BOYCOTT THE ABUSERS!!!!! Developers K. Hovnanian Matzel & Mumford Applied Group The Applied Group owns PIER VILLAGE in Long Branch including the all the residential apartments and RETAIL Stores!! |
|||||||||
 CARMEN VENDETTI - 82, LED EMINENT DOMAIN FIGHT June 15, 2009 - Star Ledger BY KATHERINE SANTIAGO Carmen Vendetti, a Long Branch homeowner who reluctantly became a leader in the fight against eminent domain, has died at a hospice center. The 82-year-old Vendetti had been diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma, a tumor in one of his lungs, according to his daughter, Lori Ann Vendetti. He died Friday at Monmouth Medical Center Hospice. Vendetti and his wife, Josephine, found themselves in the public eye soon after they began their fight against Long Branch when the city claimed their summer home for nearly 50 years was blighted and therefore subject to seizure under eminent domain laws. ‘‘He loved this little house,’’ Josephine Vendetti, also known as Fifi, said. ‘‘He loved the neighborhood, he loved the people here.’’ Speaking to local and national news outlets, the Vendettis told the story of their fight against the city’s effort to take their home. ‘‘My parents and other senior citizens in the neighborhood became our spokespersons,’’ Lori Ann Vendetti said. ‘‘He was active in all the rallies and the meetings that we had.’’ Vendetti and his daughter became active members of the MTOTSA Alliance, an acronym for Marine Terrace Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue, the group of homeowners who fought the city’s redevelopment plan. Vendetti first bought the oceanfront land in 1960 as a summer getaway for his young family from their Newark home. He and his wife and their three children, Ralph, Carmine and Lori Ann, looked forward to their Long Branch summers, his wife said. When he worked as a tractor trailer driver, Vendetti would make the more than one-hour drive to spend his summer evenings in Long Branch. Dinner with the family was always around 6 p.m. On some nights after dinner, he’d walk the one block to the ocean with one of his children and a fishing pole. Other nights, he’d sit on the back porch — which he built with used bricks collected from Newark demolition sites — with a cup of coffee, Lori Ann Vendetti said. He would even pool his vacation days so he could take them all at once in August and be near the ocean. Families in the alliance often cited financial reasons for fighting the city’s redevelopment plans. But for the Vendettis — who also own homes in Newark and Florida — money wasn’t the issue. ‘‘We were fighting for the American dream. My dad gave us great memories; we always had summers to look forward to,’’ his daughter said. Both of the Vendettis’ sons have died, Carmine Vendetti at 26 with his wife and 10-day-old daughter in a Newark fire. Ralph Vendetti died at 44 of a heart attack. Eminent domain has been used as a government tool to take land for public projects and to remove ‘‘blighted’’ homes from communities. In June 2005, the Supreme Court upheld the power of local governments to take private property for the benefit of private business. ‘‘He spent his golden years fighting something that he shouldn’t have to be fighting,’’ said Denise Hoagland, a neighbor and member of the Alliance. In November 2008, Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider, who had argued the contested area met the ‘‘blighted’’ designation needed to trigger an eminent domain taking, said he wanted to settle with homeowners and allow them to keep their houses. Neighborhood residents, however, have been cautious to claim Schneider’s announcement as a victory for them, saying nothing is in writing yet. MTOTSA members, with the help of the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, continue to meet behind closed doors in court-mandated mediating sessions with proposed developers. ‘‘Our fight isn’t over,’’ Lori Ann Vendetti said of the eight-year legal battle. ‘‘But at least my dad died knowing that his family still has their house.’’ In addition to his wife and daughter, Vendetti is survived by three grandchildren, Christian, Nicole and Alexa Vendetti. Asbury Park Press - Carol Gorga Williams -1/29/09 The central players in the Long Branch eminent domain drama continue to meet behind closed doors to hammer out an agreement allowing property owners who wish to remain to keep their homes, as other thorny settlement details are being hashed out. In the second of the court-mandated mediating sessions ordered by Superior Court Assignment Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, lawyers for the property owners of the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue (MTOTSA) area met Wednesday with Superior Court Judge Thomas W. Cavanagh Jr. He in turn met with lawyers for Long Branch and lawyers for the proposed developer of what was once to be the second phase of Beachfront North. The partnership of Applied Development and Matzel & Mumford owns about half the properties in the redevelopment zone but that is not enough to build the high-density project the developer once desired. With the land it has now, the best the developer can hope for is an occasional duplex or single-family home. Another mediation session is scheduled March 3. In the meantime, some of the MTOTSA property owners have met with Pratap R. Talwar, the redevelopment plan author who is trying to determine what property owners want to do with the community if the litigation ends. The city must rezone the area and wants the current residents to be part of that process, officials said. According to Mayor Adam Schneider, there is no point in rezoning the area without the views of the property owners because then he has merely exchanged one controversy for another. In the case before Cavanagh, all the sides are seeing if they settle the key issues. If not, the lawsuit is returned to Lawson for trial. Under the terms of a 2008 appellate court ruling, the city did not comply with 2007 standards for determining blight when it blighted the MTOTSA area in the 1990s. But the appellate court allowed the city the opportunity to prove its case for blight, under the new standards, if the case goes back to court. 
Picture by Matt Rainey/The Star LedgerLONG BRANCH SIGNALS END TO 5-YEAR HOMES FIGHT by Mark Muellerand MaryAnn Spoto/The Star-Ledger - Friday November 21, 2008, 9:25 PM Beachfront North is seen looming above houses in the affected eminent domain area of Long Branch.After a bitter five-year legal fight, the city of Long Branch has suggested it will abandon its plan to seize more than a dozen modest homes to make way for an ambitious oceanfront development project. Mayor Adam Schneider, who has long contended the small neighborhood meets the "blighted" designation necessary for the use of eminent domain, said today he now wants to settle with the homeowners rather than fight them in court for several more years. "The goal is to not use eminent domain," Schneider said. "I want this case settled. It's not going to settle if we use eminent domain." While he has not put the pledge it in writing, Schneider said he can no longer envision seizing the converted bungalows "unless there's a series of incredible demands" by the homeowners. "In my mind, that ship has sailed," Schneider said. Lori Ann Vendetti, a leader of the homeowners' group, said she was "cautiously optimistic" a settlement could be reached and that residents would be able to remain in their houses. "This is a positive development," Vendetti said. "All along the city has said, 'We're going to take your properties,' and the mayor has said, 'You're not going to stay in your homes.' So this has never come out of his mouth before." A lawyer for the homeowners was decidedly more cautious, saying that if Schneider is serious, he should move for a voluntary dismissal of the condemnation complaint in court. "Why didn't he just do that?" asked the lawyer, Peter Wegener. "There's some reason he can't do that. It seems to me that something else is in play, and what else is in play is the fact that we don't know what the developer is saying." The developer, a partnership of the Applied Group and Matzel & Mumford, owns about 40 percent of the properties in the neighborhood. Schneider said he is not concerned about a potential breach of contract if the city does not deliver all properties it promised the developer, particularly in light of the sour economy. "I'm not worried about that fight anymore," the mayor said. "The developer has indicated they're not that anxious to have that fight." The mayor's overture comes at a time of growing opposition to the use of eminent domain. New Jersey Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen has called on Long Branch to halt its condemnation plan. The courts, in recent decisions, have placed a higher burden on cities and towns to prove that a particular home or neighborhood is "blighted." In the Long Branch case, the Appellate Division ruled in August that the city failed to show the condemned homes met the legal definition of blighted. It ordered Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lawrence Lawson to hold a new hearing on that issue. The city appealed to the state Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. The new hearing now is scheduled for June, and both sides say they will continue to prepare for it even as they discuss a settlement. MAYOR: EMINENT DOMAIN OFF TABLE IN LONG BRANCH By Carol Gorga Williams After nearly five years of exchanging hostilities in the battle over what some people perceived as the abuse of the power of eminent domain, Mayor Adam Schneider and activist Lori Ann Vendetti moved Thursday toward bringing closure to the dispute. The detente began when Schneider ran into Vendetti Nov. 8 as she was honored for her work fighting eminent domain abuse by the Greater Long Branch NAACP. Schneider attended the annual Freedom Fund banquet and he approached the activist to offer his congratulations. In the wake of an August appellate court decision that stated the city did not prove Vendetti's community was blighted, Schneider has been signaling a desire to settle the case. "We could possibly get a lot of this done, if we sat down," Schneider said, recounting the conversation about the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue — MTOTSA — area where property owners had been fighting the city's attempts to take their homes for a beachfront redevelopment project. "I've made it clear in the last 35 to 40 days if we're going to settle this case, now is the time to get to work," said Schneider. Vendetti, accompanied by MTOTSA member Denise Hoagland, quietly met with Schneider and Council President Michael DeStefano on neutral ground at Rooney's Ocean Crab House on Nov. 11 laying the groundwork for a discussion Thursday that brought the two sides even closer, both Vendetti and Schneider agree. "We're essentially taking eminent domain off the table now," Schneider said. "That is the goal of all of these negotiations. If we take eminent domain off the table, what are we left with? Nonconforming properties" in the redevelopment zone. "How do we deal with that?" Schneider said it was not his intention to block the MTOTSA attorneys from attending the meeting that he had with Vendetti and Hoagland. MTOTSA lawyer Peter H. Wegener said he was "very disappointed" when he learned of the meeting afterward. Now the next step will be for Vendetti and Hoagland to meet with other MTOTSA members, their lawyers and city Planner Pratap Talwar, who wrote the original redevelopment plan, to begin to discuss what the section will look like once the litigation is ended. MTOTSA has been under the threat of eminent domain since 1996. Schneider recently also pulled eminent domain off the table for Beachfront South. A partnership of Applied Development and Matzel & Mumford already owns about half the properties in the area, so they also will have a voice in the zoning as well as in any likely settlement talks. Vendetti called Thursday's developments "a positive step" in the group's years-old effort to keep their homes. "For them to finally say we can stay in our homes is a big move," Vendetti said. "Mayor Schneider as well said "take eminent domain off the table.' With the city saying that now and commiting to it, there is no reason not to sit down and talk to them." Vendetti said she remains cautiously optimistic and, like the mayor, she is not looking forward to more years of litigation. "We're willing to sit down and see where this is going to lead," she said. "Hopefully, this will be the end." Vendetti said she could never consider a settlement a victory because of all the turmoil endured by residents, some of whom died during the long legal fight. "We have to move on from here," she said. "For us to remain in our houses, it is a goal we have strived for and appear to have succeeded" at reaching. "I think it has been a positive move." Still, Vendetti is hesitant. "I don't want to count my chickens before they are hatched, but it looks like we will be able to keep our homes," she said. "I can't even express how I feel about that." Meanwhile, in a concurrent development Thursday, the city's attorneys met with Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson and lawyers representing MTOTSA to discuss how to advance the case. When the appellate panel set aside the blight designation, it also sent the case back to Lawson to allow the city the opportunity to present additional evidence in an attempt to prove blight. In a case management conference attended by Lawson, city attorneys James G. Aaron and Paul V. Fernicola, and MTOTSA attorneys William J. Ward, Wegener and Scott G. Bullock of the nonprofit Institute for Justice, the judge said he would ask another judge to preside over a mediation conference in an attempt to bring the two sides together. No judge was selected and no date set, though there is some expectation that a meeting could occur before the end of the year. Lawson said he would allow a 60-day negotiation period. If that fails, Lawson set up a schedule to provide discovery and for the adversaries to conduct witness depositions. Then Lawson said the matter would proceed to a hearing in June. "This case can settle if all the parties want it to settle, agree to work toward a settlement and are willing to give and take so a settlement is fair and each party gets something and each party gives something up," Aaron said. "That is the only way a settlement can get done." Jeff Rowes of the Institute for Justice said the only thing the property owners would not negotiate would be the status of their homes. MTOTSA would negotiate the post-lawsuit zoning and legal fees the city would have to pay, he said. "We believe this case can settle and a trial is not necessary," Rowes said. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE CONTACT: John E. Kramer (703)682-9320 November 6, 2008 N.J. Supreme Court Declines To Hear Long Branch Eminent Domain Appeals Case Going Back to the Trial Court, But Will the City Keep Trying to Seize MTOTSA Neighborhood? Arlington, Va.—In orders dated October 31, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to hear appeals by both the MTOTSA homeowners and the City of Long Branch. No opinion accompanied the orders. Each side in the long-running dispute over eminent domain abuse in Long Branch asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the August decision of the Appellate Division, which ruled that Long Branch’s condemnation of the embattled MTOTSA neighborhood for private development was illegal under the evidence, but sent the case back to the trial court to give Long Branch a limited opportunity to present more evidence. Although the Appellate Division supplied a clear victory to the homeowners, they asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to end the case immediately as it has done in similar cases. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case does not mean that it has sided with either party. Instead, the high court simply ruled that the case does not yet present an issue requiring the Supreme Court’s intervention. “The Supreme Court decided a major eminent domain abuse case last year in Gallenthin and perhaps concluded that it was too soon to weigh in again without the Long Branch case developing a little more in the trial court,” said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents most of the MTOTSA homeowners. Peter Wegener of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf of Lakewood, N.J., also represents the homeowners. In its August opinion, the Appellate Division ruled that Long Branch could not condemn the homeowners’ homes because the city’s blight designation, which was the basis for taking the homes, was not supported by evidence. On remand, Long Branch must produce evidence of blight from 1996 that it could have used, but did not, in approving the blight designation. “The burden is entirely on Long Branch,” said Jeff Rowes, a staff attorney with the Institute. “Long Branch cannot manufacture new evidence. It also can’t merely take its old evidence that failed in the appeals court and hand it over to a paid consultant to say there was blight, when, in fact, the appeals court said the city proved no such thing. That’s why we see the appeals court decision as a fatal blow to the city’s case.” Lori Vendetti, an MTOTSA homeowner and activist, expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court did not end the case when the homeowners won, a remedy the high court granted last year in the Gallenthin case. Vendetti said, “The Supreme Court could have resolved this once and for all, which would not only have protected us, but the American Dream of every homeowner in New Jersey.” Although vowing to fight until final victory, Vendetti emphasized the willingness of the homeowners to meet with Long Branch so long as eminent domain is completely off the table. “We are ready, willing and able to meet with the mayor to try to resolve this, as he has suggested to the media, but the one nonnegotiable point we have is that we will not give up our homes. They are ours and we have a right to them. If we have to continue our fight in court, so be it. We’re in this for the long haul,” she said. The most pressing question may not be what Long Branch will do at trial, but whether it will fight at all. As reported by the Asbury Park Press on October 16, 2008, city officials have come to realize that throwing longtime residents out of their cherished homes is not a path the city should continue to follow. At a recent city council meeting, Adam Schneider, mayor of Long Branch, N.J., stated, “enough is enough. . . . You go through it once because it is a critical issue for the city,” Schneider commented of the legal battle over the past few years. “To go through it twice, I have no interest to do that, either as a politician or a lawyer.” Rowes said, “What the public needs to understand here is that if the city continues this appeal, even after publicly stating that they have no appetite to do so, it is solely because of the private interests of the developers, who now own property in the MTOTSA neighborhood. If it were up to the homeowners and the city, this case would just go away and the homeowners would get to keep what is rightfully theirs.” The schedule for proceedings in the trial court will likely be established in the next few weeks. PROPERTY RIGHTS CASES: LONG BRANCH HOMEOWNERS HAIL APPEALS COURT VICTORY COURT DEALS FATAL BLOW FOR CITY & DEVELOPER'S CASE Arlington, Va.—Today, a three-judge panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division unanimously reversed the June 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson, which allowed the city of Long Branch, N.J., to condemn a charming seaside neighborhood known as MTOTSA for a luxury condominium development. This is the latest in a series of major decisions from New Jersey courts, including the Supreme Court, recognizing that state law and the New Jersey Constitution place real limits on the power of government to condemn property for private development. After explaining how the lower court misapplied the law, the court of appeals found that the city did not provide “substantial evidence” to support its findings of blight. “The Court basically told the city that if that’s all it has, it can’t take these homes,” said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents many of the homeowners along with Peter Wegener of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf in Lakewood, N.J. “It’s too late for the city to manufacture more evidence, so the Court’s ruling is a fatal blow to the city. We are confident the owners will prevail on remand.” The owners will also have the opportunity to show that changing the plan to use eminent domain was illegal. This ruling builds on, and reinforces, last summer’s landmark New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007), in which the state’s high court held that the government cannot declare an area “blighted” and seize property simply because the government wants to engage in economic development. The entire three-judge panel joined in the decision and wrote, “We agree with appellants that, in light of the principles laid down in Gallenthin, the City did not find actual blight under any subsection of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, that the record lacked substantial evidence that could have supported the New Jersey Constitution’s standard for finding blight, and that the absence of substantial evidence of blight compels reversal.” The next step in the case will take place in the trial court, where Judge Lawson will hold a hearing. Under today’s ruling, unless the city can produce a secret file containing substantial evidence of blight in the neighborhood, its efforts to bulldoze modest homes for a private developer must fail. “This victory for the Long Branch homeowners is a victory for property owners across the Garden State, sending a clear message that abusers of eminent domain will be held accountable,” said Bullock. Lori Vendetti, a longtime MTOTSA homeowner and a leader in the fight to save the neighborhood, said, “This obviously shows that something wasn’t done right. It’s vindication.” Long Branch’s MTOTSA neighborhood is an acronym for the streets Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue. “New Jersey courts understand that ‘blight’ and ‘redevelopment’ are often merely smokescreens for taking valuable property from people of modest means and giving it to rich and powerful developers,” said Jeff Rowes, a staff attorney with the Institute for Justice. He added, “Our long-awaited trial will expose the City’s eminent domain abuse as the sham it is.” STATEMENT ON TODAY’S 8/7/08 APPELLATE DECISION IN FAVOR OF LONG BRANCH PROPERTY OWNERS I am very gratified by today’s decision. The appeals panel agreed that the city did not meet its basic obligation to provide evidence that the MTOTSA neighborhood was blighted. I am further gratified that the panel “did not find actual blight under any subsection” of the state’s redevelopment law and specifically noted that “the record lacked substantial evidence that could have supported the New Jersey Constitution’s standard for finding blight.” The ruling relies heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro. The ruling once again reaffirms the constitutional rights of property owners. As such, this is not just a victory for the MTOTSA homeowners but for every citizen of this state. The New Jersey courts have made it abundantly clear that under our state Constitution, eminent domain cannot be used to raze a neighborhood merely to make way for luxury townhouses and condominiums. Our Constitution permits the use of eminent domain for redevelopment only in blighted areas, and in this case the court held that the City of Long Branch simply failed to show that the MTOTSA neighborhood was blighted under any definition. Furthermore, it is clear that the city cannot continue to claim that the MTOTSA neighborhood is essential to its redevelopment plans. Long Branch’s beachfront redevelopment has proceeded unabated and quite successfully during the years this case made its way through the courts. Given the force with which the court repudiated the city’s claims, as city officials decide whether to pursue this case further, I hope they consider the human toll this case has taken on the homeowners—their constituents--who waged this battle for so many years. This ruling and the other important rulings by the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division in the area of eminent domain provide municipalities with clear direction on how to proceed with redevelopment in ways that are consistent with state law and comply with the protections that the New Jersey Constitution provides for property owners. Come and support us as we finally have our day in court! There will be a small gathering outside the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton, NJ prior to the oral arguments at approx. 8:15am in Trenton, NJ. Oral arguments will begin at 9:30am. If you are planning on attending the rally and/or the oral arguments please send an e-mail to Lori Ann Vendetti at MTOTSA@aol.com. There will be a bus leaving from Long Branch if anyone is interesting in taking that with the group you must e-mail us. The bus will be leaving Long Branch at approx 6:45am. Once again THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT DURING THE PAST FEW YEARS!! I am a core member of MTOTSA (Marine Terrace Ocean Terrace Seaview Avenue. As many know we are a small beachfront neighborhood that has been trying to save our homes from eminent domain abuse. The City of Long Branch wants to throw us out of our homes, demolish our quaint neighborhood and build luxury condominiums for others to live in. I attended the City Council meeting Dec. 11 as I have been typically doing twice a month for the past fours years. I normally speak at these meetings about eminent domain abuse and trying to urge the City Council to stop using it in Long Branch and allow the property owners of MTOTSA, Beachfront South and the Broadway Corridor to remain. Dec. 11 was no different, with the exception that I was somewhat more solemn when I spoke and asked the City Council, hasn't it been long enough? I said it has been four years since we have been trying to save our homes and current litigation will most likely make it an additional three-four years, for a total of eight years that peoples lives will be on hold. I also said that they should allow market forces to rebuild the oceanfront and not continue to use eminent domain abuse. I also said that the developer owns property in MTOTSA and that they can build on the lots they own now and let us stay. I said nothing different then I have been saying all these years. Since that meeting, I have been quoted incorrectly as saying that I was negotiating, settling and compromising. That could not be further from the truth! I have publicly stated numerous times that I would never voluntarily sell and that no one should be forced from their homes for private benefit and/or development! I have not deviated from that belief! It is unfortunate that one's words can be twisted in the media to allow people to believe just the opposite than what was actually stated and intended! I am writing this to set the record straight for anyone who has heard or read otherwise … Lori Ann Vendetti, core member of MTOTSA, is not negotiating, compromising or settling. I will never falter from my deep belief that one's home is one's castle and one should never be forced to leave that home against their will for a private benefit! Eminent domain abuse needs to be stopped in New Jersey and as co-president of StopEDA.org and a member of MTOTSA, I will continue to work toward that goal so that hopefully no one else has to go