Posted on 06/24/2005 10:19:47 AM PDT by dead
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a ruling watched closely in New Jersey, on Thursday upheld a Connecticut city's right to seize homes and other properties solely for economic development.
The 5-4 decision is likely to make it easier for dozens of North Jersey towns to use eminent domain condemnations in similar ways, supporters and opponents of the decision agreed.
"Englewood, Ridgefield, Passaic - many towns have been adopting plans in the past several years based on economic redevelopment, and I believe this means that it's now full-steam ahead," said Bruce Rosenberg, a land-use attorney for the Hackensack-based law firm of Winne, Banta, Hetherington, Basralian & Kahn.
"This is what could be called the Supreme Court's imprimatur on those efforts, basically adopting what New Jersey already has adopted in its legislation."
Clifton, Lodi, Paterson and Hawthorne are among the other North Jersey communities using or considering using eminent domain condemnations for economic purposes.
Fair-housing groups and potentially displaced tenants were among those who railed against the court's refusal, in the Kelo v. New London case, to reverse decades of broadening use of eminent domain, which at one time restricted the taking of property to such public benefits as highways and bridges.
"This creates open season on neighborhoods," said Jeff Tittel, executive director of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club.
In Ridgefield, where more than 60 businesses in a 30-acre tract have been earmarked for redevelopment, the decision disappointed business owners.
"It gives local governments too much power," said Thomas Bonanno III, whose family-owned real estate group rents commercial space to 27 companies, employing more than 150 people in the area.
"It destroys people's livelihoods and takes away their property."
The linchpin of the Ridgefield plan is the 15-acre site of the former Pfister Chemical plant, next to Overpeck Creek and south of Route 46. It includes an abandoned factory, loading docks and chemical tanks.
Alan Mallach, research director for the Montclair-based National Housing Institute, said he did not object to the court's upholding of the principle of eminent domain.
"But what the court didn't recognize is that there is a real problem of abuse in a whole bunch of towns in New Jersey, where the economic redevelopment power is used in areas where the main objection is that there are too many poor people there or too many renters, " Mallach said.
"I personally think that there ought to be some constraints."
Former Fair Lawn Mayor Ed Trawinski, an attorney with expertise in land use and zoning, said the power of municipalities is now so broad that a town council could, for instance, condemn a city block simply to replace large-family dwellings with residential options that would require fewer city services.
But Scott Mollen, an attorney for Herrick Feinstein, which has offices in Newark and Princeton, said that the court properly recognized that New London is an economically depressed town that needs to change with the times.
"The majority recognized that the benefits to the community at large outweigh the rights of an individual property owner to, in essence, block important urban redevelopment, especially when the law already requires that an owner receive fair and just compensation," Mollen said.
Lodi trailer park residents have a court date for July 18, when they hope to prevent losing their homes to a private developer's plan to construct a gated senior-living community and retail property on the land. "It certainly would have been helpful if they placed some limitations on its [eminent domain's] use," said Kendall Kardt, president of Save Our Homes, the group organizing the legal fight for residents of Brown's Trailer Park and Costa Trailer Court.
Lodi Mayor Gary Paparozzi called the ruling a "shot in the arm" for the borough.
"The trailer park is like a poster child for redevelopment," Paparozzi said. "That's the best-case scenario for using eminent domain."
Mary Gail Snyder, research fellow for the National Housing Institute, said that the trend toward waterfront development in New Jersey in areas such as Hoboken and Jersey City is not necessarily affected, because most of that land consists of large parcels with a single owner.
"But this ruling could now allow the same market trend to expand even to where there are neighborhoods," she said. "Before, developers were discouraged from that, because you'd have a lot of small landowners and it would have been harder to get all of them to agree [to sell]."
The ruling was hailed by Newark Mayor Sharpe James, whose city is planning a $550 million, 2,000-condominium project on a 13-acre parcel that was declared blighted for eminent domain purposes in November.
"Our Mulberry Street project is a clear example of the Supreme Court ruling where the future of the city is more important than private profit motivations," James said in a statement.
Mollen, the lawyer, disputed contentions that Thursday's ruling will dramatically affect the New Jersey redevelopment landscape.
"Most government agencies already have been proceeding on the assumption that economic development is a valid justification [for invoking eminent domain]," Mollen said. "I don't expect any unleashing of massive new development."
