Lawmakers, Lawyers Split On Eminent Domain Reform
ALBANY—With opposition from the New York State Bar Association and legal counsel for New York City, the state Senate Judiciary Committee led by chairman John DeFrancisco (R-Syracuse) has passed four bills by three different legislators seeking to protect private property from government taking for private economic development purposes.

After the U.S. Supreme Court made its landmark and highly controversial ruling last year in Kelo v. City of New London, numerous bills were introduced in the legislature involving the eminent domain issue. The Kelo decision reaffirmed the power of local governments to seize private property for economic development purposes. The Court also approved the longstanding role of state Legislatures to restrict or expand this grant of authority.

NYSBA president Vincent A. Buzard and NYC Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo claim that Kelo has had minimal impact in the state and say that and modifications to eminent domain law would undermine the public interest.

Buzard and the NYSBA have called for a study commission to be formed but DeFranciso says that the last time the Legislature appointed such a body to address the eminent domain issue, it took seven years before any legislation was proposed and that such delay wasn’t “responsive government”.

Two of the bills passed by the Senate committee were sponsored by DeFranciso. Bill S5938 “clarifies that the exercise of eminent domain powers should be reserved for those public infrastructures and services commonly provided by government” such as “transportation, public safety, recreation, water supply and sanitation facilities”.

DeFrancisco also sponsored S5961 concurrently with the state Assembly which would amend the state Constitution to bar the taking or transfer of private property to another private party for purposes of economic development.

Sen. Carl L. Marcellino, (R-Long Island) has sponsored S5936 which amends the Eminent Domain Procedure Law to permit the state to take property for economic development reasons only in blighted areas.

Dangerous legislation… I am completely against Eminant Domain except in cases where a business, company etc has deserted a piece of property like the Dunlop building on Grand Island NY. There is questions in my mind if they should use it for the Peace Bridge when right down the road there is plenty of room in a dilapatated area.

Watch the money, or follow the money when ever this is being used.