through the stress and anxiety of possibly losing their American dream of home ownership! This is still America and although our elected officials and the laws they have put in place have not protected our rights against eminent domain abuse … our voices can! We all need to continue to speak up. Our legislators in New Jersey still haven't passed any eminent domain reform and we all need to continue speaking up and writing letters to our senators and assembly people. Please don't think this fight is over with … I am not going anywhere! Lori Ann Vendetti  Fighter in battle over eminent domain succumbs to cancer Asbury Park Press - 11/16/07 BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS LONG BRANCH — "Miss Ann," as she was known to the young people who live in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue area where residents are fighting the city's attempts to take their homes by eminent domain, was a role model and mentor for many. Anna DeFaria, 82, died Wednesday in her beloved cottage by the sea. She had been sick about eight weeks, friends and neighbors said. DeFaria helped present the face of MTOTSA, as she was one of numerous elderly people who fought back after the city announced plans to take some 38 properties for the second phase of Beachfront North. Some people have voluntarily settled. Her passing is a loss to the movement but, beyond that, a loss to her friends, said Lori Ann Vendetti, a key MTOTSA member. Vendetti said DeFaria's illness and death could not be definitely linked to the fight over the homes — the case to stop the takings is now before the Appellate Division of state Superior Court — but common sense tells her that it had to have some effect. "We lost five or six people in our little neighborhood since this started," Vendetti said. "I think that is a high ratio for our neighborhood. Most of them were seniors. There is no way to prove it, but the stress of possibly losing their homes, there has to be a toll on people." DeFaria is the latest in a series of elderly MTOTSA residents to pass away during the campaign to fight what group members have termed eminent domain abuse. Their ability to raise awareness about their fight has resulted in the city getting a bruised reputation over its redevelopment plans for the oceanfront. Before she became ill two months ago, DeFaria "walked in wellness," exercising regularly, said her next-door neighbor, Denise Hoagland, another MTOTSA activist. DeFaria's passing "was more so a loss of a mentor in life to me," Hoagland said. "I think she was a phenomenal woman who had integrity like none I've ever seen." "She had a spark," Vendetti said. "She fought like all of us. She was very passionate about the fight. She was a big part of the group. We lost a good member of MTOTSA, but we also lost a friend. I've known her all my life." DeFaria's daughter, Maryann Allegro, said her mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in September. Calling both her parents wonderful, she said her mother was a terrifically active woman, going to church, the senior center and walking 10,000 steps on the boardwalk every chance she got. DeFaria returned to school at the age of 59, earning her GED and then her Early Childhood Education Certificate. "She taught on her knees until she was 77 years old," Allegro said. "I kept saying, "Mom, are you tired?' God bless her, she had so much energy. Her boardwalk, her ocean, was everything to her." DeFaria could see the ocean from every room in her house. "She used to say (to city officials), "Do you realize you are taking my life away?' " Allegro said. "That's what they did." Less than two weeks ago, DeFaria had a final conversation with Scott Bullock, the Institute for Justice lawyer who is helping MTOTSA fight in court. "He said, "We're looking pretty good,' and she was so happy," Allegro said. "I'm so glad she got to hear that before she passed away." Her four daughters have vowed to continue DeFaria's fight. "We're not going anywhere," Allegro said. Hoagland recalled that several years ago, she presented city officials with case studies that linked the loss of a home to increased mortality rates in seniors. City officials seemed unmoved, she said. "A woman who is completely healthy, does aerobics, walks three or four times a week, is in completely good health, aside from what she was subjected to from other people, I have a hard time swallowing" that there was no link, she said. DeFaria often would tell the council that she couldn't sleep at night, she was so worried about losing the home she had shared with her husband of 50 years, Antone, who predeceased her, and with her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. "She was worried about our fight to the end," Vendetti said. "Maybe she'll help from above." Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider expressed sympathy to the family, several of whom he knows personally. He did not respond to whether the city's position contributed to DeFaria's deterioration and death. "I know some of her family, and I'm very sorry to hear the news," Schneider said. "My sympathies are with them. Anything other (than that) from me or anyone else strikes me as inappropriate." 
Photos by Laura Pedrick NOW YOU OWN IT, SOON YOU DON'T? By Russ Buettner - NY TIMES -7/29/07 IT’S not so much the modest bungalow’s spacious second-floor addition or the expansive side yard that gets to Lori Ann Vendetti. The thing that keeps her fighting is the misty ocean air that floats through her doorway when she lets her dog out in the morning. The salty aroma can transport her back to childhood weekends spent playing on the beach with her two brothers, long since dead and gone. Neither Ms. Vendetti, 46, nor her parents across the street believe they can afford another place within a sniff of the ocean if the City of Long Branch, N.J., wins its 12-year effort to turn their homes over to a private developer who wants to build luxury condominiums. “We always feel like things are stacked against us,” said Ms. Vendetti, who has lived in her home for 12 years. “But if they’re going to take it from me, they’re going to take it with a fight.” During the last two years, homeowners and property-rights advocates across the country have echoed that sentiment, and state lawmakers have answered. A controversial United States Supreme Court decision in June 2005, which upheld the power of local governments to seize private property for the benefit of private businesses, inspired an uprising that led 40 states to pass laws that rein in, to varying degrees, that authority. But legislatures in the three states in the New York metropolitan area, long seen by property-rights advocates as home to some of the worst abuses of eminent domain, have done little to change the status quo. “New Jersey and New York are among the worst states in the country for eminent domain abuses — New Jersey is really awful,” said Dana Berliner, a senior lawyer at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va., which represents residential and business owners facing condemnation. “What’s interesting is that New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are some of the few states that have not managed to pass any decent legislation.” In Connecticut, where the United States Supreme Court case originated, Gov. M. Jodi Rell late last month signed a law that includes a prohibition on taking property “primarily” to increase local tax revenues, leaving open that reasoning as a secondary cause. New York, which already allowed the taking of property for private use, saw its lawmakers introduce 17 related bills in 2006. But the Legislature passed only those laws seeking to ban two specific projects. Similarly, New Jersey legislators have been unable to pass any bill. The State Supreme Court recently stepped into the breach, arguing that cities and towns cannot condemn properties simply because another use could be more productive. That ruling, in Gallenthin Realty Development v. Borough of Paulsboro, has already had an impact on several projects, including a plan to build 2,000 condominiums in downtown Newark. Other states have instituted more precise definitions of blight, set minimum compensation levels above market value for the owners of seized properties and restricted eminent domain to more traditional public projects like schools and roads. The legislative changes have been driven by an unusual alliance of conservative Republican property-rights advocates and liberals interested in the rights of lower-income people. Not everyone believes such measures are needed. It remains to be seen if the new laws will protect property owners without chilling redevelopment projects. “You had this huge uproar,” said Larry Morandi, who has tracked the new laws at the National Conference of State Legislatures, “and an incredibly fast legislative response. The effect of that legislation will be seen in how it is implemented, and that takes time.” While supporters of the current laws say a reasoned analysis would show that eminent domain is most often employed as a last resort and without major conflict, what has driven the push for change and has led to so many lawsuits is anger at the potential loss of control over such a fundamental aspect of life. The lead plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court case, Susette Kelo, a nurse who lived in a pink Victorian cottage in New London, Conn., opposed the town’s condemnation of her neighborhood to make way for a private development of offices, condominiums and a hotel. The 5-to-4 majority opinion held that promoting economic development met the “public use” clause of the Fifth Amendment that allows condemnations. In a dissenting opinion in the case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor gave voice to the fear that started a revolt: “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.” IN Norwalk, Conn., Nancy Esposito doesn’t want to be uprooted or upgraded. Her family has owned and run Casey’s Sheet Metal Service for 15 years. Five years ago, a developer showed up offering to buy their building as part of a plan to remake several blocks. Ms. Esposito has resisted, and watched as the developer bought most of the buildings and land around her. “They keep saying they want to make this area a destination,” Ms. Esposito said. “I say that it is a destination. It’s my destination.” The developer, Stanley M. Seligson, a Norwalk native, envisions a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood spanning several blocks, with more than 500,000 square feet of stores, restaurants and theaters, 350 apartments and a large medical center. Mr. Seligson said he has so far acquired 75 percent of the property and was determined to acquire the remaining properties without the town invoking eminent domain. Town officials see the neighborhood as part of an old urban core that has not responded to less sweeping redevelopment incentives. Four contiguous redevelopment projects are in the works, all of which have involved or could involve taking property through eminent domain if negotiations between the developer and property owners fail, said Susan Sweitzer, a senior project manager for the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency. “The impetus is on the private developer to make this a nonissue,” she said. Ms. Esposito said she believed the cards were already stacked against her. “They keep saying they will use eminent domain as a last resort,” she said. “But when they have the ultimate power to take your property, it’s a done deal. There is no such thing as private property anymore.” Governor Rell responded to the United States Supreme Court ruling involving the Kelo case by asking local governments to observe a voluntary moratorium on condemnations for private development until the state legislature could act. This year, she introduced legislation. “It is time to clarify our eminent domain laws and make it absolutely clear when and why governments can — and cannot — take private property for public purposes,” Mrs. Rell said in a statement in March. The law that Mrs. Rell signed requires that municipal legislative bodies approve eminent domain seizures by a two-thirds majority and that property owners be reimbursed at 125 percent of fair market value. It also built in other protective measures for property owners. A spokesman for the governor said Mrs. Rell viewed the bill as “a considerable step forward.” “She has always felt that it was the Legislature’s responsibility to define the proper scope of eminent domain, when and whether it should he used for any kind of economic development activity,” said the spokesman, Rich Harris. But property-rights advocates say the law’s ban on citing increased tax revenues as a primary reason for condemnation will do little to clarify concerns about when property can be taken. James S. Alesi, a state senator from the Rochester area, held a series of hearings across the state on eminent domain after the Kelo decision. He said he was repeatedly told that New York didn’t need a handful of hastily drafted bills, but rather a commission to study the issue. “I thought it was beneficial to learn one key thing: We don’t really have to do a lot in New York State,” he said. “As compared to other areas around the country, New York’s laws are pretty strong.” The New York State Bar Association has been the most prominent supporter of that position. Patricia E. Salkin, chairwoman of the association’s eminent domain task force, said state laws might need tweaking, including a passage to increase public involvement in redevelopment plans and to extend the 30-day period allowed for owners of condemned property to file appeals. But she said states that passed more sweeping laws risked losing vital projects. “We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water,” said Ms. Salkin, director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School. “We should make sure that it’s a