Published in the New York Times, Sunday, September 2, 2007
How Eminent Should Domain Be?
By JOSEPH BERGER
YORKTOWN
NICHOLAS J. BIANCO has a strong sense of place, having sampled many local landscapes and ending up comfortably in a town where he can often breathe country air. The son of Italian immigrants, he grew up in the 1950s in the jostling streets of the Bronx, and, after marrying, warily walked a cop’s beat in his next home, Yonkers.
For the past 35 years, he has watched Yorktown peel off its lingering pretensions of butter churns and blacksmiths and slip on the trappings of a standard-issue suburb — shopping centers and subdivisions included.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that a government could use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development, including commercial uses like malls. (Some of the property for the new headquarters of The New York Times was acquired through eminent domain.) Mr. Bianco felt the ruling was wrong, even un-American, violating the near-sanctity of a place of one’s own. So did fellow townsfolk who asked him, as a member of the Town Council: “Will you ever do that?”
“Not on my watch,” he promised.
Last January, he went further and engineered passage of a law barring the town from condemning private property for commercial purposes, while allowing it for traditional public uses, like the building of roads, sewers and schools. A vague declaration that a neighborhood is blighted or dangling a promise of jobs and taxes could not be used to expropriate a home or shop for a developer’s benefit.
“It’s not the government’s right to say that you’ve got to move, you, a person who lived here and paid taxes here,” Mr. Bianco, 63, said in a Panera Bread store. “My belief is the individual is just as important as the mass. That’s our Constitution. Every citizen is important.”
He compares limits on property expropriation to the limits he faced as a police officer (he rose to detective sergeant, and now works as an investigator for Westchester’s Legal Aid Society.) “You can’t just go up and search somebody,” he said. “We protect the individual’s rights.”
“Let’s face it,” he went on. “It’s usually done to the lower socioeconomic parts of the population — the people who can’t fight it, don’t have the means. It’s not happening on one-acre homes in Scarsdale. And that’s distasteful. You’re picking off the weak.”
No other Westchester municipality has followed Yorktown’s example, according to Valerie O’Keeffe, president of the Westchester Municipal Officials Association, even though there remains tension in Port Chester years after a developer, armed with the village’s power of condemnation, cleared away 400 businesses along Main Street for a waterfront mall containing a Costco and Loew’s multiplex.
New Rochelle’s mayor, Noam Bramson, says that eminent domain should be used for development, though “judiciously and only when the broad public interest demands it.” Forswearing it entirely, he said, would make it difficult to assemble land to revitalize downtowns, forcing cities and towns to build on their outskirts. The new law in Yorktown, which used eminent domain more than three decades ago to spruce up Commerce Street with new businesses, passed without much of the fury that has sometimes characterized the nationwide debate. Linda Cooper, the town supervisor, said that while she supported the law to calm anxieties, she thinks it is superfluous. The town’s business district, she said, has been thoroughly developed, with residential and commercial zones marked and no room for growth. Besides, she said, the Town Board could revoke the law in the future.
But for many of Yorktown’s 37,000 residents, the idea that their part-time representatives — people who roll out their garbage on pickup days just like they do — could take away a fellow citizen’s home chafed. “We have a small-town mentality,” Tony Romano, an architect who has lived here since 1969, said as he ran into Mr. Bianco outside Panera’s. “We don’t want the government giving the store away.”
Mr. Bianco took a visitor to Front Street, where among a UPS. warehouse, a school bus lot, a car wash and other industrial-grade properties, Bruno Cusentino’s modest ranch house stood out as if it had been attired for the wrong party. He fears that the house and its land could be candidates for condemnation.
Mr. Cusentino’s son, Bruno Jr., a barber, said the family would be willing to listen if some company wanted to negotiate a fair price. But having the government take it on behalf of a business seemed unfair to him. “It’s common sense,” he told Mr. Bianco.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Showing posts with label Eminent Domain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eminent Domain. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Eminent Domain - NY Times - Long Branch Outcome Awaited
Published in the New York Times, Sunday, July 29, 2007
[Eminent Domain]
Now You Own It, Soon You Don't?
By RUSS BUETTNER
IT'S not so much the modest bungalow's spacious second-floor addition or the expansive side yard that gets to Lori Ann Vendetti.
The thing that keeps her fighting is the misty ocean air that floats through her doorway when she lets her dog out in the morning. The salty aroma can transport her back to childhood weekends spent playing on the beach with her two brothers, long since dead and gone.
Neither Ms. Vendetti, 46, nor her parents across the street believe they can afford another place within a sniff of the ocean if the City of Long Branch, N.J., wins its 12-year effort to turn their homes over to a private developer who wants to build luxury condominiums.
''We always feel like things are stacked against us,'' said Ms. Vendetti, who has lived in her home for 12 years. ''But if they're going to take it from me, they're going to take it with a fight.''
During the last two years, homeowners and property-rights advocates across the country have echoed that sentiment, and state lawmakers have answered. A controversial United States Supreme Court decision in June 2005, which upheld the power of local governments to seize private property for the benefit of private businesses, inspired an uprising that led 40 states to pass laws that rein in, to varying degrees, that authority.
But legislatures in the three states in the New York metropolitan area, long seen by property-rights advocates as home to some of the worst abuses of eminent domain, have done little to change the status quo.
''New Jersey and New York are among the worst states in the country for eminent domain abuses -- New Jersey is really awful,'' said Dana Berliner, a senior lawyer at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va., which represents residential and business owners facing condemnation. ''What's interesting is that New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are some of the few states that have not managed to pass any decent legislation.''
In Connecticut, where the United States Supreme Court case originated, Gov. M. Jodi Rell late last month quietly signed a law that includes a prohibition on taking property ''primarily'' to increase local tax revenues, leaving open that reasoning as a secondary cause.
New York, which already allowed the taking of property for private use, saw its lawmakers introduce 17 related bills in 2006. But the Legislature passed only those laws seeking to ban two specific projects.
Similarly, New Jersey legislators have been unable to pass any bill. The State Supreme Court recently stepped into the breach, arguing that cities and towns cannot condemn properties simply because another use could be more productive. That ruling, in Gallenthin Realty Development v. Borough of Paulsboro, has already had an impact on several projects, including a plan to build 2,000 condominiums in downtown Newark.
Other states have instituted more precise definitions of blight, set minimum compensation levels above market value for the owners of seized properties and restricted eminent domain to more traditional public projects like schools and roads. The legislative changes have been driven by an unusual alliance of conservative Republican property-rights advocates and liberals interested in the rights of lower-income people.
Not everyone believes such measures are needed. It remains to be seen if the new laws will protect property owners without chilling redevelopment projects. ''You had this huge uproar,'' said Larry Morandi, who has tracked the new laws at the National Conference of State Legislatures, ''and an incredibly fast legislative response. The effect of that legislation will be seen in how it is implemented, and that takes time.''
While supporters of the current laws say a reasoned analysis would show that eminent domain is most often employed as a last resort and without major conflict, what has driven the push for change and has led to so many lawsuits is anger at the potential loss of control over such a fundamental aspect of life.
The lead plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court case, Susette Kelo, a nurse who lived in a pink Victorian cottage in New London, Conn., opposed the town's condemnation of her neighborhood to make way for a private development of offices, condominiums and a hotel. The 5-to-4 majority opinion held that promoting economic development met the ''public use'' clause of the Fifth Amendment that allows condemnations. In a dissenting opinion in the case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave voice to the fear that started a revolt: ''Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.''
IN Norwalk, Conn., Nancy Esposito doesn't want to be uprooted or upgraded. Her family has owned and run Casey's Sheet Metal Service in Norwalk for 15 years. Five years ago, a developer showed up offering to buy their building as part of a plan to remake several blocks. Ms. Esposito has resisted, and watched as the developer bought most of the buildings and land around her.
''They keep saying they want to make this area a destination,'' Ms. Esposito said. ''I say that it is a destination. It's my destination.''
The developer, Stanley M. Seligson, a Norwalk native, envisions a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood spanning several blocks, with more than 500,000 square feet of stores, restaurants and theaters, 350 apartments and a large medical center. His project would be contiguous with other large developments.
Mr. Seligson said he has so far acquired 75 percent of the property and was determined to acquire the remaining properties without the town invoking eminent domain. Town officials see the neighborhood as part an old urban core that has not responded to less sweeping redevelopment incentives. Four contiguous redevelopment projects are in the works, all of which have involved or could involve taking property through eminent domain if negotiations between the developer and property owners fail, said Susan Sweitzer, a senior project manager for the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency.
''The impetus is on the private developer to make this a nonissue,'' she said.
Ms. Esposito said she believed the cards were already stacked against her.
''They keep saying they will use eminent domain as a last resort,'' she said. ''But when they have the ultimate power to take your property, it's a done deal. There is no such thing as private property anymore.''
Governor Rell responded to the United States Supreme Court ruling involving the Kelo case by asking local governments to observe a voluntary moratorium on condemnations for private development until the state legislature could act. This year, she introduced legislation.
''It is time to clarify our eminent domain laws and make it absolutely clear when and why governments can -- and cannot -- take private property for public purposes,'' Mrs. Rell said in a statement in March.
The law that Mrs. Rell signed requires municipal legislative bodies to approve eminent domain seizures by a two-thirds majority and build in other protective measures for property owners. But property-rights advocates say the law's ban on citing increased tax revenues as a primary reason for condemnation will do little to clarify concerns about when property can be taken.
The new law also didn't include a provision that had been proposed by the governor to reimburse property owners at 125 percent of fair market value. Still, a spokesman for the governor said Mrs. Rell was pleased.
''Did it achieve everything that she wanted in one fell stroke? No,'' said Rich Harris, the spokesman. ''But certainly this is a considerable step forward from where the state was.''
James S. Alesi, a state senator from the Rochester area, held a series of hearings across the state on eminent domain after the Kelo decision. He said he was repeatedly told that New York didn't need a handful of hastily drafted bills, but rather a commission to study the issue.
''I thought it was beneficial to learn one key thing: We don't really have to do a lot in New York State,'' he said. ''As compared to other areas around the country, New York's laws are pretty strong.''
The New York State Bar Association has been the most prominent supporter of that position. Patricia E. Salkin, chairwoman of the association's eminent domain task force, said state laws might need tweaking, including a passage to increase public involvement in redevelopment plans and to extend the 30-day period allowed for owners of condemned property to file appeals. But she said states that passed more sweeping laws risked losing vital projects.
''We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water,'' said Ms. Salkin, director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School. ''We should make sure that it's a fair playing field for everybody.''
State Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Greenburgh in Westchester, said the choice was not black and white. ''The bottom line is we can fix the law so it protects average people and still maintain it as a tool,'' Mr. Brodsky said. ''The bar is entrenched on this one, and they're wrong.''
In 2004, Mr. Brodsky pushed through a bill that required that towns notify by mail property owners facing condemnation.
It followed a controversy in Port Chester, in which a local business owner hadn't seen the Westchester village's notice in a local newspaper that his property was facing condemnation to make way for a Stop & Shop supermarket.
The 30 days that the state law allows for appeals passed before the businessman, Bill Brody, had even heard about the plan. A federal judge this month ruled that Mr. Brody's due process rights had been violated.
''I think it's obvious that people are upset by what eminent domain is being used for,'' Mr. Brody said, ''and I think things are going to change.''
Not all redevelopment projects engender large controversy. On Long Island, the Village of Hempstead is moving forward with a $2 billion plan to replace 26 acres in the village's downtrodden center with a mix of 2,500 housing units, 600,000 square feet of retail space and a performing arts center. The city has agreed to sell 21 properties it owns to the developer and seize up to 58 privately owned properties if the developer cannot come to terms with the owners. Most of the concerns voiced so far, including at a packed meeting last week, have involved ensuring that the plan includes a significant amount of affordable housing and that current residents receive enough compensation to find new homes.
Mr. Brodsky introduced a bill last year calling for the appointment of an eminent domain ombudsman, compensating displaced homeowners at 150 percent of fair market value, and requiring that all condemnations for economic development be part of a comprehensive plan.
THE bill gained no traction in the State Assembly. ''This is an area where there's a lot of comfort with a bad law, and that's unfortunate,'' Mr. Brodsky said.
Mr. Alesi, the state senator from Rochester, maintains that state laws need only to be ''buffed up'' and that the laws may not offer enough protections. Courts are relied on to catch abuses, but average people don't have the resources for a legal fight with the government, he said. ''No one should have the American dream turned into their own personal nightmare because of the government,'' he said.
Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Town of Paulsboro had overreached in relying on a consultant's determination that an undeveloped 63-acre parcel could be condemned because it was ''not fully productive.''
''Under that approach, any property that is operated in less than optimal manner is arguably 'blighted,' '' wrote Chief Justice James R. Zazzali in the court's unanimous opinion. ''If such an all-encompassing definition were adopted, most property in the state would be eligible for redevelopment.''
Citing the Supreme Court ruling, an Essex County Superior Court judge ruled this month that Newark could not designate as blighted a 14-acre area on and around Mulberry Street so the land could be used to build condominiums. Several property owners had fought the city's efforts to take the land by eminent domain, arguing to the court that the area was still productive. A spokeswoman for Mayor Cory A. Booker said the city had not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling.
And an appellate panel last week rejected Lodi officials' efforts to replace two trailer parks with housing and shops. A newly elected Borough Council had dropped the plan earlier this month.
A bill that would more narrowly define blight passed the New Jersey State Assembly last year but has been tied up in a State Senate committee since.
The New Jersey League of Municipalities opposes limiting the power of municipalities in using eminent domain. Its opinion carries weight in a state with 566 municipalities, a strong tradition of home rule, and one in which many legislators are also mayors of their hometowns.
William G. Dressel, executive director of the league, said that with little undeveloped land left in the state, and with towns increasingly relying on property taxes to provide services, responsible town leaders must look for ways to redevelop unproductive land. ''We were quite frankly relieved that the court did not unravel the eminent domain statutes as it relates to the use of that tool for economic development purposes,'' he said. ''We feel very strongly that eminent domain is a viable economic development tool in New Jersey that is used sparingly.''
