Eminent domain deadline comes, but
family stays put
Posted on 07/11/06
BY GENE RACZ
GANNETT NEW JERSEY
PISCATAWAY — The Halpers remained on
their farm Monday night, defying an
eviction notice after indicating
earlier in the day they had planned
to leave.
"Until they come and boot us out,
we're still here," Zac Halper, 16,
said at 10:30 Monday night. "It's
our home, our land."
The teen said his parents, Clara and
Larry Halper, were unavailable — his
mother was at a taping of "Hannity &
Colmes" while his father was out
getting something to eat.
It was a different scene earlier
Monday when the Halpers gave the
appearance they planned to leave the
75-acre Piscataway farm on the day
they were being evicted after a long
battle with Middlesex County and
township officials.
Minutes before Monday's 3 p.m.
deadline set by the New Jersey
Supreme Court, Clara Halper was
moved to tears. As she and her
family scrambled to gather their
belongings in the midday heat, one
of the many people she met
throughout what has been a
seven-year ordeal showed up at her
doorstep.
Lisa Valle, a township resident who
came to know and support Clara
Halper in her struggle to keep the
farm and business from being taken
under eminent domain laws, hugged
her, told her she was sorry, and
gave her a necklace of her patron
saint, St. Michael, that read "Pray
for Us."
"I took this family into my heart,
as should every American," said
Valle.
A modest gathering had lingered
throughout the day — friends,
acquaintances, neighbors and some
opponents of the eminent domain laws
that were at the root of the
family's eviction after legal
wrangling with Middlesex County and
the township.
The Halpers contend that the process
was rife with conflicts of interest
and that parts of the negotiations
were not done in good faith.
Piscataway plans to use the property
for passive recreation with an
arboretum, gazebos, a dog park,
several tree nurseries, and jogging
and bike paths, according to plans
presented in February.
Township officials have maintained
the Halper property is an eyesore
and has not been actively farmed for
years. They also have said the
cleanup and preservation of the
property as open space is in the
best interests of the majority of
Piscataway residents.
Behind the scenes Monday, the
Halpers' attorney, Barbara Schwartz,
was in U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey in Newark,
trying to get a restraining order on
the eviction. She was denied the
ability to file the motion,
according to someone familiar with
the proceedings who asked not to be
identified.
The case may be appealed further to
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Holdouts in eminent domain case
agree to leave homes
(New London-WTNH, June 30, 2006
Updated 6:20 PM) _ The battle over
homes in a Fort Trumbull
neighborhood of New London has
ended. The final two holdouts have
agreed to leave their property so it
can be turned over to a private
developer.
by News Channel 8's Tina Detelj
It's just a small pink cottage, but
it's had a big effect on politics,
development and emotion in New
London. The cottage, which is owned
by the woman who was the lead
plaintiff in the eminent domain
case, will be moved to another part
of New London.
"This little pink cottage, this
symbol of the struggle against
eminent domain abuse, and it's now
known throughout the nation and it's
probably New London's most famous
landmark right now, is gonna be
preserved," attorney Scott Bullock
said.
Bullock, who represented Susette
Kelo in her Supreme Court
suit against the city, says it is a
bittersweet day for her and Michael
Christofaro, the two final former
property owners to sign a deal with
the city.
Christofaro also received some
concessions. A plaque honoring his
mother Margherita and her struggle
in this fight will be placed along
the city's waterfront. His father
Pascquale's home though will be
knocked down, although the family
does have the option to rebuild if
Fort Trumbull is redeveloped as a
residential area.
"We have the option to move back
into the neighborhood which we will.
That is something we will do,"
Michael Christofaro said.
"If they develop?"
"Yes. If they develop, but we have a
nine year option. I hope they're
gonna do something. I mean, if they
can't turn that thing around in nine
years why did these people lose
their homes?"
"We wanted to make sure that we
treated the occupants with a great
deal of respect and compassion and
addressed their needs as best we
could," said Ron Angelo from the
Connecticut Department of Economic
and Community Development, "and I
think we did that for them and we
hope to now start the healing
process and hope that we can all
move forward with development."
"Right now on the table we have a
fifty million dollar museum, we have
fifteen million dollars worth of
housing plus a hundred room hotel
and tens of thousands of square feet
of office space ready to take on a
high tech tenant, so it's great news
for the region," New London Mayor
Beth Sabilia said.
Posted on Sat,
Jun. 24, 2006
Bush curbs eminent domain
Property can be seized for public
uses only, not private development,
his executive order says.
By Jennifer Loven
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Bush ordered
yesterday that the federal
government may not seize private
property except for a public use
such as a hospital or road.
His action occurred on the one-year
anniversary of a controversial
Supreme Court decision that gave
local governments broad power to
bulldoze people's homes to make way
for private development.
The majority opinion in the Kelo v.
City of New London, a case involving
Connecticut homeowners, limited
those homeowners' rights, saying
that local governments could take
private property for purely economic
development-related projects that
aimed to bring in more jobs and tax
revenue.
But the court also said states were
free to pass additional protections,
and many have done so, barring
so-called takings for shopping malls
or other private projects.
Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas)
welcomed Bush's executive order. But
since the federal government has
only a limited role in such
projects, he said, Congress must do
more. Cornyn has introduced
legislation that would also bar
federal funding for any state or
local projects in which the land was
obtained through eminent domain.
"The protection of homes and small
businesses and other private
property against government seizure
or unreasonable government
interference is a fundamental
principle of American life and a
distinctive aspect of our form of
government," Cornyn said.
He called the Kelo ruling "a radical
departure from the decisions handed
down interpreting that
constitutional provision over the
last 200 years." Bush's action,
Cornyn said, is "an important step
toward righting that wrong."
 |
PROTESTS
HELD: In Long Branch, Asbury Park
ACTIVIST: Decries "terrible,
immoral movement by government'
Rallies condemn property taking
Posted 06/24/06
BY CAROL GORGA
WILLIAMS AND ANDREA ALEXANDER
STAFF WRITERS
LONG BRANCH — It was not a good date
for property rights.
Friday was the one-year anniversary
of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in a Connecticut case — called the
Kelo decision after Susette Kelo,
who fought efforts to take her home
for redevelopment in New London —
that affirmed the government's right
to take private property for
economic development.
But in the year that followed, said
speakers at protest rallies here and
in Asbury Park to mark the date, the
nation has become galvanized to stop
the use of eminent domain — the
government's right to take private
property for a public purpose — to
benefit other private individuals,
such as developers.
"One of the great things about this
movement is it brings us together to
fight a terrible, immoral movement
by government," Bill Potter, who
runs the New Jersey Coalition
Against Eminent Domain Abuse, said
at a rally in the Marine Terrace,
Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue (MTOTSA)
area of Long Branch that has become
the symbol of the eminent domain
controversy here.
"You're trying to live the American
dream the way it is supposed to be
lived," Potter said.
More than 100 people showed up at
the evening Long Branch rally,
carrying signs that read "Enough is
Enough," "K. Hovnanian, Leave Us
Alone," referring to the regional
developer that is tied to the city's
redevelopment, and "Stop, Stop,
Stop." The event drew people from
Trenton, Lodi, Piscataway, Newark,
Bound Brook, Asbury Park and
Neptune.
About 20 people attended the midday
Asbury Park rally, including those
from Neptune and Long Branch.
Asbury Park Councilman James Keady
called for a statewide moratorium on
eminent domain abuse. He said city
officials voted to take property
"without just compensation."
"It is not for the good of Asbury
Park," Keady said. "It is for the
good of out-of-town developers who
are going to reap millions."
Kerry Butch, 41, of Asbury Park, an
organizer of the earlier rally,
called the use of eminent domain for
redevelopment projects "immoral,
unjust" and "absolutely wrong."
After the rally, Asbury Park Deputy
Mayor James Bruno defended the
city's redevelopment plan and said
the majority of the council is
committed to the agreement.
"This is for the betterment of the
entire city," Bruno said.
Many of the city's critics "don't
know how it was through the '80s and
'90s," Bruno said. "It was a
blighted area and we had to do
something that would save this
city."
Friday was also a day when Long
Branch Mayor Adam Schneider again
offered to negotiate with full-time
residents interested in acquiring
condominiums in the new oceanfront
development that some homeowners say
is unfairly displacing them.
Schneider said he talked with
Gregory S. Russo, vice president of
Applied Development Co. of Hoboken.
The company and Matzel & Mumford, a
subsidiary of K. Hovnanian, make up
MM-Beachfront North II LLC, the
redeveloper of the second phase of
Beachfront North. The condo offer
remains on the table, he said.
"Absolutely," Schneider said. "We've
felt from the beginning of the
process — going back a dozen years —
people who lived down there, we'd
like to keep them on the oceanfront
the best we can . . . We'd be
willing to sit down and see if we
can make that work."
Schneider reaffirmed the offer one
day after the city prevailed in a
bitter court battle with MTOTSA
property owners over the right to
take their properties.
"We will not stop here," William
Giordano of MTOTSA said. "We will
fight on."
For Louis T. Anzalone, the
condominium offer holds no appeal.
"Tell the mayor I don't want no
condo," Anzalone said Friday night.
"I don't want to go into a tenement
on high."
Superior Court Judge Lawrence M.
Lawson in his decision Thursday had
questioned whether the residents had
engaged in "good faith" negotiations
after they had accused the city of
failing to do the same.
"Negotiations are a two-way street,"
Lawson wrote. "Where, as here, the
condemnees make it clear that they
do not intend to sell their
properties, negotiations are
rendered a practical impossibility.
Thus, the court cannot find that the
city failed to engage in bona fide
negotiations."
Lawson's decision involves a number
of MTOTSA property owners: Gregory
P. Brower, Francis T. DeLuca, Alan
A. Cook, Louis T. and Lillian
Anzalone, the estate of Elsa DeFaria,
Richard and Peter Squirlock, Albert
A. Viviano, Ellen Eagan and Jean
Sadenwater, Mary and Marino Milano,
Carmen and Josephine Vendetti and
Joyce and Philip Melillo.
Lawson did not grant the homeowners'
request for a stay of the decision
pending an appeal, and City Attorney
James G. Aaron said the city filed a
motion Friday to appoint
commissioners to establish the value
of the disputed properties.
The judge generally has between 90
and 120 days to appoint three
commissioners who will determine the
fair market value of the properties,
although because there are so many
hearings at issue here, the judge
could take longer, Aaron said.
But because there is no stay of the
decision, the city could move
immediately to take the homes.
"From a legal position, the decision
is pretty well bullet-proof," Aaron
said. "The judge's findings are so
strong, it is going to be very hard
to overturn . . . When a lawyer
takes a look at this, they are going
to say, "Oh, my goodness, this is a
very strong decision.' "
William J. Ward, the Florham Park
attorney who represents MTOTSA
residents DeLuca and Anzalone, said
the decision "basically slam-dunked
us on everything."
Even so, he believes the decision
can be appealed, and he vowed to do
so. The basis of the appeal will
likely include the conflicts of
interest issues that Lawson
dismissed — allegations of
favoritism by Aaron's law firm
because it had represented K.
Hovnanian, and by the law firm of
Arthur Greenbaum, who has served on
the board of directors for K.
Hovnanian since 1992. Greenbaum's
firm served as redevelopment counsel
for the city.
Ward called the conflict issue
"blatant and startling. If we get a
three-judge panel to look at it,
they are going to be shocked."
Ward also said he would challenge
the aspect of the decision that says
the homeowners did not timely
challenge the redevelopment
designation in 1996, waiting 10
years to go to court.
Scott G. Bullock of the Institute
for Justice, the Washington,
D.C.-based group that focuses on
individual and property rights, said
Lawson's ruling is "an incredibly
poorly reasoned decision and one
that lends itself very well to
appeal." Bullock argued the
Connecticut case before the U.S.
