Jarrett Murphy raises legitimate concerns about the focus of rezoning under the recent administration and the lack of city planning as a whole. Murphy believes that developers have become supremely influential in dictating current regulations. Furthermore, the disunity among constituencies has made it difficult to create a comprehensive city plan to appease the major people groups in NYC.

It is difficult to imagine that under the Bloomberg administration, the City has revised zoning equivalent to the size of Boston or San Francisco. This excessive rezoning will undoubtedly dictate the way land will be used. The city has consistently upzoned transit oriented sites in hopes of further development. However, reports have also shown that the city has downzoned some areas, like Staten Island, where the population was whiter and wealthier. Such selective zoning raises concerns that city’s goals are driven more by developers than its own residents. In fact, due to inclusionary zoning, developers now have the right to build larger structures if they create affordable housing or other residual benefits to the neighborhood. Development projects such as the Atlantic Yards have already made Community Benefit Agreements to appease the local residents. Unfortunately, these agreements are very difficult to enforce because community boards neither have the resources to initiate or guarantee successful litigation. Essentially, the new zoning regulations opens the door for megaprojects to become a reality throughout the city, regardless of opposition from residents.

With this in mind, the task creating a master plan for the City is becoming a key question. Should NYC have a comprehensive plan for the future? In retrospect, the city would probably be better off (in terms of density and overall infrastructure) if planning had been pursued earlier. Although PlaNYC sets goals for a sustainable future, it is more of an agenda than a constructive plan. Hence, there is a call for government officials to devise concrete steps to implement the ideas expressed in PlaNYC. However, New York City is very different from the likes of Chicago, or Miami, where comprehensive city planning have been implemented without stark opposition. The political atmosphere of our state suggests that no plan will be “good enough” to appease all constituencies. Furthermore, the power of the land lies in separate hands such as the MTA, DOT, and others, making it difficult to obtain unified support. As a result, there is a constant struggle that renders the idea of comprehensive city planning useless in a city like New York.

Altogether, the general trend of zoning regulations points to the influence of real estate developers. As the city continues to progress, there will be more leeway given to large-scale development projects than individual residents. Hence, in planning for the city, there needs to be concrete steps for initiating a sustainable future while respecting the rights of each community.

“Free market may be imperfect, but they’re far better than the alternative—the blight of arbitrary government control and the uncertainty that it creates.” Nicole Gelinas conveys this message throughout her article, Eminent Domain as Central Planning. Over the past few years, the use of eminent domain in central planning has heightened greatly, but its outcome is not necessarily as beneficial as many may assume. Gelinas brings to light the stark reality that “the [government’s] duty to design a perfect economy trumps…constituents’ right to hold private property.” What is even worse is that a perfect economy is rarely the realized result.

According to the US Constitution, the government can legally seize property if it is intended for “public use” and only if “just compensation” is given. Generally, “blighted” property is grounds for public seizure. Over the years, however, the definitions of each requirement have changed, broadened, and have become much more subjective. According to Gelinas, in the 1930s, “blighted” meant “families and children dying from rampant fires and pestilence in tuberculosis-ridden firetraps.” By 2006, this definition encompass isolated graffiti, cracked sidewalks, and underutilization of land that does not “generate the social and economic benefits the government desires.” This has allowed for many more opportunities to seize land that otherwise would have been left in private hands. More importantly, such subjective and arbitrary decisions actually violate due process, according to Gelinas—one of many reasons that eminent domain should not be too freely exercised.

Although there seems to be a trend towards increasing use of eminent domain for positive economic benefits, there are many examples that portray quite a different reality. Gelinas points to multiple government projects—the Atlantic Yards and rows of homes slated for demolition, the Spalding Building now abandoned, vacant lots where lively businesses once stood—where land is now decaying due to the governments impeding of genuine private improvement.  It is ironic that central planning is perceived to be superior to free-market competition if these are some of its results. To remedy this, Gelinas advocates the state should not interfere in people’s property.