The state's public advocate, Ronald K. Chen, said a 1992 revision of the state statute created the ''not fully productive'' justification that ''opened up the floodgates'' for the improper use of eminent domain.
Mr. Chen's office recently issued a report that listed the plan in Long Branch, where Ms. Vendetti lives near the beach, under the heading ''Bogus Blight.'' It said the town based its conclusion on ''superficial'' exterior inspections that noted deteriorating paint or chipped masonry.
Nothing appears to be decrepit about the Vendettis' homes.
Carmen Vendetti, 80, had saved his money driving a truck to buy his family, in 1960, a modest respite from the harsher environs of their home in Newark. He and his wife, Josephine, moved there full time after he retired. Ms. Vendetti saved her money from a job with Amtrak and bought a house across the street from her parents in 1995. Two months later, she attended a town meeting where a developer's model of the neighborhood showed luxury buildings all along the oceanfront.
''They had a house on my lot,'' she said. ''I just laughed and thought, 'How are they going to do that?' No one ever used the words 'eminent domain.' ''
But Adam Schneider, the mayor of Long Branch for 17 years, said some in the area ignored the redevelopment plan, thinking it would fail, as had many before. Some homeowners have accepted offers of units made affordable to them in the new development, he said. He said that with just 20 percent of the construction completed, the beachfront has been transformed from a dangerous area of boarded-up storefronts to an upscale, year-round destination that includes packed restaurants and a popular park.
He said he thought the recent emotional backlash may dissuade officials in other areas from even trying such a sweeping turnaround using eminent domain.
''Politically it won't work anymore,'' he said. ''I think the time has come and gone.'' "
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
[Eminent Domain]
Now You Own It, Soon You Don't?
By RUSS BUETTNER
IT'S not so much the modest bungalow's spacious second-floor addition or the expansive side yard that gets to Lori Ann Vendetti.
The thing that keeps her fighting is the misty ocean air that floats through her doorway when she lets her dog out in the morning. The salty aroma can transport her back to childhood weekends spent playing on the beach with her two brothers, long since dead and gone.
Neither Ms. Vendetti, 46, nor her parents across the street believe they can afford another place within a sniff of the ocean if the City of Long Branch, N.J., wins its 12-year effort to turn their homes over to a private developer who wants to build luxury condominiums.
''We always feel like things are stacked against us,'' said Ms. Vendetti, who has lived in her home for 12 years. ''But if they're going to take it from me, they're going to take it with a fight.''
During the last two years, homeowners and property-rights advocates across the country have echoed that sentiment, and state lawmakers have answered. A controversial United States Supreme Court decision in June 2005, which upheld the power of local governments to seize private property for the benefit of private businesses, inspired an uprising that led 40 states to pass laws that rein in, to varying degrees, that authority.
But legislatures in the three states in the New York metropolitan area, long seen by property-rights advocates as home to some of the worst abuses of eminent domain, have done little to change the status quo.
''New Jersey and New York are among the worst states in the country for eminent domain abuses -- New Jersey is really awful,'' said Dana Berliner, a senior lawyer at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va., which represents residential and business owners facing condemnation. ''What's interesting is that New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are some of the few states that have not managed to pass any decent legislation.''
In Connecticut, where the United States Supreme Court case originated, Gov. M. Jodi Rell late last month quietly signed a law that includes a prohibition on taking property ''primarily'' to increase local tax revenues, leaving open that reasoning as a secondary cause.
New York, which already allowed the taking of property for private use, saw its lawmakers introduce 17 related bills in 2006. But the Legislature passed only those laws seeking to ban two specific projects.
Similarly, New Jersey legislators have been unable to pass any bill. The State Supreme Court recently stepped into the breach, arguing that cities and towns cannot condemn properties simply because another use could be more productive. That ruling, in Gallenthin Realty Development v. Borough of Paulsboro, has already had an impact on several projects, including a plan to build 2,000 condominiums in downtown Newark.
Other states have instituted more precise definitions of blight, set minimum compensation levels above market value for the owners of seized properties and restricted eminent domain to more traditional public projects like schools and roads. The legislative changes have been driven by an unusual alliance of conservative Republican property-rights advocates and liberals interested in the rights of lower-income people.
Not everyone believes such measures are needed. It remains to be seen if the new laws will protect property owners without chilling redevelopment projects. ''You had this huge uproar,'' said Larry Morandi, who has tracked the new laws at the National Conference of State Legislatures, ''and an incredibly fast legislative response. The effect of that legislation will be seen in how it is implemented, and that takes time.''
While supporters of the current laws say a reasoned analysis would show that eminent domain is most often employed as a last resort and without major conflict, what has driven the push for change and has led to so many lawsuits is anger at the potential loss of control over such a fundamental aspect of life.
The lead plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court case, Susette Kelo, a nurse who lived in a pink Victorian cottage in New London, Conn., opposed the town's condemnation of her neighborhood to make way for a private development of offices, condominiums and a hotel. The 5-to-4 majority opinion held that promoting economic development met the ''public use'' clause of the Fifth Amendment that allows condemnations. In a dissenting opinion in the case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor gave voice to the fear that started a revolt: ''Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.''
IN Norwalk, Conn., Nancy Esposito doesn't want to be uprooted or upgraded. Her family has owned and run Casey's Sheet Metal Service in Norwalk for 15 years. Five years ago, a developer showed up offering to buy their building as part of a plan to remake several blocks. Ms. Esposito has resisted, and watched as the developer bought most of the buildings and land around her.
''They keep saying they want to make this area a destination,'' Ms. Esposito said. ''I say that it is a destination. It's my destination.''
The developer, Stanley M. Seligson, a Norwalk native, envisions a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood spanning several blocks, with more than 500,000 square feet of stores, restaurants and theaters, 350 apartments and a large medical center. His project would be contiguous with other large developments.
Mr. Seligson said he has so far acquired 75 percent of the property and was determined to acquire the remaining properties without the town invoking eminent domain. Town officials see the neighborhood as part an old urban core that has not responded to less sweeping redevelopment incentives. Four contiguous redevelopment projects are in the works, all of which have involved or could involve taking property through eminent domain if negotiations between the developer and property owners fail, said Susan Sweitzer, a senior project manager for the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency.
''The impetus is on the private developer to make this a nonissue,'' she said.
Ms. Esposito said she believed the cards were already stacked against her.
''They keep saying they will use eminent domain as a last resort,'' she said. ''But when they have the ultimate power to take your property, it's a done deal. There is no such thing as private property anymore.''
Governor Rell responded to the United States Supreme Court ruling involving the Kelo case by asking local governments to observe a voluntary moratorium on condemnations for private development until the state legislature could act. This year, she introduced legislation.
''It is time to clarify our eminent domain laws and make it absolutely clear when and why governments can -- and cannot -- take private property for public purposes,'' Mrs. Rell said in a statement in March.
The law that Mrs. Rell signed requires municipal legislative bodies to approve eminent domain seizures by a two-thirds majority and build in other protective measures for property owners. But property-rights advocates say the law's ban on citing increased tax revenues as a primary reason for condemnation will do little to clarify concerns about when property can be taken.
The new law also didn't include a provision that had been proposed by the governor to reimburse property owners at 125 percent of fair market value. Still, a spokesman for the governor said Mrs. Rell was pleased.
''Did it achieve everything that she wanted in one fell stroke? No,'' said Rich Harris, the spokesman. ''But certainly this is a considerable step forward from where the state was.''
James S. Alesi, a state senator from the Rochester area, held a series of hearings across the state on eminent domain after the Kelo decision. He said he was repeatedly told that New York didn't need a handful of hastily drafted bills, but rather a commission to study the issue.
''I thought it was beneficial to learn one key thing: We don't really have to do a lot in New York State,'' he said. ''As compared to other areas around the country, New York's laws are pretty strong.''
The New York State Bar Association has been the most prominent supporter of that position. Patricia E. Salkin, chairwoman of the association's eminent domain task force, said state laws might need tweaking, including a passage to increase public involvement in redevelopment plans and to extend the 30-day period allowed for owners of condemned property to file appeals. But she said states that passed more sweeping laws risked losing vital projects.
''We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water,'' said Ms. Salkin, director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School. ''We should make sure that it's a fair playing field for everybody.''
State Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Greenburgh in Westchester, said the choice was not black and white. ''The bottom line is we can fix the law so it protects average people and still maintain it as a tool,'' Mr. Brodsky said. ''The bar is entrenched on this one, and they're wrong.''
In 2004, Mr. Brodsky pushed through a bill that required that towns notify by mail property owners facing condemnation.
It followed a controversy in Port Chester, in which a local business owner hadn't seen the Westchester village's notice in a local newspaper that his property was facing condemnation to make way for a Stop & Shop supermarket.
The 30 days that the state law allows for appeals passed before the businessman, Bill Brody, had even heard about the plan. A federal judge this month ruled that Mr. Brody's due process rights had been violated.
''I think it's obvious that people are upset by what eminent domain is being used for,'' Mr. Brody said, ''and I think things are going to change.''
Not all redevelopment projects engender large controversy. On Long Island, the Village of Hempstead is moving forward with a $2 billion plan to replace 26 acres in the village's downtrodden center with a mix of 2,500 housing units, 600,000 square feet of retail space and a performing arts center. The city has agreed to sell 21 properties it owns to the developer and seize up to 58 privately owned properties if the developer cannot come to terms with the owners. Most of the concerns voiced so far, including at a packed meeting last week, have involved ensuring that the plan includes a significant amount of affordable housing and that current residents receive enough compensation to find new homes.
Mr. Brodsky introduced a bill last year calling for the appointment of an eminent domain ombudsman, compensating displaced homeowners at 150 percent of fair market value, and requiring that all condemnations for economic development be part of a comprehensive plan.
THE bill gained no traction in the State Assembly. ''This is an area where there's a lot of comfort with a bad law, and that's unfortunate,'' Mr. Brodsky said.
Mr. Alesi, the state senator from Rochester, maintains that state laws need only to be ''buffed up'' and that the laws may not offer enough protections. Courts are relied on to catch abuses, but average people don't have the resources for a legal fight with the government, he said. ''No one should have the American dream turned into their own personal nightmare because of the government,'' he said.
Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Town of Paulsboro had overreached in relying on a consultant's determination that an undeveloped 63-acre parcel could be condemned because it was ''not fully productive.''
''Under that approach, any property that is operated in less than optimal manner is arguably 'blighted,' '' wrote Chief Justice James R. Zazzali in the court's unanimous opinion. ''If such an all-encompassing definition were adopted, most property in the state would be eligible for redevelopment.''
Citing the Supreme Court ruling, an Essex County Superior Court judge ruled this month that Newark could not designate as blighted a 14-acre area on and around Mulberry Street so the land could be used to build condominiums. Several property owners had fought the city's efforts to take the land by eminent domain, arguing to the court that the area was still productive. A spokeswoman for Mayor Cory A. Booker said the city had not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling.
And an appellate panel last week rejected Lodi officials' efforts to replace two trailer parks with housing and shops. A newly elected Borough Council had dropped the plan earlier this month.
A bill that would more narrowly define blight passed the New Jersey State Assembly last year but has been tied up in a State Senate committee since.
The New Jersey League of Municipalities opposes limiting the power of municipalities in using eminent domain. Its opinion carries weight in a state with 566 municipalities, a strong tradition of home rule, and one in which many legislators are also mayors of their hometowns.
William G. Dressel, executive director of the league, said that with little undeveloped land left in the state, and with towns increasingly relying on property taxes to provide services, responsible town leaders must look for ways to redevelop unproductive land. ''We were quite frankly relieved that the court did not unravel the eminent domain statutes as it relates to the use of that tool for economic development purposes,'' he said. ''We feel very strongly that eminent domain is a viable economic development tool in New Jersey that is used sparingly.''
The state's public advocate, Ronald K. Chen, said a 1992 revision of the state statute created the ''not fully productive'' justification that ''opened up the floodgates'' for the improper use of eminent domain.
Mr. Chen's office recently issued a report that listed the plan in Long Branch, where Ms. Vendetti lives near the beach, under the heading ''Bogus Blight.'' It said the town based its conclusion on ''superficial'' exterior inspections that noted deteriorating paint or chipped masonry.
Nothing appears to be decrepit about the Vendettis' homes.
Carmen Vendetti, 80, had saved his money driving a truck to buy his family, in 1960, a modest respite from the harsher environs of their home in Newark. He and his wife, Josephine, moved there full time after he retired. Ms. Vendetti saved her money from a job with Amtrak and bought a house across the street from her parents in 1995. Two months later, she attended a town meeting where a developer's model of the neighborhood showed luxury buildings all along the oceanfront.
''They had a house on my lot,'' she said. ''I just laughed and thought, 'How are they going to do that?' No one ever used the words 'eminent domain.' ''
But Adam Schneider, the mayor of Long Branch for 17 years, said some in the area ignored the redevelopment plan, thinking it would fail, as had many before. Some homeowners have accepted offers of units made affordable to them in the new development, he said. He said that with just 20 percent of the construction completed, the beachfront has been transformed from a dangerous area of boarded-up storefronts to an upscale, year-round destination that includes packed restaurants and a popular park.
He said he thought the recent emotional backlash may dissuade officials in other areas from even trying such a sweeping turnaround using eminent domain.
''Politically it won't work anymore,'' he said. ''I think the time has come and gone.'' "
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Friday, July 27, 2007
Eminent Domain - Ledger- Fords merchants alarmed by Woodbridge plan
Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, July 27, 2007
A town's 'visioning' has citizens seeing red
Woodbridge officials try to assuage fears
BY SHARON ADARLO
Star-Ledger Staff
Woodbridge officials tried last night to assure anxious property owners in the Fords and Hopelawn sections that planned improvements in their area would help them.
