Florida Eminent Domain Blog | Gregory W. Stoner

In 2005, the US Supreme Court decided, in Kelo v. City of New London that eminent domain could be used to take property from one private owner and transfer it to another private owner if the second owner would use the land in such a way that would result in a net gain for the community. Many complained that this decision essentially gave local governments the right to steal from the poor and give to the rich, all in the name of correcting urban blight. In response, many states, including Florida, enacted laws protecting private property from eminent domain that would transfer the property to another private owner and limiting the use of eminent domain to correct urban blight. But not all states enacted such protections, and one state that did not is New York, where we are seeing another example of attempted abuse of eminent domain.

The case is Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, in which residential and commercial property in the Atlantic Yards area of Brooklyn is being taken and given to Forest City Ratner Companies. The Atlantic Yards development will include an arena for the New Jersey Nets basketball team (owned by Bruce Ratner, the principal of Forest City Ratner); office, retail, and residential space; community facilities for health care and child care, and eight acres of open space for public use. The New York State Urban Development Corporation, doing business as the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), granted the use of eminent domain in 2006, claiming the project served the public benefits of eliminating blight, providing facilities, improving mass transit and infrastructure, increasing tax revenue, providing affordable housing, and creating jobs.

The property owners affected by the taking initially made a challenge in federal court, claiming that the primary benefits of the project would go to Ratner, with only incidental benefits going to the public, but in the wake of Kelo, federal courts denied the claim. Property owners then took their fight to the state courts, claiming that "public use" should be taken to mean a use where the property "is to be held open for use by all members of the public." In an initial decision, this interpretation was rejected because "the literal interpretation of the concept of public use . . . was abandoned long before [Kelo]."

The project, which is expected to significantly profit Ratner, already worth over $400 million, shows how hard it can be to protect property against private land grabs in lieu of specific legislation like what we have in Florida. If your land is threatened by an eminent domain action that you think is more likely to benefit private developers than the public good, The Florida Property Rights Law Firm, PA can help. Please contact us today to learn more.