A place for eminent domain?

From the Press of Atlantic City:

Don’t go too far on eminent-domain reform in New Jersey

The recent state Supreme Court decision limiting a New Jersey municipality’s power to seize a vacant tract of land for redevelopment has been hailed as a major victory in the battle against eminent domain — but is it?
Not according to redevelopment lawyers familiar with the case, who insist that the June 13 ruling merely showed the borough of Paulsboro needed to make a stronger factual case when it argued that George Gallenthin’s land was “not fully productive.” The state Supreme Court said Paulsboro needed to provide evidence of “deterioration or stagnation.”

The ruling was heralded by property-rights advocates who want to overhaul the current redevelopment law, which includes the clause about underutilization to encourage “smart growth” planning. A chief supporter of such reform is Public Advocate Ronald Chen, who contends the current law gives towns overly broad power to seize “virtually every property” in the state.

The Regional Planning Partnership and other land-use advocates are heartened that the Gallenthin ruling won’t necessarily stop eminent domain from being used to promote smart growth, but we are concerned that other efforts under way in the Public Advocate’s Office and the Legislature will.

If that happens, there is no question our future is at risk. New Jersey is on track to becoming the first state in the union to be completely built out, if our current growth patterns continue unchecked. One of the best ways to stop sprawl is to revitalize our many struggling cities and towns.

If redevelopment were easy, developers would be doing it by themselves. But land assembly is a major obstacle to redevelopment — whether in urban areas or the suburbs. Any reforms regarding the use of eminent domain need to recognize the value of smart-growth redevelopment. Otherwise, our economy and our environment are doomed.