From the Asbury Park Press:
Eminent domain raw deal for property owners
“New Jersey has 1,000 redevelopment projects planned or under way. The deck is stacked against the residential property owner, the small business owner, and even industry. If our politicians are not serious about reform, we might as well change our license plates to read “The State of Eminent Domain.”
Current New Jersey eminent domain law is grounded in the New Jersey Constitution, the Eminent Domain Act of 1971, the Local Redevelopment Housing Law and the Relocation Assistance Act and its regulations. New Jersey needs an immediate Eminent Domain Revision Committee, a bipartisan effort including representatives of the judiciary, academia, property owners and condemning authorities. This panel should conduct a comprehensive review of the laws with an eye toward recommending to both the Legislature and the governor sweeping changes in the laws governing eminent domain.
During oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kelo case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, “Blight is in the eye of the beholder.”
“Blight” does not exist in the U.S. Constitution, but it appears in the New Jersey Constitution in Article VIII, Section three, which links blight with a public use. The definition of blight was expanded by the Legislature, approved by the courts and is now synonymous with “an area in need of redevelopment.” It would not be so easy to seize property if the definition were not so broad.
…
As reported in the Asbury Park Press, a poll of 800 people conducted by Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey newspapers last September revealed that 81 percent of people aware of eminent domain issues believe private developers benefit more from eminent domain than the municipalities. Looking at the enormous profits the developers stand to gain at the expense of senior citizens and families in Long Branch, the concept of public use remains questionable.
The Supreme Court in the Kelo decision gave us economic benefit as public use when it affirmed New London, Conn.’s authority to take the petitioners’ properties. But Justice John Paul Stevens also said, “We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many states already impose “public use’ requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. The necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.””
It has NO place. Ever. To have a public good that trumps private ownership is tyranny of the majority.
How abhorrent. I jsut read an article about my former area in CA citing eminent domain to buy property BACK from Walmart because the townsfolk and unions don’t like them and don’t want the competition Walamrt brings. So they’re buying back the property through ED, and of course pissing away taxpayer dollars as Walmart fights them in court.
As New Jersey becomes built out especially in the core areas, you will find it employed more and more.
Michele, would you support widening of highways? ED is necessary for right of way acquisition.
If ED is never allowed nothing gets done!
I have no problem with states acquiring land for projects in a voluntary manner, ie paying landowners big bucks to acquire their property for road widening, bridges, etc. But to force people to sell, even at “market rate”, is intrinsically wrong. If the state or township ever wanted to buy frontage in front of my house to widen the road, the price would have to be astronomically high before I would even consider it as the overall negative externality to me is way beyond the value of the property.
ED is one of those extremely slippery slopes and we’re currently seeing just how steep it is. It becomes an additional tax grab, taking property from owners who don’t contribute as much to the system as a newly developed project would. For roads, ED is an easy out that reduces thoughts about rail and other possibile alternative methods of transport beyond cars.
I believe that ED is always philosophically wrong. That doesn’t mean that society doesn’t benefit from it, but I feel it has no moral ground to stand on.
Instead of widening roadways, what about decentralizing business locations more? I think you mentioned that you’re a planner so I’d be interested in your reply quite a bit. For example, instead of everything and its brother being in East Hanover, aren’t there locations in other parts of Morris County that could be home to office/industrial parks that would be the “reverse commute”? Of course, Highlands probably did away with that idea…
Michelle said…
“I have no problem with states acquiring land for projects in a voluntary manner, ie paying landowners big bucks to acquire their property for road widening, bridges, etc. But to force people to sell, even at “market rate”, is intrinsically wrong.”
Every time a project is done i.e. highways market rate is always the compensation. that is what is prescribed constitutionally.
And as for the voluntary manner, well the interstate system wouldn’t be here.
Morris County is pretty much built out. Here is where redevelopment would come in but…
As for the reverse commute, ever look at the west bound I-80 or I-78 in the morning? Eastern PA is booming and will suck alot of the jobs out of NNJ. They have a better business climate, quality of life, taxes etc. Look at the plates on the highways and count the PA plates. Having worked as a consultant for corporate site location I can tell you that for back offices PA is game.
As for decentralizing business locations, I can recommend a book “Edgeless Cities”. It describes how that has already happened, and the data is based on the early nineties.
I must say it is authored by my brother-in-law, Robert Lang (professor Virginia Tech) but he is nonetheless the expert on the topic among others.
Thanks for the great post, MP. The book looks fascinating; just read the blurb on amazon and put in my cart for future ordering (gotta qualify for that free shipping, of course).
I’ll allow, after just having done some further reading on the subject, that there may be times when ED is unavoidable (although it doesn’t make it philosophically correct; so much for my idealism). But increasing ratables shouldn’t qualify as public good, no more than income tax increases should.
It seems that not a single one of the above instances could be classified as being in the same caliber of public interest as infrastructure with the exception of the airport; from the blurb it looks like it’s still negotiations and not forceable ED.
Interesting topic…off to do more reading (and oh yeah, get to work).
Michelle said…
“But increasing ratables shouldn’t qualify as public good, no more than income tax increases should.”
I completely agree. But Home rule has put municipalities in the ratables chase and they will use any method they can to up them. Often at the expense of neighboring towns. Just bad planning, but then again regional planning is just about illegal in NJ.
Every time a project is done i.e. highways market rate is always the compensation. that is what is prescribed constitutionally.
It may be constitutional but it’s still theft.
The government, if it wishes to seize land, should offer to relocate the landowner to land of equivalent or better size, services and value, and should have to lift and move the house or build an equivalent or better one in the new location. Likewise any developer who wishes to use ED.
Suggestion for the new state slogan:
“New Jersey, it’s eminently clear to everyone”
I’m pretty sick of this argument, I’m all for eminent domain when used properly. As far as I’m concerned they should use it in Camden, and Irvington basically really nasty places that since they have not managed to get a handle on crime issues and poverty. Move everyone out, the situation benefits no one the residents included. Why should land in a good location be without development and be under utilized. Removing those areas will make things better for many people. As will smaller projects such as a downtown area in Somerville or a transit village in Plainfield. Although certain people, cough Jack Morris cough should be not be involved in eminent domain given the fact that they are under inverstigation and have all kinds of shady gov’t contacts.
So there we have it the big issue is the corruption at the government level, because for the most part ED is good.