Goldstein v. Pataki
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2241, 2008 WL 269100, 516 F.3d 50 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a government's use of eminent domain for a redevelopment project is rationally related to a classic public purpose, such as remedying urban blight, the taking does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause even if it substantially benefits a private developer and was initiated by that developer.
Facts:
- Private developer Bruce Ratner, principal owner of the New Jersey Nets, proposed the Atlantic Yards Arena and Redevelopment Project, a 22-acre development in downtown Brooklyn, New York.
- The project's plan included a new sports arena for the Nets, at least sixteen high-rise apartment towers, and several office towers.
- The project site encompassed both a heavily blighted area known as the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area and an adjacent, less blighted parcel with privately owned homes and businesses, referred to as the 'Takings Area.'
- The New York State Urban Development Corporation (ESDC), a public-benefit corporation, agreed to facilitate the project.
- The ESDC planned to use its eminent domain power to acquire the privately held properties within the Takings Area for the project's completion.
- The stated public benefits of the project included redressing blight, creating affordable housing, developing a public open space, and improving mass transit.
- Fifteen property owners, including Goldstein, whose homes and businesses were located in the Takings Area, faced condemnation.
Procedural Posture:
- Fifteen property owners (Plaintiffs) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against developer Bruce Ratner, his companies, and various state and city officials (Defendants).
- The plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that the planned use of eminent domain violated the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice.
- The plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of eminent domain for a large-scale redevelopment project, which provides objective public benefits like blight removal and affordable housing, violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause if property owners allege that the government's primary motivation was to benefit a private developer?
Opinions:
Majority - Katzmann, Circuit Judge
No. The use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards Project does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause because the project is rationally related to several classic and conceivable public purposes. The court must adhere to a long-standing policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field. The plaintiffs' own complaint effectively concedes that the project will redress blight, create affordable housing, and provide other public benefits, which are well-established public uses. A claim that these public purposes are merely a 'pretext' for conferring a private benefit is not viable when the project is objectively justified by these traditional public uses. The court rejected the invitation to conduct an inquiry into the subjective motivations of government officials, holding that such scrutiny is inconsistent with the deferential standard of review established by Supreme Court precedents like Berman v. Parker and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the potential for 'pretext' challenges to eminent domain actions under the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause, particularly in the wake of Kelo v. City of New London. The court establishes that if a project is rationally related to a classic public use like blight removal, a claim of improper motive to benefit a private party will fail. This reinforces a highly deferential standard of review, making it exceedingly difficult for property owners to challenge takings for large-scale, public-private redevelopment projects. The ruling effectively cabins the 'pretext' language from Kelo, limiting its application to cases where no objective, traditional public purpose exists.
