State lawmakers act to curb eminent domain
Bill would bar taking residences for economic development
BY CHRISTINE VARNO
Staff Writer

Legislation proposed by state lawmakers could help property owners, including those in Long Branch redevelopment zones, save their homes from seizure through the process of eminent domain.

Barely two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in support of condemnation of private properties for private development, local Assemblymen Michael J. Panter and Robert L. Morgan (D-Mercer/Monmouth) introduced Assembly Bill 4393. The bill would tighten the requirements for the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes, according to a July 5 press release.

“Property rights are one of the key liberties that distinguish us from more authoritarian governments,” said Panter on Wednesday.

“People know their property cannot be taken by others or the government absent an emergency public use like bridges or highways,” he said. “To take them away for private development in the name of job creation and to add tax ratables means nobody’s home is ever safe as long as an argument can be made that revitalization is needed.”

On June 23, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of local governments’ use of eminent domain in the Kelo v. New London (Conn.) property rights case.

The decision was decried by a group of Long Branch residents facing eminent domain proceedings.

The Long Branch Beachfront North, phase II redevelopment zone, known as MTOTSA (Marine and Ocean Terraces and Seaview Avenue), is slated for eminent domain, and plans call for the 36 properties in the three-street neighborhood to be bulldozed and replaced with upscale condominiums and townhouses.

But the legislation being proposed could offer the homeowners relief.

“This bill [A-4392] could potentially save [MTOTSA] homes,” Kerri Danskin, spokeswoman for Panter and Morgan, said Wednesday.

“Panter and Morgan have kept a close eye on what is going on nationwide with eminent domain,” Danskin said. “They are opposed to the Supreme Court’s June 23 decision.

“States are able to create laws that are stronger than the rulings of the Supreme Court.”

A-4392 would prevent the taking of private homes and other residential units by condemnation to accomplish economic development objectives, such as the construction of nonpublic office buildings, megastores and shopping centers, according to the release.

It would prohibit the use of eminent domain to condemn a property that is legally occupied as a residential property and is maintained in accordance with applicable housing codes and standards, if passed.

Similar action has been taken in Congress, according to Andrew Souvall, spokesman for Congressman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6).

On June 30, the House of Representatives passed a resolution, by a vote of 365 to 33, expressing grave disapproval with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that nullifies the protections afforded private property owners in the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, according to Souvall.

The House also approved an amendment to the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development and Judiciary appropriations bill for the 2006 fiscal year, by a vote of 231 to 189, that prohibits any of the funds made available in the bill from being used to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court, Souvall said.

“It is unfortunate that we have to enact legislation to protect people’s personal property from the government that is supposed to represent them,” said Morgan.

“Our founding fathers would be appalled at the applications of eminent domain that are now being considered appropriate.”

Panter said the new bill will hold governing bodies in New Jersey to a higher standard before they are able to seize private property.

Panter and Morgan hold that property rights are an essential freedom in the United States and to have that threatened by a Supreme Court decision is unacceptable, according to Danskin.

“Under the Supreme Court’s decision, ‘public use’ could now mean anything from a shopping center to a new set of condominiums,” said Morgan.

“A governing body’s opinion of what might benefit constituents is not a sufficient touchstone for a question that could cost people their homes.”

As yet, there is no timeline for when the bill will be reviewed, Danskin said.