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!! |
||||||||||||||||||
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. ntgas-lowco2.com 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 some 20 oceanfront homeowners in the city's Beachfront North, phase II redevelopment zone. Wegener is appealing a ruling by state Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson that affirmed the city's right to take the homes in the three-street neighborhood for a private redevelopment project. According to the IJ response, "Long Branch argues that Institute attorneys are not eligible for admission ... because this case is not complex. Long Branch also argues that Institute attorneys are not eligible ... because they failed to establish that they are specialists in takings law. "Neither of these arguments has merit," the motion continues, "Long Branch is in effect arguing that the court should exclude highly qualified public interest attorneys because the city assures the court, the MTOTSA homeowners will never prevail on the merits of their simple case." The motion also contends that IJ attorneys are "both specialists and experts in the field of eminent domain law." "We do a pro hac vice motion in literally every case," Bullock said. According to the response, IJ attorneys have participated as either counsel or amicus, in every major case concerning the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment in the last decade. "We are in fact, specialists," Bullock said. In the motion filed by the city, Aaron claims IJ failed to meet the procedural and substantive requirement for an attorney to be admitted pro hac vice before the New Jersey state courts. Aaron argues that the attorney seeking to be admitted pro hac vice must be "of the bar of the highest court of the state in which that attorney is domiciled or principally practices law." The IJ attorneys are members of the New York and District of Columbia bars, according to the city's motion, which states IJ attorneys Rowes and Mellor fail to certify that they are either domiciled or principally practice law in New York and the District of Columbia. IJ responded, "Long Branch urges the court to adopt an interpretation of the pro hac vice rule that is so narrow that it will effectively bar attorneys from national public interest law firms, like the Institute for Justice or the NAACP or the ACLU, from helping New Jersey residents fight for their rights in most important constitutional cases." IJ has never been denied a pro hac vice status in hundreds of cases in the 15 years it has been practicing, Bullock said. CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS - Asbury Park Press - 11/8/06 LONG BRANCH — Were voters sending a message about eminent domain abuse when they apparently elected challenger Brian A. Unger Tuesday to fill the unexpired term of John "Fazz" Zambrano, who resigned in July after pleading guilty to accepting a $1,000 bribe? Unger thinks so. But he also thinks it is more than that. "It was actually a referendum on change, and it included that policy," said Unger, referring to eminent domain. "I don't think it was only eminent domain, but it was the driving issue. It was also a referendum on the direction the administration" is taking. With some 70 percent of precincts reporting as of 11 p.m., Unger received 1,836 votes or 42 percent to Councilwoman Jackeline Biddle's 1,157 votes, about 27 percent, for a term on the nonpartisan council. The other candidates included two retired police officers: Ralph A. "Flip" DeFillipo Sr., who received 458 votes or about 11 percent, and Vincent J. Maccioli, who received 234 or 5.4 percent. The final candidate was Michael P. Sirianni, a former school board president who received 632 votes or 15 percent. Unger said that in the districts he captured, including Elberon and West End, many voters believe the administration was becoming distracted by the issue of eminent domain, which dominates every council meeting. "I would love to see the people of MTOTSA get a change of heart from the city," he said, referring to residents of the embattled neighborhood of Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue, who supported him. He believes the city should engage in realistic negotiations that would allow residents to keep their homes. Unger was the candidate for Joseph Turpin, Joline Avenue, who said Unger and the Democratic Party would prevail this election. "I think he'll win 2 to 1, that's my prediction," Turpin said of Unger. Unger said the MTOTSA area should be removed from the redevelopment plan, but Biddle had argued that Unger and other candidates were silent when eminent domain affected other areas of town and seemed to be politicizing the issue for the campaign. Biddle, who was appointed in August to fill the council vacancy until Tuesday's election, had argued that affordable housing was a top concern and even those people opposed to the use of eminent domain in the city's ongoing oceanfront and business-zone redevelopment would focus on issues closer to their heart, once the conversation deepened. Biddle was the first Hispanic person to serve on council and worked in the minority community to help register voters. She could not be reached for comment Tuesday night. The other three candidates also campaigned heavily on eminent domain abuse while Biddle said she was uncomfortable with its use, but said it is necessary in areas where the city already has signed contracts with developers. Breaking the contract will result in a costly legal battle, she said. Donald Leigh, of Long Branch Avenue, said his loyalties were with DeFillipo. "You have to vote for the man, not the party," he said. "I know the family he comes from," Leigh said of DeFillipo. "The man or the woman, if you know them, you know they are going to do a good job and you know what they stand for." Dina Williams seemed to epitomize a number of voters polled Tuesday who said they did not have strong feelings about this election, as opposed to the election of the mayor and council in May. "I'm still a little disappointed that Alfie Lenkiewicz (a candidate for mayor in the May election) didn't win and about the little scandal going on with the current council," said Williams of the governing body dodged by complaints over eminent domain and allegations of corruption after Zambrano's resignation. officers: Ralph A. "Flip" DeFillipo Sr., who received 458 votes or about 11 percent, and Vincent J. Maccioli, who received 234 or 5.4 percent. The final candidate was Michael P. Sirianni, a former school board president who received 632 votes or 15 percent. Unger said that in the districts he captured, including Elberon and West End, many voters believe the administration was becoming distracted by the issue of eminent domain, which dominates every council meeting. "I would love to see the people of MTOTSA get a change of heart from the city," he said, referring to residents of the embattled neighborhood of Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue, who supported him. He believes the city should engage in realistic negotiations that would allow residents to keep their homes. Unger was the candidate for Joseph Turpin, Joline Avenue, who said Unger and the Democratic Party would prevail this election. "I think he'll win 2 to 1, that's my prediction," Turpin said of Unger. Unger said the MTOTSA area should be removed from the redevelopment plan, but Biddle had argued that Unger and other candidates were silent when eminent domain affected other areas of town and seemed to be politicizing the issue for the campaign. Biddle, who was appointed in August to fill the council vacancy until Tuesday's election, had argued that affordable housing was a top concern and even those people opposed to the use of eminent domain in the city's ongoing oceanfront and business-zone redevelopment would focus on issues closer to their heart, once the conversation deepened. Biddle was the first Hispanic person to serve on council and worked in the minority community to help register voters. She could not be reached for comment Tuesday night. The other three candidates also campaigned heavily on eminent domain abuse while Biddle said she was uncomfortable with its use, but said it is necessary in areas where the city already has signed contracts with developers. Breaking the contract will result in a costly legal battle, she said. Donald Leigh, of Long Branch Avenue, said his loyalties were with DeFillipo. "You have to vote for the man, not the party," he said. "I know the family he comes from," Leigh said of DeFillipo. "The man or the woman, if you know them, you know they are going to do a good job and you know what they stand for." Dina Williams seemed to epitomize a number of voters polled Tuesday who said they did not have strong feelings about this election, as opposed to the election of the mayor and council in May. "I'm still a little disappointed that Alfie Lenkiewicz (a candidate for mayor in the May election) didn't win and about the little scandal going on with the current council," said Williams of the governing body dodged by complaints over eminent domain and allegations of corruption after Zambrano's resignation. officers: Ralph A. "Flip" DeFillipo Sr., who received 458 votes or about 11 percent, and Vincent J. Maccioli, who received 234 or 5.4 percent. The final candidate was Michael P. Sirianni, a former school board president who received 632 votes or 15 percent. Unger said that in the districts he captured, including Elberon and West End, many voters believe the administration was becoming distracted by the issue of eminent domain, which dominates every council meeting. "I would love to see the people of MTOTSA get a change of heart from the city," he said, referring to residents of the embattled neighborhood of Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue, who supported him. He believes the city should engage in realistic negotiations that would allow residents to keep their homes. Unger was the candidate for Joseph Turpin, Joline Avenue, who said Unger and the Democratic Party would prevail this election. "I think he'll win 2 to 1, that's my prediction," Turpin said of Unger. Unger said the MTOTSA area should be removed from the redevelopment plan, but Biddle had argued that Unger and other candidates were silent when eminent domain affected other areas of town and seemed to be politicizing the issue for the campaign. Biddle, who was appointed in August to fill the council vacancy until Tuesday's election, had argued that affordable housing was a top concern and even those people opposed to the use of eminent domain in the city's ongoing oceanfront and business-zone redevelopment would focus on issues closer to their heart, once the conversation deepened. Biddle was the first Hispanic person to serve on council and worked in the minority community to help register voters. She could not be reached for comment Tuesday night. The other three candidates also campaigned heavily on eminent domain abuse while Biddle said she was uncomfortable with its use, but said it is necessary in areas where the city already has signed contracts with developers. Breaking the contract will result in a costly legal battle, she said. Donald Leigh, of Long Branch Avenue, said his loyalties were with DeFillipo. "You have to vote for the man, not the party," he said. "I know the family he comes from," Leigh said of DeFillipo. "The man or the woman, if you know them, you know they are going to do a good job and you know what they stand for." Dina Williams seemed to epitomize a number of voters polled Tuesday who said they did not have strong feelings about this election, as opposed to the election of the mayor and council in May. "I'm still a little disappointed that Alfie Lenkiewicz (a candidate for mayor in the May election) didn't win and about the little scandal going on with the current council," said Williams of the governing body dodged by complaints over eminent domain and allegations of corruption after Zambrano's resignation. Written by Bernice Roberts - The Atlantic HIghlands Herald - 9/6/06 YOU'LL KNOW THEM BY THEIR 'BLURTS' What makes Eminent Domain seizures and The City of Long Branch’s actions take center stage as most egregiously vicious among all of the horrible Eminent Domain seizures? The outstanding factor is the meanness and arrogance of the city’s players and their propensity for self-indulgent exasperation and, of course, their blurtings. When Long Branch Attorney James Aaron blurted out in Judge Larry Lawson’s courtroom on March 24, 2006, that "whether or not the property is in the redevelopment zone; whether the use of taking it is improper, the houses are going to go," Did this denote that Aaron himself was unsure of Long Branch’s rectitude in this whole matter? When Mayor Adam Schneider recently blurted out that his idea of ‘infill’ was different from the MTOTSA residents’ (and anyone else’s for that matter) idea of ‘infill,’ that spoke volumes for the practice of chicanery. Why cannot a mayor speak the same language as the residents? Will we soon have the final showdown of Eminent Domain in all its wrongness? It is heading toward that with the appeal of Superior Court Judge Larry Lawson’s ruling by The Institute for Justice together with Robert Chen, New Jersey State Advocate and attorneys for MTOTSA. The lines are drawn and the rooting is all for the homeowners. The boos are all for the city and the developers. It seems the whole country has gotten behind the homeowners. That’s because the whole country has a lot at stake. What a bleak future was being presented for the American Dream of home ownership. It depicted for all of us the battle of the crafty against the innocent. As we pick up some clues from this latest travesty, we become more aware of the sneakiness of words. Hard words are always wrapped in disguises and set before the public in a most contemptible manner. We had a short period of reprieve when it was agreed that legal jargon, medical jargon and pharmaceutical jargon should be understood by the average person. What happened to that? Let’s bring it back along with freedom to live in our own home. 
Asbury Park Staff Photo - Dave May THE WHITE HATS ARE COMING!!! - THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE COMES ON BOARD TO REPRESENT MTOTSA!!! CITY SEEKS TO KICK OUT MIDDLE CLASS ALONG OCEAN FRONT TO MAKE WAY FOR THE RICH Across the United States, local governments are using the power of eminent domain to seize private homes, businesses and farms in order to transfer property to other private owners for their private use. More often than not, governments justify these private-to-private transfers by claiming that the property is “blighted” and will be “redeveloped” by the new owner thereby supposedly creating more jobs and taxes. As is the case in Long Branch, N.J., however, the definition of “blight” has become so broad and unprincipled that governments regularly target perfectly fine homes in ordinary neighborhoods for the wrecking ball. Nice homes with spectacular oceanfront views in vibrant neighborhoods can be condemned for reasons like “diversity of ownership,” meaning that each home is owned by a separate family—something that should be a point of pride for Americans rather than an excuse to take what rightfully belongs to a homeowner. If owning your own home means your house is blighted, whose house isn’t blighted? The Institute for Justice is representing Long Branch homeowners who are fighting their City’s effort to forcibly take their homes and hand the land over to private developers who plan to make tens of millions of dollars building upscale condos for the wealthy. The Institute is challenging the condemnations with several constitutional and statutory arguments: The N.J. and U.S. Constitutions only permit condemnations for a “public use.” This limitation on eminent domain is violated when the government condemns non-blighted homes in a non-blighted area in order to give them to private developers so they can build new homes for someone else. Because the redevelopment contracts give the private developers exclusive control over Long Branch’s power of eminent domain, the contracts are unconstitutional. Government’s eminent domain power cannot be sold or “rented out” to the highest bidder. Condemning Long Branch so-called “MTOTSA” neighborhood is unnecessary because it is not blighted and destroying it is not necessary to eradicate blight anywhere else. The only reason the City of Long Branch is condemning MTOTSA is so the private developers can have more prime oceanfront real estate. Finally, there is no “substantial evidence,” as required by New Jersey law, that the MTOTSA neighborhood is, or has ever been, “in need of redevelopment.” If the non-blighted MTOTSA neighborhood—located in a non-blighted area—can be condemned in the name of urban renewal, then so can any other ordinary neighborhood anywhere. This case is about ensuring that overreaching governments and their backers in the property development industry are made to respect the clear limitations on eminent domain found in the N.J. and U.S. Constitutions. PUBLIC ADVOCATE JOINS EMINET-DOMAIN FOES -He'll take part in appeal of Long Branch decision Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 08/31/06 BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU LONG BRANCH — Embattled homeowners in a waterfront neighborhood fighting the city's efforts to take their homes for private redevelopment gained a powerful ally Wednesday — their second in two days — in their fight to protect their properties. State Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen said he would participate in an appeal to block upscale condominiums from replacing homes in the Marine Terrace-Ocean Terrace-Seaview Avenue area, commonly known as MTOTSA, which residents say is a well-established, close-knit neighborhood. Chen said he would file a "friend of the court" brief in support of the residents' position, saying eminent domain should only be used in "narrow and rare" circumstances. On Tuesday, MTOTSA residents got help from the Institute for Justice, the Arlington, Va., nonprofit law firm that has handled some of the leading eminent-domain cases in the nation. It announced it would join the residents' fight. "As of today, this neighborhood is ground zero in the fight against eminent-domain abuse," said William H. "Chip" Mellor, institute president, who joined Chen and residents at a news conference in the oceanview neighborhood to formally announce their appeal of Superior Court Judge Lawrence L. Lawson's June 22 decision that permits the city to use eminent domain to acquire MTOTSA properties. "It's been a long haul," said Lori Ann Vendetti, a core member of MTOTSA. "We've come this far, and we're not stopping. . . . This is happening throughout the country. We're not going to stop until eminent-domain (abuse) stops here and throughout the country." Chen criticizes judge "The facts in this case raise serious concerns regarding whether these homeowners received fair treatment throughout this process, and I believe it is appropriate for the Appellate Division to review this case," Chen said in a prepared release and in remarks he echoed at the news conference, held amid homes where signs such as "fight bogus blight, "ours today, yours tomorrow" and "this land is my land," abound. In an interview, Chen said Lawson, sitting in Freehold, should have allowed the residents to present evidence to demonstrate whether the neighborhood was blighted, as the city alleges, or not, as the residents contend. Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock called it "one of the most outrageous aspects of this case" that Lawson did not permit the homeowners their day in court. "That rarely happens in eminent-domain cases," he said of a lack of an evidentiary hearing. "That's what we'll be asking the appellate court to do." Chen also is troubled over whether residents originally were given correct information from the city about whether their neighborhood was threatened. They contend they were told the neighborhood was slated for "infill" housing in the redevelopment plan, meaning the developer would build on available lots. Mayor: Look at record. Mayor Adam Schneider contends that regardless of the residents' understanding of "infill," he always meant it to mean the neighborhood would be taken, and smaller redevelopment projects would be built there. Schneider challenged the thoroughness of Chen's research, noting the advocate never examined the record the city has developed over more than a decade, laying out its plan. "He hasn't talked to me about that issue, he hasn't talked to anyone in the city about that issue," Schneider said of Chen's concerns over the meaning of infill. "I don't understand why he never came and reviewed the record we created over the last 12 to 15 years before he made his decision." Chen said he would file the brief within two weeks of the filing of the notice of appeal, which both lawyers Peter H. Wegener and William J. Ward, attorneys who are separately representing clients in the zone, said they have done. On May 18, Chen issued a report that recommended reforms to prevent eminent-domain abuse: He called for tightening the definition of blight, called for changing the way government engages in redevelopment to make it more fair and open to property owners and tenants, and sought to require homeowners be compensated with the replacement value of their homes so they can stay in their communities, if they desire. "These processes have to be cleaned up so there is complete transparency," Chen said. Wegener and Institute for Justice attorneys Bullock and Jeff Rowes will act as co-counsels for the majority of the affected residents. The residents have been working with the institute and its sister organization, the Castle Coalition, for years but this is the first formal partnership between the two. Priority for institute Bullock said Tuesday that Long Branch would be a priority for the institute, which will not charge the residents for its work. "It would be so easy simply to preserve this neighborhood," Bullock said. "All we're talking about is a two-and-a-half block neighborhood. . . . Maybe the city will come to its senses." Although the city continues to negotiate with some MTOTSA residents who voluntarily want to settle, Schneider said he believes the city ultimately will prevail in the appeal. "I'm not litigating this in the newspaper," Schneider said of MTOTSA's various charges. Vendetti said that many attorneys would not take their case, or only wanted to take the case to handle the "just compensation" question, that is how much money the residents would accept to move. But Wegener believed the case should be waged on a more fundamental level, one that would assure the residents stay in their homes. Anna DeFaria of Marine Terrace cried a little when she talked about her ties to her house and the community. "I'm going to be 81 years old in October. I've lived here for 46 years, with my husband, whose been gone 10 years now, with my six children and six great-grandchildren," she said. "We thought we were going to stay here for the rest of our lives. Now they think they can take what's ours for that over there," she said pointing to the condominiums of Beachfront North Phase I. MTOTSA is designated phase 2 of that development. "After 74 years here, seven generations have enjoyed 99 Marine Terrace," said Albert Viviano. "My position at 93 years old is I'd like to stay in my own home." Across the country, Americans fight to protect their property. Will the Government Take Your Home? By Sean Flynn Published: August 6, 2006 Joy and Carl Gamble bought an English stucco house in Norwood, Ohio, in 1969. They raised two children there and worked seven days a week in their small grocery store to pay off the mortgage. “ We had the house fixed up just the way we liked it,” Carl says. “When we retired, we planned to sit down and enjoy it.” But now the Gambles live in their daughter’s basement. Their house stands vacant in the weedy field that was their neighborhood—seized by the city and transferred to a developer who wants to build shops, offices and condominiums. In Long Branch, N.J., Denise Hoagland, 39, has an endless view of the Atlantic Ocean from the cottage she and her husband, Lee, bought 13 years ago. Their garden blooms with so many flowers that their three daughters call home “the place where the butterflies fly.” But Long Branch wants to take their home and about 35 other properties so a developer can build luxury condos. “It’s theft,” Denise says. “It’s legalized theft.” Technically, it is a forced sale, because the government has to pay for the property. And it is legal: In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments can seize homes to make way for private development. The decision in Kelo v. City of New London triggered a sort of government land-grab. In the one year since Kelo, more than 5,700 homes, businesses and even churches were threatened with seizure for private development, according to the nonprofit Institute for Justice (IJ), and at least 350 were condemned or authorized for condemnation. By comparison, about 10,000 were similarly threatened or taken over from 1998 through 2002. Government always has had the power to force the sale of private property for public use—a process known as eminent domain. But what is “public use”? Historically, it meant highways, railroads, schools and sweeping urban-renewal projects, such as the redevelopment of the Baltimore waterfront. But Kelo made clear that middle-class homes could be replaced with malls, offices, luxury homes—anything that might increase tax revenue. “It’s a blatant example of reverse Robin Hood—taking homes from the poor and the middle-income and giving them to the rich,” says Scott Bullock, the IJ attorney who argued (and lost) Kelo. “The fact is, a shopping mall does usually produce more taxes than a house,” says IJ attorney Dana Berliner. “An office building does produce more taxes than a church. But if that’s the rule—that anyone’s home can be taken away from them because something else will produce more taxes—then no one’s home is safe.” But Kelo also has sparked a backlash. In the past year, more than two dozen states introduced or passed legislation and constitutional amendments to stop what critics call “eminent domain abuse.” Even the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill aimed to restrict eminent domain. Residents also are fighting back through courts of law and public opinion. In Norwood, the Gambles and two other property owners represented by IJ brought their case to the Ohio Supreme Court. (At press time, the court had yet to rule.) [See editor’s note below.] In Long Branch, two dozen residents, also working with IJ, are suing to stop their neighborhood from being replaced with 185 condominiums. And in Lakewood, Ohio, my hometown, the people of Scenic Park waged such a successful public campaign three years ago that voters spared their homes from being taken. In each city, the process unfolded almost identically: A private developer, with the government’s backing, wanted a big piece of property—cliff-side homes with valley views in Lakewood, ocean-front cottages in Long Branch—and tried to negotiate deals with each owner. When some refused to sell, the cities threatened to invoke eminent domain to clear the holdouts. In order to do that, however, city officials first needed to declare the neighborhoods “blighted.” But the legal designation of “blight” bears little resemblance to a commonsense definition. In Lakewood, for example, Scenic Park is a charming neighborhood of older, well-kept homes. But because they lack such modern touches as attached two-car garages and central air-conditioning, the city deemed them blighted—a standard by which more than 80 percent of Lakewood, even the former mayor’s home, would likewise be blighted. “We always bit on the word ‘blight,’” says Julie Wiltse, 63, who helped neighbors distribute 20,000 fliers and sponsor a series of blight events: a Blighted Block Party, a Blighted Chili Cook-off, even a Blighted Groundhog Day (which predicted four more months of blight). TV cameras and newspaper reporters loved that stuff. “We were very successful in explaining to the community, ‘If we’re blighted, you’re blighted,’” Wiltse says. Likewise, the Hoaglands’ neighborhood in Long Branch isn’t “blighted” in any meaningful way. With one or two exceptions, it’s a few blocks of low-key bungalows where families have lived side-by-side for decades, even generations. The shabbiest touches, ironically, are the posters in nearly every home’s windows with the words “eminent domain abuse” inside a red-slashed circle and the several homes that have been bought by the developer and boarded up. What the area doesn’t have, however, are the $500,000 condos or the restaurants with $12 hamburgers that were built immediately south of the neighborhood. “When they want to revitalize,” says William Giordano, 41, whose great-grandfather built his house, “suddenly we’re not good enough to live here.” The city has put prices on the houses it wants to take: $400,000 for the Hoaglands’ house, $374,000 for Lori Ann Vendetti’s, $410,000 for the home her parents built across the street and $325,000 for Anna DeFaria’s tiny gray cottage. Those might sound like hefty sums, but not on the Jersey shore. “ I can’t get anything in Long Branch for three and a quarter,” DeFaria says, “let alone an ocean view.” But what’s money? “The memories are here,” says Lori Ann Vendetti. “They can come in with a million dollars, two million—we won’t take it. A lot of people think we’re bluffing, that everyone has a price. The Vendettis don’t have a price.” Neither do the Gambles. Most of the properties that the Gambles and their Norwood neighbors owned—6 9 out of 75—were sold to the developer, who was required by the city to pay at least 25 percent above market value. Three others later settled with the developer. Then the city used eminent domain to claim the last three, concluding that the neighborhood was deteriorating, based on a study that was paid for by the developer. Tim Burke, a lawyer for the city, argues that the government had to clear the holdouts, especially because there were so many other property owners who had agreed to sell. “Would Norwood have used eminent domain if it had to acquire 69 of the properties? Clearly not,” he says. As Burke explains it, Norwood is an old industrial town that lost its industry and a third of its population. The city needs to redevelop to generate new revenues, and clearly most of the Gambles’ neighbors weren’t opposed. “When you’re a community like Norwood, you’ve got to be concerned with the entire citizenry,” Burke says. “And, yeah, there are going to be instances where, in order to better the lives of the many, the property of the few will have to be taken.” But what if you’re one of those few? “That this is happening here,” says Joy Gamble, “in the land ‘ of the people, for the people, by the people…’” The thought trails off, and she just shakes her head. Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 06/24/06 BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS AND ANDREA ALEXANDER STAFF WRITERS LONG BRANCH — It was not a good date for property rights. Friday was the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in a Connecticut case — called the Kelo decision after Susette Kelo, who fought efforts to take her home for redevelopment in New London — that affirmed the government's right to take private property for economic development. But in the year that followed, said speakers at protest rallies here and in Asbury Park to mark the date, the nation has become galvanized to stop the use of eminent domain — the government's right to take private property for a public purpose — to benefit other private individuals, such as developers. "One of the great things about this movement is it brings us together to fight a terrible, immoral movement by government," Bill Potter, who runs the New Jersey Coalition Against Eminent Domain Abuse, said at a rally in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue (MTOTSA) area of Long Branch that has become the symbol of the eminent domain controversy here. "You're trying to live the American dream the way it is supposed to be lived," Potter said. More than 100 people showed up at the evening Long Branch rally, carrying signs that read "Enough is Enough," "K. Hovnanian, Leave Us Alone," referring to the regional developer that is tied to the city's redevelopment, and "Stop, Stop, Stop." The event drew people from Trenton, Lodi, Piscataway, Newark, Bound Brook, Asbury Park and Neptune. About 20 people attended the midday Asbury Park rally, including those from Neptune and Long Branch. Asbury Park Councilman James Keady called for a statewide moratorium on eminent domain abuse. He said city officials voted to take property "without just compensation." "It is not for the good of Asbury Park," Keady said. "It is for the good of out-of-town developers who are going to reap millions." Kerry Butch, 41, of Asbury Park, an organizer of the earlier rally, called the use of eminent domain for redevelopment projects "immoral, unjust" and "absolutely wrong." After the rally, Asbury Park Deputy Mayor James Bruno defended the city's redevelopment plan and said the majority of the council is committed to the agreement. "This is for the betterment of the entire city," Bruno said. Many of the city's critics "don't know how it was through the '80s and '90s," Bruno said. "It was a blighted area and we had to do something that would save this city." Friday was also a day when Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider again offered to negotiate with full-time residents interested in acquiring condominiums in the new oceanfront development that some homeowners say is unfairly displacing them. Schneider said he talked with Gregory S. Russo, vice president of Applied Development Co. of Hoboken. The company and Matzel & Mumford, a subsidiary of K. Hovnanian, make up MM-Beachfront North II LLC, the redeveloper of the second phase of Beachfront North. The condo offer remains on the table, he said. "Absolutely," Schneider said. "We've felt from the beginning of the process — going back a dozen years — people who lived down there, we'd like to keep them on the oceanfront the best we can . . . We'd be willing to sit down and see if we can make that work." Schneider reaffirmed the offer one day after the city prevailed in a bitter court battle with MTOTSA property owners over the right to take their properties. "We will not stop here," William Giordano of MTOTSA said. "We will fight on." For Louis T. Anzalone, the condominium offer holds no appeal. "Tell the mayor I don't want no condo," Anzalone said Friday night. "I don't want to go into a tenement on high." Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson in his decision Thursday had questioned whether the residents had engaged in "good faith" negotiations after they had accused the city of failing to do the same. "Negotiations are a two-way street," Lawson wrote. "Where, as here, the condemnees make it clear that they do not intend to sell their properties, negotiations are rendered a practical impossibility. Thus, the court cannot find that the city failed to engage in bona fide negotiations." Lawson's decision involves a number of MTOTSA property owners: Gregory P. Brower, Francis T. DeLuca, Alan A. Cook, Louis T. and Lillian Anzalone, the estate of Elsa DeFaria, Richard and Peter Squirlock, Albert A. Viviano, Ellen Eagan and Jean Sadenwater, Mary and Marino Milano, Carmen and Josephine Vendetti and Joyce and Philip Melillo. Lawson did not grant the homeowners' request for a stay of the decision pending an appeal, and City Attorney James G. Aaron said the city filed a motion Friday to appoint commissioners to establish the value of the disputed properties. The judge generally has between 90 and 120 days to appoint three commissioners who will determine the fair market value of the properties, although because there are so many hearings at issue here, the judge could take longer, Aaron said. But because there is no stay of the decision, the city could move immediately to take the homes. "From a legal position, the decision is pretty well bullet-proof," Aaron said. "The judge's findings are so strong, it is going to be very hard to overturn . . . When a lawyer takes a look at this, they are going to say, "Oh, my goodness, this is a very strong decision.' " William J. Ward, the Florham Park attorney who represents MTOTSA residents DeLuca and Anzalone, said the decision "basically slam-dunked us on everything." Even so, he believes the decision can be appealed, and he vowed to do so. The basis of the appeal will likely include the conflicts of interest issues that Lawson dismissed — allegations of favoritism by Aaron's law firm because it had represented K. Hovnanian, and by the law firm of Arthur Greenbaum, who has served on the board of directors for K. Hovnanian since 1992. Greenbaum's firm served as redevelopment counsel for the city. Ward called the conflict issue "blatant and startling. If we get a three-judge panel to look at it, they are going to be shocked." Ward also said he would challenge the aspect of the decision that says the homeowners did not timely challenge the redevelopment designation in 1996, waiting 10 years to go to court. Scott G. Bullock of the Institute for Justice, the Washington, D.C.-based group that focuses on individual and property rights, said Lawson's ruling is "an incredibly poorly reasoned decision and one that lends itself very well to appeal." Bullock argued the Connecticut case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the institute helped write the briefs in the Long Branch case. He said Lawson's not taking a position on MTOTSA's contention that the redeveloper has an inappropriate role in the process — the right to reject payment greater than the fair market value to a homeowner — shows how flawed the decision is. "This cannot stand as law in New Jersey," Bullock said. Assemblyman Michael J. Panter, D-Monmouth, attended the Long Branch rally, a day after he voted against the eminent domain bill sponsored by Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli, D-Gloucester, that was nonetheless approved by the Assembly Thursday. Critics say it does not go far enough in protecting property owners. Panter said the original Kelo decision "opened a candy store for politically connected developers and it is a candy store we have to shut down . . . . The government should never be taking away property to give to someone else." For Harold Bobrow, whose seasonal home in the city's Beachfront South section is threatened by eminent domain, the decision by Lawson is difficult to accept. "He may be legally correct, but he is certainly not morally correct," Bobrow said. Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 06/23/06 BY ANDREA ALEXANDER STAFF WRITER ASBURY PARK — A Long Branch homeowner whose home is targeted for eminent domain by the city as part of its massive redevelopment effort said residents will appeal a Superior Court decision, which supported Long Branch's plans. "Without a doubt,'' said Lori Ann Vendetti, who owns a home on Ocean Terrace. "No way am I handing my home over without a fight.'' Vendetti was among 20 people gathered in front of Asbury Park city hall this morning in the first of two rallies planned today to demand eminent domain reform on the one-year anniversary of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld government's right to take land for private redevelopment. The rallies also follow Thursday's ruling by Assignment Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, sitting in Freehold, against property owners in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, and Seaview Avenue oceanfront neighborhood, which is targeted for redevelopment as upscale condominiums under Beachfront North Phase II. Another rally is planned for 6:30 p.m. at 38 Ocean Terrace in Long Branch. Another separate rally planned for Neptune was cancelled after Neptune residents joined the Asbury group. The Long Branch rally was originally planned to protest the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo vs. City of New London, but now also will be for the MTOTSA residents, Vendetti said. Kerry Butch, of Asbury Park, called the use of eminent domain for redevelopment projects "immoral, unjust'' and "absolutely wrong.'' Rita Marano, owner of Kingsley Deli in Asbury Park, which is targeted for eminent domain in the city's waterfront redevelopment efforts, said the city is "trying to squeeze out small property owners.'' She also said the price they are offering is unfair because its based on 2001 assessments, not 2006 prices. "I want to see good things happen here,'' Marano said. "This is not a good thing.'' Asbury Park Councilman James Keady called for a statewide moratorium on eminent domain abuse. He said city officials voted to take property "without just compensation.'' "It is not for the good of Asbury Park,'' Keady said. "It is for the good of out-of-town developers who are going to reap millions.' Paves way for redevelopment Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 06/23/06 BY ERIK LARSEN AND LARRY HIGGS STAFF WRITERS FREEHOLD — Long Branch prevailed in a bitter lawsuit after a Superior Court judge Thursday ruled against property owners in an oceanfront area of the city whose homes are targeted for condemnation through eminent domain. "This court must defer to a governing body's determination to use its power of eminent domain to condemn property unless there is an affirmative showing of fraud, bad faith or manifest abuse," Judge Lawrence M. Lawson wrote in his ruling. Frances T. DeLuca, who stands to lose her beachfront home on Ocean Terrace, said the decision did not surprise her. "As a matter of fact, I had a bet with a few people, and I won," DeLuca said. "A lot of people owe me a dinner, but I would have preferred to be the one owing them the dinner." DeLuca said that the case was lost because the property owners did not get a fair shake in court and that it just wasn't their time. Nevertheless, she said, the property owners will appeal the case. The ruling came on the eve of the one-year anniversary today of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., which ruled that cities and towns can seize private property for economic development projects. Lawson made reference to the Kelo decision in his ruling, writing, "As the United States Supreme Court pointed out, debates over the wisdom of takings are not to be carried out in the courts." "It was a very, very, good decision for the city," said Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider. "He (Lawson) made it clear that we have done everything the right way. He left no room for interpretation as to what he said. We followed the statute every step of the way. We didn't deviate from it at all. He rejected every single one of their arguments." The city had initiated condemnation proceedings against 24 property owners in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue neighborhood, known as MTOTSA. The neighborhood, where many of the property owners have formed an alliance, is slated for redevelopment as upscale condominiums under Beachfront North Phase II. Attorneys for the MTOTSA homeowners challenged the acquisition of the properties, contending there was a change in the original redevelopment plan. The case was heard before Lawson, sitting in Freehold, in March. In his ruling, Lawson said that the "condemnation of the MTOTSA properties is supported by a public purpose — the redevelopment of a blighted area" and that the city followed the relevant statutes. Lawson said MTOTSA made no challenge in 1996 when the city adopted its redevelopment plan, nor when two additional redevelopment-related ordinances were adopted. "The condemnees had the burden of showing that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. They have not made such a showing," Lawson wrote in his ruling. MTOTSA argues the city improperly changed its 1996 plan in 2002 to discourage the retention of single-family homes in the area in favor of a large-scale condominium development. Schneider, who denies such contentions, said it was always the plan for the neighborhood of bungalows to be razed and rebuilt. MTOTSA homeowners have been fighting for years to save their homes, although city officials have argued that property owners failed at least six times to raise objections in a timely fashion. Schneider also pointed out Thursday that MTOTSA was never willing to negotiate and that the city never deviated from the course it pursued. Marine Terrace resident George McKenna wasn't aware the decision had been made by the judge and said he'd expected it sooner. "The decision was supposed to be issued within 30 days," he said. "I'm rather shocked. I used to think this was America. The whole Jersey coast is finding out what America is." A Marine Terrace resident for 20 years, McKenna said he wants to read what the ruling says. "I have to see what our attorney advises," he said. "It would be nice to stop this. It's pure Soviet-style government. "Your home is your castle, as long as no one wants it," he said. "Money talks. It's well known that in these eminent domain cases, the public authorities prevail." Staff writer Nancy Shields contributed to this story. Asbury Park Press 05/25/06 - By Carol Gorga Williams LONG BRANCH — Acknowledging he and one other property owner are the likely only holdouts in efforts by developers to acquire properties for the Broadway Arts development, the Rev. Kevin Brown asked the City Council to repeal its ordinance that allows for the use of eminent domain to seize the land. The City Council did not act on his request, and Brown, who frequently tangles with the mayor and council and is an unsuccessful candidate for mayor, is already suing to overturn the ordinance. Brown made his request at Tuesday's City Council meeting. Brown and his Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, doing business as The Lighthouse Mission, have joined with Gopal and Kavita Panday, the owners of Rainbow Liquors, to challenge ordinance 5-06, which they say misuses the power of eminent domain for the benefit of the Broadway Arts Center. They are suing the developer, the city, mayor and council and the state. The state is being sued because the plaintiffs are directly challenging the constitutionality of the state Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. "Don't look at me as someone who likes to sue all the time," said Brown, who has two other lawsuits against the city. "If the council" would repeal the ordinance "then our challenge would dry up and dissipate and negotiations would continue." William Giordano challenged the council to reconsider its plans for the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue area where his family has a home. As a real estate appraiser, Giordano said he has done some research and believes there is a glut of condominiums on the market in the city, and more condos — such as those planned for his area — are not needed. He said that in December there were 117 active condominium listings in Long Branch. Now that number is 147, a 14- to 18-month supply, based on the rate of sale. "That's important," he said. "No one succeeds an eight-month supply. You're more than double that supply. That's dangerous." Should the market crash, the first to suffer would be luxury condominiums such as those being marketed by the redevelopment companies, Giordano said. Lori Ann Vendetti, another MTOTSA member — who like others in her group is waiting for a Superior Court decision that will determine the future of her community — said she is not giving up without a fight, and that includes legislative changes. "It is not a threat," she said. "I don't want you to take it as a threat, but it might lead to another revolution. . . . No one is taking my home. I will handcuff myself to the pipes in my basement. No one is taking my home or my parents' home." Her mother, Josephine Vendetti, agreed. "You don't have enough police to take us out," she said. "We're going to be like the captain of the ship. We're going to go down with the house. . . . Come get us." Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 05/3/06 Lillian and Louis Anzalone have lived in their white bungalow on Ocean Terrace in Long Branch, a block away from the beach, for 46 years. Frances T. DeLuca's family has owned homes on the same street since 1918. Their residences are among 36 private properties Long Branch wants to seize -- using its power of eminent domain, taking property for public use - for redevelopment of the area into oceanfront condominiums. As highlighted in the Press' three-day series "Private Property/Public Gain: The Battle Over Eminent Domain," which concluded Tuesday, this property rights campaign is playing out most forcefully in Long Branch. Mayor Adam Schneider calls the use of eminent domain "a tool of last resort." But he says the area where the Anzalones and DeLucas live is blighted, one of the criteria under the state's developer-friendly redevelopment law. So, the city is seeking to condemn the properties of 24 of the 36 homeowners who have not agreed to sell to the developer of Beachfront North Phase II. The homes along Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue are not blighted. It is an area of small, well-kept houses. It is morally reprehensible for Long Branch to force the people who live there out of their homes. They have stayed with the city through good times and bad. Casting them aside is no way to say "thank you." Schneider should renegotiate the city's contract with the developer and see that the plan is redesigned so that the developer can maximize his profits without interfering with this established neighborhood. Eminent domain should not be applied for economic development at the expense of owner-occupied residences or businesses. It's not fair to residents or merchants -- taxpayers all - who have devoted their lives to the municipality. The battle that pits property rights against economic development is not isolated to Long Branch. It is a national issue. As detailed in the series, it is also being fought along the Jersey Shore in Asbury Park, Neptune and Neptune City. In Asbury Park, Araxy Gokberk fears that her three-story house on Sixth Avenue, which her parents bought 50 years ago, will be targeted for the city's waterfront redevelopment project. It would be just as wrong for master developer Asbury Partners to move against her home as it is for Long Branch to try to displace the Anzalones and DeLucas. Development advocates have been heartened by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year in a case from New London, Conn. That 5-to-4 ruling extended the traditional definition of public use under eminent domain -- generally roads, bridges, schools, hospitals -- to anything serving the greater public good, improving the economy and generating new tax revenue. That's far too broad. The New London ruling has put eminent domain on the national agenda, too. New Jersey is among 40 states that are considering or have enacted legislative reforms of eminent domain laws. The House of Representatives has passed a bill restricting federal funds to states or towns that use eminent domain for commercial development. New Jersey's Legislature must act to bring equity to the state's redevelopment law. The definition of blighted land must be clear. And the law must provide standards of "just compensation" to property owners whose homes are already targeted and in those rare occasions when eminent domain is justified. The tool of eminent domain cited by Schneider is really a hammer over the heads of the homeowners. Once their home is targeted, their property value is frozen. All they can do is negotiate with the developer based on the current use of the land. That, too, is unfair. It's unlikely they can find a replacement home for that price and they can't afford to buy one of the million-dollar condos that would rise on their property. For the Anzalones, the $304,000 appraised value of their oceanfront home won't go far. "I could not build a garage for a bicycle for that price," Louis Anzalone said, perhaps exaggerating to make a strong point. For DeLuca, the prospect of condemnation is an assault on the area's history. "You need to leave a little version of what the Jersey Shore looked like before they turn it into Staten Island," she said. These and the other threatened families in Long Branch, Asbury Park and elsewhere grew up there and deserve to remain there. "This is a hot matter. It is a very contentious matter. Someone is going to win. Someone is going to lose. That is the way it is going to be." – Judge Lawrence Lawson Friday, March 24, 2005 was the return date on the Orders to Show Cause for the MTOTSA area property owners. The Order to Show Cause requests that the court sign the Order of Judgment appointing condemnation commissioners, which is a final judgment on Long Branch’s right to take the properties. State v. Orenstein, R.4:67-1. All of the property owners, with only two exceptions, filed answers and submitted briefs and certifications on the right to take issue. The hearing was held before the Honorable Lawrence M. Lawson A.J.S.C. at Monmouth County Court House, Freehold, New Jersey. The court heard two and one-half hours of oral argument. First to proceed was James Aaron of the Ansell Aaron Grimm & Zaro firm representing the City of Long Branch. Aaron delivered a one-hour Chamber of Commerce-style production replete with charts, renderings, and blow-ups of portions of his 94-page brief. He was accompanied at the plaintiff’s table by an entourage including his partner Lawrence Shapiro, Long Branch Mayor Adam Schnieder, City Administrator Howard Wooley, City Planner Carl Turner, and two attorneys from the Greenbaum Rowe firm, Michelle Gibson and Robert Beckelman. That’s right, the Greenbaum firm. The same firm that has recused itself on no less than two occasions related to the Long Branch redevelopment project was present and seated throughout the argument at the counsel table. And at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s and defendants’ arguments and rebuttal, Judge Lawson asked Ms. Gibson and Mr. Beckelman if they, too, wanted to speak their piece, which they did. One wonders if this was yet another billable event for the Greenbaum firm. And, at what point is a "recusal" a recusal? Or is it something along the lines of the definition of what “is” is? Perhaps the firm needs a Bill Clinton to parse this concept for them. Peter Wegener of Bathgate and Wegener, who represents the majority of MTOTSA area property owners, spoke for approximately forty minutes on the blight issue and the change from residential infill to an area to be condemned. By agreement among counsel, and to avoid needless repetition, the focus of my argument was the conflicts issue and the plight of senior citizens in the MTOTSA neighborhood. All issues were fully briefed by both firms representing the property owners. Scott Bullock and the Institute of Justice contributed to Mr. Wegener’s reply brief and provided the services of a planning expert. According to the Star-Ledger, Bullock said his group is joining the legal fight in Long Branch because "New Jersey is one of the worst -- if not the worst -- abusers of eminent domain in the country." The court reserved decision and promised counsel and the assembled property owners a written opinion within 30 days. The property owners are asking the court for a plenary hearing on the “right to take” issue with limited document discovery and depositions. Among the issues the property owners want to explore are the following: 1. Alleged conflicts of interest among Long Branch attorneys, Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis, Ansell Aaron Grimm & Zaro, and the developers, the Applied Companies of Hoboken and K. Hovnanian (Matzel Mumford), and city officials who were also directors and/or shareholders at the Monmouth Community Bank. 2. The plan change which was effectuated in 2000-2001 resulting in the MTOTSA area going from “infill residential” to an “area to be acquired.” 