But some residents were alarmed their properties may be taken for public parking or redevelopment as part of the township's "visioning" process, which seeks to bring more business to the New Brunswick Avenue commercial corridor.
"I am worried about what's going on," said John Hansen, owner of Fords Service Center on New Brunswick Avenue. "My property is my retirement. It's my 401k."
Mayor John McCormac and a few council members tried to allay people's concerns, saying the process would be a collaborative one.
"We're here to help existing businesses," Councilman Richard Dalina said.
After the meeting, which was held to unveil a preliminary plan to jump-start the revitalization process, many audience members re mained skeptical and still had questions about the township's intentions.
The plan suggests more parking along New Brunswick Avenue; po tential redevelopment sites; revival of the local improvement district board; hiring a marketing manager for the area; tax abatements; and facade upgrades, McCormac said.
Other suggestions are to put in signs welcoming people to New Brunswick Avenue and to extend the nearby Middlesex County Greenway, a planned trail that traces an old rail line.
In anticipation of more parking, the town mailed letters to 22 property owners on New Brunswick Avenue and expressed interest in buying their land at "fair-market value."
But the letters, which were mailed at the beginning of the month, sparked speculation and fear about what they might really mean. The letters targeted specific properties that had ample room for cars, township officials said.
Many people at the meeting came because of the letters.
McCormac said if people are not interested in selling, then the town will walk away.
But the assurances did not allay Hansen's fears. Not only did he say he got a letter, but he also found out last night that his lot is being considered for redevelopment.
"I'm not happy because it is actually targeted," he said.
David Karney, owner of Dave's Auto and Towing on New Brunswick Avenue, thought the town was going the wrong way: Before addressing parking, it should bring in more businesses.
The meeting last night was the second "visioning" session for the area this year. In April, merchants and residents met and overwhelmingly said they needed more parking along New Brunswick Avenue, McCormac said.
New Brunswick Avenue in Fords and Hopelawn is a strip of auto shops, mom and pop businesses and several empty storefronts and lots.
Fords is not the only area Woodbridge officials are looking at to improve. They have been gather ing input for Oak Tree Road, which extends through Iselin. Other areas slated for study include the downtown Woodbridge area, the Keasbey waterfront and Inman Avenue in Colonia.
Sharon Adarlo may be reached at (732) 404-8081 or at sadarlo@starledger.com.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
A town's 'visioning' has citizens seeing red
Woodbridge officials try to assuage fears
BY SHARON ADARLO
Star-Ledger Staff
Woodbridge officials tried last night to assure anxious property owners in the Fords and Hopelawn sections that planned improvements in their area would help them.
But some residents were alarmed their properties may be taken for public parking or redevelopment as part of the township's "visioning" process, which seeks to bring more business to the New Brunswick Avenue commercial corridor.
"I am worried about what's going on," said John Hansen, owner of Fords Service Center on New Brunswick Avenue. "My property is my retirement. It's my 401k."
Mayor John McCormac and a few council members tried to allay people's concerns, saying the process would be a collaborative one.
"We're here to help existing businesses," Councilman Richard Dalina said.
After the meeting, which was held to unveil a preliminary plan to jump-start the revitalization process, many audience members re mained skeptical and still had questions about the township's intentions.
The plan suggests more parking along New Brunswick Avenue; po tential redevelopment sites; revival of the local improvement district board; hiring a marketing manager for the area; tax abatements; and facade upgrades, McCormac said.
Other suggestions are to put in signs welcoming people to New Brunswick Avenue and to extend the nearby Middlesex County Greenway, a planned trail that traces an old rail line.
In anticipation of more parking, the town mailed letters to 22 property owners on New Brunswick Avenue and expressed interest in buying their land at "fair-market value."
But the letters, which were mailed at the beginning of the month, sparked speculation and fear about what they might really mean. The letters targeted specific properties that had ample room for cars, township officials said.
Many people at the meeting came because of the letters.
McCormac said if people are not interested in selling, then the town will walk away.
But the assurances did not allay Hansen's fears. Not only did he say he got a letter, but he also found out last night that his lot is being considered for redevelopment.
"I'm not happy because it is actually targeted," he said.
David Karney, owner of Dave's Auto and Towing on New Brunswick Avenue, thought the town was going the wrong way: Before addressing parking, it should bring in more businesses.
The meeting last night was the second "visioning" session for the area this year. In April, merchants and residents met and overwhelmingly said they needed more parking along New Brunswick Avenue, McCormac said.
New Brunswick Avenue in Fords and Hopelawn is a strip of auto shops, mom and pop businesses and several empty storefronts and lots.
Fords is not the only area Woodbridge officials are looking at to improve. They have been gather ing input for Oak Tree Road, which extends through Iselin. Other areas slated for study include the downtown Woodbridge area, the Keasbey waterfront and Inman Avenue in Colonia.
Sharon Adarlo may be reached at (732) 404-8081 or at sadarlo@starledger.com.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent Domain - Ledger - Lodi trailer park beats back town
Published in the Star-Ledger, Wednesday, July 25, 200y
Lodi trailer park residents beat back eminent domain
BY RUSSELL BEN-ALI
Star-Ledger Staff
In another loss for the forces using eminent domain to reshape communities, an appellate panel yesterday rejected an appeal by Lodi officials to force two private trailer parks to move so they could be replaced with upscale housing and shops.
The ruling effectively ends a bitter four-year battle between low- and fixed-income mobile home residents and municipal officials. It backs a 2005 Superior Court ruling that found the borough built too weak a case in declaring the properties blighted.
Yesterday's decision follows a similar ruling issued last month by the state Supreme Court. And it is a victory for Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen, who entered the case on behalf of residents as part of a pledge to fight cases he deemed to be abuses of local power.
Trailer park residents and their supporters, who at times described their plight as a David-vs.-Goliath- sized struggle against a well-fi nanced adversary, applauded the decision.
Roman Vonkomarnicki, 61, a resident of the Costa Trailer Court and secretary of the grassroots group Save Our Homes, said he had often wondered where he and fellow residents would end up. The Costa and Brown trailer parks sit on 20 acres of land along Route 46 East.
"They are on limited incomes and barely survive," Vonkomarnicki said of some of the residents. "I finally think justice prevailed."
Still others said the ruling will help preserve a communal way of life quickly vanishing in North Jersey. They said the parks represent a rare affordable housing option in costly Bergen County.
The borough's redevelopment plan called for a gated senior hous ing community with 250 units and 112,000 square feet of retail space. The project was estimated to bring in $3 million in annual tax revenue, instead of about $250,000 that the borough now collects from the trailer parks.
They deemed the land "in need of redevelopment" and planned to seize it and turn it over to private developers. Towns have long used eminent domain powers to make way for roads and schools.
But in recent years, it has become increasingly popular in New Jersey to seize old industrial properties, even thriving businesses or occupied houses, to make way for large-scale residential or retail developments.
"Now we know that you can't simply say that you can redevelop on the basis that you're not getting the highest return on your land," said Michael Kates, an attorney for the park residents.
Chen agreed, characterizing the ruling as "a victory of the rights of property owners across the state."
He reinterated his call for a massive overhaul of the state's redevelopment law -- an effort that has been bottled up in the state Senate since last summer.
In last month's decision, the state Supreme Court ruled towns seeking to seize property must provide substantial evidence of blight. The appellate division case similarly faulted local officials but left open the possibility for them to make a stronger case.
But a newly elected mayor and new borough leadership doesn't appear to favor continuing the fight. On July 16, the borough council voted to withdraw its appeal, but the decision was handed down before officials got a chance to act.
"I don't believe the new governing body has any plans at this point to go back and introduce any redevelopment in that area," said Lodi Borough manager Tony Luna. "Many of the residents are senior citizens who have been living there over 40 years. I think (officials) wanted to ease people's minds and give them some peace."
Russell Ben-Ali may be reached at rbenali@starledger.com or (973) 392-5807.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Lodi trailer park residents beat back eminent domain
BY RUSSELL BEN-ALI
Star-Ledger Staff
In another loss for the forces using eminent domain to reshape communities, an appellate panel yesterday rejected an appeal by Lodi officials to force two private trailer parks to move so they could be replaced with upscale housing and shops.
The ruling effectively ends a bitter four-year battle between low- and fixed-income mobile home residents and municipal officials. It backs a 2005 Superior Court ruling that found the borough built too weak a case in declaring the properties blighted.
Yesterday's decision follows a similar ruling issued last month by the state Supreme Court. And it is a victory for Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen, who entered the case on behalf of residents as part of a pledge to fight cases he deemed to be abuses of local power.
Trailer park residents and their supporters, who at times described their plight as a David-vs.-Goliath- sized struggle against a well-fi nanced adversary, applauded the decision.
Roman Vonkomarnicki, 61, a resident of the Costa Trailer Court and secretary of the grassroots group Save Our Homes, said he had often wondered where he and fellow residents would end up. The Costa and Brown trailer parks sit on 20 acres of land along Route 46 East.
"They are on limited incomes and barely survive," Vonkomarnicki said of some of the residents. "I finally think justice prevailed."
Still others said the ruling will help preserve a communal way of life quickly vanishing in North Jersey. They said the parks represent a rare affordable housing option in costly Bergen County.
The borough's redevelopment plan called for a gated senior hous ing community with 250 units and 112,000 square feet of retail space. The project was estimated to bring in $3 million in annual tax revenue, instead of about $250,000 that the borough now collects from the trailer parks.
They deemed the land "in need of redevelopment" and planned to seize it and turn it over to private developers. Towns have long used eminent domain powers to make way for roads and schools.
But in recent years, it has become increasingly popular in New Jersey to seize old industrial properties, even thriving businesses or occupied houses, to make way for large-scale residential or retail developments.
"Now we know that you can't simply say that you can redevelop on the basis that you're not getting the highest return on your land," said Michael Kates, an attorney for the park residents.
Chen agreed, characterizing the ruling as "a victory of the rights of property owners across the state."
He reinterated his call for a massive overhaul of the state's redevelopment law -- an effort that has been bottled up in the state Senate since last summer.
In last month's decision, the state Supreme Court ruled towns seeking to seize property must provide substantial evidence of blight. The appellate division case similarly faulted local officials but left open the possibility for them to make a stronger case.
But a newly elected mayor and new borough leadership doesn't appear to favor continuing the fight. On July 16, the borough council voted to withdraw its appeal, but the decision was handed down before officials got a chance to act.
"I don't believe the new governing body has any plans at this point to go back and introduce any redevelopment in that area," said Lodi Borough manager Tony Luna. "Many of the residents are senior citizens who have been living there over 40 years. I think (officials) wanted to ease people's minds and give them some peace."
Russell Ben-Ali may be reached at rbenali@starledger.com or (973) 392-5807.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Eminent Domain - NY Times - Supremes rule town overreached
Published in the New York Times, Thursday, June 14, 2007
Town went too far in trying to take land, Court says
By KAREEM FAHIM
In a decision that could affect redevelopment battles across New Jersey, the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that a town had overstepped the State Constitution’s definition of “blight” when it tried to take private property for development.
“Although community redevelopment is an important municipal power, that authority is not unfettered,” Chief Justice James R. Zazzali wrote in the court’s opinion. In the case, the town, Paulsboro, had argued that property owned by the Gallenthin family was “not fully productive,” and thus was in need of redevelopment, a designation that opened a 63-acre parcel to takeover using eminent domain.
The court disagreed. “The New Jersey Constitution does not permit government redevelopment of private property solely because the property is not used in an optimal manner,” Justice Zazzali wrote. He said that areas could be designated in need of redevelopment only if they, “as a whole, are stagnant and unproductive because of issues of title, diversity of ownership or other similar conditions.”
His opinion was at once a full-bodied discussion of what constitutes blight and a marker of the churning debate over eminent domain taking place in New Jersey and across the country since a United States Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that established the rights of localities to take over land for economic development.
The decision yesterday was hailed by the state’s public advocate, Ronald Chen, who had lobbied for changes in state law that would tighten the definition of “blighted areas.”
“It’s an important moment for the court to speak,” Mr. Chen said. “The need for redevelopment is critical in New Jersey, as is the need to protect property rights.” He said that blight, as set out by the state’s highest court, “was not an impossible definition” for municipalities to meet.
Paulsboro, an industrial town of 6,500 people, sits across the Delaware River from the Philadelphia airport. The Gallenthin family had owned property there since 1951. In 2003, as part of a broader development plan, the town designated the property as a redevelopment area, and before the decision yesterday it had fended off court challenges from the property owner.
Yesterday’s decision could have an immediate effect on at least two eminent domain cases that are being heard in New Jersey courts, legal experts said.
Richard Epstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said the decision could be seen in the context of a recent judicial pushback against broad definitions of blight, citing recent decisions in Ohio and California.
“There is going to be more rooted opposition the more people feel threatened,” he said, adding that the term had been used as a trump card of sorts for developers and local politicians. “If you could define by fiat an area as blighted or seedy, the battle was over.”
The New Jersey justices included a lengthy discussion of the word “blight” that included the views of writers on the subject and the dictionary definition.
A clause on blighted areas was introduced into the Constitution by Jane Barus, a delegate to the constitutional convention of 1947. She had intended to enable “the rehabilitation of our cities,” the court wrote.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Town went too far in trying to take land, Court says
By KAREEM FAHIM
In a decision that could affect redevelopment battles across New Jersey, the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that a town had overstepped the State Constitution’s definition of “blight” when it tried to take private property for development.
“Although community redevelopment is an important municipal power, that authority is not unfettered,” Chief Justice James R. Zazzali wrote in the court’s opinion. In the case, the town, Paulsboro, had argued that property owned by the Gallenthin family was “not fully productive,” and thus was in need of redevelopment, a designation that opened a 63-acre parcel to takeover using eminent domain.
