Professor Somin has written an incisive critique of the New York Court of Appeals’ decisions in Kaur and Goldstein, the gist of which is that the Court did not do enough to stop “highly abusive blight condemnations.” There are, however, two difficulties with the critique. First, as a matter of legalistic interpretation of the New York Constitution, the critique is not very persuasive. Second, as a matter of policy, Professor Somin’s proposal is unlikely to be adopted by any judge influenced by the same political process that lead to the condemnations that Professor Somin attacks.
Roderick M. Hills,
Against Mushy Balancing Tests in Blight Condemnation Jurisprudence,
39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 29
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol39/iss0/2