City residents exclaim 'victory' in court case
State appellate court remands eminent domain case back to trial court
BY CHRISTINE VARNO Staff Writer

FILE PHOTO MTOTSA resident Denise Hoagland sits on her deck with her daughter Violet and her neighbor Lori Ann Vendetti.

LONG BRANCH — For the past five years, city resident Lori Ann Vendetti has been on a mission: to save her beachfront neighborhood from condemnation.

An advocate against the abuse of eminent domain, Vendetti has become a regular who spoke publicly at the biweekly Long Branch City Council meetings as well as at rallies and press conferences statewide. She has become somewhat of a spokeswoman for her threestreet beachfront neighborhood, known as MTOTSA (Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue).

But on Aug. 7, when she learned that the state Appellate Division reversed an earlier court decision that permitted the condemnation of her neighborhood, the vocal leader said, "I am at a loss of words."

She quickly followed that up with an emotional "Victory!"

"This is defiantly a victory for us," Vendetti said. "I am ecstatic. This shows that our area wasn't blighted. The appellate court says that this is a well-established, stable neighborhood.

"That is what we always were, always have been and always will be," Vendetti added.

A three-judge panel of the state Appellate Division unanimously reversed the June 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson that permitted the city to use eminent domain to acquire the homes in the Beachfront North, Phase II redevelopment zone, known as MTOTSA, for an upscale condominium project.

"We started this fight because the court was wrong," Vendetti said. "We did this for our neighborhood, for New Jerseyans and for people across the country, because eminent domain abuse has to stop."

Luis Anzalone, 91, the oldest resident living in the MTOTSA neighborhood, has lived in his oceanfront home with his wife Lillian for 48 years.

"This house is very, very important to me," Anzalone said. "From the day we bought it, it was our luxury home. This house was a place I intended all my life to live in to the end of my life.

"When I heard about the decision, I got a feeling that we may have a chance that they won't steal our homes and I will have a chance to see my dream, to live here the rest of my life."

Anzalone describes his home as more than just a building with walls and a roof. He said it is a place where his family has grown and a home that is frequently visited by family members and friends.

Over the past six years, the Anzalones, along with a group of neighbors, have been fighting the city to save the neighborhood from being taken through eminent domain. He said that the more than half-decade battle has taken its toll.

"Today, now, I can sit here at my home and look at the ocean," Anzalone said. "This is a victory."

On May 14, attorneys representing a group of Long Branch beachfront homeowners appeared before an appellate panel seeking for a dismissal of Lawson's ruling, which permitted the condemnation of the MTOTSA neighborhood.

Lawson's ruling also called for the appointment of commissioners to fix the compensation the city would be required to pay for the MTOTSA properties.

Although a dismissal was not granted, the earlier court decision was reversed and the case was remanded back to Lawson's court.

"This is a big step," Vendetti said. "We hope the city looks at this and says enough is enough and they take this redevelopment cloud from over us and let us live our lives.

"We fought hard," she said, adding, "We stuck on principle. Nobody should be forced from their home."

In the opinion, the appellate panel said that Lawson's decision came prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Gallenthin Realty Development Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, which reaffirmed that the New Jersey Constitution requires a finding of actual blight before private property can be taken for the purpose of redevelopment.

"We concluded that, under Gallenthin's heightened standard, the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the city's findings under any of the subsections upon which it relied," the three judges wrote in the opinion. "Accordingly, we reverse the judgments appointing commissioners."

The opinion continues, "We agree with appellants that material facts are in dispute regarding not only whether substantial evidence supports a finding of a need for redevelopment, but also as to the subsidiary issues (if the plan is otherwise valid) of (1) construction of the terms of the redevelopment plan as it applied to appellants' particular neighborhood, and thus whether the taking of appellants' properties represented a change in the plan that required readoption, and (2) whether appellants' neighborhood was integral to the overall redevelopment area and whether its inclusion was necessary to the redevelopment plan.

"We agree with appellants that, in light of the principles laid down in Gallenthin, the City did not find actual blight under any subsection of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, that the record lacked substantial evidence that could have supported the New Jersey Constitution's standard for finding blight, and that the absence of substantial evidence of blight compels reversal," the judges write.

"This obviously shows that something wasn't done right," Vendetti said. "It's vindication."