“Rowing in the Same Direction”: Regional Economic Development in NYS

By Nick Herubin, Albany Government Law Review

An ongoing problem in economic development is getting the municipalities in a particular region to work together to grow the area’s economy.  New York’s “home rule” essentially gives towns and cities complete control over planning and zoning.[1]  This can create problems including sprawl and a general lack of a coherent economic development plan.  When an economic development plan is effective, it can allow a region to capitalize on its strengths and boost the entire area’s economy.  When there is no regional plan or an ineffective plan, however, economic development can lead to haphazard development as towns and cities squabble over state funding for the latest big project.  The key is for state leaders to get local officials around a particular region working together, or as one local development official in Schenectady puts it, “rowing in the same direction.”[2] Continue reading ““Rowing in the Same Direction”: Regional Economic Development in NYS”

A Wal-Mart at the Northgate Plaza: Political Reality in a Nutshell

Robert Magee, Lead Writer, RMagee@albanylaw.edu

The Northgate Plaza is a run down shopping plaza in Greece, New York, a town seven miles northwest of Rochester.  The Northgate Plaza’s story isn’t unlike those of a lot of shopping plazas in the state.  It was built in 1953 during an economic upswing that was only able to carry the plaza for about 25 years.1 Though it was once home to big name stores like J.C. Penny and Woolworth’s,2 the plaza’s biggest draws nowadays are a Hallmark Store, a Citizen’s Bank, a Big Lots marked by a broken sign, and “what might be the slowest, 24-hour McDonald’s, in the history of mankind.”3 Much of the Northgate Plaza is vacant and all involved agree that the plaza has fallen into disrepair.  Like many such plazas in its situation, the Northgate’s owners, the Widewaters Group, have looked to Walmart to resuscitate it and Walmart is seeking to oblige.4 Walmart has agreed to build a “supercenter” in the plaza, which would require much of the existing plaza to be knocked down and the eviction of a handful of small businesses operating there.5 Like many such plans, it has drawn the ire of reside local residents, who have formed Residents Against Walmart (RAW).  RAW has vowed ardent opposition to its implementation, and insists that the Walmart will erode the character of their neighborhood.6

In September 2007, the Greece Town Planning and Zoning Board approved the plan over these protestations, and the Greece Zoning Board of Appeals followed soon after.7 RAW has appealed a Supreme Court dismissal for lack of standing to the Appellate Division, which will hear argument on the case within the month.8

“For the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community,” town boards have the authority to enact zoning regulations which regulate development within the town board’s jurisdiction.9 Though the boards can do this directly, more often town planning boards, panels of five or seven members who are appointed by the town board, promulgate zoning regulations.10 The town board, in turn, is a governing body whose existence is mandated by the New York Constitution to govern most municipal corporations.11 A town board consists of the town supervisor and council members who are elected by the residents of the given town.12 The town board also appoints three to five people to a zoning board of appeals (ZBA)13, which holds public hearings on challenges to decisions made by administrative officials with authority to enforce zoning laws and rules on their validity.14 However, ZBAs are not vested with the authority to review zoning regulations in and of themselves.15 Since the Northgate Plaza is zoned for the commercial use that Wal-Mart would make of it, RAW is forced into the awkward position of appealing Greece zoning officials’ interpretation of existing zoning laws.  This RAW can only do by showing that “commercial use” within the existing law does not contemplate or would be violated by the presence of a Wal-Mart Supercenter.

Within its sphere, the authority of a duly constituted ZBA is functionally plenary.16 An aggrieved party with standing may initiate an Article 78 proceeding against a ZBA determination in the relevant division of the Supreme Court17 and will be entitled to a hearing there18 on an expedited basis.19 As with any Article 78 proceeding, the initiating party is limited to specific grounds for appealing the ZBA’s determination.  It can allege only that 1) the official failed to perform a duty required by law, 2) that the official acted without jurisdiction, 3) that the official failed to follow proper procedure,  misinterpreted the law or acted capriciously, or 4) that the determination (if it was made upon a hearing) was not based on substantial evidence.20 This, coupled with a judicial culture deferential to the on-the-ground-decisions of local officials, means that RAW faces a very high hurdle on appeal, even if they manage to overturn the lower court’s finding that they altogether lacked standing to bring the proceeding in the first place. Continue reading “A Wal-Mart at the Northgate Plaza: Political Reality in a Nutshell”

Panel 2: Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation Under RLUIPA

Sarah Darnell, Staff Writer, SDarnell@albanylaw.edu, Tanya Davis, Staff Writer, SDavis@albanylaw.edu & Daniel Wood, Staff Writer, DWood@albanylaw.edu

     The Symposium’s second panel explored legislative intent and statutory interpretation under RLUIPA.  The panel discussed how RLUIPA applies to building codes, aesthetic regulations, the exercise of eminent domain, and determining damages. 

Participating in the panel were:

Amy Lavine from the Albany Law School Government Law Center served as moderator. Continue reading “Panel 2: Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation Under RLUIPA”