If the government does not intervene, can any progress be made? Gelinas proposes the organic growth of communities, rather than large-scale public intervention. The government should provide public necessities such as policing, infrastructure and the like. In turn, this will allow local residents to constantly improve their communities, albeit slowly. Unfortunately, the opposite has been occurring. In Willets Point, for example, the city “is starving the private sector of public resources,” making it much easier to deem areas “blighted” and exercise eminent domain.

After many weeks of reading about public housing and government intervention in the economy, it would be wrong to say that central planning is completely bad. Gelinas’s article, however, made me realize that the broadening jurisdiction of eminent domain seems to be hurting neighborhoods more than it should be helping. Increasingly creative definitions are becoming the new central planning model, but this model may not be the best. I agree with Gelinas’s decision that clearer standards for the government’s power to seize property are necessary. The government should stick to providing communities with necessities and letting them better themselves slowly but surely.

Over the past couple of years one major issue that has been voiced regarding the Atlantic Yards project has been the law of Eminent Domain. One of the fundamental principles included in the United States Constitution, is that everyone has the right to own property, and that the government must do all that is in its power to protect this right. However, according to the law of Eminent Domain, which stems from the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, the government can legally seize private property for a “public use,” as long as they provide the owner with just compensation. Over the years, this law has been misrepresented and altered to include the fact that the government can seize land, not only for a public use, such as the construction of roads and railways, but also for a public purpose, which includes rebuilding blighted areas that have been underutilized.

Nicole Gelinas, author of the article, “Eminent Domain as Central Planning,” believes that in the case of the Atlantic Yards the government is overstepping its limits. She states that government officials believe that “central planning is superior to free-market competition.” It is their opinion that “their duty to design a perfect economy trumps their constituents’ right to hold private property.” They believe that an arena and high-rise buildings are better than a low-rise neighborhood, and are therefore invoking their power of Eminent Domain to achieve their goals. However, in reality, who’s to say which alternative is better than the other. While residents may believe that a low-rise community is better than one filled with high-rise office towers, developers may take the opposite view. She believes that the first step in combating this law, is to get rid of the term “underutilization” as a justification for taking ones property. If “underutilization” remains as a criteria of Eminent Domain, it will ultimately create a policy in which all property will require commercial development.

One part of her article that I found to be extremely interesting, was when she described how West Harlem owners won their court case. In order to prove that their neighborhood does not fall under the category of “blighted” and therefore does allow the government to seize their property under the law of Eminent Domain, the owners conducted a  study to show that their neighborhood was not blighted. They understood that the government would conduct a report showing that it was blighted and therefore believed that a good way to combat the government’s case was to create their own study. Furthermore, they provided a former government study showing that their neighborhood was being revitalized. However, after discussing this case, Gelinas correctly stated that property rights should not depend on the owner’s creativity to prove, but should be a law that is followed and kept without any hesitation.

One point concerning Eminent Domain, which Gelinas failed to mention, is in regards to the definition of “just compensation.” The question that remains is who gets to determine the amount of compensation that the government must pay the owners for their property? While the owners may believe that their property is worth more due to sentimental value, the government may believe that it is worth less because sentimental value is not included in the market price. This creates a battle between the government and residents, in which they can’t decide what the market value of the property really is. Furthermore, what happens if a family cannot find a home that suits their needs with the “just compensation” that they are offered? Besides for the fact that confiscating private property is wrong, there are no clear guidelines stating the grounds on which “just compensation” is to be determined.

At the end of the article, Galinas makes a great argument, which really goes to show you the destruction that Eminent Domain can cause. She states that if you walk through Prospect Heights you can finally see the decay that the government wants you to see. Land where historic buildings once stood are now vacant lots, leaving the area “gap-toothed.” The decay, however, was not caused by the market, rather it was brought about by the developer who urged the government to invoke its powers, just so they can make a profit.