Senate Bill S1535

                                BILL NUMBER:S1535

TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the eminent domain procedure law and the
New  York state urban development corporation act, in relation to defin-
ing 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 properties 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.

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 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 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 2009 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:    2010:  Referred  to  Judiciary;  Discharged and
Committed to Corporations, Authorities & Commissions 2012:  Referred  to
Judiciary

EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately.