Eminent Domain - Ledger - Tighter eminent-domain controls urged

*
Tighter eminent-domain controls urged
Public advocate asks legislators to make seizures of private property for public use harder, more transparent

Friday, May 19, 2006

BY STEVE CHAMBERS
Star-Ledger Staff

In a biting critique of the state's redevelopment law, Public Advo cate Ronald Chen yesterday asked lawmakers to rein in what has become a widespread practice of seiz ing private homes and businesses to further private development projects.

Chen's suggestions on the use of eminent domain by local governments would make the process more transparent and difficult to manipulate by campaign contributors. But they would first have to find their way into law.

More than a dozen bills have been introduced to crack down on the practice, but Democratic lawmakers are poised to introduce a new reform bill that they say could be approved next month. It would alter but not eliminate what some supporters argue is an important tool for revitalizing urban areas.

As others have testified in re cent months, however, Chen said constitutional protections for property owners have eroded to the point that property is being seized almost without notice, for little compensation and to enrich developers using campaign contributions to win support.

In what may be his most stringent suggestion, Chen zeroed in on the loose definition for deeming a property "in need of redevelopment," thus making it eligible to be seized.

A 1992 change by the Legislature allowed local officials to seize property that is "underutilized." Chen noted that another change in 2003 made his own suburban home in Berkeley Heights subject to condemnation, because it is located in a state-declared growth area.

"We must restrict the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment to truly blighted areas," Chen told members of the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee. "And we must ensure that the rights of New Jersey families are protected."

Chen did not go so far as to ask for a moratorium, noting that the state's 1947 constitution clearly gave government the right to condemn blighted property for redevelopment.

Michael Cerra, a spokesman for the state League of Municipalities, which supports the practice, said the group agrees that issues of public notice, transparency and compensation need to be addressed.

But he said that removing whole portions of the 1992 definition would require careful study.

"That is a concern of ours," Cerra said.

In recent years, towns increasingly have used condemnation to further development plans. Between July 2003 and August 2005, 64 municipalities declared areas in need of redevelopment, clearing the way for the possible use of eminent domain.

Although Chen's office is independent, Gov. Jon Corzine has allowed him to take the lead on the issue and so far has sat out the legislative debate. During the campaign, he made similarly strong calls for reform, arguing that the use of eminent domain was being abused.

Yesterday, he said he had not yet read Chen's recommendations but added that the advocate did not appear to have "overstepped his bounds."

"I actually probably had a more aggressive position ... in my campaign," Corzine said.

Lawmakers who have been studying the practice -- and get ting an earful from angry property owners -- praised Chen's thorough work. But it was decidedly unclear how much of it will find its way into the reform bill.

Sen. Ronald L. Rice (D-Essex), who unveiled a bill yesterday to reform but not eliminate the prac tice, declined to work with Chen during his fact-finding mission.

Assemblyman John J. Burzi chelli (D-Gloucester), chairman of the commerce committee, said he believed that much of what Chen offered could be absorbed in the upcoming bill, saying he was particularly attuned to his call to protect homeowners. Still, he noted, Chen acknowledged the role that eminent domain can play in redevelopment.

"There is nothing we have heard or seen, even from those most critical, that eminent domain should not remain as a redevelopment tool," he said. "It's all about how it gets triggered, issues of compensation and due process."

Not every lawmaker agrees that that will be enough.

Other Democrats have introduced legislation that would ban the taking of houses for private development.

Assemblyman Mike Panter (D- Monmouth) said Chen did not go far enough, noting that responsible business owners or homeowners could lose their property if neighbors allow theirs to become "blighted."

"It's just fundamentally wrong," Panter said. "People should not be punished for their neighbors' negligence."

Assemblyman Guy Gregg (R- Morris), who praised Chen's work, said voters should be heard on whether to discontinue the prac tice.

"Citizens have no idea that their house can be taken to build a Wal- Mart, but that is what is happening," he said. "I don't have to take a poll to know how that vote would turn out."

Steve Chambers covers land use issues. He may be reached at scham bers@starledger.com or (973) 392-1674.

http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-3/114802035496900.xml&coll=1

(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.)