fair playing field for everybody.” State Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Greenburgh in Westchester, said the choice was not black and white. “The bottom line is we can fix the law so it protects average people and still maintain it as a tool,” Mr. Brodsky said. “The bar is entrenched on this one, and they’re wrong.” In 2004, Mr. Brodsky pushed through a bill that required that towns notify by mail property owners facing condemnation. It followed a controversy in Port Chester, in which a local business owner hadn’t seen the Westchester village’s notice in a local newspaper that his property was facing condemnation to make way for a Stop & Shop supermarket. The 30 days that the state law allows for appeals passed before the businessman, Bill Brody, had even heard about the plan. A federal judge this month ruled that Mr. Brody’s due process rights had been violated. “I think it’s obvious that people are upset by what eminent domain is being used for,” Mr. Brody said, “and I think things are going to change.” Not all redevelopment projects engender large controversy. On Long Island, the Village of Hempstead is moving forward with a $2 billion plan to replace 26 acres in the village’s downtrodden center with a mix of 2,500 housing units, 600,000 square feet of retail space and a performing arts center. The city has agreed to sell 21 properties it owns to the developer and seize up to 58 privately owned properties if the developer cannot come to terms with the owners. Most of the concerns voiced so far, including at a packed meeting last week, have involved ensuring that the plan includes a significant amount of affordable housing and that current residents receive enough compensation to find new homes. Mr. Brodsky introduced a bill last year calling for the appointment of an eminent domain ombudsman, compensating displaced homeowners at 150 percent of fair market value, and requiring that all condemnations for economic development be part of a comprehensive plan. THE bill gained no traction in the State Assembly. “This is an area where there’s a lot of comfort with a bad law, and that’s unfortunate,” Mr. Brodsky said. Mr. Alesi, the state senator from Rochester, maintains that state laws need only to be “buffed up” and that the laws may not offer enough protections. Courts are relied on to catch abuses, but average people don’t have the resources for a legal fight with the government, he said. “No one should have the American dream turned into their own personal nightmare because of the government,” he said. Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Town of Paulsboro had overreached in relying on a consultant’s determination that an undeveloped 63-acre parcel could be condemned because it was “not fully productive.” “Under that approach, any property that is operated in less than optimal manner is arguably ‘blighted,’ ” wrote Chief Justice James R. Zazzali in the court’s unanimous opinion. “If such an all-encompassing definition were adopted, most property in the state would be eligible for redevelopment.” Citing the Supreme Court ruling, an Essex County Superior Court judge ruled this month that Newark could not designate as blighted a 14-acre area on and around Mulberry Street so the land could be used to build condominiums. Several property owners had fought the city’s efforts to take the land by eminent domain, arguing to the court that the area was still productive. A spokeswoman for Mayor Cory A. Booker said the city had not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling. And an appellate panel last week rejected Lodi officials’ efforts to replace two trailer parks with housing and shops. A newly elected Borough Council had dropped the plan earlier this month. A bill that would more narrowly define blight passed the New Jersey State Assembly last year but has been tied up in a State Senate committee since. The New Jersey League of Municipalities opposes limiting the power of municipalities in using eminent domain. Its opinion carries weight in a state with 566 municipalities, a strong tradition of home rule, and one in which many legislators are also mayors of their hometowns. William G. Dressel, executive director of the league, said that with little undeveloped land left in the state, and with towns increasingly relying on property taxes to provide services, responsible town leaders must look for ways to redevelop unproductive land. “We were quite frankly relieved that the court did not unravel the eminent domain statutes as it relates to the use of that tool for economic development purposes,” he said. “We feel very strongly that eminent domain is a viable economic development tool in New Jersey that is used sparingly.” The state’s public advocate, Ronald K. Chen, said a 1992 revision of the state statute created the “not fully productive” justification that “opened up the floodgates” for the improper use of eminent domain. Mr. Chen’s office recently issued a report that listed the plan in Long Branch, where Ms. Vendetti lives near the beach, under the heading “Bogus Blight.” It said the town based its conclusion on “superficial” exterior inspections that noted deteriorating paint or chipped masonry. Nothing appears to be decrepit about the Vendettis’ homes. Carmen Vendetti, 80, had saved his money driving a truck to buy his family, in 1960, a modest respite from the harsher environs of their home in Newark. He and his wife, Josephine, moved there full time after he retired. Ms. Vendetti saved her money from a job with Amtrak and bought a house across the street from her parents in 1995. Two months later, she attended a meeting where a developer’s model of the neighborhood showed luxury buildings all along the oceanfront. “They had a house on my lot,” she said. “I just laughed and thought, ‘How are they going to do that?’ No one ever used the words ‘eminent domain.’ “ But Adam Schneider, the mayor of Long Branch for 17 years, said some in the area ignored the redevelopment plan, thinking it would fail, as had many before. Some homeowners have accepted offers of units made affordable to them in the new development, he said. He said that with just 20 percent of the construction completed, the beachfront has been transformed from a dangerous area of boarded-up storefronts to an upscale, year-round destination that includes packed restaurants and a popular park. He said he thought the recent emotional backlash may dissuade officials in other areas from even trying such a sweeping turnaround using eminent domain. “Politically it won’t work anymore,” he said. “I think the time has come and gone.”  N.J. COURT UPHOLDS EMINENT DOMAIN DECISION AGAINST LODI By Paul Brubaker - July 24, 2007 - The Record LODI -- A state appellate court on Tuesday upheld a Superior Court decision that the city had no right to invoke eminent domain to seize the homes of trailer park residents for redevelopment. The state Appellate Court rejected the borough’s challenge of a Superior Court decision in October that the borough had not provided sufficient evidence that Costa Trailer Court and Brown’s Trailer Park were blighted properties in need of redevelopment. The court also rejected the borough’s claim that the matter should have been remanded to the Planning Board. Last week the Borough Council voted to drop its appeal of the October decision. Trailer park residents had sued the borough under the banner of “Save Our Homes” to stop officials from using eminent domain. Setback for Newark Condo Project JUDGE RULES CITY FAILED TO PROVE THAT A 14 ACRE SITE ON MULBERRY STREET IS "BLIGHTED" July 20, 2007 BY KATIE WANG- Star-Ledger A Superior Court judge in Essex County has dealt a major blow to a plan to build 2,000 condominiums in downtown Newark, saying the city failed to prove the area in question is deteriorating and in need of redevelopment. The 71-page decision, issued yesterday, cites the watershed state Supreme Court decision, Gallenthin Realty Development Inc. vs. Borough of Paulsboro, handed down earlier this year that limits the government's power to seize land. In the Newark case, Judge Marie P. Simonelli said the city cannot designate the 14-acre Mulberry Street area "blighted" simply because the property could be used for better purposes. Property owners fought the designation, saying the area was still thriving and that they did not want their land to be seized through eminent domain. "The court finds that the city declared the entire Mulberry Street area as an area in need of redevelopment solely because it is not properly utilized and fully productive," Simonelli said in her decision. "Under the Gallenthin holding, this declaration does not meet the constitutional requirement of blight and must be invalidated and set aside." The decision puts the future of the condo project in jeopardy, though all parties involved disagreed on whether the project is dead or viable in an amended form. The Mulberry Street condo project, which was to be developed by the Newark Redevelopment Corp., is slated for a prime tract one block from the Prudential Center arena, scheduled to open in October. Stefan Pryor, the deputy mayor in charge of economic development, said the Booker administration is analyzing the judge's decision and refused to say whether it will appeal. "The outcome of the case will not affect the arena project," he said. John Buonocore, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, declared the condo project dead. "We are delighted that the court saw through this pre-arranged land grab on behalf of politically favored developers," Buonocore said. "The ruling sends a message to politicians across the state that the courts will not sustain economic development takings under the guise of the redevelopment laws." Bruce J. Wishnia, one of the principals of Newark Redevelopment Corp., said the decision is a sad day for the city and the state. He said he is not sure what this means for the overall project. "If the Mulberry Street area is not in need of redevelopment, then the court needs to tell us what kind of area would be," Wishnia said. "If this decision if not reversed, it will effectively shut the door on urban redevelopment in our state." The Mulberry decision comes at a time when land and redevelopment issues are under intense public scrutiny in a city that has struggled for decades to rebuild itself. One week ago, Sharpe James, who served as mayor for two decades, was indicted on charges he steered lucrative land deals to companion Tamika Riley. The property owners in the Mulberry case have long alleged political contributions from the developers swayed council members to vote in favor of declaring the area in need of redevelopment. The judge concluded her opinion with a tart reference to James' criminal charges. "This evidence certainly provides cause to question the results and validity of the redevelopment investigation," she said. "However, the court mentions it for historical purposes only and makes no determination of the merits of plaintiff's corruption claim. It appears that such a determination may be made in the recently initiated criminal proceedings involving former Mayor James." The Mulberry Street Redevelopment project made its debut five years ago during James' administration. In November 2002, Wishnia and his partner, Emile Farina, a former aide to then Councilwoman Bessie Walker, pitched the idea to Nathan Allen, director of the city's Department of Economic and Housing Development. Plans called for the Newark Redevelopment Corp. to negotiate with property owners for their land. If negotiations failed, the developers planned to ask the city to use its condemnation powers to seize those properties. According to Simonelli's ruling, there is no evidence any negotiations took place. Instead, she said, the city pursued an investigation into declaring the area in need of redevelopment, paving the way for condemnation. In her decision, Simonelli leveled stinging criticism at the snug relationship between developers and officials in the city. Attorneys, relatives and consultants affiliated with Wishnia and Farina donated an additional $53,325 to some council members when they were making critical decisions about the project, according to the plaintiffs. "There is evidence in the present case that the Mulberry Street Redevelopment project and NRC's role as its developer was "a done deal," a fait accompli, before the required statutory redevelopment process began," Simonelli said. City-hired planner David Roberts issued a report in April 2004 declaring the area in need of redevelopment because the parking lots, storage yards and businesses in the area "consumes land that could otherwise be available for much more productive uses." But Simonelli faulted Roberts' report, saying it lacked empirical evidence to support his conclusions. On Oct. 14, 2004, the planning board passed a resolution recommending the city declare the Mulberry Street area in need of redevelopment. The city council agreed and on Nov. 3, 2004, it passed a resolution declaring the area in need of redevelopment. Katie Wang may be reached at kwang@starledger.com or (973) 392-1504. By Monsy Alvarado - July 17, 2007 - The Record A move by city officials to declare several properties on South River and Hudson streets in need of redevelopment has been vacated by a state Superior Court judge. In his 17-page written decision, dated June 29, Judge Joseph Conte said that even though the city considered the land underutilized, it was not sufficient reason for the City Council to designate it "an area in need of redevelopment." Conte ruled on a lawsuit brought by the owner of the parcels, developer Peter Tucci. Tucci sued the city and the Planning Board, saying officials should have talked with him before voting on the designation. Tucci said forcing him to argue his case in court was a waste of taxpayer's money. "All they had to do was communicate with the property owner," Tucci said Monday. "There