![“[T]he record amply demonstrates that the neighborhood in question is not blighted, that whatever blight exists is due to the actions of the City…and that the justification of underutilization is nothing but a canard to aid in the transfer of private property to a developer. Unfortunately for the rights of the citizens affected by the proposed condemnation, the recent rulings of the Court of Appeals …have made plain that there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent domain proceedings.”Uptown Holdings, LLC v. City of New York, No. 2882 (App. Div. Oct 12, 2010)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/uconncrethomasslides10-2010-101022004750-phpapp02/85/Uconn-cre-thomas_slides_10-2010-22-320.jpg)
Uconn cre thomas_slides_10-2010
- 1. Schlimmbesserung:Eminent Domain for RedevelopmentRobert H. Thomaswww.inversecondemnation.com
- 2. “To worsen by improvement”
- 4. public use?
- 6. “when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive”Berman, 384 U.S. 34-35
- 13. Kelo(2005)
- 15. Kelo(2005)
- 16. Kelo(2005)
- 17. Berman - unanimousMidkiff - unanimousKelo – 5-4
- 18. “Kelo”= Abuse“Kelo”= Incompetence“Kelo”= Property Rights
- 19. Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Corp.930 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2007)
- 20. County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd Partnership 198 P.3d 615 (Haw. 2008) 208 P.3d 713 (Haw. 2009)
- 21. New York - Goldstein v. Pataki516 F.3d 50 (2d Cir 2008)cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2964 (2008)Goldstein v. NY State Urban Dev Corp. 921 N.E.2d 164 (N.Y. 2009)49 Wb, LLC v. Village of Haverstraw44 A.D.3d 226 (2007)
- 22. “[T]he record amply demonstrates that the neighborhood in question is not blighted, that whatever blight exists is due to the actions of the City…and that the justification of underutilization is nothing but a canard to aid in the transfer of private property to a developer. Unfortunately for the rights of the citizens affected by the proposed condemnation, the recent rulings of the Court of Appeals …have made plain that there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent domain proceedings.”Uptown Holdings, LLC v. City of New York, No. 2882 (App. Div. Oct 12, 2010)
- 23. Tuck-it-Away v. N.Y. State Urban Development Corporation…cert granted? denied?