3. The public use vs. private benefit issue. The private benefit to the developers would be a windfall. The developers want to build 150 additional condominium units which would sell for an average price of $800,000 according to a current prospectus. This would result in gross sales of $120 million dollars. Less cost of construction, acquisition, and soft costs – attorneys, architects, engineers—the developers would net over $100 million from the sell out of Beachfront North Phase II. The “public benefit” in comparison is negligible. 150 condo units will result in a marginal increase in assessed value of the area, although this will result in some additional taxes to the city of Long Brach. James Aaron said that the developer would put up a 10,000 square foot structure which meets a “public use” criteria. Mr. Aaron never fully explained this to the court or counsel, and was unable to produce documentation supporting this assertion or memorializing this particular plan change. He was ordered to do so by Judge Lawson no later than 4 p.m. on Monday, March 27, 2006. This alleged “benefit” could be achieved without further condemnation of the MTOTSA residents because sufficient vacant land adjacent to the DeLuca home is already owned by the municipality and Stavola, a local contractor. When doing a cost-benefit analysis to determine the public benefit versus the private gain, one element is always overlooked: the almost incalculable loss to the homeowners resulting from the acquisition of their home through eminent domain proceedings. The law ( N.J.S.A. 20:3-1) mandates that the owners receive “fair market value” for the property taken and owner occupants will receive Relocation Assistance (N.J.S.A. 20:4-1) to cover their relocation costs. This is not the full story. Who pays for the psychological damage resulting to the senior citizens who are forcibly evicted from homes they have occupied for 30 to 40 years or more? See blog "Hope Grows in Brooklyn" featuring a discussion by Dr. Mindy Fullilove about her book Root Shock:How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What We Can Do About It. How do seniors on fixed income purchase replacement housing without the ability to take on and pay for a mortgage? See “Community built in 50 years, broken in 3” in the March 18, 2006 Star-Ledger on the last people moving out of the Dewey Street neighborhood in Newark. How will these people be made whole, a fundamental concept in eminent domain? "Where can I go at 93 years of age?" asked MTOTSA resident Albert Viviano. "Eminent domain can sweep the land right out from under you." Senior citizens will, in effect, become homeless and forced to depend on their sons, daughters, and grandchildren for support. They will have to move to neighborhoods of lesser value and in some cases, completely outside the state of New Jersey. They will never be able to buy homes in the beach block such as they currently enjoy. The “offer” of Long Branch and the developers to give the owners condominiums is nothing more than a public relations ploy. A perfect example of the implementation of their offer would be the Anzalones, both of whom are 89. They own their home outright and exist on Social Security income. They were offered $310,000 for their house, 150 feet from the beach with an ocean view. A 10% discounted condominium would still cost a minimum of $630,000 ($700,000 minus $70,000). The developer offered three years free of association dues and Long Branch offered to keep the taxes on the condos at the present level as existing on the home to be acquired. How could the Anzalones qualify for and pay for a mortgage at this stage in their lives? $320,000 at 6.5% equals $20,800 in interest only per year. Lou Anzalone had one answer for this proposal as stated on the Sean Hannity show: an emphatic "NO!" His house is not for sale and he will fight as long as he is able. The other MTOTSA area owners feel equally adamant and await Judge Lawson’s ruling. In the meantime, Judge Lawson asked if there was any objection if he toured the neighborhood on Saturday, March 25. There he would be greeted by posters and signs that shout “Not for sale” and “Stop eminent domain abuse.” "It's not going to end here. We're going to fight this forever," Lori Vendetti stated in the Asbury Park Press. We're going to fight this injustice, and we're going to win." 
 Photos by Thomas P. Costello 3/25/06. (From top right, Peter Wegener, attorney for MTOTSA, Anna DeFaria, homeowner, Al Viviano, Homeowner, Packed Courtroom of Judge Lawson) EMINENT DOMAIN RULING MAY TAKE 30 DAYS OWNERS RALLY; LAWYRERS ARGUE PLAN TO SEIZE HOMES FOR CONDOS Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 03/25/06 by Carol Gorga Willaims and Karen Sudol FREEHOLD — Owners of property in an oceanfront area of Long Branch will have to wait a little longer to learn if the city can take their homes for redevelopment after a Superior Court judge on Friday said he needed time to consider the arguments on both sides. Superior Court Assignment Judge Lawrence M. Lawson told a packed courtroom that he would render his decision in the eminent domain case as quickly as possible but that it could take as long as 30 days. In the meantime, he intends today to visit the affected area … the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue section … where many property owners are represented by the MTOTSA Alliance. The neighborhood is targeted for redevelopment as upscale condominiums under Beachfront North Phase II. "Everybody is stone-faced,'' said Louis Anzalone, who with his wife, Lillian, owns 32 Ocean Terrace, one of the threatened homes, after more than two hours of legal arguments at the Monmouth Court Courthouse. "You can't tell.'' MTOTSA homeowners have been fighting for years to save their homes, although City Attorney James G. Aaron said during the hearing they failed at least six times to raise objections in a timely fashion. "What does all this mean legally?'' Aaron asked rhetorically during the hearing. "Any challenge to the redevelopment plan is far too late, 10 years too late.'' The city adopted its redevelopment plan in 1996 with what officials said was widespread support. At the time, the city was in a deep decline, its once-glorious past a distant memory with a devastating ocean pier fire in 1987 a final blow. "This is a hot matter,'' Lawson said of the court case. "It is a very contentious matter. Someone is going to win. Someone is going to lose. That is the way it is going to be.'' The city wants the judge to appoint three commissioners to establish values for the homes, maintaining the owners have failed to engage in good-faith negotiations. The home owners want the city's case dismissed. Peter H. Wegener and William J. Ward, the lawyers for the property owners, also want Lawson to order a hearing on issues surrounding the redevelopment plan. Before the hearing, the lawyers want the right to conduct discovery and permission to depose the following witnesses: Aaron; Alan Davis, an attorney with the city's contract firm of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, Ravin & Davis; Gregory Russo of Applied Development; Roger Mumford of Matzel & Mumford, co-redeveloper of Beachfront North with Applied; city Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr.; and City Council President Anthony Giordano III. Like Aaron, Giordano has connections to Monmouth Community Bank, where Applied secured a line of credit, a possible conflict, according to Ward. Ward also wants Aaron's firm's billing records with Long Branch from 1996 to the present and the Greenbaum's firm billing records with K. Hovnanian and Matzel & Mumford, which is a subsidiary of K. Hovnanian, from 1996 to the present. Ward is seeking to prove a conflict of interest between Aaron's firm, Ansell Zaro Grimm & Aaron, which handled three legal cases involving K. Hovnanian between 2000 and 2002, and one involving Greenbaum's firm in which Greenbaum advised the city at the same time its senior partner, Arthur Greenbaum, also served on the board of directors of K. Hovnanian. Aaron called it "a deep-sea fishing expedition'' meant to delay the process. City officials have said Greenbaum played no role in the selection of developers. But both Wegener and Ward allege the city changed its redevelopment plan, which previously called for "infill'' housing at the MTOTSA site to a planned development such as that favored by Beachfront North to maximize profits for Hovnanian-linked developers. The city has denied such claims. "This is a tragedy because people who want to keep their homes will lose their homes, because people who want to stay in their homes chose not to even explore'' options such as the condo swap, said Aaron of the developer's offer for discounted condominiums in the development … an offer taken by two homeowners. Ward called the offer a public relations move because many who live in that community already own their homes and could not afford the condos, without taking on new mortgages. Wegener called the condo swap "nonsense,'' and said an offer of tax relief was "probably unconstitutional.'' "This is a typical, normal neighborhood,'' Wegener said of MTOTSA. "It is not a rich neighborhood. It is not a blighted neighborhood.'' He said there was little public benefit for the community but there was a $120 million "windfall'' for the developer, based on the value of condos in the first phase. "That's just plain wrong,'' he said. Lawyer Scott G. Bullock of the Institute for Justice, the Washington, D.C.-based group that focuses on individual and property rights, attended a pre-hearing rally outside the courthouse and said later his organization had helped prepare legal briefs for the case and would likely seek permission to join the property owners' legal team. The rally drew some 50 to 60 people, many carrying signs, some reading: "Our homes today. Yours tomorrow,'' "Find your own land,'' and "Condos are not a public use.'' Lori Ann Vendetti, a MTOTSA member with homes in Long Branch and Newark, described the neighborhood as a close-knit beachfront community. "It's not going to end here. We're going to fight this forever,'' Vendetti said at the rally. "We're going to fight this injustice, and we're going to win.'' Long Branch "is one of the most … if not the most … egregious examples of eminent domain abuse in this country,'' Bullock said after the hearing. "Where can I go at 93 years of age?'' asked Albert Viviano of 99 Marine Terrace at the rally. "Eminent domain can sweep the land right out from under you.'' 
But eminent domain OK for schools, open space Asbury Park Press 10/5/05 - BY BILL BOWMAN - STAFF WRITER To say Josephine Vendetti hates the use of eminent domain is an understatement. "It's ridiculous," said Vendetti, 75, who has lived in her Ocean Terrace home in Long Branch with her husband, Carmen, for 45 years. "To let somebody else live where you live." Vendetti and several neighbors who live east of Ocean Boulevard recently received notices from the city that they need to negotiate a price for their property or face losing it in eminent domain proceedings. The city wants the land to build about 185 condominiums as part of its Beachfront North Phase II development. Vendetti is not alone; many New Jerseyans expressed a distaste for eminent domain, according to a newly released poll by Monmouth University and the Gannett New Jersey newspapers. Of those who said they have heard "a lot" about eminent domain — the power given to governments to take private land — overwhelming majorities said it is being abused. The power, they said, benefits only private developers. For example, about nine of every 10 adults who know the issue say it is wrong to take low-value homes to build a shopping center. A similar majority — 86 percent — say it is wrong to bulldoze a low-value home in order to replace it with a higher-value unit. But 88 percent said it was OK to take vacant and run-down buildings to build a school, while 65 percent said it was OK to take land from a developer to preserve open space. "New Jerseyans seem to feel that such broad power in the hands of local officials can lead to misuse," said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. Overall, 29 percent of New Jersey adults said they had heard "a lot" about the issue, while 31 percent said they had heard "a little" and 40 percent said they had heard nothing at all about it. Eminent domain is the power invested in government to take property — for what is called fair compensation — so that it can be used for "the public good." In the past, "public good" has meant new roads, schools or municipal buildings, but in the past few years it has taken on an added dimension: economic development. Case went to top court The legality of taking land for economic redevelopment was upheld this year by the U.S. Supreme Court. That has allowed Long Branch, Asbury Park and Neptune to continue to use, or make plans to use, eminent domain for their own redevelopment purposes. Long Branch is about 10 years into the redevelopment of about 230 acres along Ocean Boulevard and up Broadway to about city hall. When completed, about $1 billion in developers' and the city's money will have been invested in the area, officials have said. Long Branch's redevelopment, as well as efforts in Asbury Park and Neptune, is a mixture of residential and retail construction. Asbury Park is about five years into its efforts to redevelop the oceanfront and downtown. City Manager Terrence Reidy has said that the $1.3 billion waterfront redevelopment will result in more than 3,500 housing units, while the downtown redevelopment will result in more than 400,000 square feet of retail space, with some residential components. Neptune has just embarked on the first phase of its Midtown redevelopment with the demolition of a township-owned building on West Lake Avenue. The project's redeveloper is Trenton-based CityWorks, a not-for-profit group formed expressly to work with local organizations to aid in urban redevelopment. About 55 percent of those polled who said they know a lot about the issue said that eminent domain was being used too much in New Jersey, while 6 percent said it was not being used enough and 21 percent said it was being used just enough. An overwhelming majority of those who say they've heard a lot about the issue — 81 percent — said that private developers benefit more from eminent domain, while 14 percent said local communities benefit. And 75 percent of those who say they follow the issue said property owners do not receive a fair price for their property, while 15 percent said they did. Moratorium favored A majority of New Jersey adults who follow the eminent domain issue — 75 percent — also said there should be a temporary moratorium on its use until solid guidelines can be developed. Twelve percent opposed that idea. In the end, New Jersey adults believe that property owners ought to have final say over what is done with their property. Among all residents, including those who have heard little or nothing about the issue, 76 percent say private developers benefit the most from eminent domain. New Jerseyans' opposition to the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes is not surprising, said Dana Berliner, senior attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice. "The only people who support the use of eminent domain for private development are cities that use it, developers and businesses that benefit from it, and planners who plan it. Everyone else hates it," said Berliner, who was co-counsel for property owners in New London, Conn., who lost their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. "That crosses all political lines — it is practically universal," she said. "The idea that you can work hard and save and finally buy something and have it taken from you because somebody else richer can make more money off of that land makes a mockery of what everyone is striving for." For Vendetti of Long Branch, losing her home also means losing decades of memories. "I lost two sons, and their memories are here," she said. "My grandchildren come every Friday night. These are happy memories." The most recent Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll was conducted by telephone with 800 New Jersey adults from Sept. 21 to 26, 2005. The poll numbers for all adults have a margin of error of 3.5 percent, while the poll numbers for those who say they have heard a lot about eminent domain have a margin of error of 5.8 percent.  
