http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/court-rules-against-columbia-university/
City Room - Blogging From the Five Boroughs [A New York Times Blog]
December 3, 2009, 3:09 pm
Court Deals a Blow to Columbia's Expansion Plans By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Raymond McCrea Jones/The New York Times Columbia University failed
to work out a deal with Nicholas Sprayregen, above, who owned four
Tuck-it-Away Self Storage buildings in the area.
Updated, 3:43 p.m. | A state court ruled on Thursday that the state
could not use eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University to
obtain parts of a 17-acre site in West Harlem, dealing a major blow
to the university's plans to build a $6.3 billion satellite campus.
In a 3-to-2 decision, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme
Court annulled the state's 2008 decision to take property for the
expansion project [pdf], saying that its condemnation procedure was
unconstitutional.
Columbia embarked on its first major expansion in 75 years in 2003,
saying it had outgrown its cramped Morningside Heights campus. It
planned to replace the low-scale industrial buildings north of 125th
Street with school buildings, laboratories, restaurants, a jazz club
and tree-lined streets.
The court's decision is not fatal to to its expansion plan. It
already owns or controls 91 percent of the 17-acres-61 of 67
buildings-in the project area. It can simply build around the other
property owners, or come to some sort of agreement. But the state
and the university had always sought the entire site.
It bought most of the land between 125th Street and 133rd Street,
between Broadway and Riverside Drive. But the university failed to
work out a deal with Nicholas Sprayregen, who owned four
Tuck-it-Away Self Storage buildings in the area, and the owners of
two gas stations. At one point, Mr. Sprayregan offered to swap his
properties for other land owned by Columbia nearby, but Columbia
refused to do a deal. He said the state never came to him asking to
work out a solution.
"I feel unbelievable," Mr. Sprayregen said following Thursday's
decision. "I was always cautiously optimistic. But I was aware we
were going againt 50 tears of unfair cases against property owners."
He and the gas station owners challenged the state's finding that
the neighborhood was blighted and its decision to condemn property
in the project area on behalf of the university.
Warner Johnston, a spokesman for the Empire State Development
Corporation, criticized the court decision as "wrong and
inconsistent with established law."
He added, "E.S.D.C. intends to appeal this decision."
The decision comes less than two weeks after the Court of Appeals,
the state's highest court, ruled 6-to-1 that the state could
exercise eminent domain in taking businesses, public property and
private homes on behalf of a Brooklyn developer who planned a
22-acre residential development and a basketball arena.
Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the property owners who opposed the use
of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia, called the court's decision
a "major victory" in a state that has been very deferential to the
state's power to take private property. He said the ruling
establishes "a road map for how property owners can fight these
battles."
Columbia, which had touched off a major community battle in 1968
when it tried unsuccessfully to expand into Morningside Park, had
hoped to avoid a similar battle this time around. It chose a
neighborhood consisting mainly of small businesses, warehouses and
little housing. Although state and city officials approved
Columbia's plans, some residents opposed it and several business
owners chose to fight in court and refused to sell to Columbia.
For his part, Mr. Sprayregan said he never opposed Columbia's
expansion plan. "The research and education they will perform are
very beneficial," he said. "The fact remains that even if they don't
get the last five percent they can still go ahead and build their
campus."
* Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company