Manhattanville property owners fight eminent domain in court

Manhattanville property owners who have not struck deals with Columbia over land use in the University’s 17-acre campus expansion site fought eminent domain in court on Thursday afternoon.

The results of the short hearing—attended by over twenty neighborhood residents and students—will not be announced until July. Associate Justice Peter Tom presided, and four other judges also heard the case.

David Smith, attorney for the Singh family—which owns two gas stations in the project area—and Norman Siegel, who represents Manhattanville storage facility owner Nick Sprayregen, brought their case against the state at the New York State Court of Appeals. Smith and Siegel questioned the legality of the Empire State Development Corporation’s use of eminent domain—the process by which the state can seize private property—in order to transfer Manhattanville land ownership to Columbia for its expansion.

The ESDC approved the use of eminent domain in December 2008, through which the state would seize the Singh and Sprayregen properties and reimburse the owners according to the market rates. Thursday’s hearing took place a day after the state gave its final approval of the University’s General Project Plan for the Manhattanville expansion, which counts on eminent domain if Columbia remains unable to negotiate with the property holdouts.

Attorney John Casolaro, representing the ESDC, argued for the legality of eminent domain in this case by citing the civic benefit and public uses that would come from expansion, while Smith and Siegel argued that, as a private institution, the University would not provide these mitigations.

Smith said of Columbia, “This is a private entity,” and argued that “an exclusive private school does not include civic purposes.”

Smith further stated that the University is “not subject to public policy.”

Casolaro highlighted issues of blight, building violations, underutilized property, and a lack of new development in the area to justify eminent domain. He remarked that West Harlem has had a history of urban renewal, and that Columbia’s growth would be no exception, citing educational and research developments that could benefit the larger community.

“There is no evidence of bad faith here,” Casolaro said. “Bad faith means corruption.”

Judge Rosalyn Richter questioned the public accessibility of Columbia’s campus buildings and Associate Justice James Catterson asked Casolaro to cite an example of a case in which a “private university was deemed a public benefit.”

Casolaro responded, “I am not able to point to such a case.”

Still, Casolaro added that benefit to the public is a “flexible concept.” He noted that Columbia researchers could find cures to diseases that afflict members of the surrounding neighborhood.

Yet Norman Siegel countered Casolaro’s claims of eminent domain’s legality. “The business of taking people’s private property has to come to an end,” he said.

Siegel argued that, prior to 2002, issues of land use in West Harlem were discussed in an open process, and since then the ESDC and Columbia have lacked transparency in discussing the fate of Manhattanville’s property.

“This decision was made secretly,” he said, adding that the University in conjunction with ESDC, “shoe-horned in what they thought they need to take over this land.”

Siegel also argued that it was unjust that one-storey were defined as underutilized in the city’s review process solely because of their height.

Casolaro replied that, “since 1975, only two new buildings have been put up in this area, and one was a bus depot.”

Judge Richter then asked, “Why would someone build up in this area if they knew Columbia was going to take over?”

Casolaro’s statistical defense was that over 80% of buildings in this site are more than 65 years old.

In an interview after the hearing, Sprayregen said that he was “cautiously optimistic.”
“We are very excited about this,” he said. “The improper use of eminent domain must be stopped.”

Columbia spokesperson Robert Hornsby declined to comment, citing the University’s policy not to speak about pending litigations.

Siegel said after the hearing that he was “really pleased by the court’s questions” and added, “If the questions reflect the decision, we should prevail.”