Eminent Domain - Courier - 1 of 6 - High court ruling made seizure an issue of 'eminent' concern

*
Courier News Online - Sunday, May 7, 2006

Ruling by high court made seizure an issue of 'eminent' concern

By KAREN SUDOL and CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS
Gannett New Jersey

It was the Kelo vs. New London decision that triggered it.

Once the U.S. Supreme Court determined last June that New London, Conn., could condemn homes in an aging neighborhood for a private development, a New Jersey legislator saw a trend.

Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli, D-Gloucester, said he and other members of an Assembly committee noted that people were growing uneasy about the government's power of eminent domain to seize private property for private development.

That dissatisfaction, combined with public outcries over redevelopment projects along the Jersey Shore, compelled the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee to hold a series of hearings on the issue, said Burzichelli, who is mayor of Paulsboro in Gloucester County.

The committee is considering reforms to the state's 1992 Local Redevelopment and Housing law, which permits government to redevelop blighted areas, including seizing private property through the use of eminent domain and turning it over to private developers.

"It's our job to understand the range of concerns and try to determine if the law in place is being interpreted other than why the law was crafted," Burzichelli said.

The committee is examining how property owners are compensated when their land is taken by eminent domain. Changes to the criteria government use to determine whether an area needs to be redeveloped also are being considered. But committee members are not looking to eliminate the use of eminent domain for redevelopment projects, Burzichelli said.

Hearings aren't the only way state lawmakers and officials, as well as property rights advocates, are pushing for reforms on how redevelopment is authorized and how eminent domain occurs following the outcry over the Kelo court decision.

For example, the state's new public advocate, Ronald K. Chen, is investigating the role of eminent domain in private development and will issue a report with recommendations to the governor.

"I think it's obvious that it's receiving a lot of public attention right now," Chen said.

Reviewing eminent domain, he said, was a joint decision with Gov. Jon S. Corzine, who had pledged during his campaign to protect residents by limiting the use of eminent domain to "rare and exceptional circumstances" and increasing compensation for people who lose their homes to condemnation. Corzine has not called for a ban on government seizures of land for private development.

And the Legislature appears to be listening. The state Senate's Community and Urban Affairs committee, chaired by Sen. Ronald L. Rice, D-Essex, has convened a group familiar with redevelopment, including the New Jersey State League of Municipalities and homeowners' rights advocates, with the goal of making recommendations and proposed changes to the Legislature.

"The committee will be taking those proposals from this working group and putting forth the best legislation that meets everyone's goals," said Jason Butkowski, a spokesman for the Senate Democratic Majority Office.

The first two Assembly committee hearings focused on how eminent domain is used and testimonials from 42 affected property owners, Burzichelli said.

A third hearing, sometime this month, will call on Assembly members who have introduced eminent-domain reform bills.

Numerous bills have been advanced by state lawmakers ranging from calls for a moratorium on eminent domain for economic development to a public referendum requirement for any land government plans to sell or transfer to a private developer.

State Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Ocean, has sponsored legislation outlawing the use of eminent domain for residential properties tied to redevelopment areas. Connors, who also is Surf City's mayor, said eminent domain should be used only for road or capital improvements necessary for the welfare of a town.

"To take property for economic reasons" where a person maintains his or her property and pays taxes all because a town wants to make more money "is absolutely terrible," he said.

The swift legislative response reflects a national trend. Twelve states already have enacted laws or modifications to existing eminent domain laws, said David Parkhurst, who tracks the trend for the National League of Cities.

There are more than 40 states considering eminent domain reform legislation, he said.

http://www.c-n.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060507/NEWS/605070332

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)