HOBOKEN:  As the "Eminent Domain for Private Gain" issue slowly simmers to a boil in the Mile-Square City,  the Hoboken City Council appears committed to averting a very public, protracted, and costly legal battle with the City’s redevelopment partners Ursa Development and Tarragon Development Corporation. 

 

    Ursa/Tarragon filed a lawsuit against the City alleging a breech of contractual obligations set forth in the 1998 Redevelopment Plan and subsequent 2001 Developers Agreement with respect to the massive northwestern redevelopment property at 10th and Grand Street.   At issue is the City’s delay in enacting an ordinance to “purchase or condemn” a property at Tenth and Grand Street that will permit the redevelopment partners to build 150 condominiums.  The property is presently the home of two successful private businesses employing over 100 employees.  

 

    In published newspaper reports, John J. Curley, an attorney for Ursa Development, said that his client filed a lawsuit against the city on Feb. 17 to compel the city to act on this ordinance.  At the March 15, 2006 City Council meeting, the Council once again tabled the ordinance while negotiations continued with the redevelopment partners. 

 

PROFIT DRIVEN REDEVELOPEMENT

 

     As Governor Corzine streamlines and tightens the States's ailing budget, Hoboken and other New Jersey communities will likely look to profit driven redevelopment as a means of offsetting the potential loss of State funding. 

 

     Armed with the power to take private property for redevelopment, the Hoboken City Council is currently working on the enactment of the Southern Redevelopment Plan.  Properties within the new redevelopment area include the Neuman Leather Building and the Hoboken Municipal Garage Complex. 

 

     Stay tuned, the Southern Redevelopment area will no doubt be the next eminent domain battle ground.  Subscribe to the edmecka email alert list and keep informed of the latest developments.

 

HOBOKEN RESIDENTS ARE NOT ALONE IN THIS FIGHT!

 

     An historic coalition that cuts across the philosophical spectrum has united in calling to reform the nation’s eminent domain laws.  Along with the Institute for Justice, the NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Farm Bureau, National Federation of Independent Business, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of Churches as well as other non-traditionally aligned groups have joined in the legal and legislative fight against eminent domain abuse. 

 

     Here in New Jersey, the “eminent domain” backlash began even before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London opened up the floodgates to the potential abuse of eminent domain for private gain. NEW JERSEY - PUBLIC POWER, PRIVATE GAIN

 

     Across the nation, lawmakers are hearing from their constituents, who demand enhanced state legal protection now that no federal protection exists. 

    

     Aligned against homeowners and small businesses are the beneficiaries of the virtually unrestricted use of eminent domain who are lobbying to prevent any attempt to diminish their power.  They include:

 

     In its seven-page paper, “Kelo v. City of New London:  What it Means and the Need for Real Eminent Domain Reform,” the Institute for Justice explained in clear terms what happened with the Kelo decision and warned legislators about the misinformation opponents of eminent domain reform try to promote. 

 

     Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose Use of Eminent Domain for Private Gain, especially here in New Jersey.  A poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street Journal (July 2005) reveals that when it comes to the Supreme Court, Americans care most about private property rights than any other issue. 

 

     A Monmouth University/Gannett NJ Poll  on October 5, 2005 showed;

  • 90% of New Jerseyans say it’s not ok to take low value homes to build a shopping center.
  • 86% believe it’s wrong to take low value homes for higher value homes.
  • 76% feel private developers benefit more than the local community when eminent domain is used.

 

One year after the Kelo argument, Susette Kelo and her neighbors remain in their homes.

Shortly after the Kelo decision was handed down, the legislature and Conn. Governor M. Jodi Rell asked for a moratorium on all takings for economic development, including those in New London, while the legislature looked at changing the law.  At first, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), the private body granted eminent domain authority by the City, agreed to abide by this, and then changed its mind and started sending out eviction notices to some of the owners.  This caused a firestorm of controversy in New London and throughout the state.  Governor Rell ordered the NLDC to rescind the notices, which it reluctantly agreed to do.  Shortly thereafter, the long-time head of the NLDC and antagonist of the property owners, David Goebel, resigned.  The governor has said she supports keeping the homes in Fort Trumbull if possible and has appointed a mediator (independent of the NLDC) to look at all of the options.  This month, the City Council unanimously voted to find a way to save many of the homes in Fort Trumbull.

“I do not plan on moving out of my house,” said Kelo.  “It is my dream home, and I will do everything in my power to make sure it stays where it is.”