was always a project planned for this site. Here we are now, months later, hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and we are back to the original concept." But the court battle is not over. The City Council on Monday decided to appeal the decision, following a recommendation by City Attorney Joseph Zisa, who said the city based its decision on reasons besides underutilization. Paul Kaufman, the Planning Board lawyer, said the possibility of an appeal has been discussed with the board. Tucci, the former chairman of the Hackensack's Economic Development Commission, has been criticized for amassing land during his eight-year tenure and keeping it stagnant. Last year the Planning Board held hearings on a study that recommended that an area in the southern end of town be deemed in need of redevelopment. Tucci, who owned the majority of the land included in the study, argued in the hearings that he should be allowed to develop his own property. But after three hearings, the Planning Board rejected Tucci's argument and recommended to the City Council that the area be designated in need of redevelopment, which would allow the city, or a developer chosen by the city, to acquire the land through eminent domain. The vote led Tucci to file his lawsuit. BY ERIK LARSEN -Asbury Park Press - 07/11/07 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?'' Mayor Kenneth E. Pringle said he is not surprised about the Appellate Court decision in light of the recent Paulsboro decision, but said he would not comment in detail until he had a chance to read the decision. Indeed, the Paulsboro was cited in the court's decision Wednesday. Last month, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled that property not being "fully productive'' does not alone satisfy the criteria to condemn it as "blighted'' and take it under eminent domain power delineated in the state's 1992 redevelopment law. The court ruled against Paulsboro, which had deemed 63 acres alongside a creek was not used to full economic potential and condemned the land so a builder could buy it to use one small corner as part of Paulsboro's larger redevelopment plan. New Jersey's constitution "does not permit government redevelopment of private property solely because the property is not used in an optimal manner,'' the state's high court ruled. 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.'' Pringle said the borough's attorney believed the borough could set a standard that would meet the legal threshold to meet the blighted criteria, but he acknowledged that the Paulsboro case had made the borough's argument more difficult. When asked if this decision would adversely impact the borough's overall redevelopment plans, Pringle answered: "I don't think so.'' Belmar downtown redevelopment project, known as the Belmar seaport village plan, is an ambitious proposal, which involves razing and rebuilding much of Belmar's downtown from 10th Avenue along Main Street and the Shark River. Fernicola said his client is not opposed to Belmar's redevelopment plans and wants to be a willing partner, but that in negotiations with the Gale Co., the master developer always behaved as if they had the upper hand. Fernicola said there is no doubt in his mind that Belmar would have used eminent domain to take his client's property if the courts had permitted the borough's definition of blight to stand. "We were coming to the table with Gale, but when they sat down with us, they presented appraisal reports with this attitude, "we have the redevelopment designation, we have the redevelopment agreement with the borough,'‚'' Fernicola said. "They just don't have the ability to condemn property .‚.‚. Now, the playing field is level,'' Fernicola said. EMINENT DOMAIN DECISION ANALYZED IN LONG BRANCH June 14, 2007 - Asbury Park Press - By Carol Gorga Williams LONG BRANCH — It was a very good day for those fighting the use of eminent domain in the city, if you ask advocates who oppose the local government's plan to remake neighborhoods along the oceanfront. Reacting to a state Supreme Court decision that invalidated an "area in need of redevelopment" for waterfront property in Paulsboro, Gloucester County, Lori Ann Vendetti, one of the founders of the MTOTSA group and an active member of the StopEDA Coalition said, "It is a victory, and we don't get a lot of victories. . . . It felt wonderful." "I think we've got a whole new ball game," added Harold Bobrow, who with his wife, Michelle, owns a seasonal home in the proposed Beachfront South redevelopment zone. MTOTSA — which stands for Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue Alliance — is a group of about 20 property owners who are fighting the city's attempt to take their homes for the second phase of Beachfront North. Their case is in the Appellate Division of Superior Court. "It took a long time but it was well worth it," Vendetti said. "People are listening." However, City Attorney James G. Aaron said the decision is actually a good one for the city because it upheld the legality of the state Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. State Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen, who filed a friend of the court brief for MTOTSA, did the same for George Gallenthin and his wife, Cindy, who owned a waterfront tract that Paulsboro wanted to acquire for a redevelopment project. The town determined the vacant land was "underutilized," or not fully productive, but the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that if that were the sole criterion, virtually any property in New Jersey could be taken. "This decision binds the appellate division, which right now is considering the Long Branch case," said Chen, who noted that part of the city's rationale for redeveloping the MTOTSA enclave was it too was not fully productive. The ability to go ahead on that basis "was significantly limited in today's decision so the court will take that into account," Chen said. City attorney's view Aaron, though, noted that the justices maintained that when redevelopment is contemplated, it must be done so more thoroughly than was was done in Paulsboro. "When you apply that rationale to the Long Branch case, the Long Branch analysis the Planning Board did was so far superior to what Paulsboro did that it puts the city of Long Branch in the position of arguing in its appeal that the Supreme Court's decision in Paulsboro can be used to actually support the Long Branch factual scenario," the attorney said. Long Branch used several categories to declare the MTOTSA neighborhood "an area in need of redevelopment," he said. "One of the other things the court did in fact say: If you are just saying that I have a Motel 6 on the property and it should be a Hilton Hotel, you can't do that in New Jersey . . . which is far from what Long Branch faced with the condition of the waterfront redevelopment area," Aaron said. R. William Potter, whose law firm argued on behalf of the Gallenthins, said of the decision: "It pulls the rug out from anybody who believes property can simply be taken so it can be transferred to somebody else. I think this is the death knell for the anything-goes redevelopment we've seen in the last few years." Potter contended the ruling could help the MTOTSA residents. "If the standards set forth in this case are applied to Long Branch, MTOTSA and Beachfront South, then their property cannot be condemned and the long nightmare may be over," Potter said. "I emphasize the word "may' because the reviewing court still may have to apply this decision to a case that has been ongoing for a long time. . . . If these principles are used, then their nightmare is over. I just hope and pray it is not too late." More interpretations Peter H. Wegener, the Lakewood lawyer representing the majority of MTOTSA property owners, who submitted a brief in support of the Paulsboro property owners, said there is no way to read the decision that doesn't help his clients. "The court has made it clear that they are not going to let condemnors get away with a very cursory net opinion, and an analysis and surveys of the kind that were carried out in Long Branch," Wegener said. "They are going to make sure the real spirit of the law is carried out and not let municipalities rely on the idea they can do everything they want and there'll be no judicial review unless it is arbitrary and capricious." Robert S. Goldsmith, who submitted a brief in the Gallenthin case for the state League of Municipalities, Downtown New Jersey Inc. and the New Jersey Chapter of the American Planning Association, said the decision is not a defeat for those advocating redevelopment. Goldsmith said issues such as the right of government to assemble properties for redevelopment and the right to use eminent domain, remain intact. "The court said redevelopment applies to blight," Goldsmith said. "From any reasonable point of view, Beachfront North was blighted." Goldsmith said the decision basically affirmed the state's position that taking land purely for economic development was not constitutional while it also said taking land for redevelopment was constitutional. "It sounds to me that you cannot do redevelopment for economic development reasons, and that is not what we are doing," said Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider. "You've got to show a blighted area. You've got to show an area in distress. We've always contended we've done that. . . . It seems to me we're in pretty good shape." Below is a Press Release from the Institute for Justice issued June 13, 2007 New Jersey Supreme Court Limits Bogus Blight Designations Arlington, Va.-Today, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously struck down an attempt by the Borough of Paulsboro to "blight" a vacant piece of property, holding that the fact that a piece of land is "not fully productive" cannot be used as a basis for including the property in a redevelopment area. "This decision is very important for the hundreds of property owners in New Jersey fighting to save their homes and small businesses from eminent domain abuse," said Scott Bullock, an Institute for Justice senior attorney who argued the Kelo v. City of New London case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 and who is representing homeowners in Long Branch, N.J., in an eminent domain case currently before New Jersey’s appellate court. "The Court made it absolutely clear that the judiciary must play a vital role in reviewing bogus blight declarations by tax-hungry municipalities throughout the state." The Institute filed an amicus curiae brief in the Gallenthin v. Borough of Paulsboro case on the side of the property owner. In its opinion, the Court warned of the danger of open-ended blight designations used by the Borough in this case and by many other municipalities throughout New Jersey: "Under [the Borough’s] approach, any property that is operated in a less than optimal manner is arguably ‘blighted.’ If such an all-encompassing definition of ‘blight’ were adopted, most property in the State would be eligible for redevelopment." The opinion also contains some very helpful language to the homeowners fighting the condemnation of their properties in Long Branch. In discussing the level of proof needed by governments in redevelopment cases, the Court declared: "[A] municipality must establish a record that contains more than a bland recitation of applicable statutory criteria and a declaration that those criteria are met. Because a redevelopment designation carries serious implications for property owners, the net opinion of an expert is simply too slender a reed on which to rest that determination." "In declaring a perfectly fine neighborhood ‘blighted,’ the City of Long Branch relied on the very type of bland, conclusory evidence that the Supreme Court in this case declares inadequate," said Jeff Rowes, an Institute for Justice staff attorney who authored the Institute’s amicus brief in the Gallenthin case and who represents the Long Branch homeowners. "The Court’s decision definitely strengthens our argument that Long Branch violated New Jersey law in taking the homes of long-time residents." "The New Jersey Supreme Court joins other state high courts, including Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Missouri, in starting to cut back on the abuse of eminent domain and redevelopment powers by local municpalities," said Dana Berliner, an IJ senior attorney who argued the case at the Ohio Supreme Court. In the wake of the Kelo decision, many state supreme courts are visiting these issues for the first time in decades and increasing judicial oversight of eminent domain. Institute for Justice 901 N. Glebe Road Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 (703) 682-9320 FAX (703) 682-9321 Home Page: WWW.IJ.