Eminent domain reforms sputter

By BOB JORDAN • Gannett State Bureau• October
11, 2010

TRENTON — New Jersey continues to lag in
modernizing its eminent domain laws, with dozens
of other states having changed their rules in the five y
ears since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the
government's right to take land for private
redevelopment.

Changes proposed here would preserve the taking
of land for the redevelopment of blighted areas. But
eminent domain's legion of critics insist there must
be clear protections against the procedure being
too broadly authorized.

"If you own property, and paid good money for it,
and it's yours, nobody should be able to take it,"
said Claire Anzalone, whose family was involved in
a successful fight to save a Long Branch beachfront
home from redevelopment.

Eminent domain is the compulsory sale of property
without the owner's consent. Last week, a proposal
that would revise eminent domain's use in the state
was approved by the Senate Community and Urban
Affairs Committee but still requires at least four
additional approvals before it could get to Gov. Chri-
s Christie's desk.

One of its features is enhanced notification and
hearing requirements for property owners, which
Long Branch resident Lori Ann Vendetti says is "not
what anti-eminent domain activists want."

"So what? They give you more notification? They
give you more time before they kick you out of your
house," said Vendetti, who was among the leaders of
a group of residents who gained court rulings that
made the city and developers back down from a
large-scale project.

The new bill is touted by its sponsor, Sen. Ronald
Rice, D-Essex, as a balance between the rights of
residents and allowing for makeovers of blighted
areas "when necessary."

The bill's text also promises "just compensation and
appropriate relocation benefits for property owners
and tenants impacted by eminent domain and
redevelopment projects."

Rice said he's not surprised that not everyone is
happy with the proposal. Sen. Christopher Connors,
R-Ocean, opposed the bill in the committee, which
advanced the plan to the budget committee in a 3-1
vote.


"There have been many compromises. There's no
such thing as perfect legislation, especially a bill of
this magnitude," Rice said.

An attorney who specializes in property
condemnation cases said he expects the bill to
wither -- as it has in past sessions.

"It's just window-dressing. It's for the legislators to
say they're doing something but not really having
the will to do it," said William J. Ward.

The attorney said 43 states have altered their
eminent domain laws since the 2005 Supreme Court
ruling.

"Two of the states to not make changes are New Jers-
ey and New York, where there are high levels of
redevelopment," Ward said.

"There have been a lot of complaints that New Jersey
has abuse of eminent domain. I testified three times
before an Assembly committee about new
legislation. They drafted bills before but never took
action. They lacked political will," Ward said. "The
whole process is political because the
municipalities are in favor of using it to develop
portions of their towns, and there's pay-to-play
factors involving engineers, consultants, developers
and others. No one has got a handle on it. If there's
reform, it has to come from the top."

At last week's committee hearing, a Jersey City
resident said Rice's bill doesn't protect property
owners who are capable of redeveloping their own
land.

"For one property that we've owned for generations
and want to redevelop, our vision for the future of
this property may not become a reality under this
bill," Harwood said after the hearing.

Reach Bob Jordan at (609) 984-4343
bjordan@nj-pressmedia.com