(Asbury Park Press - STAFF PHOTO: DAVE MAY) A sign outside 68 Ocean Terrace, Long Branch, expresses the residents' opposition to the city forcing them to sell their homes. HOMEOWNERS CHEER BACKLASH TO RULING Eminent domain curbs pushed Front Page - Asbury Park Press 07/10/05 BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS-Coastal Monmouth Bureau LONG BRANCH — When homeowner Lori Ann Vendetti first heard the June 23 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed the right of government to take private property for economic development, she was disheartened, to say the least. "My first emotion to this was disbelief and disgust," said Vendetti, who divides her time between homes here and in Newark. "It is amazing. In a few days, all that has changed." She was reacting to the decision in the Kelo vs. New London (Conn.) case, in which, in a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court said it was appropriate for governments to use eminent domain to take private property for economic development. Vendetti said it was so at odds with fundamental American property rights that people all over the country have galvanized to fight it. Vendetti is a core member of the Marine Terrace Ocean Terrace Seaview Avenue Alliance, which represents about 26 property owners in the proposed second phase of Beachfront North, where eminent domain could be used to take homes for luxury housing. There are about 38 properties there, and city Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. said some of the other owners are negotiating with developers Applied Development Co. and Matzel & Mumford. Alliance members vow they will not sell at any price — that the city is engaging in an unconstitutional taking of their properties so they may be conveyed to the developers, who will build high-priced housing there. The city could decide as early as Tuesday to move on its attempt to take the homes. City Attorney James G. Aaron said the council could then authorize him to send 14-day letters to 12 to 14 property owners with whom the developers have said negotiations have not been productive. The letters give owners 14 days to decide conclusively whether to negotiate. Aaron said this was the first of many steps, which could take months or years, before the owners would be forced to vacate. "We have an understanding it is going to be potentially a long process based on what the residents have said in public," Aaron said. Vendetti said she was not surprised by the news of the impending 14-day letters. "We expected these letters to come out soon after the Kelo decision, so that's not unexpected," Vendetti said. In comments she made Friday and last month, she expressed gratitude and relief over the nationwide opposition to expanding the use of eminent domain. "I feel phenomenal," Vendetti said. "I honestly believe we have more momentum (now) than we did before." She may be right. In the space of a few weeks, legislators all over the country, at the state and the federal level, are proposing measures to limit the power of eminent domain, which is the right of government to take land for a public purpose after paying "just compensation." Legislative action Steven Anderson, coordinator for the Castle Coalition, said at least 14 states have introduced measures to limit the power of eminent domain, and he expects that number to rise as more state legislatures come back into session in the fall. New Jersey is one of those states. The coalition is the grass-roots property rights division of the Washington-based Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm that represented the property owners in the New London case. "There has been a flurry of activity in a number of states because there has been such a backlash against the Supreme Court decision," said Anderson, indicating numerous polls found opposition to expanding the use of eminent domain for private projects at 90 percent and higher. "This has truly galvanized people from both sides of the aisle," Anderson said. Indeed, Assemblymen Michael J. Panter and Robert L. Morgan, both D-Monmouth, on Thursday sent an e-mail to their legislative colleagues, asking them to co-sponsor Assembly bill 4392, which Panter and Morgan say would prevent the taking of private homes by condemnation for economic development. Their bill would prohibit the use of eminent domain to take a property that is legally occupied as a home and is maintained in accordance with applicable housing codes and standards. "The court's decision leaves property owners in New Jersey vulnerable to inappropriate applications of eminent domain that serve the needs of developers and businesses over those of the families we represent," they wrote. "As legislators, we have an opportunity to offer stronger protections for our residents." Panter said his legislative office has heard from more than 1,000 constituents on the eminent domain issue. Home ownership really should "trump the interest of revitalization," he said. "The use of eminent domain in that area is much too Draconian." Senate bill 2739, a companion to the Panter-Morgan bill, has been introduced by Sens. Nia H. Gill, D-Essex, and Diane Allen, R-Burlington, and referred to the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee. Assemblymen Richard A. Merkt and Joseph Pennacchio, R-Morris, have introduced a proposed amendment to the New Jersey Constitution with the same aim. Assembly Concurrent Resolution 255 would ban governments in New Jersey from taking private homes and businesses by eminent domain for economic development. The amendment restricts use of eminent domain to "essential public purposes," which are defined by the legislators as highways, schools and other government facilities traditionally considered necessary to delivering services to the public. In Ocean County, Assemblymen Brian E. Rumpf and Christopher J. Connors, both R-Ocean, are working with state Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Ocean, to prepare their own amendment to the state Constitution that would narrowly define a "public use," to exclude economic development. A companion bill would allow a state committee to determine if a project meets the standards for "public use," Connors said. "If we're going to take property away from people, take away their homes for a public use, I have no problem with that," Connors said. "I do have a problem with taking away people's property for the general welfare of the public. That, to me, is abhorrent." Meanwhile, through the coalition, the Institute for Justice on June 29 announced the "Hands Off My Home" campaign, making an initial commitment of $3 million to fund the national effort to combat eminent domain at the state and local levels. In Long Branch, city officials in 2000 signed an agreement with Matzel & Mumford, a Hazlet subsidiary of K. Hovnanian, which along with Hoboken-based Applied Development Co. has preliminary approval to build in the second phase of Beachfront North. Mayor: No easy answers City officials, who argue the area is not being taken for strictly economic development, said there was little opposition when the agreement was signed and in public meetings leading up to the agreement. Mayor Adam Schneider said legislators appear to be reacting to what they perceive as the public mood but are dealing with complex issues that do not have easy answers. "Most people would agree that since the mid '60s, our business district went downhill, our oceanfront went downhill. What are we supposed to do to correct that?" Schneider said. "If the answer is you do it lot by lot, on a very small scale, that might be saying you don't do it at all — that once a town hits bottom, it stays there." Robert S. Goldsmith, whose Woodbridge law firm has been hired by the city to defend against the alliance's potential constitutional arguments, said there is a lot of political reacting going around right now. "I think what the court did was deliberative, and I think when the Legislature gets the chance to deliberate, maybe they'll say nothing needs to be done," Goldsmith said. He noted that in New Jersey, before an area can be redeveloped, there has to be a specific finding of blight, and that doesn't mean every home there has to be in bad shape. "I don't perceive any significant abuse in New Jersey. . . . I think a careful, deliberative process in the Legislature would modify a knee-jerk reaction." The New Jersey State League of Municipalities, which filed legal papers in support of eminent domain in the Connecticut case, maintains the practice is vital to the ability of government to redevelop distressed areas. According to William G. Dressel Jr., league executive director, the Connecticut case doesn't have genuine parallels in New Jersey. "It is not something, quite frankly, local governments really want to do" he said of eminent domain, which he said was used as a last resort. "I'm not saying there have not been abuses," Dressel said. "There have been abuses and our courts have, in fact, reversed decisions by municipalities and come down on the side of property owners and I think the rumors of the death of property rights are greatly exaggerated." For Vendetti, this is the first time in the alliance's two-year battle that members have found reason to hope that eminent domain can be more greatly regulated. In the end, they just want to keep their homes and their ocean views. "We feel like we have another shot" at taking down eminent domain, Vendetti said. As a neighborhood fights its death, officials talk of Long Branch's rebirth Sunday Star Ledger, June 26, 2005 BY JUDY PEET AND MARYANN SPOTO Star-Ledger Staff When Denise Hoagland looks at the construction looming over her modest seaside house in Long Branch, she sees a tsunami of greed about to engulf her way of life. Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider sees something entirely different: A tidal wave of investment that will rescue the city's precious oceanfront from what he says was crime-ridden neglect. In Long Branch and across the nation, modern redevelopment practices encourage governments to seize people's homes against their will and transfer them to private developers who will build more expensive properties that generate more tax dollars. Supporters call it an unfortunate byproduct of market economics. Opponents call it an abuse of eminent domain. Last week, a narrowly divided U.S. Supreme Court called the process of public taking for private gain an issue that -- while its wisdom or necessity may be debatable -- is absolutely the right of local government, which the majority justices said, has the presumption of being "reasonable." The ruling was against working-class residents in New London, Conn., who were forced out when their homes were condemned by city officials to make way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. It has resonated deeply throughout several New Jersey communities where homeowners are fighting their own eminent domain wars. A NEIGHBORHOOD FIGHTS In the forefront is Hoagland's little enclave just south of Seven Presidents Oceanfront Park in Long Branch, where 36 homeowners are desperate to save their slice of the American dream from the state's largest coastal development project. The neighborhood, which was never important enough to have a name, now calls itself MTOTSA, after the three streets that define its limits: Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue. The city has already declared these homes "blighted," although they are neat bungalows and ranch houses with solid roofs, carefully tended lawns and flowerpots on porches. Under New Jersey law, which is more restrictive than federal regulations, towns are allowed to seize only blighted properties for redevelopment. The definition of "blighted" properties has expanded to include not only abandoned or run-down sites but also those that are "underutilized." The MTOTSA houses have no particular style, although -- unlike the nearby townhouses -- they are easy to tell apart. There is Hoagland's cottage, with its purple eaves and matching front gate, and the Vendettis' rancher across the street, built in 1960 with used bricks that Carmen Vendetti carried from their winter home in the Down Neck area of Newark. There is Frances DeLuca's pink asbestos-shingled bungalow on Ocean Terrace, which has been in the family since 1918. The metal chairs on the wide front porch have been there so long that they are now retro chic. And there is the bi-level at the other end of Marine Terrace, with its 10-foot, three-tiered fountain and chain-link fence. Many of the houses have roses in the front yard and laundry flapping in the brisk ocean breeze out back. Most have a sign in the front window protesting "Eminent Domain Abuse." What the houses all have in common is that they are low-end ratables, unlike the behemoth townhouse development that has crept up to their front steps. It is the Long Branch Redevelopment Zone, a $1 billion, multiphase project that includes retail and recreation but is mostly residential -- 1,200 units ranging in price from $400,000 for small units with no sea view to nearly $2 million for 2,000-square-foot townhouses overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. Launched in 2002 -- but in planning for a decade -- the project may very well precipitate a Long Branch renaissance that many thought was long overdue and others believed would never arrive. The mile-long oceanfront face-lift, city officials said, is the linchpin to the sorely needed revitalization of an additional 170 acres in the downtown corridor leading to the oceanfront. "We're reversing the decline of a city, which is nothing new in the Northeast specifically and the country as a whole," said Long Branch City Administrator Howard Woolley Jr. "The decline started 50 years ago. After (World War II), everybody started moving out of cities. Now that's reversed and people are saying, 'Hey, cities are a place we should pay attention to.'" HIGH-END DEVELOPMENT Upscale at the Jersey Shore used to mean barnlike Queen Anne cottages with elaborate cedar shingles, fanciful gables and widow's walks. The new wave of affluence, however, has been translated into block after regimental block of towering townhouses that form a wall between Ocean Boulevard and the beaches to obliterate any sight of the ocean for all except those with the bucks to pay for the view. The centerpiece of the project is Pier Village, a high-end shopping district with a number of specialty restaurants, boutique shops and fitness-spa services. Retail will occupy 100,000 square feet of space. The 320 apartments above the shops will rent for between $1,300 and $3,000 per month depending on the size. Greg Russo, vice president of Hoboken-based Allied Development Co., the master developer, said half of those rental units have been leased, and contracts have been signed with most of the anticipated 30 retail tenants. An estimated 95 percent of the 283 townhouses and condominiums under construction in the Beach Front North zone's first phase have been sold, Russo said, and about 140 are actually occupied. That is, coincidentally, the same number of houses that have already been torn down to make way for earlier phases of the project. City officials are quick to note that 119 of those 140 homes were acquired by the developers through negotiations with property owners, not through eminent domain, the practice that gives government the authority to take private land for public purpose. Opponents say it was the implied threat of the use of eminent domain that has forced people to sell. To date, 21 homes were seized through eminent domain. Half the homeowners settled through court negotiations or have gone to trial, and about six trials are pending. In one case in 2003, the $179,500 that the city insisted was fair value for Fred and Dorothy Strahlendorf's home 235 feet from the beach was upped to $500,000 by a jury. In another case that same year, however, a jury decided that another house, 400 feet from the beach, was worth only $168,000. The city estimate was $119,000. Nobody got their house back. "Some people are very emotionally tied to their homes. It's a traumatic type of experience," Woolley said. "The decision by the mayor and council is for the greater good of the city to enable us to do this development as we move inland." Hoagland and her neighbors aren't buying it. "Whose greater good? The developers? You tell me that they absolutely must have our homes ... when they already have a billion dollars worth of property on the rest of the oceanfront?" said Hoagland, 38, who has lived at Marine Terrace and Ocean Terrace with her husband and three children for the past 13 years. The Hoaglands, who say they have been offered $400,000 for their property, are newcomers to the neighborhood. Anna DeFaria, who lives two doors down, has been there 45 years, as have the Vendettis across the street. "We lived through the slum era, and this is the thanks we get," said DeFaria, 79, whose little bungalow is overflowing with pictures of her four children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, all of whom have spent summers on Marine Terrace. She said that the developers offered her $350,000 for her house but that she's too old to start a new life somewhere elsewhere. She just wants to stay in her little gray house, work in her vegetable garden and ride her exercise bike next to the window that faces east, out toward the sea. Many of the old-timers there are Newark natives who bought or built summer cottages in Long Branch when land was cheap. They winterized the cottages and moved down full time when urban renewal and escalating violence hit Newark in the 1960s. They say they refuse to be pushed out again. Hoagland and her neighbors say their issue is not money, but an irreplaceable way of life. Two-thirds of the 36 homeowners have grouped together to hire a lawyer, although they were visibly discouraged about legal action following the Supreme Court decision last week. The dissenting opinions reinforce their fears. "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote. "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." Eminent domain, per se, was the not issue before the court, but rather its use in acquiring land for private owners. Historically, eminent domain is "a legitimate tool and when used properly and appropriately ... can be a win-win for everybody," said Sue Burrows, a spokeswoman for sprawl watchdog New Jersey Future. Burrows added that eminent domain is "often the best option for assembling enough land to do greater good for the community." In the past, however, the process was usually restricted to public works projects, such as utilities, roads and schools. In the Supreme Court case, however, the dissenting justices noted that the more recent trend in eminent domain has been to take land for private development. O'Connor said the ruling will result in a shift of property away from poor owners in favor of those with "disproportionate influence and power." REVERSING THE DECLINE By