Supporters and opponents both agreed on one thing: The ruling does not preclude the state Legislature in Trenton from passing a law restricting the use of eminent domain.
"If a state wants to set the bar higher for eminent domain use, it still can," said Dianne Brake, president of the Trenton-based Regional Planning Partnership. "The process has to be transparent, for instance, to help avoid having graft come into play."
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority that it was up to local officials, not federal judges, to determine what uses of eminent domain are beneficial.
The court's other left-leaning judges agreed, while moderate Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent of a concern that "disproportionate influence and power" was being granted to municipalities.
Staff Writers John Gavin and Jaci Smith contributed to this article, which also contains material from The Associated Press.
6712231
You expect restraint from government?
You just aren't enlightend as the Supremes. "Guarantee against taking of private property for private use," now = just the reverse; guarantee that it will happen.
This is what happens when the Supremes apply 'World law' to cases. In this case it was Robert Mugabe's Zimbabian rule of law.
Abortion and corn holin' are too important a right to leave up to them though.
On the other hand, a town (on an island) near me is under attack because the property is a developer's dream. Existing single-family homes are small but going for over $600,000 these days because of location and ocean/bay views. Developer's want to raze the homes and build high-end communities. So far, they've met resistance because the town officials and town people want to maintain their status quo.
However, the developers have been breaking up neighborhood blocks. They have bought at least one home on each street and then let the property sit unused. The plan is to establish presence for when they apply to the courts. I'd say that with this SC ruling, the town is gonna change whether the people want it or not.
As laughable as that is: consider, this may be the day that guy just barely begins to "get it."
I will ask once more. What good is a state law that limits Eminent Domain when we already know how the Supremes will rule if its taken to court?
Yep, that about says it. Should be very interesting here in the coming months.
My exact words when I heard this ruling, "Sweet Jesus, I live in New Jersey."
I think our mutual reaction was something akin to a Floridian reading a prediction that the coming Atlantic hurricane season will be “historically active.”
We have a 100% corrupt Democratic Party. A 98% corrupt Republican Party. Incredibly powerful criminal construction unions. A global mafia stronghold. Thoroughly unscrupulous billionaire developers. A liberal state supreme court. The greatest population density in the nation. Lunatic green environmentalist forces. Urban sprawl. Suburban sprawl. Spiraling property taxes. Bob Torricelli.
We're looking at the perfect storm.
So a poor homeowner whose property is taken by force is guilty of private profit motivations (even if he/she didn't want to sell), but a condo developer is a selfless champion of the city who won't make any money???
I nominate the above quote as the absolute worst we've seen so far coming out of this decision. What crass nerve!
One of the poor saps in New London had a ten-room house on a half-acre of waterfront, and the government offered him $150,000. That was their max offer.
He can't possibly find another similar house for that, let alone one in the same situation. Should he just be happy the government didn't kill him and his family in order to take the house for free?
Never happens.
What about the powerhungry local officials that may have a grudge against a 'landowner'? We have them here where I live... If one person on a council gets a bug up their butt for you, you can lose everything!
Excuse me but the redistribution of wealth started under the "Progressive Tax Rates" (Regressive in reality) in the 1930's!
On top of all your tax "contributions", you might get lucky enough to "contribute" your private property (for the good of the local governement and private investors) too!
Sharpe James could give the Clintons lessons in corruption. He's the Babe Ruth of living large on the public dime.
Damn, you make NJ sound worse than California.
Where's Jesse Jackson & Friends when we really need them? Doesn't the Black Community realize that this ruling will give their homeowners and renters about as many rights to where they live as their ancestors had on the plantations prior to the Civil War? Have all of their leaders been bought off? It's very depressing.
One day it will dawn on the likes of DU and the other Leftist Sheep that the establishment they've been protesting against since the Sixties is the establishment THEY ARE ENABLING!! Dolts!
You need to get the hell out of New Jersey NOW. Come live over here in Pennsylvania, we have non-corrupt Republican borough and township leaders. Our governor needs some work, but we can handle that.
Where's Jesse Jackson & Friends when we really need them?
Jesse is so low rent. It costs about $150,000 to buy his silence.
In a year, Sharpe James spends more than that on his suits.
Mugged by the Supreme Court!
Power corrupts, so with this additional power, local Dems are going to be seeking mega-contributions from rich developers in return for property confiscation of their choice. The mob is probably already thinking about getting out of gambling and into construction . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.