Preview
FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023
Cga C600
FROM THE DESK OF
LIAM BURNS
November 2, 2023
Response to Petition for Eminent Domain
of Parcel TAX ID: 160.40-1-45
I, Liam Burns, am the lawful owner of the property Luck 13 Acquisitions,
LLC identified Tax Identification No. 166 .90-1- located
by Map 4C,
within the jurisdiction of the City of Binghamton. I am in receipt of the
City's petition to acquire a fee interest in a portion of my property
through the power of eminent domain. The project for which my land is
sought-comprising ADA-compliant improvements and associated
infrastructural upgrades-is undoubtedly of public utility. However, I
must register my unequivocal opposition to this taking for the following
substantiated reasons:
Discrepancies"
I. valuation
The offer made for the portion of my property fails to reflect its fair
market value, taking into account not only the current use but also the
highest and best use of the property. The valuation must be
substantively equitable, compensating for the full extent of the loss of
my property, including any diminution in the value of the remaining
property. I assert that the offer does not justly compensate for these
factors, and further independent valuation is warranted to ensure
fairness.
II. Procedural Concerns:
The City avers that it is exempt from public hearing requirements under
specific provisions of the EDPL. I contest this exemption on the
grounds that the criteria for such an exemption have not been
transparently met or demonstrated. The public interest purportedly
served by this project, as well as the necessity of taking my particular
parcel of land, must be clearly established and open to public
discourse.
1 of 7
FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023
III.Inadequate Consideration of Alternatives:
There is no evidence presented that a diligent search for less invasive
alternatives was undertaken. The principle of eminent domain
necessitates that it be employed only when all other options have been
exhausted or deemed unviable. I maintain that the City has not
sufficiently justified the lack of alternative solutions that would spare my
property from seizure.
I.
Regarding the Justness of Valuation
A. Lack of Transparency and Basis for Valuation
The condemnor's failure to provide a detailed and justified appraisal
undermines the legitimacy of the offer and contravenes the mandates
of EDPL Section 303. Without a transparent basis for valuation, the
proposal lacks the requisite justness and adequacy.
B. Future Use and Inherent Value of the Property
The valuation overlooks the highest and best use of the property, as
evidenced by planned developments which significantly enhance the
property's potential. The jurisprudential standard set forth in Matter of
City of New York [Kaiser Woodcraft Corp.] necessitates such
considerations, which have been neglected in the condemnor's
assessment.
C. Recent Mandated Improvements to the Property
Recent improvements done with state grant funds limit my ability to
sell the property without penalties. Also the map indicating the
sidewalks are slate show the map is dated, as these were replaced
years ago with proper concrete sidewalks. This has in creased the
2 of 7
FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023
property's value, an aspect not reflected in the offer. This enhancement
to the property's utility and worth must factor into a fair valuation.
D. Market Dynamics and Timing of Offer
The initial valuation was premised on an outdated market assessment,
disregarding the dynamic nature of real estate valuation, particularly in
light of recent inflationary pressures and demographic shifts. Hakes v.
State underscores the need for current market conditions to inform the
valuation.
E. Consequential Damages
The offer omits considerations for consequential damages, which
encompass a range of pecuniary losses directly attributable to the
taking. The EDPL Article 5 stipulates such considerations, which have
been omitted in the valuation process.
II. Procedural Concerns Regarding Public
Hearing Exemptions
A. Transparency in Meeting Exemption Criteria
The City of Binghamton asserts an exemption from public hearing
obligations by invoking specific provisions of the New York Eminent
Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). This claim raises procedural concerns,
primarily due to the lack of clear, demonstrable evidence that the City
has satisfied the stringent criteria for such an exemption. The EDPL
mandates a transparent process when determining the applicability of
exemptions, especially those that circumvent public participation. The
City must provide conclusive evidence that all conditions for exemption
have been unequivocally met, which includes, but is not limited to, the
demonstration of equivalent analyses as stipulated under EDPL Section
206(A) and a comprehensive justification for the categorization of the
acquisition as de minimis or emergent under Section 206(D).
B. Justification of Public Interest and Necessity for Land Acquisition
The City's exemption claim also presupposes that the public interest
and the necessity of the proposed project are beyond dispute.
However, the significance of the public interest cannot be presumed
3 of 7
FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023
and must be substantively demonstrated. Moreover, the specific
necessity of appropriating my parcel of land, rather than any other,
requires a robust justification. This necessity must be open to scrutiny
and debate, a process inherently linked to the right to a public hearing.
The absence of such a hearing deprives stakeholders of the
opportunity to assess, question, and potentially contest the purported
public interest and the need for this particular taking.