Supreme Court, and the institute
helped write the briefs in the Long
Branch case.
He said Lawson's not taking a
position on MTOTSA's contention that
the redeveloper has an inappropriate
role in the process — the right to
reject payment greater than the fair
market value to a homeowner — shows
how flawed the decision is.
"This cannot stand as law in New
Jersey," Bullock said.
Assemblyman Michael J. Panter,
D-Monmouth, attended the Long Branch
rally, a day after he voted against
the eminent domain bill sponsored by
Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli,
D-Gloucester, that was nonetheless
approved by the Assembly Thursday.
Critics say it does not go far
enough in protecting property
owners.
Panter said the original Kelo
decision "opened a candy store for
politically connected developers and
it is a candy store we have to shut
down . . . . The government should
never be taking away property to
give to someone else."
For Harold Bobrow, whose seasonal
home in the city's Beachfront South
section is threatened by eminent
domain, the decision by Lawson is
difficult to accept.
"He may be legally correct, but he
is certainly not morally correct,"
Bobrow said.For Rev. Kevin Brown,
former candidate for Mayor in Long
Branch, and Founding Pastor of the
Lighthouse Mission, who helped start
the statewide coalition, now taking
a back seat as different
personalities struggle for power
over this new group.
"I sat here and listened to the
speakers and watched the people as
they displayed their disdain for the
apparent refusal of New Jersey's
Elected Officials decision to
continue using eminent domain for
private gain. I couldn't help
but wonder what will happen next
November when the 80 members of The
Assembly are up for re-election.
However, I was pleased that through
the grey clouds of the skies above
us tonight that President Bush
signed an executive order today
protecting private property rights."
Rev. Kevin Brown. Lighthouse
Mission, Long Branch, whose home,
church and business is threatened by
the Broadway Arts plan.
|
|
Eminent domain
on rise, foes say
Report: 611 N.J.
properties at risk
Posted on 06/21/06
BY GREGORY J. VOLPE
GANNETT STATE BUREAU
TRENTON — In the year since the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld government's
right to take property for private
redevelopment, the number of
properties eyed for government grabs
has nearly tripled nationally,
according to a group of reports
released Tuesday.
New Jersey, one of 20 states that
had legislative sessions but no
eminent domain reform law signed in
2005-06, ranked fourth on the list
with 611 properties threatened by
condemnation since last June's
Supreme Court ruling, known as the
Kelo decision.
Nationally, 5,783 properties have
been targeted for private
redevelopment this year, reports the
Institute for Justice, which found
there had been an average of 2,056
per year from 1998 to 2002.
"Unbelievable. It's madness. It's
absolute madness," said the Rev.
Kevin Brown, whose Long Branch
church, home and business are
threatened by eminent domain. "It
violates the Tenth Commandment when
you think about it: Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor's home."
The numbers didn't surprise Bill
Potter, chairman of the New Jersey
Coalition Against Eminent Domain
Abuse.
"Kelo certainly told the nation that
everybody's property is up for
grabs," Potter said. "It's past time
for the New Jersey Legislature and
the governor to protect the property
owners and homeowners and farmers of
New Jersey."
But those who support eminent domain
say the reports' numbers aren't
reflective of homes that are
actually taken and accuse the
institute of being biased against
any use of eminent domain for
private redevelopment.
"It just annoys me to no end that
they just have a knee-jerk reaction
that if you use eminent domain
you're bad and you must be on the
side of the devil," said William
Dressel Jr., executive director of
the New Jersey State League of
Municipalities. "And that's
absolutely wrong."
Patrick J. O'Keefe, chief executive
officer of the New Jersey Builders
Association, said the number of
properties included in the study far
exceeds those that are actually in
danger of being taken. And if the
number were accurate, O'Keefe said,
it's still 611 in a state with 3.4
million homes.
"It is not a large number in
relative terms to the number of
properties that are out there,"
O'Keefe said.
Since the decision, 13 states have
passed reform laws the institute
applauded as substantive and 12
others it said offer increased
safeguards for property owners.
Three more states' reform bills
await governors' signatures. Eleven
states have done nothing, while New
Jersey and five others have measures
pending in the Legislature. In the
five remaining states, lawmakers
haven't been in session.
"New Jersey is one of the worst
states in the country, and they're
not doing anything," said Dana
Berliner, an institute senior
attorney.
Vote set in Assembly
The Assembly is scheduled to vote
Thursday — a day before the Kelo
anniversary — on a measure that aims
to place more burdens on towns
seeking to redevelop, limits what
land can be taken and requires more
compensation to those who lose
property.
Assemblyman John Burzichelli,
D-Gloucester, the bill's sponsor,
said he's pleased with the bill's
progress.
The proposal "goes a long way in
ensuring people that this process
and this very powerful tool of
government will not be unleashed in
any kind of haphazard fashion,"
Burzichelli said.
A Senate committee plans summer
hearings on a different eminent
domain proposal.
Critics say the measure doesn't go
far enough in restricting towns from
using eminent domain for private
projects.
"The bill in the Legislature is not
going to change the fact that New
Jersey is fourth," New Jersey Sierra
Club director Jeff Tittel said.
"Eminent domain is still going to be
abused if this bill is passed."
|
Retooled
eminent-domain limits face Assembly
vote
06/20/06
BY GREGORY J. VOLPE
GANNETT STATE BUREAU
TRENTON — An Assembly panel approved
limits on the use of eminent domain
Monday after more changes that left
some critics less averse and some
supporters reconsidering their
position.
After making many changes in the two
weeks since Assemblyman John
Burzichelli, D-Gloucester,
introduced the measure aimed at
giving residents more protection
from government taking people's land
for private redevelopment, the
Assembly Commerce and Economic
Development Committee approved it
6-1, sending it to the full Assembly
for a vote Thursday.
The bill requires more notification
when a municipality is considering
taking land for redevelopment, more
compensation to those who lose
property, and a greater burden of
proof on government for the
necessity of taking land.
The strongest criticism Monday
revolved around pay-to-play, the
practice of rewarding political
donors with government contracts.
The latest changes subject
redevelopers to pay-to-play bans if
they aren't named via a "fair and
open" process. The language mirrors
the state ban except that it removes
the threshold limiting it to
contracts over $17,500 because many
redevelopment contracts don't
involve money.
Assemblywoman Amy Handlin,
R-Monmouth, who cast the lone vote
against the bill in the committee,
wanted to ban all contributions for
six years and implement an
anti-nepotism provision.
"I can't vote to create a new
process that is easily corruptable,"
Handlin said.
Public Advocate Ronald Chen and
environmentalists also lamented the
lack of a stronger pay-to-play
provision.
"When redevelopment occurs, there's
a tremendous amount of money at
stake, and the government assumes
awesome powers," Chen said.
"Pay-to-play reform is essential to
eliminate some of the appearances of
impropriety."
Chen praised the efforts to
objectively define blight, limiting
the reasons government can take
private land, but said the bill
should do more than require
replacing government-subsidized —
and not all — affordable housing
units.
Other changes brought some praise
from one of the measure's biggest
critics.
"Each time we meet, it does seem to
get better," New Jersey Sierra Club
Director Jeff Tittel said to
Burzichelli. "I'd like a couple more
meetings, but I know you don't want
to do that."
Two of the measure's biggest
supporters seemed less enthused.
The New Jersey Builders Association
is reconsidering its support over
concerns that it might impose unfair
burdens on projects that don't
involve taking property, make
developers disclose compensation
given to property owners in a
redevelopment area, and mandate a
period of 20 business days in which
those displaced have rights of first
refusal for the new construction.
The New Jersey State League of
Municipalities still supports the
proposal but is concerned it will
become more restrictive.
"We just want to make sure that, at
the end of the day and after all
these changes, that we don't go so
far . . . that we dampen economic
development in the state," said
William Dressel Jr., the league's
director.