marketing to the upper class, Long Branch is coming full circle. In its heyday from the 1860s to World War I, this city of 32,000 sandwiched between the even more affluent towns of Monmouth Beach and Deal had been a posh vacation spot for the rich and famous. Seven U.S. presidents summered here at one time or another. After 1965, when many downtown businesses started moving out to suburban shopping centers, Long Branch fell on hard times and property values started to decline. Hit particularly hard was the oceanfront, where many of the houses became rentals, often for transients, short-term residents and illegal immigrants, said Schneider, who has been mayor there for the past 15 years. Drugs moved in and crime escalated. Signaling the death-knell for tourism to the oceanfront was a devastating fire that destroyed the boardwalk's pier in 1987, leaving even less to attract vacationers. Around the same time, plans were in the works to open the Ocean Place Hilton Resort and Spa, which city officials had hoped would be so successful that other developers would want to tie in to the project and improve the beachfront. But that never happened, Schneider said. He believes the city's problems were too complicated to be solved by adding a few businesses and rehabilitating the houses. "You can't do (massive redevelopment) on a patchwork basis," Schneider said, adding that the development agreement is based on the city's promise that it could deliver a contiguous parcel that includes the Marine Terrace neighborhood. "If we change that now, we're looking at some major legal problems," Schneider said. With the parameters established, the project took off. The first problem addressed was the perception that the city was segregated from its oceanfront. Ocean Boulevard, a four-lane highway running parallel to ocean, had been built in the 1980s to move commuter traffic more easily through the city. But it also had the effect of separating the now-decaying beach area from the rest of the city. The boulevard became a bypass for tourists headed to neighboring beaches and the dividing line between the decrepit and the living. Schneider said he liked that the new redevelopment project included plans for Ocean Boulevard. "What started to convince me the plan could work is you've got to reconnect the oceanfront to the rest of the town," Schneider said. "I said, 'Ahhh, this could work.'" The dust and noise casting a pall over Marine Terrace attest to the aggressive pace of the construction. Only MTOTSA stands between the developer and completion of Beach Front North. Frances DeLuca, whose Ocean Terrace house has been in her family since 1918 is one of the few neighborhood residents who can afford to hedge her bet. The retired Newark English teacher is already building a new house 1 1/2 blocks north of Ocean Terrace. It is, at least for now, out of a redevelopment zone. Judy Peet may be reached at (973) 392-5983 or jpeet@starledger.com. MaryAnn Spoto may be reached at (732) 462-8603 or mspoto@starledger.com. Never Mind the Kelo, Here's Scott Bullock The attorney who argued the landmark eminent domain case surveys the blight in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. A Reason interview. Tim Cavanaugh Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, represented the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark eminent domain case Kelo vs. City of New London. He spoke with Reason in the wake of yesterday's decision in favor of the city. Reason: Are you surprised by the decision? Scott Bullock: Well I was surprised. It was rather shocking that a majority of the Supreme Court would permit this type of abuse. We're in an America where, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor points out, church property can be taken for a Costco, a farm can be turned into a factory, and a neighborhood can be leveled for a shopping mall. Most people cannot believe that this can happen in this country and the Supreme Court gave sanction to that with their decision. Reason: What did you make of Justice Anthony Kennedy's vote against the plaintiffs? SB: Yeah, it was surprising. I mean here's a guy who once wrote "individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights." For him to be in a decision that fundamentally violates the right to own and enjoy your property, I think, is disgraceful. Reason: Is there any recourse to the plaintiffs now? SB: There is. There are going to be battles on two fronts. One, we're going to do everything in our power to keep these people in their homes. And we're going to explore all options to do so. But one thing that's coming out of this opinion that's very clear is that people are furious about this. And the anger comes from the left, right, libertarians, and everybody in between. People cannot believe that the court sanctioned something like this. So, I think that the growing grassroots rebellion against this is going to gain momentum. And I think that you'll see litigation about this in state courts, where the battle will largely be, at least for the time being. And you'll see a number of legislative changes though both legislatures and then also through the initiative process, as well. And we'll be there every step of the way to make sure that these abuses stop. Reason: Given how many frivolous Constitutional amendments get proposed there days, why isn't there a serious movement for an amendment that would more narrowly define eminent domain powers? SB: There's already discussion of doing so. And, as I said, this is a time to really think big about these issues because it's clear that a narrow majority of the Supreme Court has given the potential for businesses and local governments to work together to take people's land. And I think it was a real wake-up call to people that something has to be done about this. And hopefully we'll see some major changes. Reason: How is this going to affect lower court decisions in other eminent domain cases, such as the Michigan Supreme Court's reversal of the Poletown decision last year? SB: What's important to point out is that even the majority admitted that state courts are free to interpret their own provisions in a manner that's more protective of property rights. Thankfully, every state Constitution has prohibitions against private takings and a requirement that takings be for public use. And, only six states have held that economic development condemnations are Constitutional. Nine have held that they are not. And most states have not addressed it. Reason: States that have ruled in favor include Connecticut, presumably? SB: Connecticut, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York and North Dakota: Those are the states that have said that this is acceptable to their state constitutions. Nine states have said that it's not. And then, most states have not addressed it. So, state courts, when this issue comes before them, are free to give greater protections to property owners and hopefully stop this practice in their states. Reason: Speaking of private economic development, the import of the decision has largely been seen as clearing the way for seizures for private economic development, but that's not really unprecedented. Even railroads were private endeavors. So are we seeing something new here or does this decision just affirm the status quo? SB: It's very different from something like a railroad. A railroad typically follows a very narrow strip of land. Railroads and utilities are what are known in the law as something called common carriers. So even though they might be privately owned, they're really the equivalent of public bodies because everybody, the public, has an equal right to them. Everybody has a right to the utility line. And they're very tightly controlled by public officials, so they're really the equivalent of public bodies; that's why the court upheld them. Here, we're talking about ordinary private uses of land—taking somebody's home for a Costco, taking Church property to give to another private owner. That's why this opinion is so sweeping and it's so far removed from even what the courts did in the railroad cases, or even in the situations involving blight. Because even in those cases, the government had to show that there was some type of harmful condition to that land before it was justified for condemnation. Here, the court said, whatever land the developers happen to desire is up for grabs. Reason: The irony is that we're in this period of resurgence for American cities. Most major cities are doing better now than they have in decades, and arguments about urban blight are a hard to make. Given yesterday's lifting of the need to prove an area is blighted, how do you expect that to play out? SB: I think it puts more and more properties up for grabs because here it will be dependent, not on whether or not the property is blighted, but whether it happens to be desired by private parties. So you're going to see people of less economic means, poorer folks, middle class folks who happen to live in the city and live in desirable neighborhoods that are going to be targeted by these types of takings. That's the real travesty of this, and that's one of the strongest points made by Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas, that this is going to fall hardest on people of limited financial means. And it's going to be to the benefit of the wealthy and government. Reason: One of the disheartening aspects of this decision is that two of the four dissenters are not long for the court. Justice William Renquist is pretty ill and Justice O'Connor is said to be close to retiring. Do you have any predictions about how a change in the Supreme Court composition will affect property rights? SB: Well, I don't know. These things are always hard to predict. Look at Justice Kennedy's track record on property rights. But this is also the case where you could have a member of the court that might be more of the left, but might come to a very different decision from what some of the more liberal members of this court decided. As I mentioned, there are a number of people who are concerned about civil liberties, concerned about decisions that affect the poor, minorities, who are outraged about this. One point you hear from some people who are trying to defend this decision is that the government went through a planning process in this case and this is part of a well-developed plan. The idea that having a plan and going through a planning process protects property owners in any way is completely disconnected from reality. I mean, every development in this country has a planning process. You can't just show up in an open field one day and say, "Well I'm here to build my office park." Everything in this country has to go through a process, has to be announced, has to have hearings, and to think that this provides any protection for property owners who face the loss of their homes and small businesses is nonsense. And it shows how some members of this Court and how some defenders of this policy don't understand how these things really pan out in the real world. Reason: Can you give some examples of other eminent domain abuses among the 10,000 cases you guys have cited? SB: I'll give you one primary example that's brewing in Long Branch, New Jersey right now, where a group of people want to hang on to their working-class beach homes. They've worked very hard to get their modest bungalows along the shore. These houses were purchased just by working class folks in Newark and other places, and now many of the elderly residents live there full-time; these are their dream homes. And the City of Long Branch is just proposing taking these people's homes and transferring them to wealthier home-owners. They want to tear them down and build million-dollar condominiums for people right along the shore in northern New Jersey. And so it's a classic example of taking the property of poorer folks and giving it to wealthier folks, and using it for the same purpose. It's just a transfer of wealth between home owners. It's a classic example of eminent domain abuse and one that I think will be litigated in the very near future. Reason: Is that going to be a new wrinkle, that the property is going to be used for the same purpose? SB: Well, possibly. There are a number of ways to challenge these types of takings. And I'm sure there will be many issues that are brought up in that case and some of the other ongoing controversies. Reason: Where are the real outrages happening? Is New London more typical, or is something like Washington, D.C.'s stadium grab a more characteristic situation? SB: The problem is that there are so many examples of eminent domain abuse. It's hard to find one that captures it entirely. New London was a classic example of this, but there are several others as well. They typically fall under two categories: One, is when the government takes land just simply to produce more tax revenue. That was the situation that was going on in New London. The other thing is what we call the abuse of blight laws. An example of that is a case we were involved in in Lakewood, Ohio, where the government uses blight laws simply as a means to an end. They're not really concerned about conditions in the neighborhood; they simply want to have it declared blighted so they can get the property and transfer it to private developers. The criteria that the City of Lakewood used to get the neighborhood declared blighted included such things as that the homes were lacking central air conditioning, didn't have an attached two-car garage, or lacked full bathrooms. It was really a means to an end, and the abuse of blight laws is an ongoing controversy and also encompasses a lot of the examples we point to of eminent domain abuse. Tim Cavanaugh is Reason's web editor MTOTSA won’t negotiate sale of homes to developer - Attorney to challenge eminent domain as not for public purpose BY CHRISTINE VARNO-Staff Writer The attorney representing owners of properties slated for eminent domain said Monday he is ready to negotiate with the city of Long Branch, but he won’t be talking prices. “The city has been talking about negotiating for my clients’ properties,” said Peter H. Wegener, who is with the law firm of Bathgate, Wegener and Wolf, Lakewood. “We would like to negotiate, but not for [the taking of the homes], for the primary issue in this case –– whether the city has the right to take properties and sell them to a private developer.” An expert on eminent domain cases, Wegener is representing residents living in the Beachfront North phase II redevelopment zone known as MTOTSA. MTOTSA is comprised of owners of 26 of the 36 properties located in the three-street neighborhood for which the group is named — Marine and Ocean Terraces and Seaview Avenue. Of the 26 properties in MTOTSA, Wegener said he has received 22 appraisals from McGuire Associates, Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, Jersey City, that range in value from $400,000 to $500,000. “They are not fair amounts,” Wegener said. “But my clients do not want to negotiate for the [selling] of their properties.” The City Council adopted two resolutions at the April 26 council meeting, awarding a $25,000 contract to Ansell, Zaro, Grimm and Aaron, Ocean Township, City Attorney James Aaron’s firm, and $75,000 to Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, Woodbridge, for services as redevelopment counsel. The resolutions are for the acquisition of the MTOTSA properties, city Financial Director Ronald Mehlhorn Sr. said last week. MTOTSA is slated for eminent domain and plans call for the properties to be bulldozed and replaced with upscale townhomes and condominiums. Co-developers for the redevelopment phase are Matzel & Mumford Corp., a division of K. Hovnanian, Red Bank, and the Applied Cos., Hoboken. “None of my clients want to give their properties to private developers,” Wegener said. “We are opposed to that and we intend to challenge the taking on the basis that it is not for a public purpose.” Prior to eminent domain, there has to be good faith negotiations between the city and the property owners, according to Wegener Once MTOTSA refuses the offers, which Wegener said they plan to do, the group will then challenge the taking of their homes which the group calls “an abuse of eminent domain.” If the courts rule in the favor of the developer, Wegener said he will hire independent appraisers to appraise the properties and begin talking prices with the city and the developers. “We think the private developers are overstepping their rights of eminent domain,” Wegener said. “We will challenge this.” MTOTSA thanks rally supporters On Feb. 20, MTOTSA Alliance [residents of Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, and Seaview Avenue] held a walk to publicize the abuse of eminent domain currently taking place in Long Branch and around several areas in the county. At the height of the walk, we estimated a crowd of participants grew to more than 300 walkers. As we walked from Ocean Terrace south down Ocean Boulevard, through Broadway and north to Atlantic Avenue, the sounds of horns from passing cars was immense and greatly appreciated by the walkers who got out in 36-degree weather on the oceanfront. While the majority of homeowners from the MTOTSA area were involved in the walk, others joined the march who are not directly affected by the eminent domain abuse, coming from other areas of Long Branch and numerous municipalities to demonstrate support of what they feel is inherently wrong. Thank you, everyone who participated. Public awareness and support was at an all-time high for those of us facing this challenge of eminent domain abuse on a daily basis. Also appreciated was the assistance we received from the Long Branch Police Department. Their participation in escorting our walkers through the city safely was greatly appreciated. The local media came out strong to provide coverage as well. We tripled our anticipated turnout and made a statement. As Margaret Mead said, “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Let’s continue the challenge to stop eminent domain abuse to protect all property owners of their right to due process. If you missed it and want another chance to support property rights, save the date of Sunday, May 15. We will “walk the walk” again and hope to triple the attendance. Also say a prayer that the Supreme Court case being heard Feb. 22 in Washington, D.C., Kelo v. New London, changes the way eminent domain is currently being used. Thanks for the support. Denise Hoagland MTOTSA Alliance - Long Branch  MTOTSA and supporters rally to stop eminent domain Out of town marcher: ‘You never know when it could happen to you’ BY CHRISTINE VARNO - Atlanticville - 2/23/05 LONG BRANCH — It was just 35 degrees on Sunday afternoon, but the chill in the air didn’t stop a crowd of nearly 250 people from marching along Ocean Boulevard to rally against the abuse of eminent domain. Long Branch was among 30 cities nationwide where citizens gathered this week to hold rallies and vigils in support of the plaintiffs in Kelo vs. New London (Conn.), a case involving eminent domain that began arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. “I just feel I had to show my support,” Dyann Scacciaferro, Monmouth Beach, said. “This is going on all over and you never know when it could happen to you.” Scacciaferro was one among many supporters who came from Long Branch and many surrounding communities to “walk the walk” with residents living in the city’s Beachfront North Phase II redevelopment zone, known as MTOTSA (Marine and Ocean terraces and Seaview Avenue). Residents and supporters walked for two hours along Ocean Boulevard, many wearing shirts and waving signs that read “End Eminent Domain” and “Don’t Take Our Homes.” The walkers started out on Seaview Avenue and proceeded to Broadway, then crossed back to the east side of Ocean Boulevard, walking to the Long Branch border at Atlantic Avenue before returning to Seaview Avenue. “I have been living here for five years,” Tim Ryan, Ocean Terrace, said as he walked. Ryan wore a sweatshirt that bore the admonition, “Shame on Long Branch.” “I am a renter,” he said. “I am here to support my neighbors.” Homes in the MTOTSA neighborhood are slated for eminent domain to be replaced with upscale condominiums and townhomes built by developers Matzel & Mumford, a division of K. Hovnanian, Middletown. Susette Kelo is a homeowner along the New London waterfront where the New London Development Corp., a private development corporation, plans to take Kelo’s property and the other 15 properties in the neighborhood. The area is slated for redevelopment with condominiums and a hotel. Plaintiff Kelo is being represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a non-profit law firm based out of Washington, D.C., that specializes in the protection of private property when eminent domain is not used for public use. The two cases are parallel, according to Scott Bullock from IJ, who will be arguing the Kelo case. Long Branch was the third stop Sunday in a series of rallies held in towns in New Jersey where residents are being faced with eminent domain. The first rally started in Neptune Township at town hall on Neptune Boulevard at 11 a.m. At 1 p.m. people gathered in Asbury Park at the municipal building on Main Street. Several traveled to Long Branch to participate in the walk that began at 3 p.m. Asbury Park Councilman John Hamilton, who took part in all three rallies, spoke briefly at the end of the Long Branch walk, stirring the crowd with his remarks. “Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere,” he told the large crowd assembled on Seaview Avenue. He said the turnout surpassed that in both Asbury Park and Neptune. “Is it right when elected representatives make decisions that negatively impact the lives and property of the people they swore to represent?” he asked those assembled. “Is it fitting when working-class people become victims of greedy developers? Is it fair that less than 5 percent of all people subjected to eminent domain will be allowed to remain in the areas where they resided?” A resident from Atlantic Avenue, which is not in the city’s redevelopment zone, said she was participating in the rally in Long Branch because she was fearful that she could be next. “It is madness and a disgrace,” Sheran Buffaloe said. “I am concerned.” “These are our homes,” Bill Giordano, MTOTSA, said. “Where is the morality? Where is the justice? Who has the right to decide when your American dream is over?” “It stops here. It stops today.”  THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE WHO HAVE AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT OUR CAUSE AND FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE WRITTEN TO THE PAPERS. Below are just a few of those opinions that have been published: I am a Desert Storm veteran, a full-time chiropractic student, a father, husband, son, uncle, and, less importantly, a homeowner. What was I thinking when I moved into a (former Section 8) boarded-up home in 1998? I’ll tell you what I was thinking: I was using my veteran’s benefits to purchase my first home. The American dream is owning property, right? It has been seven years since we purchased our property. In that time, I have built a shed, a deck, remodeled my kitchen, insulated, painted and replaced the windows, to name a few. Honestly, I saw a diamond in the rough. I live so close to the beach, I may never be done fixing, upgrading, replacing, rebuilding, expanding and otherwise improving what I still consider my home. Forget the home, let’s talk about the location: 700 feet from the water’s edge, and a two-mile boardwalk even closer. We live less than one mile from the Long Branch train station, and 15 minutes from the Parkway entrance. A commuter’s utopia. This is not a real estate advertisement; it serves only to illustrate how ideal and convenient it is living on the Jersey Shore. My house is not for sale. Long Branch blighted our area in 1996, and this will hang over our heads until 2026. Shame on Long Branch Mayor [Adam] Schneider and the council members. I am not against redevelopment nor revitalization, but losing my property to the rich developers (Matzel and Mumford and Applied Group) to build monstrous condos and townhouses was not my intention when my family moved to Long Branch in 1998. This up-and-coming Shore town has made me a victim, and, well, I don’t play a very nice victim. This is not what property ownership is about. Long Branch has since moved hundreds of families out of their homes and relocated them so they can demolish their buildings and build bigger and more expensive homes. The tax dollar ultimately wins. If you feel safe sleeping in your home today, be careful, because tomorrow your neighborhood may be the next epicenter for the next redevelopment. One of the fundamental rights our founding fathers wrote into the Constitution is the right to own property. Long Branch has twisted and distorted the law so they can take my house and my property to generate more tax revenue. And guess what? Your house and property may be next. - Michael LoGiudice - Long Branch Homeowners in Long Branch will have their homes stolen if Mayor Adam Schneider and the city council are not stopped. The Long Branch politicians will once again use eminent domain to take Ocean Avenue homes from their rightful owners. Mayor Schneider claims he is a generous man and is willing to work with the homeowners, if they relinquish their property without a fight. "I’ll meet with them as often as they want ... We’ve been as careful and slow and considerate as we can be of the people who live there. (But) this is for the betterment of the city. We have to revitalize Broadway. We have to create jobs and a year-round economy." (as quoted in a local daily newspaper Jan. 15). If the homeowners decide they would like to stay in the homes they have owned for decades, Mayor Schneider believes he has no choice but to kick them out using eminent domain. The mayor maintains using eminent domain to seize the homes is necessary for the prosperity of the city. Politicians often attempt to dupe residents into believing a city is more important than the people who live in it. It’s time elected officials remembered they are supposed to work for individuals — not the city. Too often "city" actually means those powerful few (developers and builders) whose campaign contributions keep the politicians in control. The politicians of Long Branch must not be allowed to sacrifice homeowners in order to reward their benefactors. Eminent domain is just legalized theft. Long Branch politicians should be stopped from stealing from their constituents. All New Jersey homeowners should watch what happens in Long Branch, because none of us are safe. Virginia Flynn - Morganville, NJ STAND BEHIND HOMEOWNERS Shame on the Asbury Park Press for its editorial "flip flop" on eminent domain abuse in Long Branch ("Homeowners holding out," Sept. 19). In previous editorials, it stood squarely behind the homeowners fighting to prevent developers. One editorial said "eminent domain is being abused when it allows towns to rip up established neighborhoods because a developer smells big bucks." It called the City Council's decision to use eminent domain this way "disgraceful" and told the homeowners to "fight back hard." It said if the city failed to remove the neighborhood from its redevelopment plans, the homeowners should "find a good lawyer." Well, the homeowners fought back hard and found a good lawyer. They found a whole firm of good lawyers at the Institute for Justice in Washington, the nation's leading legal advocate against the abuse of eminent domain. The institute's senior attorney paid a visit to the Long Branch mayor and council recently and told them, "The abuse of eminent domain is what brings us to Long Branch. We're watching very closing what is happening'.'.'.'and we're going to do everything in our power to make sure these fine homeowners stay in the homes that they know and love." The battle against government abuse of power has been joined at your urging. Why bail out on these brave citizens now? They are an inspiration to all as they stand together, fighting to keep the homes that are rightly theirs. Reportedly, there have been attempts to divide the group by offering special deals to individuals. But in a refreshing exception to the individual greed promoted by modern culture, they remain united, adamantly refusing to "sell out" their neighbors. The "Fourth Estate," a free and independent press, was created to expose and stand firmly opposed to government abuse of power. The Press has done a marvelous job of that to date. Please don't quit now. Barbara Gonos - WEST LONG BRANCH The Long Branch City Council is "dissing" the law. At the Nov. 9 council meeting, everyone loved the plucky little woman who told council members, "You can't have my house." The mayor and council stared back blankly. Her reference was to their on-going abuse of the true nature and intent of eminent domain. Her home is one among a whole neighborhood known as MTOTSA (Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue) whose allure to the council and some heavyweight opportunistic developers is its picturesque proximity to the ocean. In saner and kinder days, emi-nent domain provided for a necessary public use of private property. Today, through chicanery and the 1992 New Jersey Redevelopment and Housing Law, local officials can conspire with developers for condemnation of private property for the purpose of private development and private gain. Politicians such as these and a horde of others throughout the state are finding the opening in the single word "blight." They have corrupted the mean-ing of "blight" and turned it into a statutory term that describes property that can be used for "better purposes." The better purpose here is to grab a charming and historic piece of Americana from the very peo-ple who made it so and hurl them out so that developers, ready with bulldozers, can build and sell condos at a very profitable one million dollars each. CBS' "60 Minutes" recently shone its spotlight on what is termed a nationwide epidemic. The Institute for Justice, a non-profit legal organization, published the results of a five-year study called "Public Power, Private Gain: The Abuse of Eminent Domain." America is wakng up to it. Our judges have to wake up to it. Suppose thousands of people stood alongside that plucky little woman and shouted to the Long Branch council, "You can't have her house." The public meeting is Nov. 23 at 8 p.m. Bernice Roberts MIDDLETOWN I was disheartened by the article about the members of the MTOTSA alliance in Long Branch. ("Neighbors resist redevelopment," Oct. 17.) The article puts the mayor in a favorable light while making the members of MTOTSA appear unreasonable and irresponsible. The mayor stated that the MTOTSA residents are not willing to work with the City Council. They have done all they were asked, but the council is not willing to work with them. In 1996, when the plans for the MTOTSA area were in the beginning stages, plans at that time called for MTOTSA to be revitalized and called for in-fill around existing properties. Yet Mayor Adam Schneider said, "Had they come in 10 years ago, we had infinite options." The residents were led to believe their properties were not in danger, that only vacant or available lots would be developed. Why should it have been the residents' responsibility to do something prior to the 1996 Planning Board meeting? The mayor seems interested only in the economics of the situation. I would like to have read more about the residents and their take on the situation. Teresa Maltz OCEAN TOWNSHIP CITY ABUSING RESIDENTS THROUGH IMPROPER USE OF POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN It has come to my attention the state of New Jersey is running rampant, seizing people’s homes and under the guise of eminent domain. I’ve been following the articles written in the Atlanticville, and every time I read an article written about the MTOTSA group, my mouth drops in amazement that no one within state government has investigated this type of criminal assault against the people of the City of Long Branch and, in fact, residents throughout the United States of America. Although I am not a resident of Long Branch, I must say the entire fiasco frightens me because it is a severe threat to our constitutional rights, not to mention a sure sign of the deterioration of our democracy. Within the past few years I was shocked to learn the people of Long Branch were only one group of many, suffering from the governmental approval of land theft. Other communities where this is being considered, or going on, include, Belmar, Newark, Neptune, Piscataway, Seaside Heights among others. I’ve watched both Mayor Adam Schneider and Councilman Anthony Giordano of Long Branch on a local news program broadcast from Monmouth University bragging about the improvement of Long Branch, and blatantly stating they want upscale people to live on the oceanfront. Did anyone ever enlighten them to the crimes of selection, and displacement? Not discounting the usurpation of private properties by local and state officials and builders, the real problem remains a government that is shrouded in the cloak of democracy but shows no respect for individual rights. There is no other way to describe what happens when businessmen and politicians team up to deny one group its rights while favoring another than government approved theft. Does anyone in this government remember the selection process during World War II? Does anyone remember 1997, 1998 and 1999 concerning the Albanians? What do the people of this state think is happening? If this is not stopped it’s just a matter of time before our government controls us entirely. We have a president that wishes to establish a democracy in Iraq — what about here? Is it democratic when a mayor, councilman or any other governmental officials take over a city, state, or country and manipulate the law, and interpret it to their advantage. Have we forgotten how horrific political monsters preyed upon citizens in Germany, Russia, Poland, Armenia, Hungary, etc.? Why did they succeed? Because people turned a blind eye to what was really happening. The deprivation and deterioration of rights happens subtly. It develops in little sections usually to those who are weak due to age, poverty, gender, race, whatever. Such is the case on the Long Branch oceanfront. Most of the residents are elderly, middle class, women or racial minorities. Is the mayor or council stating that these select people are not fit to live on the oceanfront? Perhaps some may feel my analogy is a bit farfetched. Is it? Where are the American Indians? Why was there a need for a civil war? Who’s making a killing on the exploitation of those people suffering from the so-called accepted process of eminent domain? My prayer is the good people of New Jersey wake up before our children inherit an America devoid of the freedoms our founding fathers fought for. Louis W. Dezso - Maywood END UNJUST TAKING - Star Ledger Editorial - Tuesday October 12, 2004 The U.S. Supreme Court will decide this term when the government may condemn people's homes or other private property for commercial use such as an industrial park or a shopping center. The case before the nation's high court arose from a lawsuit brought by New London, Conn., residents whose homes are to be razed to make way for upscale condos and office space. But if the justices want a case study in the abuse of "eminent domain," they need look no further than New Jersey. In Long Branch, the city wants to use eminent domain to level small houses, each valued at $150,000, to build luxury homes that will run $600,000 to $1.5 million. Across the Garden State, government officials routinely seize private property to sell to developers, often politically well-connected, with little public input. Worse yet, the projects sometimes get done without competitive bidding. The Fifth Amendment allows government to take land for a "public use" so long as the landowner is fairly compensated. For years, that meant government used its power to clear land to build highways and bridges. Then eminent domain was used to rebuild blighted areas in hopes of creating jobs and ratables. Now middle-class neighborhoods are the targets, and the development is only remotely connected to "public use." Some developers are given such sweetheart deals that they raise serious questions about whether the city's tax base will be bolstered. Earlier this year, New Brunswick officials condemned a property owned by businessman Fred Haleluk and sold it to politically connected