C. Ensuring Public Discourse and Participation
The right to a public hearing is a cornerstone of democratic processes,
allowing for the expression of support, opposition, and the proposal of
alternatives. The City's bypassing of this process, without
incontrovertible justification, not only negates this right but also
suggests a potential deficiency in the project's planning and rationale.
The community's ability to offer input, gain understanding, and hold the
City accountable for decisions affecting their environment and property
rights is of paramount importance. An exemption from such a process
must not be granted lightly or without clear, compelling, and publicly
disclosed reasons.
D. Request for Judicial Scrutiny
Given these substantial concerns, I respectfully request that this
honorable Court subject the City's claim for exemption from public
hearing requirements to rigorous judicial scrutiny. The City should be
compelled to demonstrate on the record that its claimed exemption
strictly conforms to the legal standards set forth by the EDPL. Absent
such demonstration, the public's right to a hearing must be preserved
to ensure transparency, democratic participation, and the proper
adjudication of the public interest and necessity in this matter.
Ill. Inadequate Consideration of
Alternatives to Eminent Domain
A. Duty to Explore Less Invasive Options
The use of eminent domain is an extreme measure, reserved for
situations where the public good cannot reasonably be accomplished
through less drastic means. It is incumbent upon the condemnor to
4 of 7
FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023
conduct a diligent and thorough search for alternatives that do not
require the compulsory acquisition of private property. This principle is
not merely a formality but a substantive requirement rooted in the
respect for private property rights and the stewardship of public trust.
B. Absence of Justification for Lack of Alternatives
The City's petition to acquire my property eminent domain has not
by
been accompanied by any evidence to suggest that a comprehensive
search for alternative solutions was conducted. There is no indication
that the City has considered or analyzed potential modifications to the
project design, alternative project sites, or methods that would mitigate
the need for taking private property. The law does not favor eminent
domain where reasonable alternatives exist, and as such, the City bears
the burden of proof to demonstrate that all plausible alternatives have
been considered and found impracticable.
C. Requirement for Demonstrable Necessity
The justification for the lack of alternatives should not be cursory or
speculative. it must be grounded in rigorous analysis and empirical
data. The petitioner has the right to expect a detailed explanation as to
why the property in question is uniquely suited to the project's needs
and why other properties or designs would fail to meet these needs.
The City must present a clear narrative that details the processes it
undertook to arrive at the conclusion that eminent domain was the only
viable option.
D. Call for Comprehensive Alternatives Analysis
I hereby assert that the City's proposal to utilize eminent domain lacks
the necessary substantive evidence of an exhaustive alternatives
analysis. The Court should require the City to disclose records of any
studies, surveys, or analyses conducted that led to the determination
that taking my property is essential for the project. in the absence of
such evidence, the premise of the necessity for eminent domain
remains unsubstantiated and calls into question the validity of the City's
claim to my property.
5 of 7
FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023
Based on the detailed arguments outlined in the preceding sections, it
is evident that the City of Binghamton's attempt to acquire a portion of
my property via eminent domain is both procedurally flawed and
unjust. The three areas of concern - valuation
substantively primary
discrepancies, procedural concerns, and inadequate consideration of
alternatives - each highlight significant failings in the City's approach
to this taking .
Conclusion and Resolutions Sought
in conclusion, I respectfully assert the fof fowing:
Fair and Transparent Valuation: The City must provide a
comprehensive, transparent, and current valuation of the property in
question, respecting both its current state and its potential for future
development. This valuation must include considerations for recent
improvements, potential consequential damages, and the dynamic
nature of the market.
Adherence to Procedural Norms: The City's claim to an exemption
from public hearing requirements lacks transparent justification and
must be re-examined. A public hearing should be conducted, allowing
for a fair and open discourse on the necessity and utility of the
proposed project, in alignment with the principles enshrined in the
EDPL.
Thorough Exploration of Afternatives: It is imperative that the City
demonstrates a rigorous and exhaustive exploration of less invasive
alternatives to the use of eminent domain. The City should be required
to provide evidence that all possible alternatives have been
considered and reasonably discounted.
6 of 7
FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023
In light of these arguments, I request that the Court consider the
following actions:
Remanding the case back to the City with directions to conduct a
new, fair, and comprehensive valuation of the property.
Ordering the City to hold a public hearing, with full transparency, to
discuss and justify the necessity and public interest of the project, as
well as the choice of my property.
Mandating the City to present a detailed report on the alternatives
considered, substantiated with empirical data and analysis, to justify
the use of eminent domain as the only viable option.
It is my sincere hope that these measures will ensure a fair,
transparent, and just resolution to this matter, respecting both the
rights of the property owner and the genuine needs of the public. My
opposition to the City's current approach is rooted not in a disregard
for the public good, but in a firm belief in the principles of fairness,
transparency, and due process.
