upheld in Kelo, including important decisions in Ohio, Oklahoma, and Michigan, among others. Hopefully, Goldstein will not be the start of a counterrevolution.

UPDATE: I addressed the earlier federal litigation on this taking in this 2008 post, where I noted that the Second Circuit’s decision upholding the condemnation under the federal Constitution was probably required by Kelo, and also discussed some of the policy flaws with the Atlantic Yards project.

UPDATE #2: I have corrected a mistake in Judge Smith’s title (which is indeed, “Judge” and not “Justice,” as I originally stated). Just as New York confusingly refers to its supreme court as the Court of Appeals, while using the term “supreme court” for its trial courts, it also denies its high court judges the title used in most other states. In addition to issuing dubious property rights decisions, New York courts also have terrible nomenclature.