Lockport Union-Sun & Journal Online

Local News

January 3, 2014

Court throws out GM lawsuit

Lockport Union-Sun & Journal — The Town of Lockport Industrial Development Agency can continue the process of taking a piece of General Motors Corp. property via eminent domain in order to enlarge its industrial park, the State Supreme Court ruled last week.

In a three-page decision released Dec. 27, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court said GM failed to prove that the IDA’s attempt was “without foundation and baseless.” The auto giant claimed the agency’s seizure of the land wasn’t in the public’s best interest, calling such an idea “illusory because potential developers have the option to purchase the property from GM,” court documents said.

The IDA Board of Directors voted in April to use the town’s power of eminent domain to take 91 acres off Junction Road, which borders the industrial park. The plan was to expand the park in order to draw more business and development, the IDA said.

Since the creation of the 201-acre IDA Park, 30 businesses have been assisted, leading to $399 million in investment and the employment of 491 residents, according to the decision. Only 56 acres of vacant land were still available, with just 33 of that suitable for sale and development.

So town officials said under the provisions of General Municipal Law Section 858, subdivision 4, local industrial development agencies can acquire real property for economic development purposes through eminent domain. GM objected, filing the suit in May.

The court’s decision should end the court battles, said Morgan L. Jones Jr., the Lockport attorney representing the town IDA in the litigation. It’s highly unlikely GM has the grounds to appeal, Jones said.

And the next step is to negotiate a purchase price for the property, said David R. Kinyon, the IDA executive director. An appraisal of the land is expected soon.

In its suit, GM had claimed the IDA did not comply with state environmental review standards because the SEQRA study did not take into consideration the future development of the land. The court ruled that doesn’t matter, because there wasn’t a buyer or a specific plan in place when the review was done.

Text Only
Local News
Featured Ads
Front page
Community Events
Hyperlocal Search
Premier Guide
Find a business

Walking Fingers
Maps, Menus, Store hours, Coupons, and more...
Premier Guide
AP Video
Captain of Sunken SKorean Ferry Arrested Raw: Fire Destroys 3 N.J. Beachfront Homes Raw: Pope Presides Over Good Friday Mass Raw: Space X Launches to Space Station Superheroes Descend on Capitol Mall Man Charged in Kansas City Highway Shootings Obama Awards Navy Football Trophy Anti-semitic Leaflets Posted in Eastern Ukraine Raw: Magnitude-7.2 Earthquake Shakes Mexico City Ceremony at MIT Remembers One of Boston's Finest Raw: Students Hurt in Colo. School Bus Crash Raw: Church Tries for Record With Chalk Jesus Raw: Faithful Celebrate Good Friday Worldwide Deadly Avalanche Sweeps Slopes of Mount Everest Police Arrest Suspect in Highway Shootings Drought Concerns May Hurt Lake Tourism Vermont Goat Meat Gives Refugees Taste of Home Calif. Investigators Re-construct Fatal Bus Cras Mayor Rob Ford Launches Re-election Campaign Appellate Court Hears Okla. Gay Marriage Case