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: John E. Kramer (703) 682-9320 ext. 205 Asbury Park Press on 05/30/07 BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS In a follow-up to his 2006 report on what he characterized as statewide eminent domain abuse, state Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen says reforms through the Legislature and the courts would restore trust in the redevelopment process. "Eminent domain reform would allow good redevelopment to continue while protecting tenants and property owners against the abuses that are undermining redevelopment across the state," writes Chen in his 31-page report, "In Need of Redevelopment: Repairing New Jersey's Eminent Domain Laws." As expected, Long Branch's continuing redevelopment of Beachfront North — commonly referred to as the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue (MTOTSA) area — is extensively criticized in the report. In a series of report vig-nettes, Chen highlights the cases of five homeowners going up against the system. Three of those are from the MTOTSA area: Louis and Lillian Anzalone, the Hoagland family and widow Anna DeFaria. The city's actions are criticized in sections referring to "bogus blight" designations, due-process deprivations, potential conflicts of interest and inadequate compensation and relocation assistance for both tenants and property owners. In the year since Chen made eminent domain reform one of his priorities, he has filed three "friend of the court" briefs supporting those fighting what they argue is the overuse of eminent domain. One was filed in the Long Branch issue, another in the case of trailer park residents fighting a luxury housing and retail project in Lodi in Bergen County, and a third in an effort to overturn a blight designation of a 63-acre tract of riverfront land in Paulsboro in Gloucester County - Ironically, the mayor of Paulsboro is John Burzichelli, a Democratic assemblyman who sponsored legislation (A-3257) to revise procedures for the use of eminent domain in municipal redevelopment programs. The bill was approved by the Assembly in June 2006 and is endorsed by Chen, Gov. Corzine and the state League of Municipalities. Unlike Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider, who only had harsh words for Chen's "fact-finding," Burzichelli called the advocate "a forceful advocate for reforming New Jersey's eminent domain laws." Long Branch mayor reacts - Schneider's words were not quite so diplomatic. He said Chen has been "intellectually dishonest" in his call for reform, noting that the public advocate and his staff are not interested in the 15-year-history of consensus for the city's redevelopment project. In choosing to focus only on the court record that was before state Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, who in 2006 upheld the city's right to take the homes, Chen was concentrating only on the disputed, controversial parts of the project, which skewed his findings, Schneider said. "I don't really care what Mr. Chen thinks," said Schneider, bracing for another round of negative publicity. "I really haven't found him to be intellectually honest since his entry into the Long Branch case. . . . So far, the court has found we followed the rules, that we've done (redevelopment) the right way. Their opinions matter. Mr. Chen's does not. "The Legislature will do what it wants," Schneider said. "Right now, the issue has been before them for the better part of three years, and they haven't been able to come up with a decision. I learned a long time ago this isn't a case I'm going to fight in the court of public opinion or the editorial pages of the local newspaper. The courts will decide." Schneider said reports like Chen's only emphasize the emotionalism in which this debate is being conducted. "What they are saying is "We don't want to have planning, we don't want to have thoughtful legislation, we're just going to react to bad publicity,' " Schneider said. "I think that is a shame, but that is where it will go. "There has been a total absence of fact-finding on the use of redevelopment law," he said. "It has been hugely reactionary. . . . Emotionalism has overtaken fact and reason on this case, and that is where it will end up. Emotionalism will carry the day. I'm not sure how and I'm not sure when." Competing bills - Burzichelli, meanwhile, is more optimistic, calling the Paulsboro case one in which he and Chen are arguing about a limited technical issue. On the wider issue of reform, they are in agreement, the assemblyman said. A copy of Burzichelli's bill has been introduced in the state Senate by his colleague, Sen. Stephen M. Sweeney, D-Gloucester. A rival bill, introduced by Sen. Ronald L. Rice, D-Essex, chairman of the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee, has stalled after several public hearings around the state. Chen said the Rice bill would not provide the needed reforms, noting it does not contain a provision to shift the burden of proof for a redevelopment area from the individual residents to the municipality. Rice also does not tighten up the definition of blight, which Chen says is key to reform. "The hurdle is just the process associated with lawmaking," said Burzichelli, noting he believes action is likely before the end of the year. However, he said, lawmakers would likely not take action until after the Supreme Court decides the Paulsboro case. The Institute for Justice, the nonprofit law firm helping to represent MTOTSA homeowners, saluted Chen for continuing to lobby for reform. Institute lawyer Scott G. Bullock called the report "excellent. Its strength lies in the fact that not only did the advocate call for legislative reform which New Jersey desperately needs, but also it highlighted the vital role the court needs to take in assuring abuse does not occur." A review of New Jersey court cases shows the state law governing eminent domain use for private redevelopment is written in a way that leads to abuse, according to a Public Advocate report released today. The Legislature must act swiftly to change the state’s redevelopment law, protect people’s rights and guarantee that sound redevelopment projects garner public support, Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen said. “The findings in this report crystallize the urgent need for our Legislature to change the state redevelopment law,” Chen said. “When the government misuses the power of eminent domain, people can lose their homes without real evidence that their neighborhood is blighted, without adequate notice or hearings and without fair compensation.” Chen supports legislation, A-3257, that would change the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. The proposal would tighten the definition of blight and ensure property owners receive fair notice and just compensation when local officials must use eminent domain for private redevelopment. The state Assembly passed that bill in June 2006, by a vote of 51 to 18, but a companion measure remains stalled in the Senate. The report, a follow-up to one issued last May, recounts court cases involving eminent domain abuse. It focuses on four types of abuse: Bogus blight designations, based on little more than chipping paint, loose gutters and weedy patches; Stealth takings, when towns fail to provide plain-language notice to owners that their property may be condemned and fail to hold fair hearings, leaving owners to challenge the use of eminent domain in court, where the rules are also stacked against them; Inadequate compensation and relocation assistance, leaving vulnerable people uncertain where and how they will find a new home or launch a new business; and Potential conflicts of interest raising questions about whether, in either appearance or reality, public officials stand to benefit personally from the takings they approve. Chen noted that during the department’s research on this issue and debates over legislative reform, some have suggested there is no detailed evidence of eminent domain abuse and therefore no problem to fix. In response, the department issued this second report highlighting particular cases of misuse of the redevelopment process that have violated the rights and disrupted the lives of New Jersey families. The report is not intended to document every, nor even the typical, use of eminent domain for redevelopment. Municipalities across New Jersey have responsibly used redevelopment tools to revitalize their communities. Instead, the report highlights the ongoing abuses that current law allows. Many other cases involving allegations of eminent domain abuses have been brought to the Public Advocate’s attention. The report, however, addresses only those cases in which either New Jersey courts have made findings of fact or department attorneys have assessed the record after the Public Advocate entered the case as a friend of the court. In a Passaic City case, for example, a property owner lost a parcel without ever knowing the town had condemned and sold the land to another private party. He discovered the sale when he tried to pay his property taxes. In an Edison Township case, local officials presented sparse evidence to support a blight designation -- a pothole, a few cracks and a gutter that needed to be cleaned, according to the court that heard the case. In a Long Branch case, the city offered one homeowner approximately $180,000 for a 5-bedroom beachfront home after the city condemned it. A jury later awarded the homeowner $500,000. The report notes that it is impossible to know the prevalence of eminent domain abuse. Many homeowners whose rights are violated lack the resources to engage in expensive litigation with towns. So they simply pack up and move. “It is clear from these cases that people’s rights have been violated,” Chen said. “That is because the state statute allows it. It is time to change the redevelopment law so people’s rights are protected, while allowing sound redevelopment projects to move forward.” To read the full report and the Public Advocate’s other publications on eminent domain, go to www.state.nj.us/publicadvocate. FOLLOW-UP REPORT WILL CHALLENGE BLIGHT DESIGNATION Atlanticville - April 12, 2007 BY CHRISTINE VARNO - Staff Writer Almost a year after the release of a study on the use of eminent domain for redevelopment projects in New Jersey communities like Long Branch, state Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen will follow up with a more in-depth report on the issue. The report is expected to be complete within the next four to six weeks, according to Chen, who said it will contain examples from eminent domain cases he has researched. Those findings, he said, will support the eminent domain reforms recommended in the initial report. "Our first report was done at a time when I was first getting into office and into the eminent domain issue," said Chen in an interview last week. "For that reason, we decided not to get too into specifics. "We have been at it for a year now and we have had a greater opportunity to explore the issue. We thought it would be useful to put those findings in a second report." In the past year, Chen's office submitted amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs in support of residents of three municipalities fighting their towns' use of eminent domain: Long Branch, Lodi and Paulsboro. In the Long Branch brief, Chen asks the appellate court to allow a group of residents to have their day in court to challenge the city's use of eminent domain to condemn their oceanfront properties. In addition to filing the briefs, Chen and his office staff have studied eminent domain procedural findings and court records in towns across the state where officials are using eminent domain to acquire property for private redevelopment projects. Those findings will be presented in the second report, which could be titled "Eminent Domain, The Year After" or "What We Have Learned," according to Chen. "In this report we will be able to show scenarios where we think reform is needed," he said, adding that the first report concentrated on the legal aspects of eminent domain and contained general examples. The follow-up study will present factual data to highlight the points made in the first report, he added. "We will show more human experiences, because we have now had the chance to go in-depth in the records in litigated cases," he said. "We have more facts to draw from." One such case is in Long Branch, where a group of residents on the oceanfront are fighting the city's use of eminent domain to condemn their properties for a private redevelopment project. Chen's amicus brief was filed in state Superior Court to support the group of Long Branch homeowners who reside in the neighborhood of Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue known as MTOTSA. The brief supports MTOTSA's appeal of a June ruling by Judge Lawrence M. Lawson that affirmed the city's right to take the homes of residents in the three-street neighborhood to make way for a private redevelopment project. Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider has been a critic of Chen's report and his involvement in the Long Branch case. After Chen filed the amicus brief in January, Schneider had said that Chen was uninformed of the redevelopment process in Long Branch. "He decided to go into the case without meeting with any officials in Long Branch," Schneider said in the January interview. "Mr. Chen has never accurately reviewed the redevelopment process in Long Branch." But Chen said he does not expect every mayor to agree with the content of the report. "The issue of eminent domain is controversial," Chen said. "But, all of the furor over the mere fact of filing a brief seems to be misplaced. "In a case like Long Branch, that raises these important issues, it is the role of the advocate," he said. Chen explained that after researching the MTOTSA case, he has determined the area is not blighted. "Most of the problem with the MTOTSA case is that the trial judge did not allow for a full record to be developed," he said. "There has to be a full record, and based on the record we have seen in court, there does not seem to be sufficient evidence that the MTOTSA area is blighted." Another issue facing the MTOTSA case, he added, is that the residents faced with losing their homes were not made aware of the consequences of having a home in an area in need of redevelopment. In the upcoming report, Chen said he is continuing a similar perspective as the first report, with the addition of more facts and real-life experiences. The first report, "Reforming the Use of Eminent Domain for Private Redevelopment in New Jersey" was released May 18. In that report, Chen recommended several reforms, including: + Narrow the statutory criteria for designating an area as "blighted" to require that the criteria provide objective and specific limitations on the ability to use eminent domain for private redevelopment; + Promote rehabilitation of properties rather than redevelopment; + Make the redevelopment process "transparent" by instituting reforms including notifying tenants and property owners of public hearings 60 days in advance; require that hearings be recorded; allow affected residents to bring their own witnesses; + Add protections to help ensure that eminent domain is used as a last resort; and + Require that homeowners who do lose their homes are compensated with at least the replacement value of their home and are able to remain in the town they live in. Chen said last week that the first report lists recommended reforms, while his aim in the second report is to be more specific by citing examples and more real-life experiences. Chen was nominated to head the Department of the Public Advocate in January by Gov. Jon S. Corzine. When his office began operations on March 27, he announced that its first major initiative would be to investigate the uses of eminent domain for private redevelopment. Although Chen recommends numerous reforms in the initial report, he does not suggest banning the use of eminent domain. Rather, he states in the report, "redevelopment of truly blighted areas is a legitimate purpose that serves the greater good by helping revitalize communities and create more opportunity for residents." His recommendation in the first report is to change the statutory criteria that define blight to put strict limitations on the ability of municipalities to use eminent domain for private redevelopment. PUBLIC ADVOCATE UPHELD IN LONG BRANCH EMINENT-DOMAIN CASE Asbury Park Press 03/7/07 BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS LONG BRANCH — The city is now 0-for-2 in terms of motions designed to limit the ability of property owners in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue area to fight the taking of their homes by eminent domain. Without comment, the Appellate Division of Superior Court denied the city's motion to strike the friend-of-the-court brief filed by state Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen on behalf of the MTOTSA property owners. Earlier, the city had sought to block the Institute for Justice, the Arlington, Va., nonprofit public interest law firm, which is helping to represent some owners, from entry into the case. The case arose after Superior Court Judge Lawrence L. Lawson's June 22 decision that upheld the city's right to take the homes by eminent domain. The condemnation mechanism has become a controversial practice in the wake of objections over government's power to take private property for public use or purpose after paying just compensation. Chen's entry into the Long Branch case has been criticized by local officials who say he failed to conduct a thorough review of the facts and is using the case to advance his own career. Chen has denied he has any other motives beyond the public good. "Eminent domain is an issue of enormous public importance," Chen said in a news release. "Clearly, our role in this case as a friend-of-the-court is not only legal and appropriate, it is vital if we are to safeguard the rights of all homeowners in New Jersey." The ruling, which was approved Thursday, means the court can consider Chen's arguments when the city and MTOTSA lawyers, who also include Peter H. Wegener of Lakewood, face off, possibly later this year. "Now it is time to move beyond the legal maneuvering and focus on addressing the critical issues of this case," said Chen, noting the action raises "serious concerns about the fairness of a process that can force longtime residents to relinquish their homes to private developers." Institute for Justice senior lawyer Scott G. Bullock echoed those comments, saying the city's two motions did not deal with substantive issues. The city had filed both actions, alleging the legal authorities had not followed appropriate court rules. Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider later admitted that opposing the Institute for Justice's entry into the case was a move he regretted. "I hope the city now stops these ridiculous motions, either to have lawyers excluded from the case or briefs excluded from the case, and really starts to address the fundamental issues that are at stake," Bullock said. The city's motions were rejected by the appellate court "with good reason," he said. "I think it is clear, and hopefully the city will get the message the court wants the issues addressed in the case, not the sideshow that the city has unfortunately made the court deal with." City Attorney James G. Aaron has a message for the other lawyers: Bring it on. "The city is more than happy to do that," Aaron said of addressing the core issues. "We will address the meat of the case, and the substance of the city's case in the city's brief, and we will attempt to convince the appellate court that Judge Lawson was 100 percent correct in the decision below." To Overturn Condemnation of their Homes Institute for Justice Will Fight to Allow Public Advocate’s Friend of the Court Brief Arlington, Va.—In a legal brief filed this week, the homeowners in Long Branch’s embattled MTOTSA neighborhood asked the New Jersey appellate court to overturn last summer’s superior court decision approving the condemnation of their beloved homes. In what has become ground-zero in the nationwide fight against eminent domain abuse, Long Branch is trying to seize the well-kept beachfront homes of senior citizens and hard-working families to give their land to a private developer so it can build luxury condominiums for the wealthy. Eminent domain is the power of government to take property for traditional public uses like roads and schools. Scott Bullock, senior attorney with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which represents the homeowners, said, “The brief we filed this week with the appeals court explains why Long Branch’s outrageous land-grab violates both the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions, and a variety of state laws.” The 65-page legal brief detailed why the condemnations are illegal: • The U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions restrict eminent domain to true public purposes, not a scheme to make rich private parties even richer. • The Local Housing and Redevelopment Law does not allow Long Branch to use a sham blight designation as an excuse for taking away people’s homes. • The redevelopment contracts unconstitutionally gave away Long Branch’s power of eminent domain to the private developer. • The condemnations are unnecessary because MTOTSA is not blighted and the beachfront has otherwise been entirely redeveloped. • City attorneys with financial conflicts of interest tainted the redevelopment process. • Long Branch failed to negotiate in good faith with the homeowners. The case is before the appellate division because on June 22, 2006, the Superior Court of Monmouth County ruled that Long Branch was authorized to condemn the homes on the basis of nothing more than the papers the city filed with its condemnation complaints. Discussing the brief, Jeff Rowes, a staff attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, “We asked the appellate court to dismiss the complaints and let the homeowners live their lives in the homes that mean so much to them and their families. In the alternative, we asked that this case be sent back down to the trial court to give the homeowners a real opportunity to gather evidence and defend their homes.” Rowes added, “The evidence shows that Long Branch cut corners, ignored the law and flouted the Constitution. It’s time for the appellate court to hold the city accountable.” Bullock said, “The home should be a sanctuary, especially for senior citizens in their golden years like MTOTSA residents Anna DeFaria and Rose LaRosa. It shouldn’t be a poker chip that cities like Long Branch play when making big deals with billion-dollar private developers.” Earlier this week, the Institute received the sad word that one of MTOTSA’s most colorful and beloved residents, 93-year-old Al Viviano, passed away. Mr. Viviano, a former blacksmith, had roots in the neighborhood stemming back to 1931. “Al was a sweet but absolutely determined fellow,” said Bullock. “Despite his age and health problems, he never missed an event or meeting organized to save his neighborhood. It is disgusting that the city threatened Mr. Viviano with eviction from his home at a time when he should have been doing nothing but relaxing and enjoying his much-deserved retirement in peace. And while it is sad that he did not live to see a court ultimately vindicate his and his neighbors’ rights, he passed away exactly where he wanted to: sleeping in his bed, in his home.” Quoted in today’s Star-Ledger, Viviano’s daughter, Estelle Toscano, said, “He won. My father won because he died in his own house.” As the Star-Ledger reported, “What drove Viviano is what drives most of his neighbors: a deep love of Long Branch and a firm belief that government should not have the right to take a home indiscriminately.” In yet another ridiculous attempt to suppress the truth about what is going on in Long Branch, the city filed motions in late January to have the New Jersey Public Advocate Ronald Chen’s friend of the court brief stricken from the appeal. Coming off an unsuccessful effort late last year to have the Institute for Justice kicked off the case, Long Branch is now arguing that Mr. Chen’s brief inappropriately addresses issues not encompassed in the decision of the Monmouth County superior court. The Public Advocate is a state-level office created by Governor Corzine in March 2006. The mission of the Public Advocate is to work on behalf of citizens to make government more accountable. Bullock, who has written many friend of the court briefs for the Institute in other cases, said, “The Public Advocate did exactly what he was supposed to do: offer the court expert insight that the parties to this case may lack. Long Branch just doesn’t like what Mr. Chen had to say, particularly his conclusion that the condemnation of MTOTSA is wrong.” The Institute will oppose the city’s motion in a brief to be filed next week. Rowes noted, “Long Branch didn’t want a trial on these condemnations in the superior court, it tried to exclude the Institute for Justice, and now it’s trying to keep out the Public Advocate. The city doesn’t want the public or the courts to know what’s really going on because what’s really going on is a terrible injustice.”   HIS DOMAIN TO THE END - Long Branch holdout, dies at home Thursday, February 08, 2007 - BY MARK MUELLER - Star-Ledger Staff Though he could barely walk, Albert Viviano ambled to protest meetings and rallies in and around Long Branch. Later, when he couldn't walk at all, he rolled to them in his motorized wheelchair, a little American flag in one hand, a placard in the other. At 93, with his heart slowly giving out, Viviano was motivated by one thing: the right to die in his home. The city of Long Branch wants that home, one of two dozen converted bungalows local officials have been trying to seize for three years to make way for new development. The battle continues, but not for Viviano. On Sunday, he died in his bed, two blocks from the boardwalk he cherished, in the neighborhood he had known for 75 years. "He won," said Viviano's daughter, Estelle Toscano. "My father won because he died in his own house." It's a refrain heard repeatedly in Viviano's tiny neighborhood, which has become something of a symbol in one of the most closely watched disputes over eminent domain in the nation. Viviano, who spent his teenage years fitting wheels onto horse-drawn wagons in Newark, was the oldest among the homeowners who have refused to sell to the city. And while it was clear his health was failing, he insisted on attending meetings and rallies, creaky body be damned. "He just uplifted everyone," said neighbor Lori Ann Vendetti, 45, a member of the coalition opposing Long Branch's plan. "You have some bad days in this fight, and then you'd see Al coming out with the little flags on his wheelchair and the button on his jacket and his poster. It was an inspiration." What drove Viviano is what drives most of his neighbors: a deep love of Long Branch and a firm belief that government should not have the right to take a home indiscriminately. "He couldn't believe this could happen in America, how someone who fought in the war, had a business and gave back to his country could just lose his home," Vendetti said. "He was fighting with all his might against that." The courts, so far, have sided with Long Branch. In June, a Superior Court judge ruled the city was within its right to take the homes along Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue. The plan calls for the homes to be razed in keeping with a $1 billion redevelopment project that has already transformed parts of the city. The residents are appealing the June decision, saying they will take the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court if they have to. They don't want to envision an alternative. Most of them have been part of the neighborhood for decades. Few knew it as well as Viviano. "All my life, he's been a fixture there," said William Giordano, 42, whose back yard faces Viviano's home on Marine Terrace. "The neighborhood will never be the same without him." Like so many in the area, Viviano came from Newark. When people asked what he did for a living, he told them he was a blacksmith. His daughter said that description wasn't quite right, though, because Viviano never worked with a horseshoe in his life. In his youngest days, before the automobile had infiltrated every part of society, Viviano made and installed wagon wheels while working for his father, Toscano said. Later, he did metalwork on trucks. The business did well enough to allow Viviano's father to buy the modest three-bedroom bungalow on Marine Terrace in the 1920s. It was a fair-weather place then, with a broad, breeze-catching porch. The Vivianos would head down from the city on weekends. Until the