The court disagreed. “The New Jersey Constitution does not permit government redevelopment of private property solely because the property is not used in an optimal manner,” Justice Zazzali wrote. He said that areas could be designated in need of redevelopment only if they, “as a whole, are stagnant and unproductive because of issues of title, diversity of ownership or other similar conditions.”
His opinion was at once a full-bodied discussion of what constitutes blight and a marker of the churning debate over eminent domain taking place in New Jersey and across the country since a United States Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that established the rights of localities to take over land for economic development.
The decision yesterday was hailed by the state’s public advocate, Ronald Chen, who had lobbied for changes in state law that would tighten the definition of “blighted areas.”
“It’s an important moment for the court to speak,” Mr. Chen said. “The need for redevelopment is critical in New Jersey, as is the need to protect property rights.” He said that blight, as set out by the state’s highest court, “was not an impossible definition” for municipalities to meet.
Paulsboro, an industrial town of 6,500 people, sits across the Delaware River from the Philadelphia airport. The Gallenthin family had owned property there since 1951. In 2003, as part of a broader development plan, the town designated the property as a redevelopment area, and before the decision yesterday it had fended off court challenges from the property owner.
Yesterday’s decision could have an immediate effect on at least two eminent domain cases that are being heard in New Jersey courts, legal experts said.
Richard Epstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said the decision could be seen in the context of a recent judicial pushback against broad definitions of blight, citing recent decisions in Ohio and California.
“There is going to be more rooted opposition the more people feel threatened,” he said, adding that the term had been used as a trump card of sorts for developers and local politicians. “If you could define by fiat an area as blighted or seedy, the battle was over.”
The New Jersey justices included a lengthy discussion of the word “blight” that included the views of writers on the subject and the dictionary definition.
A clause on blighted areas was introduced into the Constitution by Jane Barus, a delegate to the constitutional convention of 1947. She had intended to enable “the rehabilitation of our cities,” the court wrote.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent Domain - Ledger - Braun: Not so fast
Published in the Star-Ledger, Thursday, June 14, 2007
[Bob Braun]
Caution, development ahead
'Anything goes' becomes 'not so fast'
with Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain
The New Jersey Supreme Court proved once again yesterday that the U.S. Supreme Court isn't necessarily the final word on important controversies like eminent domain -- at least not in this state.
Just two years -- almost to the day -- after the nation's highest court ruled it would not "second-guess" local governments on eminent domain decisions, the New Jersey court unanimously did just that, overturning a decision by Paulsboro to take privately owned waterfront for development simply because it wasn't adequately "productive."
The state's highest court has gone far beyond the federal judiciary in protecting individual rights in fields like education, housing, and employment discrimination. Yesterday, it applied that same independence to private property rights.
The ruling, written by Chief Justice James Zazzali, was an acrobatic masterpiece of splitting hairs, coming down at one key point to a definition of the word "or."
Still, the decision made one important, far-reaching point: The courts in New Jersey will not rubber-stamp either development-minded towns or even the Legislature, despite the deference given to them in the past.
The court, it ruled, stands as the ultimate protector of individual and property rights in New Jersey, no matter how U.S. courts rule -- and even if the state Constitution's Blighted Areas Clause empowers the Legislature to allow public taking of private land:
"By adopting the Blighted Areas Clause, the People entrusted certain powers to the Legislature, and the courts are responsible for ensuring that the terms of that trust are honored and enforced," Zazzali wrote. "We find no merit to Paulsboro's assertion that the Blighted Areas Clause divests the Judiciary of that responsibility."
The New Jersey court's decision doesn't stop the use of eminent domain to take private property for public use -- and Zazzali repeatedly insisted he was not declaring the state's condemnation law unconstitutional.
What it does signal is that the courts, as well as municipalities and the Legislature, will demand a major role in determining what constitutes a "blighted" area.
So local officials will have to come up with a better reason for taking land than simply declaring it -- as Paulsboro did -- underutilized or "not fully productive."
To do that, the court -- without specifically saying so -- had to ignore decades of its own precedents in which it consented to an ever-expanding definition of "blight" that would allow public condemnation.
Indeed, in a 1971 case involving Bridgewater, Zazzali's ruling conceded, the same court "expanded the definition of 'blight' to include areas that were not necessarily contemplated by the framers but were within the 'true sense and meaning' of the term."
About as close to "anything goes" as it gets.
But no more.
The decision yesterday requires municipalities to show that the targeted property has a negative impact on adjoining property: "deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding properties."
That word "stagnation" is critical to the decision. The land wasn't under a slum. It wasn't abandoned. It was open land. The town relied on one section of the state's land-use law that allows condemnation based on "growing lack or total lack of proper utilization" of property.
Paulsboro, relying on the testimony of hired experts, declared the land wasn't being fully productive; it wasn't used in a way to bring increased ratables to the town.
By refusing to give its own definition of the word "blighted," the court clearly meant this decision to be a beginning of a new string of land-use decisions, not the final word. Indeed, it said the town might have used other sections of the law to condemn the property -- or it could still come back with better evidence to try again.
The judges did not switch on a "red light" to the use of eminent domain in New Jersey -- but, in this state, the signal is no longer the green light allowed by the United States Supreme Court.
Amber, perhaps.
Bob Braun's columns appear Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at (973) 392-4281 or at rbraun@starledger.com
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
[Bob Braun]
Caution, development ahead
'Anything goes' becomes 'not so fast'
with Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain
The New Jersey Supreme Court proved once again yesterday that the U.S. Supreme Court isn't necessarily the final word on important controversies like eminent domain -- at least not in this state.
Just two years -- almost to the day -- after the nation's highest court ruled it would not "second-guess" local governments on eminent domain decisions, the New Jersey court unanimously did just that, overturning a decision by Paulsboro to take privately owned waterfront for development simply because it wasn't adequately "productive."
The state's highest court has gone far beyond the federal judiciary in protecting individual rights in fields like education, housing, and employment discrimination. Yesterday, it applied that same independence to private property rights.
The ruling, written by Chief Justice James Zazzali, was an acrobatic masterpiece of splitting hairs, coming down at one key point to a definition of the word "or."
Still, the decision made one important, far-reaching point: The courts in New Jersey will not rubber-stamp either development-minded towns or even the Legislature, despite the deference given to them in the past.
The court, it ruled, stands as the ultimate protector of individual and property rights in New Jersey, no matter how U.S. courts rule -- and even if the state Constitution's Blighted Areas Clause empowers the Legislature to allow public taking of private land:
"By adopting the Blighted Areas Clause, the People entrusted certain powers to the Legislature, and the courts are responsible for ensuring that the terms of that trust are honored and enforced," Zazzali wrote. "We find no merit to Paulsboro's assertion that the Blighted Areas Clause divests the Judiciary of that responsibility."
The New Jersey court's decision doesn't stop the use of eminent domain to take private property for public use -- and Zazzali repeatedly insisted he was not declaring the state's condemnation law unconstitutional.
What it does signal is that the courts, as well as municipalities and the Legislature, will demand a major role in determining what constitutes a "blighted" area.
So local officials will have to come up with a better reason for taking land than simply declaring it -- as Paulsboro did -- underutilized or "not fully productive."
To do that, the court -- without specifically saying so -- had to ignore decades of its own precedents in which it consented to an ever-expanding definition of "blight" that would allow public condemnation.
Indeed, in a 1971 case involving Bridgewater, Zazzali's ruling conceded, the same court "expanded the definition of 'blight' to include areas that were not necessarily contemplated by the framers but were within the 'true sense and meaning' of the term."
About as close to "anything goes" as it gets.
But no more.
The decision yesterday requires municipalities to show that the targeted property has a negative impact on adjoining property: "deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding properties."
That word "stagnation" is critical to the decision. The land wasn't under a slum. It wasn't abandoned. It was open land. The town relied on one section of the state's land-use law that allows condemnation based on "growing lack or total lack of proper utilization" of property.
Paulsboro, relying on the testimony of hired experts, declared the land wasn't being fully productive; it wasn't used in a way to bring increased ratables to the town.
By refusing to give its own definition of the word "blighted," the court clearly meant this decision to be a beginning of a new string of land-use decisions, not the final word. Indeed, it said the town might have used other sections of the law to condemn the property -- or it could still come back with better evidence to try again.
The judges did not switch on a "red light" to the use of eminent domain in New Jersey -- but, in this state, the signal is no longer the green light allowed by the United States Supreme Court.
Amber, perhaps.
Bob Braun's columns appear Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at (973) 392-4281 or at rbraun@starledger.com
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent Domain - Ledger - Supremes ruling give hope to owners
Published in the Star-Ledger, Thursday, June 14, 2007
Ruling gives hope to property owners
Cases also pending in Newark, Long Branch
BY MARY JO PATTERSON
Star-Ledger Staff
For years, property owners have protested at the Statehouse and complained about being robbed of their land by developers and local politicians pushing redevelopment.
Yesterday, reacting to a state Supreme Court decision limiting towns' use of eminent domain, they felt as if someone was listening.
"This is a great thing for our case," said George Mytrowitz, a downtown Newark auto body shop owner who is fighting the city's "blight" designation of the area where his business is situated, along with 20 or so other property owners. "Now there's a chance the abuses will stop."
In Lodi and Long Branch, where residents have eminent domain cases pending before state appeals courts, there were also cheers.
"Oh, my God. That profoundly affects us. We're obviously not 'blight,'" said Tom Anzalone of Long Branch, who stands to lose the home he shares with his parents on Ocean Terrace to private oceanfront development. It is in a waterfront area where the town wants to see luxury townhouses and condominiums.
But others cautioned that the narrowly written ruling may not affect all pending cases -- or even prevent towns' future use of eminent domain.
More than 150 communities in New Jersey are currently doing redevelopment projects, said Bill Ward, a Florham Park attorney involved in eminent domain cases in Union Township, Long Branch and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court decision criticized the Borough of Paulsboro, in Gloucester County, for declaring a piece of land near the Delaware River "blighted" on the basis that it was "not fully productive."
The ruling is certain to make redevelopment more expensive for towns by requiring them to pay planners more, and it may also slow the process, said Stuart M. Lederman, a Morristown lawyer who said he has represented clients on both side of the issue.
Yet it remains to be seen "if there are subsequent decisions by this court that will eat away at" towns' ability to exercise eminent domain, he said.
"It'll be interesting to see, over the next year, if there are other decisions the court has an opportunity to make which may actually curb" eminent domain, Lederman said.
Ronald Chen, New Jersey's Public Advocate and a prominent foe of what he calls "eminent domain abuses," said yesterday's ruling is sure to impact a number of cases before state courts.
Towns that take property "the right way and use a meaningful, constitutional definition of blight" have nothing to fear, Chen said.
Those that decide to take people's land on the basis that it is "not productive," as Paulsboro did, will have to find another rationale, he said.
In Newark, property owners fighting redevelopment in a 14-block area around Mulberry Street were awaiting a decision at the trial court level when yesterday's ruling came down.
Jack Buonocore, a lawyer in Morristown representing the plaintiffs, said the judge in the case immediately requested that the attorneys address the Supreme Court decision in supplemental briefs.
The two cases are similar, according to Buonocore.
"These are not blighted properties. They are areas where developers see opportunities. All these redevelopments have two things in common -- you can either see the water, or you can see the train station," he said.
Michael Kates is a Hackensack lawyer representing residents of two trailer parks in Lodi threatened by eminent domain. Lodi plans to replace them with condos and villas intended for much higher earners, he said.
He argued the mobile home owners' case before the appellate division in January, and was waiting for a decision when yesterday's ruling came down.
Yesterday's ruling may help his case, as Lodi used the same standard as Paulsboro to declare the trailer parks "blighted," Kates said.
Michelle Bobrow, a Long Branch resident whose oceanfront condominium lies in a redevelopment zone, said she wished the justices had done more.
"What we'd like is, it's deleterious to health, safety, or welfare, or it is crime-ridden -- criteria that are quantifiable," Bobrow said. "Municipalities and developers are running roughshod over residents and business owners."
Star-Ledger staff writer Maryann Spoto contributed to this report.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Ruling gives hope to property owners
Cases also pending in Newark, Long Branch
BY MARY JO PATTERSON
Star-Ledger Staff
For years, property owners have protested at the Statehouse and complained about being robbed of their land by developers and local politicians pushing redevelopment.
Yesterday, reacting to a state Supreme Court decision limiting towns' use of eminent domain, they felt as if someone was listening.
"This is a great thing for our case," said George Mytrowitz, a downtown Newark auto body shop owner who is fighting the city's "blight" designation of the area where his business is situated, along with 20 or so other property owners. "Now there's a chance the abuses will stop."
In Lodi and Long Branch, where residents have eminent domain cases pending before state appeals courts, there were also cheers.
"Oh, my God. That profoundly affects us. We're obviously not 'blight,'" said Tom Anzalone of Long Branch, who stands to lose the home he shares with his parents on Ocean Terrace to private oceanfront development. It is in a waterfront area where the town wants to see luxury townhouses and condominiums.
But others cautioned that the narrowly written ruling may not affect all pending cases -- or even prevent towns' future use of eminent domain.
More than 150 communities in New Jersey are currently doing redevelopment projects, said Bill Ward, a Florham Park attorney involved in eminent domain cases in Union Township, Long Branch and elsewhere.
The Supreme Court decision criticized the Borough of Paulsboro, in Gloucester County, for declaring a piece of land near the Delaware River "blighted" on the basis that it was "not fully productive."
The ruling is certain to make redevelopment more expensive for towns by requiring them to pay planners more, and it may also slow the process, said Stuart M. Lederman, a Morristown lawyer who said he has represented clients on both side of the issue.
Yet it remains to be seen "if there are subsequent decisions by this court that will eat away at" towns' ability to exercise eminent domain, he said.
"It'll be interesting to see, over the next year, if there are other decisions the court has an opportunity to make which may actually curb" eminent domain, Lederman said.
Ronald Chen, New Jersey's Public Advocate and a prominent foe of what he calls "eminent domain abuses," said yesterday's ruling is sure to impact a number of cases before state courts.
