From the Asbury Park Press:
Pros, cons of eminent domain debated
A state Supreme Court decision last year that found municipalities must prove property is blighted before it can be seized for redevelopment has had a chilling effect on projects throughout the state, but at least one proponent of the controversial power of eminent domain believes it will remain a viable tool when the political smoke clears.
Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider said that eminent domain — the government’s right to seize private property after paying just compensation — needs to remain a tool for municipalities to assemble property for redevelopment projects.
“The Gallenthin case didn’t take it away, and I don’t think the Legislature is going to,” he said.
The Gallenthin casewas a unanimous 2007 state Supreme Court decision. In it, the justices invalidated Pauls-boro’s redevelopment classification of property owned by Gallenthin Realty Development Inc., determining the municipality failed to prove by “substantial evidence” that the property was blighted, instead relying on a superficial determination that the land was “not fully productive.”
New Jersey’s top court weighed in two years after the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kelo decision determined that government could use the power of eminent domain to acquire property for economic development projects.
The 5-to-4 decision was widely reviled by property rights groups, leading to reform in many states, although legislative reform appears to have stalled in New Jersey.
I only have one thing to say eminent domain is ok for everyone except those who lived there. We had a project come to life in our town and while business owners of 30 plus years squwaked and they were eminent domained it gave birth to an area that the whole community can enjoy and tourist will enjoy. But for those who lost there prime spot in the community bad news.
I think the amount they received for the area was not represented in loss of future income and feel for the families of those business.