The first phase of what is likely to be a groundbreaking (no pun intended)...or maybe landmark (uh, oh...another pun)...okay, precedent setting eminent domain lawsuit has been decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the Ratner/Pataki/Bloomberg axis of crony capitalism. The case is "Goldstein vs. Pataki" though it is understood that "Pataki" is nothing more than a cardboard cutout that Ratner is hiding behind, so I consider the case "Goldstein vs. Ratner." The defense had filed a motion to dismiss, but the presiding judge has found ample grounds for the lawsuit to procede:

In his report, Judge Levy found that the plaintiffs' case was certainly appropriate for the federal courts, and that contrary to defendants' arguments, was ripe to be heard. "Clearly, the proposed condemnations, and the consequent disposition of plaintiffs from their homes and businesses, pose a significant threat of harm," wrote Levy in dismissing the defendants' claims that the case was not yet ripe for federal court. He added that the "Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint raises serious and difficult questions regarding the exercise of eminent domain under emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence."

By and large this is solidly in favor of the plaintiffs, though one aspecet of the jduge's ruling is seen as favoring the defense at least somewhat. Justice Levy recommends that the case be heard in the state courts based on a technicality from the 1943 case "Burford vs. Sun Oil Co.", but the phrasing of the recommendation leaves ample room for presiding Judge Nicholas Garaufis to hear the case in federal court.

This decision is only the first volley in the first skirmish of this potentially epic court battle. At stake is the concept of private property rights, at risk because Pataki used the state's power of eminent domain to condemn private property in order to hand it over to another private owner for his own profit. This court case is the first court challenge to this particular kind of misuse of eminent domain and so the outcome will be important for the very nature of property rights. Can the state arbitrarily force one private citizen to give up his property to another private citizen for the financial gain of that second private citizen? Pataki, Bloomberg and Marty Markowitz all say that the state can do this. Property owners who are being forced out by the state so Ratner can make his highly-subsidized profit are hoping the courts will uphold a private citizen's property rights. Justice Levy believes the plaintiffs have a case that is worth hearing.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |