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.)
Thursday, June 14, 2007
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.)
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Immigrants- NYTimes - Municipal IDs Issued to Illegals
Published in the New York Times, Tuesday, June 5, 2007
New Haven Approves Program to Issue Illegal Immigrants IDs
By JENNIFER MEDINA
NEW HAVEN, June 4 — The Board of Aldermen on Monday night made municipal identification cards available to illegal immigrants, in what city officials said was the first such program in the nation. The measure was approved by a vote of 25 to 1.
City officials and immigrant rights advocates said they hoped the cards would give immigrants better access to city services and help the police confirm their identities should they become targets of crime. Last year, a number of illegal immigrants told community service agencies they had been robbed of cash, but said they were worried about telling the authorities for fear of being deported.
The cards, which will include an official photograph and city imprint, will be available to all residents, regardless of immigration status, and the city is placing special emphasis on issuing them to children, college students and people 65 and older, as well as immigrants without green cards. Immigrant rights advocates and city officials began developing plans for the card last year, and New Haven planned to begin issuing them in July.
In an effort to attract residents to the program, the city is placing a magnetic strip on the back of the cards, which, when swiped, would deduct money from a prepaid account to pay for parking at meters, as well as goods at about 50 restaurants and stores in New Haven.
“The last thing we want is to create what will be an easy giveaway about who amongst us has status and who doesn’t,” said Kica Matos, the community affairs director for the city, who spearheaded the effort. “So we had to make sure that we have a card that has wide appeal.”
While the cards have provoked outrage from anti-immigrant groups around the state, few in New Haven have voiced concern. The program has received national attention, and Ms. Matos said lawmakers from New York City and Dutchess County, N.Y., have contacted her about setting up similar programs.
Permalink 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.)
New Haven Approves Program to Issue Illegal Immigrants IDs
By JENNIFER MEDINA
NEW HAVEN, June 4 — The Board of Aldermen on Monday night made municipal identification cards available to illegal immigrants, in what city officials said was the first such program in the nation. The measure was approved by a vote of 25 to 1.
City officials and immigrant rights advocates said they hoped the cards would give immigrants better access to city services and help the police confirm their identities should they become targets of crime. Last year, a number of illegal immigrants told community service agencies they had been robbed of cash, but said they were worried about telling the authorities for fear of being deported.
The cards, which will include an official photograph and city imprint, will be available to all residents, regardless of immigration status, and the city is placing special emphasis on issuing them to children, college students and people 65 and older, as well as immigrants without green cards. Immigrant rights advocates and city officials began developing plans for the card last year, and New Haven planned to begin issuing them in July.
In an effort to attract residents to the program, the city is placing a magnetic strip on the back of the cards, which, when swiped, would deduct money from a prepaid account to pay for parking at meters, as well as goods at about 50 restaurants and stores in New Haven.
“The last thing we want is to create what will be an easy giveaway about who amongst us has status and who doesn’t,” said Kica Matos, the community affairs director for the city, who spearheaded the effort. “So we had to make sure that we have a card that has wide appeal.”
While the cards have provoked outrage from anti-immigrant groups around the state, few in New Haven have voiced concern. The program has received national attention, and Ms. Matos said lawmakers from New York City and Dutchess County, N.Y., have contacted her about setting up similar programs.
Permalink 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.)
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Jerry Green - Ledger - Editorial: Chair's lame excuse
Published in the Star-Ledger, Saturday, June 2, 2007
[Editorial]
The chairman's lame excuse
Don't blame me, says Assemblyman Jerry Green, a Union County Democrat. He's not blocking a bill that would save taxpayers a cool $1 million annually by cutting a few unneeded patronage jobs at county tax boards.
Oh no, Green wants us to believe the stall is the fault of the bill's Republican sponsors. Green says they haven't pushed him hard enough to get the measure on the schedule for consideration by his Assembly Housing and Local Government Commit tee.
Ridiculous. Last we checked, legislative committee chairmen can bring up any bill they want. And Green and Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts (D-Camden) and every other lawmaker should want this bill. It reverses the Legislature's wasteful creation of new tax board jobs three years ago, at the very time the volume of tax appeals and other work of the boards was dropping to 15-year lows.
As Green himself says, this is a good-government bill. But if he and his colleagues don't stop pussyfooting and start chopping these pension-padding positions for political hacks, their idea of good government will be clear.
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.)
[Editorial]
The chairman's lame excuse
Don't blame me, says Assemblyman Jerry Green, a Union County Democrat. He's not blocking a bill that would save taxpayers a cool $1 million annually by cutting a few unneeded patronage jobs at county tax boards.
Oh no, Green wants us to believe the stall is the fault of the bill's Republican sponsors. Green says they haven't pushed him hard enough to get the measure on the schedule for consideration by his Assembly Housing and Local Government Commit tee.
Ridiculous. Last we checked, legislative committee chairmen can bring up any bill they want. And Green and Assembly Speaker Joe Roberts (D-Camden) and every other lawmaker should want this bill. It reverses the Legislature's wasteful creation of new tax board jobs three years ago, at the very time the volume of tax appeals and other work of the boards was dropping to 15-year lows.
As Green himself says, this is a good-government bill. But if he and his colleagues don't stop pussyfooting and start chopping these pension-padding positions for political hacks, their idea of good government will be clear.
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.)
Jerry Green - Ledger - Tax Board bill bottled up
Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, June 1, 2007
Parties both want to trim tax boards
BY LAWRENCE RAGONESE
Star-Ledger Staff
The Democratic chair of an Assembly committee says he is not blocking a bill to cut the size of politically bloated county tax boards to 2004 levels, putting blame on Republican sponsors for not aggressively pursuing it.
Assemblyman Jerry Green (D-Union) said the bill that would save an estimated $1 million annually was not heard this month by his Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee because he did not get calls or letters from Republican sponsors.
"I don't want anyone to think I'm holding this bill up," Green said. "The sponsors have to call me and ask me to post the bill, take some action to let me know they want it to be heard. Then I speak to leadership about it.
"I don't want anybody to think I won't post this bill. I favor this bill."
Assemblyman Michael Doherty (R-Warren) and Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) said they were surprised by Green's comments, but called and sent letters to Green's office to reaffirm their commitment to the bill.
"I spoke to Green and he said he would move it along," said Doherty, who in 2004 was the only member of the Assembly to vote against the tax board bill.
Beck urged Green to have the bill heard on June 14 if Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) calls the Assembly into a post-primary election session. She also will ask Green to co-sponsor the legislation.
The Legislature in 2004 passed a bill to increase tax boards from three to five members or five to seven members, at a time tax appeals were at 15-year lows, as shown in a Star-Ledger report. Tax appeals had diminished statewide from 93,340 in 1992 to just 13,883 in 2005 when the bill took effect.
Many of the state's 21 counties promptly added new tax board members. Most of the jobs went to people with political connections, paid $16,000 to $22,000 a year, with health and pension benefits, for the part-time tax job.
Some legislators said privately there has been pressure from both sides of the political aisle to kill the tax board reduction bill. But Green said he has not felt that pressure.
"This is not a political bill, it's a good government bill," said Green. "It's up to Joe Roberts to deal with any pressure."
Roberts, who co-sponsored the 2004 Assembly version of the bill to expand tax boards, did not respond to phone calls.
The bipartisan 2004 tax bill was sponsored in the Senate by state Sens. Anthony Bucco (R-Morris) and John Adler (D-Camden). Bucco said he felt there was a need to bolster tax boards to deal with rising workloads. After seeing data showing appeals dropped substantially, the two senators earlier this year sponsored a bill to cut tax boards back to 2004 levels.
State Sen. Ronald Rice (D-Essex), who chairs the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee, which must approve the bill, said he supports the measure. But Rice said other "more important" matters had pushed the tax board bill to the back of the line in his committee.
Lawrence Ragonese may be reached at lragonese@starledger.com or (973) 539-7910.
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.)
Parties both want to trim tax boards
BY LAWRENCE RAGONESE
Star-Ledger Staff
The Democratic chair of an Assembly committee says he is not blocking a bill to cut the size of politically bloated county tax boards to 2004 levels, putting blame on Republican sponsors for not aggressively pursuing it.
Assemblyman Jerry Green (D-Union) said the bill that would save an estimated $1 million annually was not heard this month by his Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee because he did not get calls or letters from Republican sponsors.
"I don't want anyone to think I'm holding this bill up," Green said. "The sponsors have to call me and ask me to post the bill, take some action to let me know they want it to be heard. Then I speak to leadership about it.
"I don't want anybody to think I won't post this bill. I favor this bill."
Assemblyman Michael Doherty (R-Warren) and Assemblywoman Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) said they were surprised by Green's comments, but called and sent letters to Green's office to reaffirm their commitment to the bill.
"I spoke to Green and he said he would move it along," said Doherty, who in 2004 was the only member of the Assembly to vote against the tax board bill.
Beck urged Green to have the bill heard on June 14 if Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden) calls the Assembly into a post-primary election session. She also will ask Green to co-sponsor the legislation.
The Legislature in 2004 passed a bill to increase tax boards from three to five members or five to seven members, at a time tax appeals were at 15-year lows, as shown in a Star-Ledger report. Tax appeals had diminished statewide from 93,340 in 1992 to just 13,883 in 2005 when the bill took effect.
Many of the state's 21 counties promptly added new tax board members. Most of the jobs went to people with political connections, paid $16,000 to $22,000 a year, with health and pension benefits, for the part-time tax job.
Some legislators said privately there has been pressure from both sides of the political aisle to kill the tax board reduction bill. But Green said he has not felt that pressure.
"This is not a political bill, it's a good government bill," said Green. "It's up to Joe Roberts to deal with any pressure."
Roberts, who co-sponsored the 2004 Assembly version of the bill to expand tax boards, did not respond to phone calls.
The bipartisan 2004 tax bill was sponsored in the Senate by state Sens. Anthony Bucco (R-Morris) and John Adler (D-Camden). Bucco said he felt there was a need to bolster tax boards to deal with rising workloads. After seeing data showing appeals dropped substantially, the two senators earlier this year sponsored a bill to cut tax boards back to 2004 levels.
State Sen. Ronald Rice (D-Essex), who chairs the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee, which must approve the bill, said he supports the measure. But Rice said other "more important" matters had pushed the tax board bill to the back of the line in his committee.
Lawrence Ragonese may be reached at lragonese@starledger.com or (973) 539-7910.
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.)
Eminent Domain - Ledger - Editorial: End Abuse
Published in the Star-Ledger, Wednesday, May 30, 2007
[Editorial]
New Jersey must end eminent domain abuse
Eminent domain is being abused in New Jersey. Not all the time. Not in every situation. But it is happening, and that is because the state's loosely written eminent domain laws have created an atmosphere ripe for abuse.
In a report released yesterday, Public Advocate Ronald Chen, who a year ago called for reforms in this area, makes a stronger case by laying out the abuses and urging the Legislature, once again, to act.
The report makes a compelling case for legislative action and should be taken seriously. Specifically, it points to four key areas of abuse:
The first is what is described as "bogus blight," municipalities declaring a property blighted on "scant or superficial evidence, such as chipping paint."
The second is "due process deprivations," a reference to towns failing to give property owners adequate notice and information so they can challenge an eminent domain decision. Under the law, municipalities -- astonishingly -- can take someone's property without sending a single letter to the property owner.
Third, in many instances residents are inadequately compensated for their property or for their relocation costs.
Finally, Chen's report highlights evidence of public officials benefiting from redevelopment in ways that suggest a conflict of interest.
The solution is not to eliminate eminent domain. That wouldn't make sense in a small, densely populated state like New Jersey.
What's needed is a law such as A-3257, introduced by Assemblyman John Burzichelli, a South Jersey Democrat, which we have previously endorsed. The bill has passed the Assembly but not the Senate.
We recognize that some of the proposed changes may slow development, but they may also have the salutary of effect of making the process less litigious. That's because the looseness of the law now almost guarantees court fights. A cleanly defined law would make the process a lot smoother.
Since 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Kelo vs. New London ruling, nearly half the states have adopted legislation aimed at curbing eminent domain abuses.
New Jersey -- perhaps more than any other state -- needs to join those ranks.
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.)
[Editorial]
New Jersey must end eminent domain abuse
Eminent domain is being abused in New Jersey. Not all the time. Not in every situation. But it is happening, and that is because the state's loosely written eminent domain laws have created an atmosphere ripe for abuse.
In a report released yesterday, Public Advocate Ronald Chen, who a year ago called for reforms in this area, makes a stronger case by laying out the abuses and urging the Legislature, once again, to act.
The report makes a compelling case for legislative action and should be taken seriously. Specifically, it points to four key areas of abuse:
The first is what is described as "bogus blight," municipalities declaring a property blighted on "scant or superficial evidence, such as chipping paint."
The second is "due process deprivations," a reference to towns failing to give property owners adequate notice and information so they can challenge an eminent domain decision. Under the law, municipalities -- astonishingly -- can take someone's property without sending a single letter to the property owner.
Third, in many instances residents are inadequately compensated for their property or for their relocation costs.
Finally, Chen's report highlights evidence of public officials benefiting from redevelopment in ways that suggest a conflict of interest.
The solution is not to eliminate eminent domain. That wouldn't make sense in a small, densely populated state like New Jersey.
What's needed is a law such as A-3257, introduced by Assemblyman John Burzichelli, a South Jersey Democrat, which we have previously endorsed. The bill has passed the Assembly but not the Senate.
We recognize that some of the proposed changes may slow development, but they may also have the salutary of effect of making the process less litigious. That's because the looseness of the law now almost guarantees court fights. A cleanly defined law would make the process a lot smoother.
Since 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Kelo vs. New London ruling, nearly half the states have adopted legislation aimed at curbing eminent domain abuses.
New Jersey -- perhaps more than any other state -- needs to join those ranks.
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 - Public Advocate's Report
Published in the Star-Ledger, Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Report lists abuses in land seizures
Public advocate says his findings prove the need
to expedite eminent domain reform
BY RICK HEPP
Star-Ledger Staff
The state public advocate urged legislators yesterday to finish a long-stalled overhaul of the law that permits New Jersey towns to seize land for private redevelopment, saying the law allows local officials to abuse property owners.
In releasing a second report on New Jersey's eminent domain statute, Public Advocate Ronald Chen said towns officials have exploited the law to include desirable properties in so-called blighted areas, seize land without notice, low-ball landowners being pushed out and rubber-stamp projects where they have a personal interest.
"The findings in this report crystallize the urgent need for our Legislature to change the state redevelopment law," Chen said. A proposal has been stuck in committee in the Senate for a year.
The public advocate's report focused on eight civil lawsuits that it said highlight abuses of eminent domain. In those cases, either judges or attorneys with the Department of the Public Advocate established a factual basis for the property owner's claim.
The report found evidence of towns terming a desirable area "blighted" based on little more than chipping paint or loose gutters. It also found instances where towns failed to hold "fair" hearings, as well as attempts to inadequately compensate property owners, leaving them unable to find comparable living arrangements.
Attorney Edward McManimon III, whose Newark firm has represented many towns making use of the redevelopment law, was critical of the report, saying it ignored the fact that many towns have acted appropriately.
"With a broad brush, this indicts the process as if it were cavalier," McManimon said. "It doesn't show enough respect for what the local officials go through. They make those decisions, and they're not easy and they're held accountable for them."
To Chen, however, it is the exception that proves the rule in eminent domain.
"From these cases we believe that people's rights have been violated and the state's statute as it currently exists allows it," Chen said.
Chen pressed state lawmakers to finish up a proposal (A3257) that cleared the Assembly more than a year ago but has stalled in the Senate while members of both houses try to merge different versions.
The bill would place a legal burden on towns to show why property seizures are necessary and would eliminate language that allows towns to take underutilized properties.
MANY INTERESTS
Not everyone is in favor of shifting the burden of proof from the property owner to the municipality. Groups like the state League of Municipalities say such a move would chill the use of eminent domain, which it sees as a vital tool in transforming undesirable sites into residential and commercial developments.
Sen. Ron Rice (D-Essex), who chairs the Senate's Community and Urban Affairs Committee, where the proposal was introduced last May, said he expects the logjam to break this fall during the lame-duck voting session.
"I don't think we're that far apart," said Rice, who has reworked the Senate version of the bill. "You can't have a perfect bill. There's too many interests out there, but I've tried to get through it the best I could to address all of these issues."
Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester), who sponsored the bill in the lower house, said he was confident an agreement would pass this fall to reform New Jersey's 15-year-old Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.
"We have to work to gain and restore public confidence in the redevelopment process," Burzichelli said. "There's going to come a point in New Jersey where the development that takes place is redevelopment."
Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club of New Jersey, said he hopes the report can "light a fire" under lawmakers to tackle the problem.
"I think it's more likely they're lame and they've ducked when it comes to dealing with eminent domain," Tittel said. "Meanwhile, 64 towns are using eminent domain against citizens and there is no reform."
Rick Hepp may be reached at rhepp@starledger.com or (609) 989-0398.
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 lists abuses in land seizures
Public advocate says his findings prove the need
to expedite eminent domain reform
BY RICK HEPP
Star-Ledger Staff
The state public advocate urged legislators yesterday to finish a long-stalled overhaul of the law that permits New Jersey towns to seize land for private redevelopment, saying the law allows local officials to abuse property owners.
In releasing a second report on New Jersey's eminent domain statute, Public Advocate Ronald Chen said towns officials have exploited the law to include desirable properties in so-called blighted areas, seize land without notice, low-ball landowners being pushed out and rubber-stamp projects where they have a personal interest.
"The findings in this report crystallize the urgent need for our Legislature to change the state redevelopment law," Chen said. A proposal has been stuck in committee in the Senate for a year.
The public advocate's report focused on eight civil lawsuits that it said highlight abuses of eminent domain. In those cases, either judges or attorneys with the Department of the Public Advocate established a factual basis for the property owner's claim.
The report found evidence of towns terming a desirable area "blighted" based on little more than chipping paint or loose gutters. It also found instances where towns failed to hold "fair" hearings, as well as attempts to inadequately compensate property owners, leaving them unable to find comparable living arrangements.
Attorney Edward McManimon III, whose Newark firm has represented many towns making use of the redevelopment law, was critical of the report, saying it ignored the fact that many towns have acted appropriately.
"With a broad brush, this indicts the process as if it were cavalier," McManimon said. "It doesn't show enough respect for what the local officials go through. They make those decisions, and they're not easy and they're held accountable for them."
To Chen, however, it is the exception that proves the rule in eminent domain.
"From these cases we believe that people's rights have been violated and the state's statute as it currently exists allows it," Chen said.
Chen pressed state lawmakers to finish up a proposal (A3257) that cleared the Assembly more than a year ago but has stalled in the Senate while members of both houses try to merge different versions.
The bill would place a legal burden on towns to show why property seizures are necessary and would eliminate language that allows towns to take underutilized properties.
MANY INTERESTS
Not everyone is in favor of shifting the burden of proof from the property owner to the municipality. Groups like the state League of Municipalities say such a move would chill the use of eminent domain, which it sees as a vital tool in transforming undesirable sites into residential and commercial developments.
Sen. Ron Rice (D-Essex), who chairs the Senate's Community and Urban Affairs Committee, where the proposal was introduced last May, said he expects the logjam to break this fall during the lame-duck voting session.
"I don't think we're that far apart," said Rice, who has reworked the Senate version of the bill. "You can't have a perfect bill. There's too many interests out there, but I've tried to get through it the best I could to address all of these issues."
Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester), who sponsored the bill in the lower house, said he was confident an agreement would pass this fall to reform New Jersey's 15-year-old Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.
"We have to work to gain and restore public confidence in the redevelopment process," Burzichelli said. "There's going to come a point in New Jersey where the development that takes place is redevelopment."
Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club of New Jersey, said he hopes the report can "light a fire" under lawmakers to tackle the problem.
"I think it's more likely they're lame and they've ducked when it comes to dealing with eminent domain," Tittel said. "Meanwhile, 64 towns are using eminent domain against citizens and there is no reform."
Rick Hepp may be reached at rhepp@starledger.com or (609) 989-0398.
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.)
Shakespeare Garden at Plainfield: History
HISTORY OF PLAINFIELD'S SHAKESPEARE GARDEN
Plaque, entrance pergola of Plainfield's Shakespeare Garden
The Shakespeare Garden, initiated by Mr. Howard C. Fleming of the Plainfield Shakespeare Society in 1927, and planted by [the Plainfield Garden Club], was originally meant to be but a small garden in a corner of Cedar Brook Park.
Plan of Plainfield's Shakespeare Garden, designed by the Olmsted Brothers firm,
famous for planning Central Park and Brooklyn's Prospect Park
However, the Park Commission was more ambitious and hired the Olmsted Brothers of Boston, landscape architects [successors to the firm which designed Central Park, and Brooklyn's Prospect Park], who laid out two beds, each one hundred feet long, plus seventeen flower beds. When our members saw these yawning stretches of bare earth, they exclaimed, "How will we ever fill them?"
Fill them they did, under the expert guidance of Mrs. Samuel T. [Annie Burnham] Carter, Jr., who remained chairman for at least eighteen years. Only about forty-four plants and shrubs are mentioned in the Bard's writings, so other material from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were used.
The beds, all laid out geometrically, were edged with brick, according to the custom of the times. To give the garden literary interest, stake labels were placed in the beds with the botanical and folk names, and quotations about the flowers.
Cedar Brook Park is part of Union County's park system.
Since there were only seven or eight such gardens in the entire country, ours at once attracted admiring attention. Indeed, not many years later, it was called the second finest in the United States by a horticulturalist from the New York Botanical Gardens.
Only the old varieties of plants were used in the garden, many obtained from England. During wartime [World War II], when seeds could not be obtained, Mrs. Carter and her committee managed to keep the garden gay and fragrant with flowers which, she wrote hopefully, "cheered the war weary."
Rock garden plants were added, herbs and a rose bed of old-fashioned roses including the Rosa Damascena, the original rose of Damascus and the climbing "Maiden's Blush" which rambled over Anne Hathaway's cottage.
Trees were planted, among them holly, English hawthorne, mulberry, and Taxus (yew), clipped in topiary style.
Sundials were the latest rage in England during Shakespeare's time, so our garden was given one, encircled with English ivy.
A rustic arbor was built, leading into the garden. The arbor is shaded by a honeysuckle vine called woodbine, and bordered by wild-thyme and eglantine with its sweet fruity fragrance.
--Selected from "The Plainfield Garden Club, 1915 - 1965," by Victoria Furman.With the kind assistance of the Special Collections Librarian, Plainfield Public Library.
-- Dan Damon
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
Shakespeare Garden at Plainfield: Directions
The Shakespeare Garden at Cedar Brook Park, Plainfield, NJ.
(Click on image to enlarge or print).
From Manhattan and the Bronx:
Lincoln Tunnel or GWB to NJ Turnpike to I-78 or Route 22, then follow D or EFrom Westchester, Connecticut and New England:
Tappan Zee Bridge to Garden State Parkway to I-78 West or Route 22 West, then follow D or EFrom Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island:
Verrazano Narrows Bridge to Goethals Bridge to NJ Turnpike to I-78 West or Route 22 West, then follow D or EFrom Philadelphia, Delaware, Maryland:
I-95 to NJ Turnpike North, then follow AFrom Northeastern Pennsylvania, Northwestern NJ:
Local routes to I-78 East, then follow DFrom within New Jersey:
A. From the South/NJ Turnpike:
1. Take NJ Turnpike North to GSP North
2. North on Parkway one exit to 131A
3. Follow directions as from GSP below
B. From the South/Route 1:
1. Take Route 1 North to GSP North
2. North on Parkway one exit to 131A
3. Follow directions as from GSP below
C. From the South/Garden State Parkway (GSP):
1. Take Exit 131A [becomes Wood Avenue]
2. Left at 4th traffic light onto Oak Tree Road
3. West on Oak Tree approximately 3 miles (new A&P Super Center on right)
4. Right on Park Avenue 3 traffic lights to Park Drive [Left side of intersection]
5. Left on Park Drive to second right (past parking lot by ball fields)
6. Right onto unnamed drive (picnic tables will be on your right)
7. Continue as drive wends, bear left at basketball courts
8. Continue to concession stand/restrooms and find parking
D. From I-78 [East or West]:
1. Take Exit 41 [The Plainfields]
2. [Coming from East, turn LEFT off ramp] or [Coming from West, turn RIGHT off ramp]
3. Continue South to bottom of long hill
4. Right at STOP, go 3/4 way around circle
5. Right out of circle onto 531 South
6. Left onto ramp over Route 22
7. Left onto Somerset [becomes Park Ave in Plainfield]
8. Continue to 12th traffic light
9. Right onto Park Drive to second right (past parking lot by ball fields)
10. Right onto unnamed drive (picnic tables will be on your right)
11. Continue as drive wends, bear left at basketball courts
12. Continue to concession stand/restrooms and find parking
E. From Route 22 [East or West]:
1. Take exit marked “The Plainfields”
2. If coming from West, you will be on Somerset Street; follow directions at step 4 below--
3. If coming from East, go under overpass, turn Right and take overpass across Route 22. You will then be on Somerset Street, follow directions at step 4 below--
4. Continue to 12th traffic light
5. Right onto Park Drive to second right (past parking lot by ball fields)
6. Right onto unnamed drive (picnic tables will be on your right)
7. Continue as drive wends, bear left at basketball courts
8. Continue to concession stand/restrooms and find parking
-- Dan Damon
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
Friday, May 25, 2007
Park Hotel - Ledger - Assemblyman urges closing
*
Published in the Star-Ledger, Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Lawmaker urges closing of group home
He opposes the renewal of Plainfield facility's license
BY ALEXI FRIEDMAN
STAR-LEDGER STAFF
A Plainfield group home that for decades has served nearly 200 special-needs adults, including the mentally disabled, faces an uncertain future now that the city's powerful assemblyman wants it closed and residents relocated.
The facility, the Park Hotel Board Home, is the largest of its kind in Union County and lies in the city's downtown business district, making it a target as Plainfield continue its push for retail and residential development.
In asking the city council to consider opposing a license renewal for the Park Hotel -- the license expires Aug. 31 -- Assemblyman Jerry Green said the institution on West Seventh Street and Arlington Avenue is antiquated and cannot adequately care for its residents.
Green also wants the council to seek a moratorium from the state on future group homes in Plainfield because most are nonprofit organizations exempted from paying property taxes.
The Park Hotel, a for-profit, 182-bed facility housed in a six-story building, is also tax exempt [note by DD: this is an error, the property IS ON THE TAX ROLLS].
Any action by the council would serve only as a recommendation once time comes for the state to renew or revoke the Park Hotel's license.
Such a license would only be revoked if the facility has significant violations or had opened without a license, neither of which is the case with the Park Hotel, according to Sean Darcy, a spokesman for the state Department of Community Affairs.
Thee assemblyman made his case to the council Monday night, saying Plainfield has welcomed its share of social service agencies over the past 30 years and that it's time for other municipalities to do their part.
The point, Green said, is not to throw residents on the street.
"I want to make it very clear, we're concerned about people in that facility first," said the assemblyman, who is chairman of the Legislature's housing and local government committee. The Park Hotel is regulated by the Department of Community Affairs and its residents are overseen by the Department of Human Services.
Green said he wants to work with the state to find other locations in the county and wants the city to help him in that effort, sending the message "that we're prepared to do whatever we can to make sure these human beings are treated fairly. Currently, they are not."
Calls to Park Hotel officials for comment yesterday were not returned.
In a letter to city council President Rayland Van Blake, the assemblyman cited a trend in mental health services toward smaller institutions with fewer than 20 beds.
"The state would not approve a facility such as the Park Hotel today, given changes in policy," he wrote.
Green also posed his request as a public safety issue, saying Park Hotel residents "roam the streets of Plainfield," adding that merchants in nearby stores have complained about their behavior.
While individual merchants may feel that way, Lisa Cohen, who heads up the Plainfield Special Improvement District, said she has not heard such criticisms from members. Cohen is also owner of Suburban Jewelers on East Front Street.
In fact, some Park Hotel residents occasionally stop by her store to make small purchases or to say hello, she said.
Still, Green's plan was warmly received by several council members, including Rashid Burney, Don Davis and Cory Storch, who called the Park Hotel "beyond outmoded."
Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs, meanwhile, said she's had discussion about the issue with the assemblyman, and "encourages the conversation." Echoing his statement that the city has enough group homes and service agencies, Robinson-Briggs said other municipalities should "take on their own responsibilities," adding, "we'll all deal with our own quality of life issues as well."
One longtime resident, however, disagreed.
Speaking during the public comment period, Bernice Paglia reminded the council that a town's responsibility shouldn't be just to taxpayers. Citing the high number of Plainfield youths in juvenile detention centers outside the city, she said, "Maybe there should be [a] big juvenile detention facility in Plainfield." Paglia, who also writes a daily blog about the city, added, "When we talk about our town, let's have an open heart on who our own really are."
Alexi Friedman may be reached at (908) 302-1505 or afriedman@starledger.com
This story did NOT appear in the online edition of the Star-Ledger and was transcribed for this archive by Dan Damon.
(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.)
Published in the Star-Ledger, Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Lawmaker urges closing of group home
He opposes the renewal of Plainfield facility's license
BY ALEXI FRIEDMAN
STAR-LEDGER STAFF
A Plainfield group home that for decades has served nearly 200 special-needs adults, including the mentally disabled, faces an uncertain future now that the city's powerful assemblyman wants it closed and residents relocated.
The facility, the Park Hotel Board Home, is the largest of its kind in Union County and lies in the city's downtown business district, making it a target as Plainfield continue its push for retail and residential development.
In asking the city council to consider opposing a license renewal for the Park Hotel -- the license expires Aug. 31 -- Assemblyman Jerry Green said the institution on West Seventh Street and Arlington Avenue is antiquated and cannot adequately care for its residents.
Green also wants the council to seek a moratorium from the state on future group homes in Plainfield because most are nonprofit organizations exempted from paying property taxes.
The Park Hotel, a for-profit, 182-bed facility housed in a six-story building, is also tax exempt [note by DD: this is an error, the property IS ON THE TAX ROLLS].
Any action by the council would serve only as a recommendation once time comes for the state to renew or revoke the Park Hotel's license.
Such a license would only be revoked if the facility has significant violations or had opened without a license, neither of which is the case with the Park Hotel, according to Sean Darcy, a spokesman for the state Department of Community Affairs.
Thee assemblyman made his case to the council Monday night, saying Plainfield has welcomed its share of social service agencies over the past 30 years and that it's time for other municipalities to do their part.
The point, Green said, is not to throw residents on the street.
"I want to make it very clear, we're concerned about people in that facility first," said the assemblyman, who is chairman of the Legislature's housing and local government committee. The Park Hotel is regulated by the Department of Community Affairs and its residents are overseen by the Department of Human Services.
Green said he wants to work with the state to find other locations in the county and wants the city to help him in that effort, sending the message "that we're prepared to do whatever we can to make sure these human beings are treated fairly. Currently, they are not."
Calls to Park Hotel officials for comment yesterday were not returned.
In a letter to city council President Rayland Van Blake, the assemblyman cited a trend in mental health services toward smaller institutions with fewer than 20 beds.
"The state would not approve a facility such as the Park Hotel today, given changes in policy," he wrote.
Green also posed his request as a public safety issue, saying Park Hotel residents "roam the streets of Plainfield," adding that merchants in nearby stores have complained about their behavior.
While individual merchants may feel that way, Lisa Cohen, who heads up the Plainfield Special Improvement District, said she has not heard such criticisms from members. Cohen is also owner of Suburban Jewelers on East Front Street.
In fact, some Park Hotel residents occasionally stop by her store to make small purchases or to say hello, she said.
Still, Green's plan was warmly received by several council members, including Rashid Burney, Don Davis and Cory Storch, who called the Park Hotel "beyond outmoded."
Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs, meanwhile, said she's had discussion about the issue with the assemblyman, and "encourages the conversation." Echoing his statement that the city has enough group homes and service agencies, Robinson-Briggs said other municipalities should "take on their own responsibilities," adding, "we'll all deal with our own quality of life issues as well."
One longtime resident, however, disagreed.
Speaking during the public comment period, Bernice Paglia reminded the council that a town's responsibility shouldn't be just to taxpayers. Citing the high number of Plainfield youths in juvenile detention centers outside the city, she said, "Maybe there should be [a] big juvenile detention facility in Plainfield." Paglia, who also writes a daily blog about the city, added, "When we talk about our town, let's have an open heart on who our own really are."
Alexi Friedman may be reached at (908) 302-1505 or afriedman@starledger.com
This story did NOT appear in the online edition of the Star-Ledger and was transcribed for this archive by Dan Damon.
(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.)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Park Hotel - Courier - Green backs closing group home
Published in the Courier News, Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Assemblyman Green backs closing city group home
Officials describe home for mentally ill as unsafe, a nuisance
By CELANIE POLANICK
Staff Writer
PLAINFIELD -- On Tuesday afternoon, outside the Park Hotel Boarding Home on West Seventh Street, a middle-aged woman wearing plastic butterfly barettes and pink fingernail polish lifted the top of a trash can and looked inside.
She put it back, turned around and walked back into the facility, which is a privately-run, for-profit home for the mentally disabled. The woman came back out and repeated the process a few minutes later.
Local officials are discussing whether to lobby the state Department of Community Affairs not to renew the facility's license in August.
District 22 Assemblyman Jerry Green, D-Plainfield, visited a City Council meeting Monday night to share his opinion: the aging 182-bed facility is an inadequate place to house its clientele and a financial burden to the city.
Within the next two weeks, Green hopes to meet with the state Department of Health and Human Services, the state Department of Community Affairs and Union County officials to try to find placements for the residents in smaller group homes.
Management from the home did not return six phone calls over a two-day period and did not come forward when a reporter visited the property.
The facility has no open violations with the Department of Community Affairs, department spokesman Chris Donnelly said.
"The department would revoke a license and close a facility only if there were significant violations of the residential health-care facility regulations," Donnelly said.
Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs said she supports Green's request, but wants the city government to be sensitive to the needs of the facility's residents, as well.
"First and foremost, the City of Plainfield is absolutely sensitive to the needs of the residents of the Park Hotel, and we are also mindful of our need to be fiscally prudent," Robinson-Briggs said. "This is a situation where we are asking other municipalities to join us by being responsible for their quality of life situations as it relates to the residents' care and required services. What the city would really like is if the individuals who live in other municipalities but are staying in Plainfield -- we need those municipalities to step up and make provisions for their residents."
Councilman Don Davis said he was "100 percent" behind Green.
"We have to start doing more for people that are inside the city, instead of outside," Davis said. "It's time for other communities to start taking care of their needs."
Davis said he had serious qualms with putting that many mentally disabled residents in one location, calling for "smaller facilities to get them the care they truly need."
"Even if you were healthy, I don't think it's right to have that many people jammed up on top of one another," Davis. "I believe (Assemblyman Green) is really trying to help those in need."
Some Park Hotel residents wander around the neighborhood all day disrupting local businesses, and they may require extra police and emergency services that cost the city money, Green said Monday.
Police respond on a regular basis to medical and mental health calls, police Sgt. Daniel Passarelli said. Park Hotel residents often panhandle but rarely cause larger trouble, he said.
"We basically just try to move them on their way," Passarelli said.
Councilman Cory Storch is the executive director of Bridgeway Rehabilitation Services, a company that works with Park Hotel residents.
"The Park Hotel is a really outmoded facility," Storch said. "It isn't a good model for community integration. That's definitely an approach that we all should be using -- people would be living independently, or if they needed more support, they would be living in facilities, but much smaller ones."
John Dempsey Jr., a resident, said the facility is clean, with good food.
"They clean my room every day, they clean the hallway," he said.
Dempsey has lived in the home for a year and a few months, he said. If he couldn't live there, he would go to live with his mother in Summit -- but he isn't sure what the rest of the residents would do, he said.
Cathy Ritchie, a psychiatric nurse for Holy Redeemer Health Care, works with some of the residents. They may get hurt while interacting with traffic, but for the most part they're not a danger to others, she said.
"They're really harmless," she said. "They might not look pretty, but when they're taking their medication, they're pretty harmless. A lot of these people have no place else to go."
The amount of supervision the residents get is dictated by the facility's license, Ritchie said.
Local businesspeople have mixed reactions to the issue.
Lorraine George, an employee at the Washland laundromat across the street, said she just tells Park Hotel residents to stay outside.
Adrienne Cole, a Christian products wholesaler who sells through the Plainfield Flower Shop, said she disagrees with the efforts to shut down the home.
"I just don't see why they would want to take something from a group of people that evidently has nowhere else to go," she said, pointing across the street to a man squatting in the facility's parking lot. "Instead of trying to get rid of them, they should be doing some type of fundraising efforts to help maintain it. They're so concerned about the economics? Get some jobs going."
"If they could control their residents, it'd be a much better place," said Norman Rodgers, who runs Rodgers Christian Day Academy across the street from the facility and keeps his brightly-painted front door locked. Rodgers used to work at Eden House in East Orange, and believes in a balanced approach, he said.
"It's definitely needed, but let's just try to control it," Rodgers said. "Increase the staff -- let's put some money into that. What else are you gonna do with the building? Let someone make $100,000 a month off it? That's not fair."
People shouldn't forget the needs of the residents themselves, he said:
"If something like that happened to you or I, we would want and need someplace to stay."
Staff writer Martin C. Bricketto contributed to this report.
StoryChat/Comments
It is time for a new Plainfield to surface. There's no beauty to Plainfield and beautification is what the city needs. Find a new location for the group home. It's bad for business. I've lived in Plainfield close to 40 years and it has gone down, while towns like Westfield have grown!! NO REAL businesses wants to return to Plainfield. I would love to sit in Starbucks in Plainfield instead of Westfield. Downtown Plainfield has nothing to offer when it comes to shopping. Harlem, New York, has a Starbucks. Plainfield is becoming a JOKE!! I have to agree with Jerry Green.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:17 am
I agree the place should be closed down.It's almost in the heart of town.We should find places for our own "trouble souls " and let the other towns find places for theirs.Why should other towns dump their problems in our town?If each town took care of their sick they could be placed in smaller places .Plainfield is a dropping place for what ever other cities don't want.I'm sure most of these residents are not from Plainfield.Let each city take care of their own.Go Jerry Green I'm behind you in this.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:42 am
Green backs! Is this an Imus joke? Jeez.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:31 am
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.)
Assemblyman Green backs closing city group home
Officials describe home for mentally ill as unsafe, a nuisance
By CELANIE POLANICK
Staff Writer
PLAINFIELD -- On Tuesday afternoon, outside the Park Hotel Boarding Home on West Seventh Street, a middle-aged woman wearing plastic butterfly barettes and pink fingernail polish lifted the top of a trash can and looked inside.
She put it back, turned around and walked back into the facility, which is a privately-run, for-profit home for the mentally disabled. The woman came back out and repeated the process a few minutes later.
Local officials are discussing whether to lobby the state Department of Community Affairs not to renew the facility's license in August.
District 22 Assemblyman Jerry Green, D-Plainfield, visited a City Council meeting Monday night to share his opinion: the aging 182-bed facility is an inadequate place to house its clientele and a financial burden to the city.
Within the next two weeks, Green hopes to meet with the state Department of Health and Human Services, the state Department of Community Affairs and Union County officials to try to find placements for the residents in smaller group homes.
Management from the home did not return six phone calls over a two-day period and did not come forward when a reporter visited the property.
The facility has no open violations with the Department of Community Affairs, department spokesman Chris Donnelly said.
"The department would revoke a license and close a facility only if there were significant violations of the residential health-care facility regulations," Donnelly said.
Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs said she supports Green's request, but wants the city government to be sensitive to the needs of the facility's residents, as well.
"First and foremost, the City of Plainfield is absolutely sensitive to the needs of the residents of the Park Hotel, and we are also mindful of our need to be fiscally prudent," Robinson-Briggs said. "This is a situation where we are asking other municipalities to join us by being responsible for their quality of life situations as it relates to the residents' care and required services. What the city would really like is if the individuals who live in other municipalities but are staying in Plainfield -- we need those municipalities to step up and make provisions for their residents."
Councilman Don Davis said he was "100 percent" behind Green.
"We have to start doing more for people that are inside the city, instead of outside," Davis said. "It's time for other communities to start taking care of their needs."
Davis said he had serious qualms with putting that many mentally disabled residents in one location, calling for "smaller facilities to get them the care they truly need."
"Even if you were healthy, I don't think it's right to have that many people jammed up on top of one another," Davis. "I believe (Assemblyman Green) is really trying to help those in need."
Some Park Hotel residents wander around the neighborhood all day disrupting local businesses, and they may require extra police and emergency services that cost the city money, Green said Monday.
Police respond on a regular basis to medical and mental health calls, police Sgt. Daniel Passarelli said. Park Hotel residents often panhandle but rarely cause larger trouble, he said.
"We basically just try to move them on their way," Passarelli said.
Councilman Cory Storch is the executive director of Bridgeway Rehabilitation Services, a company that works with Park Hotel residents.
"The Park Hotel is a really outmoded facility," Storch said. "It isn't a good model for community integration. That's definitely an approach that we all should be using -- people would be living independently, or if they needed more support, they would be living in facilities, but much smaller ones."
John Dempsey Jr., a resident, said the facility is clean, with good food.
"They clean my room every day, they clean the hallway," he said.
Dempsey has lived in the home for a year and a few months, he said. If he couldn't live there, he would go to live with his mother in Summit -- but he isn't sure what the rest of the residents would do, he said.
Cathy Ritchie, a psychiatric nurse for Holy Redeemer Health Care, works with some of the residents. They may get hurt while interacting with traffic, but for the most part they're not a danger to others, she said.
"They're really harmless," she said. "They might not look pretty, but when they're taking their medication, they're pretty harmless. A lot of these people have no place else to go."
The amount of supervision the residents get is dictated by the facility's license, Ritchie said.
Local businesspeople have mixed reactions to the issue.
Lorraine George, an employee at the Washland laundromat across the street, said she just tells Park Hotel residents to stay outside.
Adrienne Cole, a Christian products wholesaler who sells through the Plainfield Flower Shop, said she disagrees with the efforts to shut down the home.
"I just don't see why they would want to take something from a group of people that evidently has nowhere else to go," she said, pointing across the street to a man squatting in the facility's parking lot. "Instead of trying to get rid of them, they should be doing some type of fundraising efforts to help maintain it. They're so concerned about the economics? Get some jobs going."
"If they could control their residents, it'd be a much better place," said Norman Rodgers, who runs Rodgers Christian Day Academy across the street from the facility and keeps his brightly-painted front door locked. Rodgers used to work at Eden House in East Orange, and believes in a balanced approach, he said.
"It's definitely needed, but let's just try to control it," Rodgers said. "Increase the staff -- let's put some money into that. What else are you gonna do with the building? Let someone make $100,000 a month off it? That's not fair."
People shouldn't forget the needs of the residents themselves, he said:
"If something like that happened to you or I, we would want and need someplace to stay."
Staff writer Martin C. Bricketto contributed to this report.
StoryChat/Comments
It is time for a new Plainfield to surface. There's no beauty to Plainfield and beautification is what the city needs. Find a new location for the group home. It's bad for business. I've lived in Plainfield close to 40 years and it has gone down, while towns like Westfield have grown!! NO REAL businesses wants to return to Plainfield. I would love to sit in Starbucks in Plainfield instead of Westfield. Downtown Plainfield has nothing to offer when it comes to shopping. Harlem, New York, has a Starbucks. Plainfield is becoming a JOKE!! I have to agree with Jerry Green.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:17 am
I agree the place should be closed down.It's almost in the heart of town.We should find places for our own "trouble souls " and let the other towns find places for theirs.Why should other towns dump their problems in our town?If each town took care of their sick they could be placed in smaller places .Plainfield is a dropping place for what ever other cities don't want.I'm sure most of these residents are not from Plainfield.Let each city take care of their own.Go Jerry Green I'm behind you in this.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:42 am
Green backs! Is this an Imus joke? Jeez.
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:31 am
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)