Proposed ordinance would redefine blight
Proposal aims to raise standard for condemnation
BY CHRISTINE VARNO
Staff Writer

LONG BRANCH — A city resident facing loss of his property to redevelopment is proposing an ordinance that would narrow the definition of blighted properties to restrict the use of eminent domain.

“It is clear that the City Council is not showing signs of ending its excessive use of eminent domain in Long Branch,” said Kevin Brown, who owns a building in the city’s downtown Broadway redevelopment zone.

“It is also clear that a property needs to be blighted before condemnation proceedings can be initiated by the city against any property.”

So Brown has written his own ordinance defining blight that he says would protect homes that do not deserve to be condemned.

The ordinance states, “The city of Long Branch will define the term blight to include the following:

• Property that is unoccupied, nor does it appear that the owners care to occupy either by lease of tenancy or residing within themselves;

• Property that is in such disrepair that it is unsafe to allow occupancy and the owners have refused to make it safe for occupancy;

• Property that is abandoned, boarded up and off the tax roles.”

Currently in New Jersey, the term blight is no longer used, Mayor Adam Schneider said this week.

In 1992, an amendment to the state’s redevelopment statute removed the word blight and rephrased it with “an area in need of redevelopment,” Schneider said.

In order to qualify as “an area in need of redevelopment,” the Planning Board of the municipality must determine if a given area meets specific criteria, City Attorney James Aaron said.

The criteria include land that has remained vacant for a period of 10 years or more; an area that is not properly utilized; a number of units that have a diversity of owners who are not full-time residents; vacant buildings; an area is not a smart growth area.

The Long Branch Planning Board made these findings with respect to the city’s redevelopment zone in 1995, Aaron said.

According to the statute, a blighted area may also be “designated as a renewal area, and the terms blighted area and renewal area may be used interchangeably in all ordinances, resolutions, determinations and official actions taken by governmental bodies and agencies in connection with projects and programs for the clearance, planning, development or redevelopment of area pursuant to law.”

According to Brown, every structure that exists in the state could be threatened by eminent domain if the current state statutes were applied.

The city has used the current definition of blight to declare townhouses and neighborhoods with single-family homes as blighted on the basis of existing vacant lots and abandoned buildings nearby.

“The current definition of blight takes perfectly good property,” Brown said.

“This [ordinance] could save good homes from being taken away from their owners for no other reason than private gain.”

Brown plans to submit a copy of the ordinance to council within the next two weeks, and if the council opts not to introduce it at the July 26 meeting, Brown said he will use the “initiative and referendum” process to try to change the definition of blight.

The process begins when a copy of the proposed ordinance is presented to council for review and adoption.

If the council does not have a first reading of the ordinance within a month, he can present petitions in support of the ordinance signed by no less than 10 percent of registered voters in the community.

The signatures then must be presented to the city clerk, and the clerk has 20 days to determine whether the petitions are valid and to state how many more valid signatures are needed.

If additional signatures are needed, they must be obtained within 10 days.

Once the petition is declared valid, the council is required to hold a vote on the proposed ordinance and if it is rejected, the ordinance will appear on the November general election ballot.

“I know the state will help save [homeowners from eminent domain] down the line, but we could all be gone by then,” Brown said.

“This [ordinance] could be law as soon as January 2006. We need to protect ourselves.”