If you knew nothing about a case except that it was public use challenge to a redevelopment condemnation in New York, you'd be on firm footing if you guessed the outcome was not going to be favorable to the property owner. New York, after all, is what one colleague called the worst in the nation at protecting property owners, and has produced such stinkers are the Atlantic Yards decision, and the Columbia-takes-Manhattanville case.
The facts in PSC, LLC v. City of Albany Indus. Dev. Agency, No. 432952 (Dec. 9, 2021), might not be as dramatic as those two cases, but the result is the same: the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division upheld a redevelopment taking of a holdout owner, concluding that the agency's decision to take a public parking lot was not subject to any serious judicial questioning. Same as it ever was.
The court first rejected the property owners' claims that the taking was beset by procedural errors. Slip op. at 3-4. Page 4 is where the more interesting stuff begins. The court concluded that the agency properly determined the property was blighted (and in New York that means just about anything). And then the plan. There was something called a "Concept Plan Report" that provided some details about the area (ominously known as "The Dead Zone" or less Rod Serling-ish as "the parking lot district"). Redeveloped, the area would contain the usual stuff of redevelopment dreams: 300 apartments, a hotel, thousands of square feet of retain, office space, and yes, even replacement parking. And the other usual predictions: jobs (a whopping 572 new jobs!), and tax revenue to the city.
Sounds great, no? Developers must have beaten down the door to get a shot at this opportunity!
Apparently not, because here's the kicker:
The report noted that a request for proposals on development of this area had previously been made, but no "legitimate" proposals were received "due in large part to the challenges of obtaining full site control."
Slip op. at 6.
Hold on...you mean there were no takers? Thus, the owner argued, "the public notice was too speculative to be proper because Capitalize Albany did not yet have any specific plans for redeveloping the area and that, without knowing the specific manner in which the properties will be used, it is impossible to determine whether they will be used for a public purpose." Slip op. at 4. As we know, future public benefit doesn't equal present public use, even in New York. Did the court address that argument? Not as far as we can tell. Instead, it was same as it ever was:
Given the foregoing, we discern no error in the Agency's determination that the properties are in a state of blight, that the taking of petitioner's 0.88 acre was necessary to develop the remaining seven acres already owned by Liberty Square, and that said development would serve a public purpose.
...
Further, the Agency is not required to know the specific redevelopment plan in order to use its power of eminent domain and may condemn the property to gain full title in order to permit economic redevelopment.
Slip op. at 6-7 (citations omitted).
So we need to take in order to know what the plan is? Oh well, if it works in Chicago, why not here?
The court also rejected the owners' claim that the taking ran afoul of New York's environmental reporting requirements, but you can read pages 9 and 10 if that interests you.
More on the decision here ("Court ruling clears way for massive downtown development in Albany") from the Albany Times-Union.
PSC, LLC v. City of Albany Industrial Development Agency, No. 432952 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 9, 2021) (mem.)