Redefining blight

From the APP:

Appellate court rules Belmar can’t take Freedman’s Bakery for redevelopment

Freedman’s Bakery is not “blighted” and cannot be forced to participate in the borough’s planned downtown redevelopment project, putting at risk a $500 million proposal to virtually remake the downtown, a state appellate court has ruled.

“Freedman’s Bakery is not a blighted area even if its design is not optimal for its
commercial purposes,” the court ruled in a 10-page unanimous decision issued by Judges Ariel Rodriguez, Donald G. Collester Jr. and Thomas N. Lyons.

The decision was distributed to attorneys Tuesday and made public today. Freedman’s had argued that the borough, “performed no analysis that the internal operation of Freedman’s Bakery was a detriment to the public health safety and welfare.” The court agreed, saying the borough had made insufficient showing that the criteria had been met.

The borough has pinned its future economic hopes on the downtown redevelopment plan, where an increasing number of vacant storefronts have become an all-too-familiar sight along Main Street. Freedman’s is located at the corner of Eighth Avenue and Main Street.

Paul Fernicola, an attorney for Bowe and Fernicola in Red Bank, represented Freedman’s in the case and said the Belmar Planning Board had made up its own definition of blighted in order to execute its redevelopment agreement with Gale Co. of Florham Park, the borough’s master developer.

“What was the public detriment? When you really focus on what they said, their argument was that the internal production facilities weren’t up to modern design standards,” Fernicola said. “Modern design standards? Because the plant isn’t producing 150 doughnuts per second? Seriously, the Borough of Belmar is going to tell the Freedman family how to do conduct their business?”
…
State Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen noted in a friend of the Paulsboro court brief that Drumthwacket, the governor’s mansion, qualifies for redevelopment under the broad interpretation of not fully productive that Paulsboro – and Long Branch – have been using. The justices agreed, saying that “blight,” according to the constitution, is “deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding areas.”