construction of the Garden State Parkway, it could be a rough trip, the bad roads wreaking havoc on the flimsy inner-tube tires in use at the time. "He told us they'd always get flat tires, sometimes two or three flats on one trip," Giordano said. "So they'd have to keep pulling over and patch them up." To Viviano, the journey was worth it. Neighbors said he'd walk the beach -- and later the boardwalk -- several times a day, chatting with passersby and enjoying the ocean views. With his wife, Mary, he'd sit out on the porch, calling out to neighbors and regaling neighborhood kids with stories. After retiring 26 years ago, Viviano moved down to Marine Terrace full-time, puttering around in his small basement workshop and dreaming up little inventions. Unsatisfied with a spoon to scoop out jelly from a jar, he hammered out a utensil with a little less swell, his daughter said. Long before televisions came with shut-off timers, Viviano fashioned one by stripping the timer from his washing machine. "He had an engineer's mind," said Toscano, who must now decide whether to keep up her father's fight. "He did things to the detail." And if he didn't get it quite right the first time, he didn't give up. Friends said he took that spirit into the struggle with Long Branch. "He loved Long Branch, and he loved his home, and he couldn't see letting anyone take it away from him," said Anna DeFaria, 81, a friend and neighbor. "This fight meant everything to him. He was our rock." The death of Mary Viviano two years ago coincided with Viviano's own decline in health. Over time, he traded a cane for a wheelchair and accepted in-home help on a 24-hour basis. Still, the fight to save his home consumed him. "He would say, 'This is my home. I want to die here,'" DeFaria said. No one would have blamed Viviano for taking it easy, letting the younger residents take on the city. But Viviano wouldn't have it. "He could have just given up, but he didn't," said Fifi Vendetti, 77, Lori Vendetti's mother. "He fought hard for our cause. We hope we don't let him down. We hope we win, and we hope he looks down upon us when that happens." Mark Mueller may be reached at mmueller@starledger.com or (973) 392-5973. Council seeks new path to redevelopment Wednesday, November 29, 2006 BY KASI ADDISON - Star-Ledger Staff In the face of another court decision denying Bloomfield the right to use eminent domain to redevelop the downtown, the township council is looking at alternate ways to revitalize the area, officials said yesterday. The council discussed the op tions at Monday's meeting after learning the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to hear the township's appeal of an earlier court case in a Nov. 21 memo received earlier in the day. In August, the Appellate Divi sion of the Superior Court upheld a 2005 decision by Superior Court Judge Patricia Costello, which dismissed the township's condemna tion complaint against one of the properties in the redevelopment area, 110 Washington St. Because the Supreme Court appeal was the town's last legal re course in that case, the council is taking another look at the redevelopment plan to figure out the next step, Mayor Raymond McCarthy said yesterday. "We have to revise the redevelopment plan because we can't use eminent domain, one of the tools we had," he said. "Now we have to use our cunning and ability to negotiate with property owners." The $160 million redevelopment proposal was supposed to transform the dilapidated downtown area by providing ample parking, a grocery store, restaurants and apartments buildings. Forest City Residential was the developer funding the project. The redevelopment plans were derailed over a year ago when the Superior Court judge rebuffed the town's first attempt to condemn the property in the 13.5-acre zone, which encompasses residences and dozens of businesses. Costello found the town's plan flawed and said there wasn't enough evidence of blight to justify taking the property. The town appealed, arguing unsuccessfully against the ruling before the appel late court panel. Neither decision meant much to the owners of the Washington Street property because of a settlement agreement that allowed the owners, 110 Washington Associates, to develop a condominium complex on the land. The rulings had more impact on a group of small business and property owners who also filed lawsuits to fight the town's attempts to take their land. Despite the mayor's comments about eminent domain, the property owners will continue to fight until there is a new redevelopment plan, said their attorney William J. Ward. He pointed to a recent revision to the redevelopment study approved by the planning board and council as evidence the town was still trying to use eminent do main. "Talk is cheap, and we can't let the legal piece slide because the mayor says he's not going to use eminent domain," Ward said. "The (council) always has that power." Though the court decision involved 110 Washington St., the outcome of the case affects the other cases as well, town officials said. "Even if we were to start over, we have Costello's decision that we can't take the properties," McCar thy said, adding Forest City Residential is still a part of the project. George Kruse, vice president of development for Forest City Residential, wouldn't comment on the status of the development. Alessandro Lardieri hopes the downtown is redeveloped and that he is part of the finished product. He is among the group of property owners fighting the town's right to eminent domain. "Who knows what Bloomfield going to do," he said of the latest developments. "We have to pay attention to our business, this is our livelihood, and I plan to be here until I retire." The Economist November 25th 2006 DENISE HOAGLAND likes to sit on her front porch, with her exuberant dog, and admire the Atlantic. The view is soothing when calm, awesome when stormy and makes the plot on which her modest home stands rather valuable. She does not want to move, but the local government has told her that she must. The city of Long Branch, New Jersey has labelled her neighbourhood blighted-which it plainly is not-to justify seizing it and transferring it to a developer who wants to erect luxury apartments there. That suits the authorities: swanky condos would yield more taxes. But the people whose houses are to be bulldozed are furious. "Hands off our homes" signs abound on the street where Mrs. Hoagland lives. Another reads: "Mayor Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's land." Since property rights are one of the foundations on which America's immense prosperity is built, it seems odd to undermine them. The framers of the constitution understood this well. True, the fifth amendment allows the government to take private property, but only for public use and so long as just compensation is paid. Public use has long been understood to mean what it says: a road, a public school or the like. Few would dispute that the state needs a tool (known as the power of eminent domain, or outside America as compulsory purchase) to prevent a lone homeowner from blocking an interstate highway. But in June last year the Supreme Court expanded the definition of public use. in the case of Kelo v New London, it ruled, by five votes to four, that the state may seize private property on behalf of private developers, so long as this serves some broadly defined public purpose, such as increasing the flow of taxes into public coffers. in other words, any local government may evict any citizen to make way for someone richer. The four dissenting justices knew this might be a tad controversial. "The spectre of condemnation hangs over all property," fumed Sandra Day O'Connor. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." The ruling had two effects. First, it told local governments and their developer chums that working-class neighbourhoods were up for grabs. In the year after Kelo, the Institute for justice, a group that defends property rights, counted 5,783 homes, busi-nesses, churches and other properties condemned or threatened with eminent domain to the benefit of a private party. Dana Berliner, an attorney for the institute, says that as far as she knows, no farms have been slated to be turned into factories, but that other than that,justice O'Connor's prediction is holding up well. But second, Kelo provoked a backlash. Most Americans are repelled by the idea that the state might take your house and give it to Donald Trump. (This is not rhetoric: NewJersey once tried, unsuccessfully, to seize someone's home because The Donald needed somewhere to park limousines outside one of his casinos.) Since the Kelo ruling, no fewer than 34 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain. At the mid-term elections, voters in ten states approved measures curbing politicians' power to seize private property, all by wide margins. Only two ballot initiatives failed, in California and Idaho, and that because they clearly went too far. Re-worded, they could easily pass. Public revulsion against such seizures is visceral and nearly uniform: polls find between 85% and 95% of Americans are opposed to them. Political affiliation makes no difference. Republicans hate to see property rights violated and individuals bullied by the state. Democrats hate to see the state's coercive power hired out to big corporations, and worry, correctly, that the chief victims of eminent domain abuse will be the working class and ethnic minorities. Power to the people The backlash may end up strengthening property rights. Before Kelo, few Americans had heard of eminent domain or knew that it was being abused. Local seizures generated no national headlines. Local victims rarely made common cause with similarly afflicted folk in neighbouring states. Since Kelo, however, every serious paper and news channel has tackled the issue. Few, if any, sympathise with the home-grabbers. And the property-rights movement has gone national. Susette Kelo, the homeowner from New London, Connecticut whose stiffing by the Supreme Court first brought eminent-domain abuse to a wide audience, was on Capitol Hill last week urging senators to back a federal law curbing the practice. The House of Representatives passed a bill last year by the convincing margin Of 376-38, but it then got stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate is running out of time-if a reform does not pass before the end of the lame-duck session, Congress will have to start again from scratch next year. For Mrs Hoagland, the outlook is not rosy. She and her neighbours face a stressful court battle to keep their homes. But the broader moral is a happy one. By and large, the checks and balances of American politics are working as they should. just as the courts keep tabs on Congress and the executive, striking down unconstitutional laws and constantly reminding the president that he is subject to the rest, so too can Congress, the states and ultimately the people curb the excesses of the Supreme Court. Kelo v New London was a terrible decision. But most states have now neutered it, and more will doubtless follow. Three governors (all Democrats, as it happens) have vetoed laws curbing eminent-domain abuse. But Tom Vilsack in Iowa, a presidential hopeful, was overruled by a super-majority of state lawmakers, and Janet Napolitano in Arizona was overruled by voters. In the struggle between the people and the powerful, the powerful do not always win. Law firm asks court to allow it to represent MTOTSA homeowners BY CHRISTINE VARNO - Atlanticville Staff Writer 11/9/06 LONG BRANCH - The Institute for Justice is fighting the city's attempt to keep it from representing a group of homeowners facing condemnation of their homes. On Nov. 3, IJ filed a response to a motion by the City of Long Branch that seeks to block the public interest law firm from representing residents in the MTOTSA alliance . IJ petitioned the court for pro hac vice status on Oct. 18 which would allow the firm to act as co-counsel for residents in the Marine and Ocean terraces and Seaview Avenue neighborhood. The homeowners are appealing the city's condemnation of their properties for a private redevelopment project. In a motion filed Oct. 24, the city asked the court not to permit IJ to act as co-counsel along with attorney Peter H. Wegener. The city's action is a "highly technical and frankly absurd reading of the New Jersey rules concerning pro hac vice," said IJ Senior Attorney Scott Bullock last week. "The motion [filed by the city] is preposterous. There is absolutely no reason to it." "We are admitted in bars throughout the nation and have never been denied pro hac vice," Bullock said. City Attorney James Aaron did not return phone calls seeking comment. IJ, based in Arlington, Va., represents homeowners opposing eminent domain for private redevelopment across the country. According to Bullock, the motion will be decided in paperwork and oral arguments will probably not be heard. "There is no time-line [for the decision]," Bullock said. "The next step is to wait for a decision from the court." A motion for pro hac vice status, which translates as "for this matter only," must be filed with the court by out-of-state attorneys seeking to be permitted to practice law in a state where they are not licensed, Bullock explained. In the motion seeking to dismiss IJ, Aaron argues that there is no good reason for the court to admit IJ. The city also claims IJ does not meet the requirements for admission pro hac vice. Bullock said IJ argues three points in the response: New Jersey residents have the right to retain the attorney of their choice; IJ attorneys are experts and specialists in the field of property rights; and the city's interpretation of the pro hac vice law is incorrect. Bullock, along with IJ attorneys Jeffrey Rowes and William Mellor, announced in September that they would act as co-counsel with Wegener in representing s |