Respectfully,
Liam Burns
Owner, Lucky 13 Acquisitions, LLC
120 Hawley St
Binghamton NY 13905
607-240-8714
7 of 7
Preview
FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023 Cga C600 FROM THE DESK OF LIAM BURNS November 2, 2023 Response to Petition for Eminent Domain of Parcel TAX ID: 160.40-1-45 I, Liam Burns, am the lawful owner of the property Luck 13 Acquisitions, LLC identified Tax Identification No. 166 .90-1- located by Map 4C, within the jurisdiction of the City of Binghamton. I am in receipt of the City's petition to acquire a fee interest in a portion of my property through the power of eminent domain. The project for which my land is sought-comprising ADA-compliant improvements and associated infrastructural upgrades-is undoubtedly of public utility. However, I must register my unequivocal opposition to this taking for the following substantiated reasons: Discrepancies" I. valuation The offer made for the portion of my property fails to reflect its fair market value, taking into account not only the current use but also the highest and best use of the property. The valuation must be substantively equitable, compensating for the full extent of the loss of my property, including any diminution in the value of the remaining property. I assert that the offer does not justly compensate for these factors, and further independent valuation is warranted to ensure fairness. II. Procedural Concerns: The City avers that it is exempt from public hearing requirements under specific provisions of the EDPL. I contest this exemption on the grounds that the criteria for such an exemption have not been transparently met or demonstrated. The public interest purportedly served by this project, as well as the necessity of taking my particular parcel of land, must be clearly established and open to public discourse. 1 of 7 FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023 III.Inadequate Consideration of Alternatives: There is no evidence presented that a diligent search for less invasive alternatives was undertaken. The principle of eminent domain necessitates that it be employed only when all other options have been exhausted or deemed unviable. I maintain that the City has not sufficiently justified the lack of alternative solutions that would spare my property from seizure. I. Regarding the Justness of Valuation A. Lack of Transparency and Basis for Valuation The condemnor's failure to provide a detailed and justified appraisal undermines the legitimacy of the offer and contravenes the mandates of EDPL Section 303. Without a transparent basis for valuation, the proposal lacks the requisite justness and adequacy. B. Future Use and Inherent Value of the Property The valuation overlooks the highest and best use of the property, as evidenced by planned developments which significantly enhance the property's potential. The jurisprudential standard set forth in Matter of City of New York [Kaiser Woodcraft Corp.] necessitates such considerations, which have been neglected in the condemnor's assessment. C. Recent Mandated Improvements to the Property Recent improvements done with state grant funds limit my ability to sell the property without penalties. Also the map indicating the sidewalks are slate show the map is dated, as these were replaced years ago with proper concrete sidewalks. This has in creased the 2 of 7 FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023 property's value, an aspect not reflected in the offer. This enhancement to the property's utility and worth must factor into a fair valuation. D. Market Dynamics and Timing of Offer The initial valuation was premised on an outdated market assessment, disregarding the dynamic nature of real estate valuation, particularly in light of recent inflationary pressures and demographic shifts. Hakes v. State underscores the need for current market conditions to inform the valuation. E. Consequential Damages The offer omits considerations for consequential damages, which encompass a range of pecuniary losses directly attributable to the taking. The EDPL Article 5 stipulates such considerations, which have been omitted in the valuation process. II. Procedural Concerns Regarding Public Hearing Exemptions A. Transparency in Meeting Exemption Criteria The City of Binghamton asserts an exemption from public hearing obligations by invoking specific provisions of the New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL). This claim raises procedural concerns, primarily due to the lack of clear, demonstrable evidence that the City has satisfied the stringent criteria for such an exemption. The EDPL mandates a transparent process when determining the applicability of exemptions, especially those that circumvent public participation. The City must provide conclusive evidence that all conditions for exemption have been unequivocally met, which includes, but is not limited to, the demonstration of equivalent analyses as stipulated under EDPL Section 206(A) and a comprehensive justification for the categorization of the acquisition as de minimis or emergent under Section 206(D). B. Justification of Public Interest and Necessity for Land Acquisition The City's exemption claim also presupposes that the public interest and the necessity of the proposed project are beyond dispute. However, the significance of the public interest cannot be presumed 3 of 7 FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023 and must be substantively demonstrated. Moreover, the specific necessity of appropriating my parcel of land, rather than any other, requires a robust justification. This necessity must be open to scrutiny and debate, a process inherently linked to the right to a public hearing. The absence of such a hearing deprives stakeholders of the opportunity to assess, question, and potentially contest the purported public interest and the need for this particular taking. C. Ensuring Public Discourse and Participation The right to a public hearing is a cornerstone of democratic processes, allowing for the expression of support, opposition, and the proposal of alternatives. The City's bypassing of this process, without incontrovertible justification, not only negates this right