Towns that take property "the right way and use a meaningful, constitutional definition of blight" have nothing to fear, Chen said.
Those that decide to take people's land on the basis that it is "not productive," as Paulsboro did, will have to find another rationale, he said.
In Newark, property owners fighting redevelopment in a 14-block area around Mulberry Street were awaiting a decision at the trial court level when yesterday's ruling came down.
Jack Buonocore, a lawyer in Morristown representing the plaintiffs, said the judge in the case immediately requested that the attorneys address the Supreme Court decision in supplemental briefs.
The two cases are similar, according to Buonocore.
"These are not blighted properties. They are areas where developers see opportunities. All these redevelopments have two things in common -- you can either see the water, or you can see the train station," he said.
Michael Kates is a Hackensack lawyer representing residents of two trailer parks in Lodi threatened by eminent domain. Lodi plans to replace them with condos and villas intended for much higher earners, he said.
He argued the mobile home owners' case before the appellate division in January, and was waiting for a decision when yesterday's ruling came down.
Yesterday's ruling may help his case, as Lodi used the same standard as Paulsboro to declare the trailer parks "blighted," Kates said.
Michelle Bobrow, a Long Branch resident whose oceanfront condominium lies in a redevelopment zone, said she wished the justices had done more.
"What we'd like is, it's deleterious to health, safety, or welfare, or it is crime-ridden -- criteria that are quantifiable," Bobrow said. "Municipalities and developers are running roughshod over residents and business owners."
Star-Ledger staff writer Maryann Spoto contributed to this report.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent Domain - Ledger- Supremes ruling limits towns
Published in the Star-Ledger, Thursday, June 14, 2007
Court limits towns' power to seize land
'Underused' designation deficient in S. Jersey eminent domain case
BY KATE COSCARELLI
Star-Ledger Staff
A unanimous state Supreme Court yesterday sought to rein in the controversial use of eminent domain by towns.
In a Gloucester County case, the court ruled unconstitutional a popular catchall phrase local officials use to declare property "in need of redevelopment," a first step toward seizing private homes and businesses to make way for large-scale developments.
Supporters argue the technique is critical for turning mothballed industrial areas into gleaming new condominium developments. But critics, including Gov. Jon Corzine, have argued the law is being abused to further enrich wealthy, often politically connected builders.
The court declared yesterday that towns must show properties are truly "blighted" to seize them and can no longer simply declare them underused.
"The New Jersey constitution does not permit government redevelopment of private property solely because the property is not used in an optimal manner," the court said in a decision written by Chief Justice James Zazzali. "If such an all-encompassing definition of 'blight' were adopted, most property in the state would be eligible for redevelopment."
The issue has roiled the nation for the past two years, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a Connecticut case it wouldn't interfere with plans by New London to seize private property and hand it over to a developer. In New Jersey, the state Assembly approved a bill meant to restrict the use of eminent domain, but it stalled in the Senate.
In yesterday's decision, the court found tiny Paulsboro improperly designated a 63-acre property near the Delaware River blighted because it was "not fully productive." The town has not moved to seize the property, but the blight designation is a necessary first step toward turning the land into a port.
The court acknowledged that redevelopment, and the ability to take private property, is an important municipal tool, but that "authority is not unfettered." There must be a balance, it added in a 42-page decision, between the rights of private property owners and the desire of the town facing economic deterioration.
The decision could impact a bevy of cases pending in the court system on various aspects of eminent domain and redevelopment, including ones in Lodi and Long Branch. It also will be closely read in dozens of towns with large-scale projects on the drawing board or steaming forward.
Critics of eminent domain cheered the ruling as an important victory for property owners.
"It means that it's no longer open season on everybody's property," said William Potter, founder of Stop Eminent Domain Abuse and an attorney in the Paulsboro case. "It means a return to reality in terms of what is blighted and what is not. There is hope now for people facing the awesome powers of eminent domain."
He predicted the decision would have immediate impact on dozens of cities that are creating redevelopment plans like Hoboken and Camden.
Said State Public Advocate Ronald Chen, who has argued the redevelopment laws must be reformed:
"It's a pretty far-reaching (decision) that addresses a very, very real issue in modern redevelopment -- which is an overly expansive, bogus definition of blight. The court has made it quite clear it won't countenance that expression of blight. It's a very important statement."
Advocates for developers and municipalities had a different take, arguing the court had helpfully clarified how the redevelopment law should be applied. Most important, the court did not strike down New Jersey's sweeping, 15-year-old Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, said William Kearns, general counsel to the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.
Most towns provide more detailed support than just the "underused" category in declaring property blighted, said Edward McManimon, who represents developers. Towns might have to spend more time gathering information and evidence about property, he said, but projects will go forward.
"This is not going to have a chilling effect on redevelopment," he said.
In some ways, the decision "plugs the hole" in the statute. Now that blight is squarely defined, it should quiet criticism from people who claimed towns could declare almost any property blighted, said Paulsboro municipal attorney Jim Maley.
The case centers on a tear-shaped tract near the Delaware River that is part wetlands and part farm. The Gallenthin family has used the property since 1902 and has owned it outright for over 50 years, court papers state.
In 2003, the town designated the property in need of redevelopment based on reports that it was "not fully productive."
George and Cynthia Gallenthin sued claiming the town misused the law. A trial court and appeals court upheld the town's actions.
It was a happy conclusion to a difficult journey for the Gallenthins, said Peter Dickson, an attorney for the couple. The ruling makes it "pretty much impossible" for the town to take the property now or later.
Paulsboro officials said they were disappointed but vowed to press the port project, noting the court did not rule out the idea the town could revisit the redevelopment plan using other criteria.
"We're gonna build this port," said the town's mayor Assemblyman John Burzichelli.
Staff writer Mary Jo Patterson contributed to this report.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Court limits towns' power to seize land
'Underused' designation deficient in S. Jersey eminent domain case
BY KATE COSCARELLI
Star-Ledger Staff
A unanimous state Supreme Court yesterday sought to rein in the controversial use of eminent domain by towns.
In a Gloucester County case, the court ruled unconstitutional a popular catchall phrase local officials use to declare property "in need of redevelopment," a first step toward seizing private homes and businesses to make way for large-scale developments.
Supporters argue the technique is critical for turning mothballed industrial areas into gleaming new condominium developments. But critics, including Gov. Jon Corzine, have argued the law is being abused to further enrich wealthy, often politically connected builders.
The court declared yesterday that towns must show properties are truly "blighted" to seize them and can no longer simply declare them underused.
"The New Jersey constitution does not permit government redevelopment of private property solely because the property is not used in an optimal manner," the court said in a decision written by Chief Justice James Zazzali. "If such an all-encompassing definition of 'blight' were adopted, most property in the state would be eligible for redevelopment."
The issue has roiled the nation for the past two years, since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a Connecticut case it wouldn't interfere with plans by New London to seize private property and hand it over to a developer. In New Jersey, the state Assembly approved a bill meant to restrict the use of eminent domain, but it stalled in the Senate.
In yesterday's decision, the court found tiny Paulsboro improperly designated a 63-acre property near the Delaware River blighted because it was "not fully productive." The town has not moved to seize the property, but the blight designation is a necessary first step toward turning the land into a port.
The court acknowledged that redevelopment, and the ability to take private property, is an important municipal tool, but that "authority is not unfettered." There must be a balance, it added in a 42-page decision, between the rights of private property owners and the desire of the town facing economic deterioration.
The decision could impact a bevy of cases pending in the court system on various aspects of eminent domain and redevelopment, including ones in Lodi and Long Branch. It also will be closely read in dozens of towns with large-scale projects on the drawing board or steaming forward.
Critics of eminent domain cheered the ruling as an important victory for property owners.
"It means that it's no longer open season on everybody's property," said William Potter, founder of Stop Eminent Domain Abuse and an attorney in the Paulsboro case. "It means a return to reality in terms of what is blighted and what is not. There is hope now for people facing the awesome powers of eminent domain."
He predicted the decision would have immediate impact on dozens of cities that are creating redevelopment plans like Hoboken and Camden.
Said State Public Advocate Ronald Chen, who has argued the redevelopment laws must be reformed:
"It's a pretty far-reaching (decision) that addresses a very, very real issue in modern redevelopment -- which is an overly expansive, bogus definition of blight. The court has made it quite clear it won't countenance that expression of blight. It's a very important statement."
Advocates for developers and municipalities had a different take, arguing the court had helpfully clarified how the redevelopment law should be applied. Most important, the court did not strike down New Jersey's sweeping, 15-year-old Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, said William Kearns, general counsel to the New Jersey State League of Municipalities.
Most towns provide more detailed support than just the "underused" category in declaring property blighted, said Edward McManimon, who represents developers. Towns might have to spend more time gathering information and evidence about property, he said, but projects will go forward.
"This is not going to have a chilling effect on redevelopment," he said.
In some ways, the decision "plugs the hole" in the statute. Now that blight is squarely defined, it should quiet criticism from people who claimed towns could declare almost any property blighted, said Paulsboro municipal attorney Jim Maley.
The case centers on a tear-shaped tract near the Delaware River that is part wetlands and part farm. The Gallenthin family has used the property since 1902 and has owned it outright for over 50 years, court papers state.
In 2003, the town designated the property in need of redevelopment based on reports that it was "not fully productive."
George and Cynthia Gallenthin sued claiming the town misused the law. A trial court and appeals court upheld the town's actions.
It was a happy conclusion to a difficult journey for the Gallenthins, said Peter Dickson, an attorney for the couple. The ruling makes it "pretty much impossible" for the town to take the property now or later.
Paulsboro officials said they were disappointed but vowed to press the port project, noting the court did not rule out the idea the town could revisit the redevelopment plan using other criteria.
"We're gonna build this port," said the town's mayor Assemblyman John Burzichelli.
Staff writer Mary Jo Patterson contributed to this report.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent Domain - Asbury Park Press - Ruling heartens foes
Published in the Asbury Park Press, Thursday, June 14, 2007
Ruling heartens redevelopment foes
Eminent-domain decision analyzed in Long Branch
BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
LONG BRANCH — It was a very good day for those fighting the use of eminent domain in the city, if you ask advocates who oppose the local government's plan to remake neighborhoods along the oceanfront.
Reacting to a state Supreme Court decision that invalidated an "area in need of redevelopment" for waterfront property in Paulsboro, Gloucester County, Lori Ann Vendetti, one of the founders of the MTOTSA group and an active meber of the StopEDA Coalition said, "It is a victory, and we don't get a lot of victories. . . . It felt wonderful."
"I think we've got a whole new ball game," added Harold Bobrow, who with his wife, Michelle, owns a seasonal home in the proposed Beachfront South redevelopment zone.
MTOTSA — which stands for Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue Alliance — is a group of about 20 property owners who are fighting the city's attempt to take their homes for the second phase of Beachfront North. Their case is in the Appellate Division of Superior Court.
"It took a long time but it was well worth it," Vendetti said. "People are listening."
However, City Attorney James G. Aaron said the decision is actually a good one for the city because it upheld the legality of the state Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.
State Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen, who filed a friend of the court brief for MTOTSA, did the same for George Gallenthin and his wife, Cindy, who owned a waterfront tract that Paulsboro wanted to acquire for a redevelopment project.
The town determined the vacant land was "underutilized," or not fully productive, but the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that if that were the sole criterion, virtually any property in New Jersey could be taken.
"This decision binds the appellate division, which right now is considering the Long Branch case," said Chen, who noted that part of the city's rationale for redeveloping the MTOTSA enclave was it too was not fully productive.
The ability to go ahead on that basis "was significantly limited in today's decision so the court will take that into account," Chen said.
City attorney's view
Aaron, though, noted that the justices maintained that when redevelopment is contemplated, it must be done so more thoroughly than was was done in Paulsboro.
"When you apply that rationale to the Long Branch case, the Long Branch analysis the Planning Board did was so far superior to what Paulsboro did that it puts the city of Long Branch in the position of arguing in its appeal that the Supreme Court's decision in Paulsboro can be used to actually support the Long Branch factual scenario," the attorney said.
Long Branch used several categories to declare the MTOTSA neighborhood "an area in need of redevelopment," he said.
"One of the other things the court did in fact say: If you are just saying that I have a Motel 6 on the property and it should be a Hilton Hotel, you can't do that in New Jersey . . . which is far from what Long Branch faced with the condition of the waterfront redevelopment area," Aaron said.
R. William Potter, whose law firm argued on behalf of the Gallenthins, said of the decision: "It pulls the rug out from anybody who believes property can simply be taken so it can be transferred to somebody else. I think this is the death knell for the anything-goes redevelopment we've seen in the last few years."
Potter contended the ruling could help the MTOTSA residents.
"If the standards set forth in this case are applied to Long Branch, MTOTSA and Beachfront South, then their property cannot be condemned and the long nightmare may be over," Potter said. "I emphasize the word "may' because the reviewing court still may have to apply this decision to a case that has been ongoing for a long time. . . . If these principles are used, then their nightmare is over. I just hope and pray it is not too late."
More interpretations
Peter H. Wegener, the Lakewood lawyer representing the majority of MTOTSA property owners, who submitted a brief in support of the Paulsboro property owners, said there is no way to read the decision that doesn't help his clients.
"The court has made it clear that they are not going to let condemnors get away with a very cursory net opinion, and an analysis and surveys of the kind that were carried out in Long Branch," Wegener said. "They are going to make sure the real spirit of the law is carried out and not let municipalities rely on the idea they can do everything they want and there'll be no judicial review unless it is arbitrary and capricious."
Robert S. Goldsmith, who submitted a brief in the Gallenthin case for the state League of Municipalities, Downtown New Jersey Inc. and the New Jersey Chapter of the American Planning Association, said the decision is not a defeat for those advocating redevelopment.
Goldsmith said issues such as the right of government to assemble properties for redevelopment and the right to use eminent domain, remain intact.
"The court said redevelopment applies to blight," Goldsmith said. "From any reasonable point of view, Beachfront North was blighted."
Goldsmith said the decision basically affirmed the state's position that taking land purely for economic development was not constitutional while it also said taking land for redevelopment was constitutional.
"It sounds to me that you cannot do redevelopment for economic development reasons, and that is not what we are doing," said Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider. "You've got to show a blighted area. You've got to show an area in distress. We've always contended we've done that. . . . It seems to me we're in pretty good shape."
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Ruling heartens redevelopment foes
Eminent-domain decision analyzed in Long Branch
BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
LONG BRANCH — It was a very good day for those fighting the use of eminent domain in the city, if you ask advocates who oppose the local government's plan to remake neighborhoods along the oceanfront.
Reacting to a state Supreme Court decision that invalidated an "area in need of redevelopment" for waterfront property in Paulsboro, Gloucester County, Lori Ann Vendetti, one of the founders of the MTOTSA group and an active meber of the StopEDA Coalition said, "It is a victory, and we don't get a lot of victories. . . . It felt wonderful."
"I think we've got a whole new ball game," added Harold Bobrow, who with his wife, Michelle, owns a seasonal home in the proposed Beachfront South redevelopment zone.
MTOTSA — which stands for Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue Alliance — is a group of about 20 property owners who are fighting the city's attempt to take their homes for the second phase of Beachfront North. Their case is in the Appellate Division of Superior Court.
"It took a long time but it was well worth it," Vendetti said. "People are listening."
However, City Attorney James G. Aaron said the decision is actually a good one for the city because it upheld the legality of the state Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.
State Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen, who filed a friend of the court brief for MTOTSA, did the same for George Gallenthin and his wife, Cindy, who owned a waterfront tract that Paulsboro wanted to acquire for a redevelopment project.
The town determined the vacant land was "underutilized," or not fully productive, but the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that if that were the sole criterion, virtually any property in New Jersey could be taken.
"This decision binds the appellate division, which right now is considering the Long Branch case," said Chen, who noted that part of the city's rationale for redeveloping the MTOTSA enclave was it too was not fully productive.
The ability to go ahead on that basis "was significantly limited in today's decision so the court will take that into account," Chen said.
City attorney's view
Aaron, though, noted that the justices maintained that when redevelopment is contemplated, it must be done so more thoroughly than was was done in Paulsboro.
"When you apply that rationale to the Long Branch case, the Long Branch analysis the Planning Board did was so far superior to what Paulsboro did that it puts the city of Long Branch in the position of arguing in its appeal that the Supreme Court's decision in Paulsboro can be used to actually support the Long Branch factual scenario," the attorney said.
Long Branch used several categories to declare the MTOTSA neighborhood "an area in need of redevelopment," he said.
"One of the other things the court did in fact say: If you are just saying that I have a Motel 6 on the property and it should be a Hilton Hotel, you can't do that in New Jersey . . . which is far from what Long Branch faced with the condition of the waterfront redevelopment area," Aaron said.
R. William Potter, whose law firm argued on behalf of the Gallenthins, said of the decision: "It pulls the rug out from anybody who believes property can simply be taken so it can be transferred to somebody else. I think this is the death knell for the anything-goes redevelopment we've seen in the last few years."
Potter contended the ruling could help the MTOTSA residents.
"If the standards set forth in this case are applied to Long Branch, MTOTSA and Beachfront South, then their property cannot be condemned and the long nightmare may be over," Potter said. "I emphasize the word "may' because the reviewing court still may have to apply this decision to a case that has been ongoing for a long time. . . . If these principles are used, then their nightmare is over. I just hope and pray it is not too late."
More interpretations
Peter H. Wegener, the Lakewood lawyer representing the majority of MTOTSA property owners, who submitted a brief in support of the Paulsboro property owners, said there is no way to read the decision that doesn't help his clients.
"The court has made it clear that they are not going to let condemnors get away with a very cursory net opinion, and an analysis and surveys of the kind that were carried out in Long Branch," Wegener said. "They are going to make sure the real spirit of the law is carried out and not let municipalities rely on the idea they can do everything they want and there'll be no judicial review unless it is arbitrary and capricious."
Robert S. Goldsmith, who submitted a brief in the Gallenthin case for the state League of Municipalities, Downtown New Jersey Inc. and the New Jersey Chapter of the American Planning Association, said the decision is not a defeat for those advocating redevelopment.
Goldsmith said issues such as the right of government to assemble properties for redevelopment and the right to use eminent domain, remain intact.
"The court said redevelopment applies to blight," Goldsmith said. "From any reasonable point of view, Beachfront North was blighted."
Goldsmith said the decision basically affirmed the state's position that taking land purely for economic development was not constitutional while it also said taking land for redevelopment was constitutional.
"It sounds to me that you cannot do redevelopment for economic development reasons, and that is not what we are doing," said Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider. "You've got to show a blighted area. You've got to show an area in distress. We've always contended we've done that. . . . It seems to me we're in pretty good shape."
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent Domain - The Record - Supreme Court Limits Use
Published in the Bergen Record, Thursday, June 14, 2007
Ruling limits use of eminent domain
By SCOTT FALLON
STAFF WRITER
New Jersey towns will have a harder time seizing private property for redevelopment after the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that targeted property must be blighted and not merely underused.
The ruling will have far-reaching effects, state officials said, and could aid property owners fighting eminent domain in Lodi, North Arlington and Passaic.
The 42-page unanimous decision said that town officials cannot seize homes and businesses simply because they believe those properties can be put to better use.
"The court is giving notice that municipalities no longer have unfettered access to private property," said Harvey Pearlman, a lawyer who represents a Passaic homeowner whose house was condemned by the city without his knowledge.
The court wrestled with what constitutes blight in deciding a case from Gloucester County, where the town of Paulsboro sought to condemn a 63-acre tract made up mostly of wetlands.
Chief Justice James Zazzali wrote that Paulsboro considered blight to be property that is "stagnant or not fully productive" but could be rehabilitated.
"Under that approach, any property that is operated in a less than optimal manner is arguably 'blighted,' " he wrote. "If such an all-encompassing definition of 'blight' were adopted, most property in the State would be eligible for redevelopment."
Zazzali wrote that blight includes deterioration or stagnation that has a debilitating effect on surrounding property as outlined in the state constitution.
The ruling was hailed by homeowners and business owners fighting city hall to keep their property.
In Lodi, borough officials tried to redevelop trailer courts on a 20-acre plot along Route 46 into a strip mall and upscale senior housing. They said the new project would bring in 10 times the tax revenue.
It also would displace more than 200 residents. Both sides are awaiting an appellate court ruling, but residents said Wednesday's decision will help.
"Naturally, I'm thrilled," said Kendell Kardt, head of Save Our Homes, a residents' group that has led the fight against eminent domain. "This will have a positive impact."
Lodi's attorney, John Baldino, did not return a phone call seeking comment. The borough has contended that the trailers are indeed in such poor condition that they met the definition of blight.
Residents of Porete Avenue in North Arlington had been fighting the town for years after it agreed to seize 16 properties to allow EnCap, the Meadowlands developer, to build a 1,600-unit luxury village there. But those officials were voted out of office and new leadership in town government refused to follow through with the plan. They are now locked in a legal battle with the developer.
"This is clearly a victory for the mayor and property owners," Thom Ammirato, a spokesman for the borough, said of Wednesday's ruling. "This bolsters our argument. You can't take someone's property just because you feel it's underutilized."
State Public Advocate Ronald Chen, who issued a blistering report last month citing abuses of eminent domain, said the ruling is a tool that can be used to stem the process.
He urged the state Senate to pass a bill, already approved by the Assembly, that further narrows the definition of blight along with adding other protections.
Wednesday's ruling is "not the total answer, but it does give us tools to deal with it more effectively," Chen said.
Richard Clark, a lawyer who represents towns in land-use cases, said the impact will be greatest in suburban and rural areas and less in cities, where the housing stock is older and in some areas more dilapidated.
"It will certainly slow down development outside the urban areas," he said.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Ruling limits use of eminent domain
By SCOTT FALLON
STAFF WRITER
New Jersey towns will have a harder time seizing private property for redevelopment after the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that targeted property must be blighted and not merely underused.
The ruling will have far-reaching effects, state officials said, and could aid property owners fighting eminent domain in Lodi, North Arlington and Passaic.
The 42-page unanimous decision said that town officials cannot seize homes and businesses simply because they believe those properties can be put to better use.
"The court is giving notice that municipalities no longer have unfettered access to private property," said Harvey Pearlman, a lawyer who represents a Passaic homeowner whose house was condemned by the city without his knowledge.
The court wrestled with what constitutes blight in deciding a case from Gloucester County, where the town of Paulsboro sought to condemn a 63-acre tract made up mostly of wetlands.
Chief Justice James Zazzali wrote that Paulsboro considered blight to be property that is "stagnant or not fully productive" but could be rehabilitated.
"Under that approach, any property that is operated in a less than optimal manner is arguably 'blighted,' " he wrote. "If such an all-encompassing definition of 'blight' were adopted, most property in the State would be eligible for redevelopment."
Zazzali wrote that blight includes deterioration or stagnation that has a debilitating effect on surrounding property as outlined in the state constitution.
The ruling was hailed by homeowners and business owners fighting city hall to keep their property.
In Lodi, borough officials tried to redevelop trailer courts on a 20-acre plot along Route 46 into a strip mall and upscale senior housing. They said the new project would bring in 10 times the tax revenue.
It also would displace more than 200 residents. Both sides are awaiting an appellate court ruling, but residents said Wednesday's decision will help.
"Naturally, I'm thrilled," said Kendell Kardt, head of Save Our Homes, a residents' group that has led the fight against eminent domain. "This will have a positive impact."
Lodi's attorney, John Baldino, did not return a phone call seeking comment. The borough has contended that the trailers are indeed in such poor condition that they met the definition of blight.
Residents of Porete Avenue in North Arlington had been fighting the town for years after it agreed to seize 16 properties to allow EnCap, the Meadowlands developer, to build a 1,600-unit luxury village there. But those officials were voted out of office and new leadership in town government refused to follow through with the plan. They are now locked in a legal battle with the developer.
"This is clearly a victory for the mayor and property owners," Thom Ammirato, a spokesman for the borough, said of Wednesday's ruling. "This bolsters our argument. You can't take someone's property just because you feel it's underutilized."
State Public Advocate Ronald Chen, who issued a blistering report last month citing abuses of eminent domain, said the ruling is a tool that can be used to stem the process.
He urged the state Senate to pass a bill, already approved by the Assembly, that further narrows the definition of blight along with adding other protections.
Wednesday's ruling is "not the total answer, but it does give us tools to deal with it more effectively," Chen said.
Richard Clark, a lawyer who represents towns in land-use cases, said the impact will be greatest in suburban and rural areas and less in cities, where the housing stock is older and in some areas more dilapidated.
"It will certainly slow down development outside the urban areas," he said.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Friday, June 01, 2007
Eminent Domain - Bergen Record - Margulies toon
Editorial Cartoon by Jimmy Margulies, 5/31/2007 Published in the Bergen Record.
(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.)
Eminent Domain - Bergen Record - Public Advocate's Report
Published in the Bergen Record, Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Report details eminent domain abuse
By JOHN BRENNAN
STAFF WRITER
A "jaw-dropping" case in Passaic and a controversial proposal to seize two trailer parks in Lodi were cited by the state's public advocate Tuesday as classic examples of governmental abuse of eminent domain.
"People can lose their homes without real evidence that their neighborhood is blighted, without adequate notice or hearings and without fair compensation," Ronald K. Chen -- who first issued a statewide eminent domain analysis last May -- declared in his 31-page follow-up report.
A call for change
Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen said in a report Tuesday that three urgent changes are needed in New Jersey's eminent domain law:
"They clearly knew what his address was, because they had sent his tax bills there every year," said Chen, who is seeking enhanced notification rules for targets of eminent domain. "It's mystifying as to why they couldn't give him notice of the taking of his land. It's jaw-dropping."
Lodi trailer park residents Kendall Kardt -- president of the Save Our Homes coalition -- and Judy Kuchenmeister were featured in separate vignettes within Chen's report, detailing what he called "startling injustices."
The borough declared the trailer parks to be "in need of redevelopment" in 2003. To replace them, the borough proposed a project that supporters said would generate 10 times the tax revenue.
Kardt, a musician, told the Public Advocate's Office he found the idea of displacing 240 residents "disgusting."
"This isn't just about trying to make your town look like a picture on the postcard," Kardt said. "This is about people's lives. The people who live here are mechanics, janitors. They do something useful."
Kuchenmeister, a resident of Brown's Mobile Home Park for more than 30 years, said she feels like she's always "walking on eggshells" because of the ongoing litigation. A trial court in September 2005 dismissed the recommendations of the Lodi Planning Board, but the town appealed. The Public Advocate's Office sided with the residents before an appellate panel in Hackensack this year.
"Sometimes, it feels like this will never be over," Kuchenmeister said in the report. "It's the trailer park today -- your house tomorrow."
Harvey Pearlman, Shennett's attorney, said that a trial court last week refused to turn the Passaic property back to Shennett -- leaving its ownership in dispute. It was bought by a business owned by former City Councilman Wayne Alston for $60,000 -- or four times what Shennett was offered for it in 2004. A two-story house was built on the property in 2005.
"I'm not surprised the public advocate picked that particular case, because of how outrageous it was," Pearlman said. "This is not the way the system is supposed to work."
Chen urged the state Senate to pass a version of a bill sponsored by Assemblyman John Burzichelli, D-Gloucester, that passed in the Assembly last year. The bill would clarify the definition of "blighted" in designating areas for redevelopment, Chen said.
"The current law's vague and broad definition ... could apply to virtually any property in New Jersey," Chen wrote.
