More on Manhattanville
Posted on December 10th, 2009 in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »
The Columbia Spectator, which, in keeping with a long tradition of Columbia students, has been pretty consistently biased against its parent university, runs a softball interview with multi-millionaire landlord Nick Sprayregen, who is doing his best to position himself as a man of the people.
Sample question:
Do you feel comfortable in that role of David [versus Goliath]?
Hello, Columbia School of Journalism? I have a raison d’etre for you.
To be fair, the second half of the interview features a much more substantive interview with Columbia law professor Michael Heller addressing the legal issues in play.
How does Manhattanville fit within the general trend of major developments?
...this is a very general problem in the American economy, which is that more and more today, the really valuable forms of economic development—job creation, job growth, cultural creation—require assembly of large parcels of land. It used to be the case that you’d buy a piece of land, subdivide it, build houses, and that would be the path to creating economic growth. Today, more and more, the path for jobs and growth is that you put pieces together and you create the kinds of economic development that require large parcels.
Useful information.
5 Responses
12/10/2024 11:00 am
Rich,
Compared to the resources of Columbia and the ESDC, the David vs. Goliath comparison is apt, even if Sprayregen is worth several million dollars.
And do you really think he’s fighting this out of greed? I’d be very surprised. Considering the cost of the suit, both in terms of time and money, from a financial perspective it would have been much smarter and easier for him to just sell and move on. He’s most likely fighting this out of principle, not greed, and his wealth allows him to make this stand.
12/10/2024 11:20 am
For as long as I can remember, and that is a very long time, the area around Yale’s (core) campus has been blighted. If you owned a house there for 50 years and the university wanted the city of New Haven to take it by eminent domain so that the university could build science buildings, how would you feel?
Some of us believe eminent domain should only be used for government use (or by parties using it for public or civic use). We do not want eminent domain to be used for the benefit of private enterprise. The Court’s Kelo decision, re the City of New London, unfortunately, found differently.
The upshot of Kelo, of course, is that Pfizer is walking away from the property. So much for public benefit.
12/10/2024 11:37 am
Puh-lease—I don’t really know what to make of Sprayregen, and I think it’s a mistake to think of his position as static; why he opposed Columbia in the beginning and why he’s fighting now could be significantly different. I don’t think it’s entirely about money, no. But it could be. He claims he’s spent millions on this fight. t’d be interesting to see some proof of that, but difficult to find—his expenditures are not transparent. I also wonder if he isn’t funded by right-wing groups that get a hard-on about eminent domain. He’s a private company so it’d be hard to find out. But an enterprising Columbia Spectator journalist should try. (Look at the tax records of non-profit groups with a history of supporting anti-eminent domain litigants.)
Sam-it’s actually a useful example. Yale was able to expand by buying a former corporate campus (I think Bayer had owned it, but I’m not sure) in an adjoining town. As law professor Michael Heller suggests, Columbia doesn’t have that option.
That said, under the scenario you posit, there’s a good chance I’d be pretty pissed—even though Yale would likely be paying me far more than the market value of the house.
But the fact that I’d be ticked off probably shouldn’t be the deciding factor. My considerations aren’t the only ones at stake. What if Yale’s development were to lift the area economically in general? Wouldn’t that be something I’d want to consider?
That said, I share your concerns about eminent domain-nobody loves it. Harvard, of course, got around this issue in Allston by forming various front companies and buying up the land in secret in order to prevent price-gouging. (Is that better?)
Columbia has always said it doesn’t want to use eminent domain, but it doesn’t want to reject it out of hand because then multi-millionaire landlords like Sprayregen will be able to blackmail the university entirely for their private good. At which point he’d happily leave the neighborhood and take his money with him.
12/10/2024 12:43 pm
Sprayregen is not blackmailing Columbia. It has nothing to do with blackmail.
Furthermore, we’re not talking about the same situation as in Allston. In Allston, people wanted to sell… an arms length transaction (and I’m not trying to justify Harvard secretly buying up the land). In Columbia’s situation, the people do not want to sell.
It also doesn’t matter if Columbia doesn’t have the option that Yale had. That has nothing to do with what is going on here. Who cares if Columbia doesn’t have the option. Let Columbia change its plans.
And, of course, you and I differ in that you are suggesting that if Yale’s purchase were as you say would lead to… “Yale’s development were to lift the area economically in general”, that might be a factor in allowing the purchase. Kelo agreed with you. I don’t.
Columbia can very well develop the area without asking the city to invoke eminent domain. There are only two properties left and Columbia can build around them quite easily. It has been done many times in New York City. Think of the small house on Queens Blvd. near the old Alexanders. Think of the upper 70s off Third. Think of Lex in the low 60s (no longer there). It happens all the time. I rather think those remaining structures are rather quaint; they lend something human to the scale of an enormous project.
If the city wants to take a property for public use, that’s fine. The Constitution allows for that. If the city wants to take a property for private use, The Constitution doesn’t allow for that. Kelo does, but that is only the latest, and not the last, interpretation of what The Constitution means. I don’t want to be forced to sell my property for private use.
The “public” was in disbelief after Kelo; what were the five Justices thinking? Hopefully, the next case to come before The Court will be decided differently.
12/10/2024 2:00 pm
It’s official: The Allston project is on hold:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/12/harvard_officia.html
But don’t worry- “The delay will in no way slow Harvard’s significant momentum in the life sciences,” says Drew Faust.