but also suggests a potential deficiency in the project's planning and rationale. The community's ability to offer input, gain understanding, and hold the City accountable for decisions affecting their environment and property rights is of paramount importance. An exemption from such a process must not be granted lightly or without clear, compelling, and publicly disclosed reasons. D. Request for Judicial Scrutiny Given these substantial concerns, I respectfully request that this honorable Court subject the City's claim for exemption from public hearing requirements to rigorous judicial scrutiny. The City should be compelled to demonstrate on the record that its claimed exemption strictly conforms to the legal standards set forth by the EDPL. Absent such demonstration, the public's right to a hearing must be preserved to ensure transparency, democratic participation, and the proper adjudication of the public interest and necessity in this matter. Ill. Inadequate Consideration of Alternatives to Eminent Domain A. Duty to Explore Less Invasive Options The use of eminent domain is an extreme measure, reserved for situations where the public good cannot reasonably be accomplished through less drastic means. It is incumbent upon the condemnor to 4 of 7 FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023 conduct a diligent and thorough search for alternatives that do not require the compulsory acquisition of private property. This principle is not merely a formality but a substantive requirement rooted in the respect for private property rights and the stewardship of public trust. B. Absence of Justification for Lack of Alternatives The City's petition to acquire my property eminent domain has not by been accompanied by any evidence to suggest that a comprehensive search for alternative solutions was conducted. There is no indication that the City has considered or analyzed potential modifications to the project design, alternative project sites, or methods that would mitigate the need for taking private property. The law does not favor eminent domain where reasonable alternatives exist, and as such, the City bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that all plausible alternatives have been considered and found impracticable. C. Requirement for Demonstrable Necessity The justification for the lack of alternatives should not be cursory or speculative. it must be grounded in rigorous analysis and empirical data. The petitioner has the right to expect a detailed explanation as to why the property in question is uniquely suited to the project's needs and why other properties or designs would fail to meet these needs. The City must present a clear narrative that details the processes it undertook to arrive at the conclusion that eminent domain was the only viable option. D. Call for Comprehensive Alternatives Analysis I hereby assert that the City's proposal to utilize eminent domain lacks the necessary substantive evidence of an exhaustive alternatives analysis. The Court should require the City to disclose records of any studies, surveys, or analyses conducted that led to the determination that taking my property is essential for the project. in the absence of such evidence, the premise of the necessity for eminent domain remains unsubstantiated and calls into question the validity of the City's claim to my property. 5 of 7 FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023 Based on the detailed arguments outlined in the preceding sections, it is evident that the City of Binghamton's attempt to acquire a portion of my property via eminent domain is both procedurally flawed and unjust. The three areas of concern - valuation substantively primary discrepancies, procedural concerns, and inadequate consideration of alternatives - each highlight significant failings in the City's approach to this taking . Conclusion and Resolutions Sought in conclusion, I respectfully assert the fof fowing: Fair and Transparent Valuation: The City must provide a comprehensive, transparent, and current valuation of the property in question, respecting both its current state and its potential for future development. This valuation must include considerations for recent improvements, potential consequential damages, and the dynamic nature of the market. Adherence to Procedural Norms: The City's claim to an exemption from public hearing requirements lacks transparent justification and must be re-examined. A public hearing should be conducted, allowing for a fair and open discourse on the necessity and utility of the proposed project, in alignment with the principles enshrined in the EDPL. Thorough Exploration of Afternatives: It is imperative that the City demonstrates a rigorous and exhaustive exploration of less invasive alternatives to the use of eminent domain. The City should be required to provide evidence that all possible alternatives have been considered and reasonably discounted. 6 of 7 FILED: BROOME COUNTY CLERK 11/13/2023 09:49 AM INDEX NO. EFCA2023002255 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 20 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/13/2023 In light of these arguments, I request that the Court consider the following actions: Remanding the case back to the City with directions to conduct a new, fair, and comprehensive valuation of the property. Ordering the City to hold a public hearing, with full transparency, to discuss and justify the necessity and public interest of the project, as well as the choice of my property. Mandating the City to present a detailed report on the alternatives considered, substantiated with empirical data and analysis, to justify the use of eminent domain as the only viable option. It is my sincere hope that these measures will ensure a fair, transparent, and just resolution to this matter, respecting both the rights of the property owner and the genuine needs of the public. My opposition to the City's current approach is rooted not in a disregard for the public good, but in a firm belief in the principles of fairness, transparency, and due process. Respectfully, Liam Burns Owner, Lucky 13 Acquisitions, LLC 120 Hawley St Binghamton NY 13905 607-240-8714 7 of 7