That bill -- endorsed by the state League of Municipalities and by Governor Corzine -- also would ensure that homeowners and business owners are kept informed of the process and would mandate fairer levels of compensation for those displaced, Chen said.
Sen. Ronald Rice, D-Essex, also is sponsoring an eminent domain bill. But Chen said he wants the bill to be beefed up to match Burzichelli's version.
State Senate President Richard J. Codey, another Essex Democrat, said he had not yet read Chen's report. He said sarcastically that it was "interesting" that the report was released directly to the media.
"It's easy to pick out some abuses of eminent domain that clearly did occur, and we've got to stop those," Codey said. "But mayors also are concerned that this power still can be used to help them rebuild cities the way Jersey City or New Brunswick were rebuilt. By Jan. 1, we'll reach a compromise on a bill that does away with the abuses, while at the same time allowing [eminent domain] to be used as an effective tool for those that desire to revitalize."
Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole, R-Cedar Grove, said he supports the proposal by state Sen. Peter Inverso, R-Mercer, to amend the state Constitution to allow eminent domain "for essential public purposes only," as opposed to private development.
Other cases cited by Chen in the report:
E-mail: brennan@northjersey.com
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Report details eminent domain abuse
By JOHN BRENNAN
STAFF WRITER
A "jaw-dropping" case in Passaic and a controversial proposal to seize two trailer parks in Lodi were cited by the state's public advocate Tuesday as classic examples of governmental abuse of eminent domain.
"People can lose their homes without real evidence that their neighborhood is blighted, without adequate notice or hearings and without fair compensation," Ronald K. Chen -- who first issued a statewide eminent domain analysis last May -- declared in his 31-page follow-up report.
A call for change
Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen said in a report Tuesday that three urgent changes are needed in New Jersey's eminent domain law:
• Tightening the definition of "blighted area" to prevent what Chen called "bogus blight" designations.Chen cited Passaic's 2004 issuance of a default judgment enabling it to take Charles Shennett's Summer Street property -- unbeknown to Shennett, because the condemnation notice was not handed over in person, as required. Also, the address on the mailings was incomplete. An appellate court voided the condemnation in February, but the case remains in litigation.
• Making the eminent domain process more open and transparent.
• Requiring more realistic levels of compensation to allow people to remain in their communities.
"They clearly knew what his address was, because they had sent his tax bills there every year," said Chen, who is seeking enhanced notification rules for targets of eminent domain. "It's mystifying as to why they couldn't give him notice of the taking of his land. It's jaw-dropping."
Lodi trailer park residents Kendall Kardt -- president of the Save Our Homes coalition -- and Judy Kuchenmeister were featured in separate vignettes within Chen's report, detailing what he called "startling injustices."
The borough declared the trailer parks to be "in need of redevelopment" in 2003. To replace them, the borough proposed a project that supporters said would generate 10 times the tax revenue.
Kardt, a musician, told the Public Advocate's Office he found the idea of displacing 240 residents "disgusting."
"This isn't just about trying to make your town look like a picture on the postcard," Kardt said. "This is about people's lives. The people who live here are mechanics, janitors. They do something useful."
Kuchenmeister, a resident of Brown's Mobile Home Park for more than 30 years, said she feels like she's always "walking on eggshells" because of the ongoing litigation. A trial court in September 2005 dismissed the recommendations of the Lodi Planning Board, but the town appealed. The Public Advocate's Office sided with the residents before an appellate panel in Hackensack this year.
"Sometimes, it feels like this will never be over," Kuchenmeister said in the report. "It's the trailer park today -- your house tomorrow."
Harvey Pearlman, Shennett's attorney, said that a trial court last week refused to turn the Passaic property back to Shennett -- leaving its ownership in dispute. It was bought by a business owned by former City Councilman Wayne Alston for $60,000 -- or four times what Shennett was offered for it in 2004. A two-story house was built on the property in 2005.
"I'm not surprised the public advocate picked that particular case, because of how outrageous it was," Pearlman said. "This is not the way the system is supposed to work."
Chen urged the state Senate to pass a version of a bill sponsored by Assemblyman John Burzichelli, D-Gloucester, that passed in the Assembly last year. The bill would clarify the definition of "blighted" in designating areas for redevelopment, Chen said.
"The current law's vague and broad definition ... could apply to virtually any property in New Jersey," Chen wrote.
That bill -- endorsed by the state League of Municipalities and by Governor Corzine -- also would ensure that homeowners and business owners are kept informed of the process and would mandate fairer levels of compensation for those displaced, Chen said.
Sen. Ronald Rice, D-Essex, also is sponsoring an eminent domain bill. But Chen said he wants the bill to be beefed up to match Burzichelli's version.
State Senate President Richard J. Codey, another Essex Democrat, said he had not yet read Chen's report. He said sarcastically that it was "interesting" that the report was released directly to the media.
"It's easy to pick out some abuses of eminent domain that clearly did occur, and we've got to stop those," Codey said. "But mayors also are concerned that this power still can be used to help them rebuild cities the way Jersey City or New Brunswick were rebuilt. By Jan. 1, we'll reach a compromise on a bill that does away with the abuses, while at the same time allowing [eminent domain] to be used as an effective tool for those that desire to revitalize."
Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole, R-Cedar Grove, said he supports the proposal by state Sen. Peter Inverso, R-Mercer, to amend the state Constitution to allow eminent domain "for essential public purposes only," as opposed to private development.
Other cases cited by Chen in the report:
- An effort to condemn three dozen modest beachfront homes in Long Branch.
- Paulsboro's attempt to develop on 63 acres of wetlands.
- Perth Amboy's inclusion of a light manufacturing building in a blighted footprint.
- Bloomfield's use of the same attorney to represent the township, the Zoning Board and the Planning Board.
- An attempt in Edison to condemn a school bus property for what a court ruled was "purely for private use."
E-mail: brennan@northjersey.com
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent Domain - Asbury Park Press - Public Advocate's Report
Published in the Asbury Park Press, Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Eminent domain reform urged
Public advocate: Treat owners fairly
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/30/07
BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
In a follow-up to his 2006 report on what he characterized as statewide eminent domain abuse, state Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen says reforms through the Legislature and the courts would restore trust in the redevelopment process.
"Eminent domain reform would allow good redevelopment to continue while protecting tenants and property owners against the abuses that are undermining redevelopment across the state," writes Chen in his 31-page report, "In Need of Redevelopment: Repairing New Jersey's Eminent Domain Laws."
As expected, Long Branch's continuing redevelopment of Beachfront North — commonly referred to as the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue (MTOTSA) area — is extensively criticized in the report.
In a series of report vig-nettes, Chen highlights the cases of five homeowners going up against the system. Three of those are from the MTOTSA area: Louis and Lillian Anzalone, the Hoagland family and widow Anna DeFaria.
The city's actions are criticized in sections referring to "bogus blight" designations, due-process deprivations, potential conflicts of interest and inadequate compensation and relocation assistance for both tenants and property owners.
In the year since Chen made eminent domain reform one of his priorities, he has filed three "friend of the court" briefs supporting those fighting what they argue is the overuse of eminent domain. One was filed in the Long Branch issue, another in the case of trailer park residents fighting a luxury housing and retail project in Lodi in Bergen County, and a third in an effort to overturn a blight designation of a 63-acre tract of riverfront land in
Paulsboro in Gloucester County.
Ironically, the mayor of
Paulsboro is John Burzichelli, a Democratic assemblyman who sponsored legislation (A-3257) to revise procedures for the use of eminent domain in municipal redevelopment programs. The bill was approved by the Assembly in June 2006 and is endorsed by Chen, Gov. Corzine and the state League of Municipalities.
Unlike Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider, who only had harsh words for Chen's "fact-finding," Burzichelli called the advocate "a forceful advocate for reforming New Jersey's eminent domain laws."
Long Branch mayor reacts
Schneider's words were not quite so diplomatic. He said Chen has been "intellectually dishonest" in his call for reform, noting that the public advocate and his staff are not interested in the 15-year-history of consensus for the city's redevelopment project.
In choosing to focus only on the court record that was before state Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, who in 2006 upheld the city's right to take the homes, Chen was concentrating only on the disputed, controversial parts of the project, which skewed his findings, Schneider said.
"I don't really care what Mr. Chen thinks," said Schneider, bracing for another round of negative publicity. "I really haven't found him to be intellectually honest since his entry into the Long Branch case. . . . So far, the court has found we followed the rules, that we've done (redevelopment) the right way. Their opinions matter. Mr. Chen's does not.
"The Legislature will do what it wants," Schneider said. "Right now, the issue has been before them for the better part of three years, and they haven't been able to come up with a decision. I learned a long time ago this isn't a case I'm going to fight in the court of public opinion or the editorial pages of the local newspaper. The courts will decide."
Schneider said reports like Chen's only emphasize the emotionalism in which this debate is being conducted.
"What they are saying is "We don't want to have planning, we don't want to have thoughtful legislation, we're just going to react to bad publicity,' " Schneider said. "I think that is a shame, but that is where it will go.
"There has been a total absence of fact-finding on the use of redevelopment law," he said. "It has been hugely reactionary. . . . Emotionalism has overtaken fact and reason on this case, and that is where it will end up. Emotionalism will carry the day. I'm not sure how and I'm not sure when."
Competing bills
Burzichelli, meanwhile, is more optimistic, calling the Paulsboro case one in which he and Chen are arguing about a limited technical issue. On the wider issue of reform, they are in agreement, the assemblyman said. A copy of Burzichelli's bill has been introduced in the state Senate by his colleague, Sen. Stephen M. Sweeney, D-Gloucester.
A rival bill, introduced by Sen. Ronald L. Rice, D-Essex, chairman of the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee, has stalled after several public hearings around the state. Chen said the Rice bill would not provide the needed reforms, noting it does not contain a provision to shift the burden of proof for a redevelopment area from the individual residents to the municipality. Rice also does not tighten up the definition of blight, which Chen says is key to reform.
"The hurdle is just the process associated with lawmaking," said Burzichelli, noting he believes action is likely before the end of the year.
However, he said, lawmakers would likely not take action until after the Supreme Court decides the Paulsboro case.
The Institute for Justice, the nonprofit law firm helping to represent MTOTSA homeowners, saluted Chen for continuing to lobby for reform.
Institute lawyer Scott G. Bullock called the report "excellent. Its strength lies in the fact that not only did the advocate call for legislative reform which New Jersey desperately needs, but also it highlighted the vital role the court needs to take in assuring abuse does not occur."
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent domain reform urged
Public advocate: Treat owners fairly
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/30/07
BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
In a follow-up to his 2006 report on what he characterized as statewide eminent domain abuse, state Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen says reforms through the Legislature and the courts would restore trust in the redevelopment process.
"Eminent domain reform would allow good redevelopment to continue while protecting tenants and property owners against the abuses that are undermining redevelopment across the state," writes Chen in his 31-page report, "In Need of Redevelopment: Repairing New Jersey's Eminent Domain Laws."
As expected, Long Branch's continuing redevelopment of Beachfront North — commonly referred to as the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue (MTOTSA) area — is extensively criticized in the report.
In a series of report vig-nettes, Chen highlights the cases of five homeowners going up against the system. Three of those are from the MTOTSA area: Louis and Lillian Anzalone, the Hoagland family and widow Anna DeFaria.
The city's actions are criticized in sections referring to "bogus blight" designations, due-process deprivations, potential conflicts of interest and inadequate compensation and relocation assistance for both tenants and property owners.
In the year since Chen made eminent domain reform one of his priorities, he has filed three "friend of the court" briefs supporting those fighting what they argue is the overuse of eminent domain. One was filed in the Long Branch issue, another in the case of trailer park residents fighting a luxury housing and retail project in Lodi in Bergen County, and a third in an effort to overturn a blight designation of a 63-acre tract of riverfront land in
Paulsboro in Gloucester County.
Ironically, the mayor of
Paulsboro is John Burzichelli, a Democratic assemblyman who sponsored legislation (A-3257) to revise procedures for the use of eminent domain in municipal redevelopment programs. The bill was approved by the Assembly in June 2006 and is endorsed by Chen, Gov. Corzine and the state League of Municipalities.
Unlike Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider, who only had harsh words for Chen's "fact-finding," Burzichelli called the advocate "a forceful advocate for reforming New Jersey's eminent domain laws."
Long Branch mayor reacts
Schneider's words were not quite so diplomatic. He said Chen has been "intellectually dishonest" in his call for reform, noting that the public advocate and his staff are not interested in the 15-year-history of consensus for the city's redevelopment project.
In choosing to focus only on the court record that was before state Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, who in 2006 upheld the city's right to take the homes, Chen was concentrating only on the disputed, controversial parts of the project, which skewed his findings, Schneider said.
"I don't really care what Mr. Chen thinks," said Schneider, bracing for another round of negative publicity. "I really haven't found him to be intellectually honest since his entry into the Long Branch case. . . . So far, the court has found we followed the rules, that we've done (redevelopment) the right way. Their opinions matter. Mr. Chen's does not.
"The Legislature will do what it wants," Schneider said. "Right now, the issue has been before them for the better part of three years, and they haven't been able to come up with a decision. I learned a long time ago this isn't a case I'm going to fight in the court of public opinion or the editorial pages of the local newspaper. The courts will decide."
Schneider said reports like Chen's only emphasize the emotionalism in which this debate is being conducted.
"What they are saying is "We don't want to have planning, we don't want to have thoughtful legislation, we're just going to react to bad publicity,' " Schneider said. "I think that is a shame, but that is where it will go.
"There has been a total absence of fact-finding on the use of redevelopment law," he said. "It has been hugely reactionary. . . . Emotionalism has overtaken fact and reason on this case, and that is where it will end up. Emotionalism will carry the day. I'm not sure how and I'm not sure when."
Competing bills
Burzichelli, meanwhile, is more optimistic, calling the Paulsboro case one in which he and Chen are arguing about a limited technical issue. On the wider issue of reform, they are in agreement, the assemblyman said. A copy of Burzichelli's bill has been introduced in the state Senate by his colleague, Sen. Stephen M. Sweeney, D-Gloucester.
