New York S 4189: Defines blighted properties and areas; repealer

Bill Text

Bill Search and Legislative Information | New York State Assembly 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

 Skip to main content 

 New York State Assembly

 Speaker Carl E. Heastie

 --> 
 --> 

 --> 

• 
 Assembly Members 

• 
 Legislative Info 

• 
 Public Hearings 

• 
 Speaker's Press 

• 
 Assembly Reports 

• 
 Committees & More 

• Bill Search Home
• Laws
• Legislative Calendar
• Public Hearing Schedule
• Assembly Calendars
• Assembly Committee Agenda 

 Javascript must be enabled to properly view this page. 

 Bill No.: 

• Summary 
• Actions 
• Committee&nbspVotes 
• Floor&nbspVotes 
• Memo 
• Text 
• LFIN 
• Chamber&nbspVideo/Transcript 
S04189 Summary:

BILL NOS04189 

&nbsp

SAME ASNo Same As

&nbsp

SPONSORBAILEY

&nbsp

COSPNSR

&nbsp

MLTSPNSR

&nbsp

Amd §§103 & 204, add §204-a, EDP L; amd §§2, 3, 5 & 10, rpld §3 sub 12, UDC Act

&nbsp

Defines blighted properties and areas.

Go to top S04189 Actions:

BILL NOS04189 

&nbsp

02/03/2025REFERRED TO JUDICIARY

01/07/2026REFERRED TO JUDICIARY

Go to topS04189 Committee&nbspVotes:

Go to topS04189 Floor&nbspVotes:

There are no Assembly votes for this bill in this legislative session.

Go to topS04189 Text:

 STATE OF NEW YORK
 ________________________________________________________________________

 4189

 2025-2026 Regular Sessions

 IN SENATE

 February 3, 2025
 ___________

 Introduced by Sen. BAILEY -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
 printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary

 AN ACT to amend the eminent domain procedure law and the New York state
 urban development corporation act, in relation to defining blight; and
 to repeal certain provisions of the New York state urban development
 corporation act relating thereto

 The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
 bly, do enact as follows:

 1 Section 1. Legislative findings and intent. The legislature hereby
 2 finds and declares that eminent domain, while a meaningful tool for
 3 government to move forward on important projects, has come under a great
 4 deal of criticism in recent years for many alleged abuses that have
 5 occurred within the state of New York. Traditionally, the right of
 6 eminent domain, or the state's ability to seize private land was limited
 7 for "public use". However, over the years, phrases such as "public use"
 8 and "blighted" have taken on more expansive meanings.
 9 Since Kelo v. City of New London, the 2005 decision in which the U.S.
 10 Supreme Court approved the forcible transfer of property from one
 11 private owner to another in the name of "economic development", forty-
 12 three states have passed eminent domain reform legislation. New York has
 13 thus far failed to take such action but continues again and again to
 14 approve eminent domain condemnation for projects that benefit private
 15 entities at the public's expense. A 2009 report by the Institute for
 16 Justice entitled "Building Empires, Destroying Homes: Eminent Domain
 17 Abuse in New York" detailed widespread eminent domain abuse throughout
 18 the state.
 19 Furthermore, two recent court decisions, Goldstein v. New York State
 20 Urban Development Corporation and Kaur v. New York State Urban Develop-
 21 ment Corporation demonstrate the need to balance the rights of property
 22 owners without stifling positive economic development programs. Instead,
 23 New Yorkers suffer under an inequitable system of eminent domain laws

 EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
 [ ] is old law to be omitted.
 LBD08456-01-5

 S. 4189 2

 1 that greatly favors private developers partnered with public actors at
 2 the expense of homeowners, businesses, and tenants.
 3 The use of "blight" as a basis for condemnation is vaguely defined and
 4 in need of clarification. Under the loose standards of existing law
 5 practically anything can qualify as blighted. Consequently it is imper-
 6 ative that the legislature enact objective criteria to ensure that
 7 blight determinations are consistent, predictable, and based on factors
 8 actually related to the public's health and safety. There also needs to
 9 be better protections in place so that tenants and low income residents
 10 are ensured that they are not excluded from the development process.
 11 As Judge Catterson notes for the majority in the Kaur decision, it has
 12 been well documented that the urban renewal schemes of the 1950s and
 13 1960s displaced millions of people and destroyed hundreds of neighbor-
 14 hoods. By and far, these programs disproportionately harmed low income
 15 and minority families. Legislative reforms are needed to prevent a
 16 repeat of these injustices. It is now time for New York to make the
 17 necessary reforms that will ensure a fair and equitable use of our
 18 eminent domain laws.
 19 § 2. Section 103 of the eminent domain procedure law is amended by
 20 adding five new subdivisions (H), (I), (J), (K) and (L)