Nicking Columbia

In today's Wall Street Journal, our client Nick Sprayregen makes a strong case against the inherent defects and unfairness of the eminent domain law of New York State: "When I go to court in a few months to contest the condemnation, I will face an overwhelmingly unfair process particular to New York, and to eminent domain trials. I will not be permitted to question any of the state or Columbia's representatives, nor will I be allowed to have anyone take the witness stand on my behalf. My attorney will only be provided with 15 minutes to speak to the court on a matter that Columbia and the state have been working on for over four years."

And then there's the definition of what constitutes blight, or lack thereof: "Another problem is that in New York, the precise definition of what is blighted is nowhere to be found. It is virtually impossible to defend oneself from something that is not properly defined." Which doesn't mean that Columbia and NY State have not gone to great lengths to "prove" the area where Nick's property sits is blighted.

In fact, they brought in some real experts-the same folks who advocated ion Columbia's behalf in the ULURP process: "There is also a conflict of interest in the condemnation process. The firm the state hired to perform the "impartial" blight study -- the planning, engineering and environmental consultant Allee King Rosen & Fleming, Inc. (AKRF) -- had been retained by Columbia two years earlier to advocate for governmental approval of the university's expansion, including the possible use of eminent domain."

AKRF apparently glossed over the fact that their client actively engaged in the creation of the blight that they now say demands that the Sprayregen property be condemned. This is not only a case of one lying and the other swearing to it; it's a case where the "one" and the "other" are one and the same. As Nick points out: "The study's conclusion was unsurprising. Since the commencement of acquisitions in Manhattanville by Columbia, the school has made a solid effort to create the appearance of "blight." Once active buildings became vacant as Columbia either refused to renew leases, pressured small businesses to vacate, or made unreasonable demands that resulted in the businesses moving elsewhere. Columbia also let their holdings decay and left code violations unaddressed."

So what's the legal process here like? "When I go to court in a few months to contest the condemnation, I will face an overwhelmingly unfair process particular to New York, and to eminent domain trials. I will not be permitted to question any of the state or Columbia's representatives, nor will I be allowed to have anyone take the witness stand on my behalf. My attorney will only be provided with 15 minutes to speak to the court on a matter that Columbia and the state have been working on for over four years."

Nice huh? Due process, you say? It is quite a shaky legal foundation that the State of New York uses to take away a person's constitutionally guaranteed rights. It's also a procedure crying for legal redress.