A rival bill, introduced by Sen. Ronald L. Rice, D-Essex, chairman of the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee, has stalled after several public hearings around the state. Chen said the Rice bill would not provide the needed reforms, noting it does not contain a provision to shift the burden of proof for a redevelopment area from the individual residents to the municipality. Rice also does not tighten up the definition of blight, which Chen says is key to reform.
"The hurdle is just the process associated with lawmaking," said Burzichelli, noting he believes action is likely before the end of the year.
However, he said, lawmakers would likely not take action until after the Supreme Court decides the Paulsboro case.
The Institute for Justice, the nonprofit law firm helping to represent MTOTSA homeowners, saluted Chen for continuing to lobby for reform.
Institute lawyer Scott G. Bullock called the report "excellent. Its strength lies in the fact that not only did the advocate call for legislative reform which New Jersey desperately needs, but also it highlighted the vital role the court needs to take in assuring abuse does not occur."
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent Domain - NY Times - Public Advocate's Report
Published in the New York Times, Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Public Advocate Seeks Stronger Protections for Property Owners
By RONALD SMOTHERS
TRENTON, May 29 — The New Jersey public advocate urged the Legislature on Tuesday to adopt a law that would make the use of eminent domain more equitable, while preserving it as a valuable redevelopment tool for many hard-pressed cities.
Ronald Chen, the state’s public advocate, renewed his nearly year-old call for changes in the state’s redevelopment law in a report detailing some abuses of the taking of private property by municipalities. The report also highlighted several court cases in which his office filed legal briefs supporting challenges to the eminent domain process as it now functions.
“Many towns pursue redevelopment with respect for the rights of property owners, and courts regularly uphold the use of eminent domain against challenges by property owners,” the report said. “Nevertheless, our review of the case law reveals startling injustices. And our review of the statute reveals a system that lacks the basic protections necessary to prevent such injustices.”
Among the major changes called for in the report was a tightening of the definition of “blighted area,” a term that allows towns to invoke the use of eminent domain; a longer and more transparent hearing and notification process; and an increase in the compensation for any property taken.
In addition, Mr. Chen, in his second report on the practice of eminent domain, called for changes that would require municipal governments to justify property takeovers in court rather than requiring property owners to prove that the procedure was faulty. Last year his office urged more protections for property owners and tenants.
According to municipal officials and others familiar with the debate over the issue in the state, there is general agreement on the need to make the process more equitable and to provide more compensation. But there is less agreement on the need to sharpen the legal definition of blight, and hardly any agreement on shifting the burden of proof in such court cases to the municipality.
Changes in the state’s redevelopment law governing the use of eminent domain have been an issue in the last two legislative sessions after a United States Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that cleared the way for New London, Conn., to replace a rundown residential neighborhood with office space, a hotel, new residences and a riverwalk. Since then nearly 36 states have passed laws intended to curb or limit the use of eminent domain.
In New Jersey, the efforts have pitted homeowner groups in several towns against municipal officials, developers and a host of planners and lawyers who insist that eminent domain is crucial to redeveloping some urban areas and attracting private investment.
A measure that includes many of the changes advocated by Mr. Chen passed the Assembly last year but failed in the Senate. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has generally supported revising the eminent domain process, but in the absence of specific proposals from the governor, Mr. Chen has been seen as the administration’s voice on the issue.
Anne Babineau, a lawyer who is an expert on municipal land use, said that there was some indication in Mr. Chen’s report and in her discussions with municipal officials that there was a willingness to compromise on a scaled-back measure.
Ms. Babineau noted the significance of Mr. Chen’s acknowledgment that municipal use of redevelopment law and eminent domain had been fair in some cases.
“It is showing that he has come to appreciate the need to preserve eminent domain as a tool,” she said.
Of the four elements cited by Mr. Chen as necessary for any reform, Ms. Babineau said she thought that mayors and their supporters in the Senate could agree on a scaled-back bill that dealt specifically with increasing compensation and making the condemnation process more transparent.
In addition, she said it was her belief that mayors and others who saw redevelopment as an essential tool would be willing to compromise on what constituted blight.
Mr. Chen has said that current definitions of blight are vague and so expansive as to eliminate any barrier to condemnation. He cited examples in which municipal officials found that properties were “not fully productive” or that there was “a lack of proper utilization.”
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Public Advocate Seeks Stronger Protections for Property Owners
By RONALD SMOTHERS
TRENTON, May 29 — The New Jersey public advocate urged the Legislature on Tuesday to adopt a law that would make the use of eminent domain more equitable, while preserving it as a valuable redevelopment tool for many hard-pressed cities.
Ronald Chen, the state’s public advocate, renewed his nearly year-old call for changes in the state’s redevelopment law in a report detailing some abuses of the taking of private property by municipalities. The report also highlighted several court cases in which his office filed legal briefs supporting challenges to the eminent domain process as it now functions.
“Many towns pursue redevelopment with respect for the rights of property owners, and courts regularly uphold the use of eminent domain against challenges by property owners,” the report said. “Nevertheless, our review of the case law reveals startling injustices. And our review of the statute reveals a system that lacks the basic protections necessary to prevent such injustices.”
Among the major changes called for in the report was a tightening of the definition of “blighted area,” a term that allows towns to invoke the use of eminent domain; a longer and more transparent hearing and notification process; and an increase in the compensation for any property taken.
In addition, Mr. Chen, in his second report on the practice of eminent domain, called for changes that would require municipal governments to justify property takeovers in court rather than requiring property owners to prove that the procedure was faulty. Last year his office urged more protections for property owners and tenants.
According to municipal officials and others familiar with the debate over the issue in the state, there is general agreement on the need to make the process more equitable and to provide more compensation. But there is less agreement on the need to sharpen the legal definition of blight, and hardly any agreement on shifting the burden of proof in such court cases to the municipality.
Changes in the state’s redevelopment law governing the use of eminent domain have been an issue in the last two legislative sessions after a United States Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that cleared the way for New London, Conn., to replace a rundown residential neighborhood with office space, a hotel, new residences and a riverwalk. Since then nearly 36 states have passed laws intended to curb or limit the use of eminent domain.
In New Jersey, the efforts have pitted homeowner groups in several towns against municipal officials, developers and a host of planners and lawyers who insist that eminent domain is crucial to redeveloping some urban areas and attracting private investment.
A measure that includes many of the changes advocated by Mr. Chen passed the Assembly last year but failed in the Senate. Gov. Jon S. Corzine has generally supported revising the eminent domain process, but in the absence of specific proposals from the governor, Mr. Chen has been seen as the administration’s voice on the issue.
Anne Babineau, a lawyer who is an expert on municipal land use, said that there was some indication in Mr. Chen’s report and in her discussions with municipal officials that there was a willingness to compromise on a scaled-back measure.
Ms. Babineau noted the significance of Mr. Chen’s acknowledgment that municipal use of redevelopment law and eminent domain had been fair in some cases.
“It is showing that he has come to appreciate the need to preserve eminent domain as a tool,” she said.
Of the four elements cited by Mr. Chen as necessary for any reform, Ms. Babineau said she thought that mayors and their supporters in the Senate could agree on a scaled-back bill that dealt specifically with increasing compensation and making the condemnation process more transparent.
In addition, she said it was her belief that mayors and others who saw redevelopment as an essential tool would be willing to compromise on what constituted blight.
Mr. Chen has said that current definitions of blight are vague and so expansive as to eliminate any barrier to condemnation. He cited examples in which municipal officials found that properties were “not fully productive” or that there was “a lack of proper utilization.”
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Eminent Domain - Ledger - OpEd: Chen: Repair laws
Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, June 1, 2007
[OpEd]
Repair state laws to stop abuse of eminent domain
BY RONALD K. CHEN
Almost two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo vs. City of New Lon don that the city could use eminent domain to take the homes of some of its residents and transfer the land to other private parties to build new offices, shops and residences.
A 5-4 majority of the court concluded that because a community benefits from general economic growth, redevelopment serves a "public purpose" that can justify the use of eminent do main even though the property is not being used for a public use such as a school or a road but given to private redevelopers.
But the court also said states are allowed to impose additional limits on the use of eminent do main for private redevelopment.
Indeed, New Jersey has an additional protection against abuse of eminent domain for private redevelopment built into our state constitution, but that protection has been eroded.
Our constitution permits the government to use eminent do main for private redevelopment only in "blighted areas." Over the years, however, the New Jersey Legislature has repeatedly amended the definition of "blighted area" to the point where it now fails to impose any real limitation on the use of eminent domain, as the constitution requires.
The long-understood meaning of "blighted area" is a neighborhood that is deteriorated or on the decline. But today, New Jersey law defines a blighted area with vague terms such as "not fully productive" or lacking "proper utilization."
Such broad criteria could apply to any property that a town believed could be used better or made more productive. Thus vir tually no parcel of land in New Jersey is safe from such pursuit.
New Jersey's laws governing eminent domain for private redevelopment also lack basic protections, such as requiring clear no tice to affected residents and business owners, ensuring a fair hearing and providing adequate compensation when property is taken.
Our recent report documents what happens to New Jersey residents because of the inadequate protections in the law. Families in perfectly safe and functioning neighborhoods lose their homes. And residents and business owners lose their property without adequate notice or hearings and without fair compensation.
We have worked closely with New Jersey lawmakers to fix these problems by changing the state's redevelopment law to protect people's rights while ensur ing that sound redevelopment projects can still move forward.
A comprehensive reform measure must tighten the definition of "blight," making it clearer, narrower and more objective. It should eliminate vague terms like "not fully productive" or "lack of proper utilization" and retain more specific blight criteria, such as vacancy, environmental contamination or dilapidation.
Repairing our eminent domain laws also means adding critical protections for tenants and owners so they receive clear warnings that their homes could be taken. We need fairer municipal hear ings and a level playing field when citizens challenge a town's actions in court.
Finally, reform must ensure that homeowners, renters and business owners are compen sated enough so they can buy or rent a similar home or launch a new business if they must relinquish theirs.
All of these measures are es sential to stop abuse and make the redevelopment process fair. Predictions that such reforms would end good redevelopment in New Jersey are unfounded. In fact, most towns that lead successful redevelopment efforts tell us they already follow these basic requirements because it's the right thing to do and it helps build community support for projects.
It is impossible to know the prevalence of eminent domain abuse. Many homeowners whose rights are violated lack the resources to engage in expensive litigation with towns. So they simply pack up and move.
But the injustices documented in our report highlight the need for the Legislature to repair the laws governing the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment. These laws are inadequate to protect the rights of tenants and owners and to prevent abuses that result in lost homes and businesses and other irrecoverable damages, both financial and personal.
Ronald K. Chen is the state's pub lic advocate.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
[OpEd]
Repair state laws to stop abuse of eminent domain
BY RONALD K. CHEN
Almost two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo vs. City of New Lon don that the city could use eminent domain to take the homes of some of its residents and transfer the land to other private parties to build new offices, shops and residences.
A 5-4 majority of the court concluded that because a community benefits from general economic growth, redevelopment serves a "public purpose" that can justify the use of eminent do main even though the property is not being used for a public use such as a school or a road but given to private redevelopers.
But the court also said states are allowed to impose additional limits on the use of eminent do main for private redevelopment.
Indeed, New Jersey has an additional protection against abuse of eminent domain for private redevelopment built into our state constitution, but that protection has been eroded.
Our constitution permits the government to use eminent do main for private redevelopment only in "blighted areas." Over the years, however, the New Jersey Legislature has repeatedly amended the definition of "blighted area" to the point where it now fails to impose any real limitation on the use of eminent domain, as the constitution requires.
The long-understood meaning of "blighted area" is a neighborhood that is deteriorated or on the decline. But today, New Jersey law defines a blighted area with vague terms such as "not fully productive" or lacking "proper utilization."
Such broad criteria could apply to any property that a town believed could be used better or made more productive. Thus vir tually no parcel of land in New Jersey is safe from such pursuit.
New Jersey's laws governing eminent domain for private redevelopment also lack basic protections, such as requiring clear no tice to affected residents and business owners, ensuring a fair hearing and providing adequate compensation when property is taken.
Our recent report documents what happens to New Jersey residents because of the inadequate protections in the law. Families in perfectly safe and functioning neighborhoods lose their homes. And residents and business owners lose their property without adequate notice or hearings and without fair compensation.
We have worked closely with New Jersey lawmakers to fix these problems by changing the state's redevelopment law to protect people's rights while ensur ing that sound redevelopment projects can still move forward.
A comprehensive reform measure must tighten the definition of "blight," making it clearer, narrower and more objective. It should eliminate vague terms like "not fully productive" or "lack of proper utilization" and retain more specific blight criteria, such as vacancy, environmental contamination or dilapidation.
Repairing our eminent domain laws also means adding critical protections for tenants and owners so they receive clear warnings that their homes could be taken. We need fairer municipal hear ings and a level playing field when citizens challenge a town's actions in court.
Finally, reform must ensure that homeowners, renters and business owners are compen sated enough so they can buy or rent a similar home or launch a new business if they must relinquish theirs.
All of these measures are es sential to stop abuse and make the redevelopment process fair. Predictions that such reforms would end good redevelopment in New Jersey are unfounded. In fact, most towns that lead successful redevelopment efforts tell us they already follow these basic requirements because it's the right thing to do and it helps build community support for projects.
It is impossible to know the prevalence of eminent domain abuse. Many homeowners whose rights are violated lack the resources to engage in expensive litigation with towns. So they simply pack up and move.
But the injustices documented in our report highlight the need for the Legislature to repair the laws governing the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment. These laws are inadequate to protect the rights of tenants and owners and to prevent abuses that result in lost homes and businesses and other irrecoverable damages, both financial and personal.
Ronald K. Chen is the state's pub lic advocate.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)