Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Constitutional Law

PDF

Fordham Law School

2011

Taking

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Let There Be Blight: Blight Condemnations In New York After Goldstein And Kaur, Ilya Somin Jan 2011

Let There Be Blight: Blight Condemnations In New York After Goldstein And Kaur, Ilya Somin

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article analyzes the New York cases of Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp. and Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp. and asserts that the New York Court of Appeals erred in allowing such an expansive definition of "blight" and defining pretextual takings too narrowly. Part I Describes the two cases. Part II explains the concept of blight condemnation and how it was used in the two cases. Part III discusses how the two cases treat the federal constitutional standard for pretextual takings. The Article concludes that eminent domain reform requires a narrower definition of "blight" …


The Problem With Pretext, Lynn E. Blais Jan 2011

The Problem With Pretext, Lynn E. Blais

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article examines the problems with the Supreme Court's holding in Kelo v. City of New London that the concept of public use is expansive unless the government is asserting the public use as a "mere pretext" and the true purpose is private benefit. The author examines the level of scrutiny applied in such cases, the link between pretext and motive, and the tests applied to evaluate pretext challenges: the burden-shifting motives test, the sufficiency of the plan taste, and the benefits to the public test. The author concludes that pretext is an "unworkable mechanism" for evaluating public use cases.


Gallenthin V. Kaur: A Comparative Analysis Of How The New Jersey And New York Courts Approach Judicial Review Of The Exercise Of Eminent Domain For Redevelopment, Ronald K. Chen Jan 2011

Gallenthin V. Kaur: A Comparative Analysis Of How The New Jersey And New York Courts Approach Judicial Review Of The Exercise Of Eminent Domain For Redevelopment, Ronald K. Chen

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Article explores two explanations for why New Jersey and New York take different approaches to judicial review of exercises of eminent domain. Part I examines the approach of both states and their differing procedures for review of administrative agency determinations. Part II discusses how each states' courts and legislatures define "blight." Part III examines how New York's approach leaves municipal officials and redevelopers free to use the more flexible concept of "underutilization" as a proxy for "blight."