Burzichelli said he has reached a
fair balance between municipalities'
need to revitalize and homeowner
protection by mandating more hurdles
for towns and higher prices for
taking land.
Burzichelli expects the bill to be
approved by the full Assembly on
Thursday. It has made no progress in
the Senate, where Sen. Ronald Rice,
D-Essex, has sponsored a different
eminent-domain bill that he doesn't
expect to move until after the
summer.
®
|
Appeals panel backs
landowner in eminent domain case
Long
Branch deemed area blighted
Posted by
the Asbury Park Press on 06/15/06
BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
LONG BRANCH — A state appellate panel ruled
against the city Wednesday in an eminent
domain case involving a former landowner who
appealed a 2005 decision on properties in
Beachfront North.
That means the case will be sent back to
Freehold so a new "just compensation" figure
can be set by a jury.
"It is significant to Mr. (Dennis) Spanos
because he gets to have his day in court,"
said Kenneth D. McPherson Jr., who argued
the case on appeal. The city's attorney,
Paul V. Fernicola, could not be reached.
The case began in 1982 when Dennis S. Spanos
and his wife, Theonie, purchased adjacent
vacant lots identified as 32 Ocean Ave.
North that they hoped to use as a retirement
investment.
In 1984, the city deemed as blighted the
area in a redevelopment project — not the
one currently under way — and the lawsuit
said the Spanoses "put their future plans of
building and operating a restaurant on the
property on hold."
In early 1987, the Spanoses received a
letter from the lawyer from the Long Branch
Redevelopment Agency offering to buy their
property for $127,000, but they declined.
Soon afterward, a nearby property owner
offered to buy their property for $650,000,
but the deal fell through, the lawsuit says.
In December 1988, the city revalued the
property, assessing the lots at $414,800.
Then, on Jan. 9, 1996, the city enacted an
ordinance increasing the maximum permitted
development density in some zones from 18
units an acre to 30 units an acre.
On Jan. 23, 1996, the city adopted a
resolution designating much of the city's
oceanfront, including the Spanos property,
as an area in need of redevelopment. On Jan.
23, 2001, the city authorized the use of
eminent domain to acquire the property,
appraising it at $152,600.
In arriving at the assessed value, the
ap-praiser, Hugh A. McGuire of McGuire
Associates, did not mention the less
restrictive 1996 zoning ordinance, which the
appellate panel said would have undoubtedly
increased the value of the property.
A condemnation commissioners' hearing was
held Nov. 25, 2002, in which McGuire was the
only witness. The commissioners fixed
compensation at $294,000.
On Dec. 6, 2002, the city appealed that
award, but the Spanoses never filed a
cross-appeal. Meanwhile, after receiving the
city's notice of appeal, the Spanoses'
lawyer contacted Jon Brody of the Appraisal
Consultants Corp., who determined the market
value of the Spanoses' property was
$1,070,000.
The trial judge agreed with the city,
granting its motion to fix the final
compensation at $294,000. But the appellate
panel disagreed, saying the failure to file
a cross-appeal was not fatal to the case,
and that Long Branch's failure to reveal the
less restrictive zoning ordinance was
problematic.
". . . The city cannot claim prejudice due
to (the Spanoses') attempt to receive full
fair market value for their property in
light of the applicable zoning regulations,"
the appellate panel wrote. The Spanoses'
"right to receive "every reasonable
consideration' before the invasive power of
eminent domain may be exercised warrants a
remand so that their land may be properly
valued." |
HELP
FUND THIS IMPORTANT RESOURCE FOR FOLKS
SUFFERING UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE.
WE STRIVE TO GIVE ALL PEOPLE UNDER THE
STRESS OF DEVELOPMENT A VOICE ONLINE TO
SPEAK OUT!
PUBLISHED BY:
KEVIN BROWN, LONG BRANCH, NJ 732.222.6224 - ALL HIS CREATIVE
GENIUS WAS GIFTED TO HIM BY GOD |
®
®