Eminent Domain

The Anzalone Family

Residents of a neighborhood slated to be razed for an oceanfront redevelopment project in Long Branch get a chance to convince a judge their homes are not blighted under a ruling issued this morning by a state Appellate panel.

The appeals court upheld a number of actions of the city, including its right to delegate its eminent domain authority to the developer, but said Long Branch failed to show the homes condemned for an oceanfront redevelopment project in the city were considered blighted.

Tell Gov. Corzine to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse in NJ!

State laws that allow governments to take land for private redevelopment are being misused and need to be reformed to protect private property owners, the public advocate said in a report released Tuesday.

Public Advocate Ronald L. Chen urged the Legislature in his report to stem the abuses that violate private property owners' rights by amending the state's overly broad redevelopment laws.

"New Jersey's laws governing the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment are written in a way that leads to abuse," Chen said in the report. "When the government misuses this important redevelopment tool, people can lose their homes without real evidence that their neighborhood is blighted, without adequate notice or hearings, and without fair compensation."

In her cozy white clapboard bungalow three blocks from the ocean in Asbury Park, Angie Hampilos waits. And waits.

For 20 years now, Hampilos, 92, has lived under the specter of losing her home of 47 years to make way for the city's long-awaited oceanfront redevelopment.

She can't sell it; she can't make any big improvements. She just watches it fall apart around her.

ATLANTIC CITY — Usually when Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen speaks out about the evils of eminent domain, he does so surrounded by a crowd of people who say they have been done wrong by the process.

But Wednesday at the Atlantic City Convention Center, he confronted a completely different animal: as a guest of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, he was speaking — by and large — to government officials who rely on the controversial power to pursue public improvement projects.

Survey: Public concerned about government power to take land

11/13/06  AP

NEWARK -- Most New Jersey voters dislike the ability of government to take land from its owners for redevelopment, according to a poll released Monday.

The survey also found interest in the topic remains high nearly a year after a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed a Connecticut city to use eminent domain to seize homes for commercial use.

Several bills to restrict the use of eminent domain are pending in the state Legislature.

The Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll asked respondents to consider four scenarios under which local and state governments might seize property; none was supported by a majority.

EMINENT DOMAIN QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE US SUPREME COURT

In Kelo v. City of New London, this Court held that economic development within an integrated development plan was a “public use” under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Does Kelo therefore completely preclude all claims of private purpose takings within an integrated development plan area, including a claim that eminent domain was used for financial extortion and the purely private financial goals of a single party?

What limits if any do the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution place on demands for cash in exchange for refraining from the use of eminent domain?

With the results of this week’s elections, 34 states have adopted eminent domain reform in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s wildly unpopular decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

Yesterday, two Port Chester property owners joined with the Institute for Justice (the public-interest law firm that litigated the Kelo case) to ask the Supreme Court to look again at the issue of eminent domain abuse and ensure that lower courts do not read Kelo to completely eliminate judicial review.  The case illustrates the dangerous results of the Kelo decision and asks what should be an easy question: 

"Does the Constitution prevent governments from taking property through eminent domain simply because the property owners refused to pay off a private developer?"

Just in the nick of time, and two weeks before the United States Senate will adjourn, Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) introduced the "Property Rights Protection Act of 2006" (S3878). The bill is the same as H.R. 4128 which was passed by the House of Representatives in 2005 (325 affirmative votes to 38). H.R. 4128 has been dormant in the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite the efforts of many property reform groups to see some action.

The new bill, S3878, will go directly to the floor of the Senate, requiring Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist to put eminent domain reform on the agenda. Other Republicans,  including Arlen Specter, Bill Frist and President George Bush are missing in action on this issue. Eminent Domain reform is an important issue nationwide and will not go away.

Dear Editor:
I say kudos to Lane Bajardi and Rick Kamber for rounding up their communities and constantly applying public pressure on City Council to vote in favor of what's best for their communities'.  We should further challenge the Administration and City Council to work harder in creating a balance between what is best for the City of Hoboken when it comes to public policy and the budget. You simply cannot just steam roll the public to fund a deficit!