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
Did they declare that double jeopardy and forcing people to testify against themselves were local options too?
Is it only the federal government that can't deprive someone of life or liberty without due process?
Sorry, but due to the girlieman Republicrat majority, the feeding tube for private property rights has been pulled.
All your property is now theirs.
All your information is now theirs.
All your children are now theirs.
Welcome to the New World Order.
Resistance is futile.
Yeah, really, what does it matter what they LIKE?
By what right are they entitled to what they LIKE?
"And of course there is no reason not to think government won't use it wisely. /sarc"
They'll either make enough mistakes that city leaders will be voted out or fear being voted out for taking homes, or they'll be wise enough to keep their jobs. That's American democracy.
"So long as it is used sparingly and intelligently, it can be a good thing."
Yes, a little totalitarianism is always a good thing.
I don't like slums or the people in them. I'm tired of having beer cans thrown into my yard because I moved NEAR a section-8 housing community. Let them eat cake.
and trash dump owners looking for a corrupt township to settle in.
"I don't like slums or the people in them. I'm tired of having beer cans thrown into my yard because I moved NEAR a section-8 housing community. Let them eat cake."
Yeah, until they decide that the Section 8 housing they want isn't enough, and then they take YOUR house. (Here's a Twinkie.)
Btw, didn't you know you were moving near a low rent district?
Then why doesn't this null and void our mortgages?
FREQUENTLY CALLED NUMBERS:
Arlen Specter and fellow toadies –
Congressional Cockroaches:
America-hating whiners:
Nit-wit City:
Crooks on Parade:
Depraved and Loving it:
Way-cool White House direct number - 202-456-1111
Riiiight. I can just see the NJ legislature falling all over itself to rein in developers.
The only way this happens is if enough people get in touch with their representatives and tell them that they don't want the state, county or city to be able to exercise eminent domain based on "economic" reasons, and the only way that happens is if this stays in the news.
"Btw, didn't you know you were moving near a low rent district?"
We did, but we thought we were far enough away. Our dumb fault. OH well, people have a right to be poor. I'm sorry for being an ogre, but we just had 2 hubcaps stolen (crappy plastic ones at that). That and the beer cans I keep finding are really getting on my nerves. Not to mention the very loud music from cars driving by.
And the liberals (DU) on the internet are reacting the same way the conservatives (FR and other places) on the internet... With disgust...
On the brightside, this property desision has converted a number of liberals to pro-gun stances. If things continue, they might convert to anti-taxes as well.
It looks like, in its ruling, the USSC just left the question of eminent domain to be answered by the states. If so, we should answer it with a resounding, Hell no!
Well it could, depending on who gets elected. Projects come and go, and the stalwart home owner that happened to be "in the way" has stalled more than a few, and in many of these cases, they stalled it long enough for the public to see just what a bone headed idea it was.
Would you also defend public financing of Ball Parks for MLB or NFL teams? That issue seems pretty close to this on in my eyes. But eminent domain ruling is a clear misreading of the constitution, and essentially says anthing a city does is by definition IN the public inerest , so damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.
I'm not so sure. The government has to pay for the property, first of all, and when they zone for businesses, those businesses require workers. Some places are just zoned wrong, filled with section-8 housing, crime-ridden, etc. So long as it is used sparingly and intelligently, it can be a good thing.
Unbelievable but I found a freeper that likes the ruleing, post number 8. Been a freeper Since Mar 17, 2004
mudblood read article five of the Constitution please.
I wish that just one really rich right winger would methodically begin purchasing property right next door to all of these vile tyrants in robes. He could put 20 homeless in right next door, or try to build a condo on the site of the tyrants home...
It's nice to dream...
People don't need singlefamily homes.
THe collective tax base would be benifitted by high density rental units.
(/s)
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.