developer Jack Morris to build a strip mall. Morris received a 30-year tax abatement. Many would argue that New Brunswick, which has undergone a wonderful transformation in the past three decades, is a good example of productive use of eminent domain. Blight has been replaced with theaters, some of the state's finest restaurants, a comedy club and a first- class hotel, but at a price. Nearly 70 businesses and residents -- people who hung on when others fled -- were forced out in the name of progress. Clearly, municipalities should have some authority to use the power of eminent domain to encourage redevelopment. The question is just how far that power can go. Using the power of government to cut through red tape and obstacles to turn around a blighted neighborhood is good. But the court must rein in abuses and craft a carefully worded ruling that clearly limits when the state can use its awesome power to disrupt the sanctity of one's home. The Star Ledger - Wednesday 10/6/04 - by Bob Braun SHORE NEIGHBORHOOD FINDS HOPE The houses are modest. Maybe too modest for the memories they enshrine, memories that are grand and vivid, irreplaceable and priceless. "But I sat on the porch of that house and held that boy in my arms when he was a baby," said a woman named Joanne La Rosa, pleading with a stony-faced city council. "Now he's a man with his own baby, living in that house you're destroying." The man to whom she referred, William Giordano, had just spoken, too, barely able to finish, voice husky with the effort not to cry. La Rosa's mother Rose suffered no such self-restraint. She openly wept in the audience. In Long Branch, where much of the past has been bulldozed, and more will be. It's where little homes with ornate fences, tiny gardens and unexpected additions -- priceless to some owners, hardly worth $150,000 to those without lives invested in them -- have been, and will be, bulldozed. Leveled for acres of tony row houses and faux mansions, each bringing in from $600,000 to $1.5 million and as-yet computed tax revenues. The view from those new windows is the ocean and new boardwalk, not graphic memories of dad, before his heart attack, romping in the yard with the kids and the shaggy mutt that died in 1958. In the new houses, what you smell is fresh paint and new rugs and salt air on leeward breezes, not the gravy -- call it sauce, you're not invited -- Nana cooked for hours on Sunday when the kids came and brought the babies to those little houses. The babies who now have babies and plead with Long Branch not to destroy those little shrines. "This is our neighborhood, we built this neighborhood, how can you take it from us?" asked Fran De Luca at the same meeting. "We did what most of America wants to do but can't -- build a neighborhood that welcomes all races, all ethnic groups, all ages." She's an English teacher at the Essex County Vocational in Newark. Like many fearing eviction in Long Branch, she grew up in Newark. The neighborhood facing destruction -- or, if you prefer, redevelopment -- is a little colony transplanted from the city to what was, when they came, a contradiction in terms: an inexpensive Shore town. The families -- La Rosas and DeFarias and Vivianos and De Lucas and Giordanos and Vendettis and Anzalones and more -- bought or built vacation bungalows here. In the '30s, '40s, '50s. Came down on summer weekends. Thought they'd retire here. "We've been coming here since 1931," said Al Viviano. He's 91, a retired blacksmith. Moved to Long Branch permanently 24 years ago. Part of the group of 36 families called the MTOTSA Alliance after three streets -- Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Sea View Avenue. The city calls it the Beachfront North redevelopment zone. "Not the first time they took away our neighborhood," said Lou Anzalone, 82. Not in Long Branch. Newark. When, in the '60s, much of the old Italian neighborhood in the First Ward was razed for public housing, the city saw an exodus of families there for generations. The 1967 riots made it worse -- and, almost, total. "We couldn't live in Newark anymore," said Anzalone. Those who could, moved to expensive suburbs. Some couldn't, but they did have those bungalows in Long Branch. With work, they could be made into all- year homes. "It was a wonderful place to grow up," said Joanne La Rosa. "We knew everybody. Like family." Then Long Branch fell on hard times. In neighborhoods surrounding the MTOTSA, houses were abandoned, boarded up. Some blame the town for failing to enforce codes. Whatever the reason, parts of Long Branch grew ugly, even dangerous. "But not here," says Lori Vendetti, whose family built a brick home in 1960. "We kept up the neighborhood." Redevelopment began a decade ago. Some neighborhoods targeted for demolition were razed and new construction began. The city has yet to publish plans for what it is going to do with MTOTSA properties, but they, too, face demolition. "When we have a plan ready for public release, we will release it and provide time for public comment," said James Aaron, the city attorney. The families are hopeful. Some neighborhoods, even in New Jersey, successfully fought the expansion of eminent domain -- the public taking of private property for a public use. Courts in other states have turned against using eminent domain in circumstances like those in Long Branch, where a town awards contracts to developers to build new private homes. In Long Branch, the Matzel and Mumford Organization of Hazlet, a Hovnanian company, and Applied Developers of Hoboken are the developers. "The homes of poor people are taken so that rich people can have nicer homes," said Anzalone. "We couldn't possibly afford the places that are being built." Now, the U.S. Supreme Court plans to rule on a Connecticut case. "We're going to win," said Vendetti. "We'll keep our homes and memories." Bob Braun's columns appear Monday and Wednesday. He can be reached at (973) 392-4281 or at rjbraun@webspan.net. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 28, 2004 U.S. SUPREME COURT ACCEPTS REVIEW OF NEW LONDON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE CASE Washington, D.C.-Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of Kelo v. City of New London and decide whether the Constitution allows the government to use eminent domain to take one person's home or small business so a bigger business can make more money off that land and pay more taxes as a result. "We and the New London homeowners are thrilled that the Court has taken up this case and we are confident that it will find, as we have argued all along, that New London violated the U.S. Constitution when it tried to take these homes," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. Dana Berliner, an Institute for Justice senior attorney, explained, "If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business, then no property in America is safe because anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one. We have to restore the meaning of public use to what everyone once understood the term to mean--something the public would own and use, such as a road. Economic development is not a public use." The decision will affect homeowners throughout the country. According to a report issued last year by the Institute for Justice, in just five years, more than 10,000 properties were either taken or threatened with condemnation for private parties. There has been chaos in the state courts, with some states finding that "economic development" (tax revenue and jobs) justifies eminent domain and others finding it does not. In the last few years, the tide has shifted against the abuse of eminent domain. With decisions from Illinois, South Carolina and Arizona, courts have finally begun to restore constitutional protections to home and business owners. The decision of the Michigan Supreme Court in July, reversing its previous Poletown decision, which had allowed the condemnation of an entire neighborhood for a GM plant shows, just how far courts have come. Susette Kelo, one of the New London homeowners, said, "It is going to mean everything in the world if the U.S. Supreme Court saves my home. I'm so happy for myself and my elderly neighbors who just want to stay in their homes." "Cities and developers will say that the sky is falling and that development can't happen without taking other people's property by force," concluded Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice. "That's ridiculous. Development happens all over the country, every day, with land purchased voluntarily. That's the way our nation was built, and that's what our Constitution requires." Landmark Eminent Domain Abuse Decision Michigan Supreme Court Halts Eminent Domain For "Economic Development" Court States Poletown Was "Erroneous" Washington, D.C.-In a case with nationwide implications to halt the abuse of eminent domain, the Michigan Supreme Court last night reversed its infamous Poletown decision, which had allowed the condemnation of private property for so-called "economic development." In a unanimous decision in County of Wayne v. Hathcock, issued at 9:30 p.m. on Friday, July 30, the Court decisively rejected the notion that "a private entity's pursuit of profit was a 'public use' for constitutional takings purposes simply because one entity's profit maximization contributed to the health of the general economy." In the 1981 Poletown decision, the Michigan Supreme Court allowed the City of Detroit to bulldoze an entire neighborhood, complete with more than 1,000 residences, 600 businesses, and numerous churches, in order to give the property to General Motors for an auto plant. That case set the precedent, both in Michigan and across the country, for widespread abuse of the power of eminent domain. It sent the signal that courts would not interfere, no matter how private the purpose of the taking. But in Hathcock, the Court called Poletown a "radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles." "We overrule Poletown," the Court wrote, "in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law." According to Dana Berliner, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which filed a brief in the Hathcock case, the case has profound nationwide implications. "Poletown was the first major case allowing condemnation of areas in the name of jobs and taxes. It is cited in every property textbook in the country. The Court literally rewrote the book with this decision," said Berliner. The use of eminent domain for private development has become increasingly common throughout the United States. According to Public Power, Private Gain, authored by Berliner, there were 10,000 properties either taken or threatened with eminent domain for private parties in the U.S. between 1998 and 2002. And state supreme courts from Nevada to Connecticut have relied on the Poletown decision when upholding the condemnation of land for private parties. "The Court made an exception in Poletown because of the supposedly enormous benefits of the GM plant," said Berliner. "Instead, the exception swallowed the rule." The application of Poletown in Michigan produced disastrous results. Michigan courts tended to forbid small condemnations for private parties, but when the city and developer claimed the project would have a significant economic impact, lower courts upheld the takings. "Poletown gave cities and developers an incentive to make outrageous, wildly inflated predictions of the impact of the project," explained Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "It was the worst possible incentive. The Poletown project itself also didn't come close to living up to the promises. In all likelihood, it destroyed more jobs than it created." The Michigan Supreme Court also decided another important eminent domain case, although one that has received less attention. In Detroit Wayne County Stadium Authority v. Alibri, the Stadium Authority told Frida Alibri it would condemn her property if she didn't sell "voluntarily." It promised, among other things, that it would not be given to a private party. After the sale, it was indeed transferred to a private corporation. At that point, Alibri sought to get her property back, because the Stadium Authority didn't have the power to condemn for that purpose, and it had told her that the purpose was not transfer to a private party. The trial court agreed with Alibri; the appellate court, however, agreed with the Stadium Authority. The Michigan Supreme Court returned the property to its rightful owner-Mrs. Alibri. "Most people end up selling under threat of eminent domain, rather than spend years in court fighting it, so these two decisions truly prevent the government from taking property for private parties," according to Berliner. "The government can't convince people to sell by telling them their property will be used for a public use, then turn around and transfer it to a private party." "The Poletown decision gave cities the green light to take property for private parties," said Chip Mellor, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice. "It was a terrible mistake. Now, the Michigan Supreme Court has restored the rights of all Michiganders to keep their homes and businesses, even if another, politically connected private business wants them. This is a great day for property rights nationwide." The Institute for Justice and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed a friend of the court brief in the Hathcock case, co-authored by George Mason Law School professor Ilya Somin and IJ Senior Attorney Dana Berliner, discussing the disastrous effects of the Poletown decision in Michigan and the country, as well as the failure of the Poletown project to live up to its promises. The Institute for Justice also filed a friend of the court brief in the Alibri case.  ATLANTICVILLE July 30, 2004 Couple’s retirement dream in jeopardy Lifetime of hard work could be swept away by eminent domain BY CHRISTINEVARNO Staff Writer LONG BRANCH — They built their home on the Long Branch shore in the summer of 1960 in hopes of retiring there, but the threat of eminent domain has turned that dream into a nightmare. Carmen and Josephine Vendetti, 77 and 74 respectively, live at 38 Ocean Terrace, just four houses from the beach. Forty-four years ago, the house acted as a summer home for their family of five, but Josephine said she always intended on growing old full-time at the shore. "Long Branch has robbed us of our retirement plan," Carmen said. "Now we are in limbo." The couple is just one family living in a three-street neighborhood (Ocean and Marine terraces and Seaview Avenue, known as MTOTSA) designated as the Beachfront North Redevelopment Zone, phase II. Plans call for the homes to be bulldozed and replaced with townhouses and condominiums. "We have been looking for another area [on the water]," Josephine said. "We cannot find anything like this near the ocean." Carmen, who drove tractor-trailers for 45 years, and Josephine, who was a school secretary, both retired in 1989 and today they are looking for some peace after a lifetime of hard work and heartache. The Vendettis have been married for 55 years and were making Newark their permanent address when they first began their family. After having three children, they wanted to get out of the city for the summers. They vacationed at the home Carmen built in Long Branch. "When the schools closed for the year, we would come here all summer," Josephine said. "My children loved it here." Years later, the couple was faced with the tragic loss of both of their sons — one died in a house fire along with his wife and child, and the other died of a heart attack. Their daughter, Lori, owns a home across the street from their Ocean Terrace home. "We do not want to see this [their home and neighborhood] end," Josephine said. "My two sons loved it here." The Vendettis still have their Newark home, where they live for one month out of the year, because they are in fear of losing their beachfront property and having nowhere to go. "We would have been here permanently years ago, but redevelopment is stopping us," Carmen said. "This is costing us double." They said if they were forced out of the neighborhood, they would lose a community where it is more than just neighborly greetings, but friendships and people actually caring about each other. "We love it here," Josephine said. "This [eminent domain] is making us stressed out. They are trying to rob us of our plans. How dare they come here and do that." Even though there is a chance they could lose their home, the couple said they will continue to maintain it, but are wary about investing too much money into improvements when the city wants to eventually tear it down. "They [city officials] are making slums out of us," Carmen said. "Eminent domain should be abolished." "They [city officials] call us slums, well, they created them," Josephine said. "I go to the council meeting every other Tuesday and listen to the council [members]. It sounds like they are laughing at us." She said she feels safe and comfortable here, in Long Branch, where her past, her family and her doctors are, and on the weekends it is her oceanfront home where her three grandchildren come to visit. "This home means everything to me," she said. "It is my happiness."  Beach home relieves stress of work week Weekend getaway allows Marine Terrace resident to recharge BY CHRISTINE VARNO, Staff Writer LONG BRANCH — Olga Netto looks forward to spending her weekends in Long Branch, where she can relax at her beachfront home and sit in her old-fashioned tree swing on her front lawn. She said losing all of this is not an option. Netto bought her home on Marine Terrace three years ago, knowing it was located in an area designated as Phase II of the Beachfront North redevelopment zone. She did not know plans called for her property to be bulldozed and replaced with townhouses and condominiums. "The research I did of the redevelopment plan when I bought my house indicated that redevelopment would be done by infill and not by bulldozing down a neighborhood," Netto said. "My home cannot be duplicated into the $600,000 cookie-cutter units they are building across the street from me." The three-street (Marine and Ocean terraces and Seaview Avenue) area has been slated for redevelopment, with the homes taken through the city’s power of eminent domain if necessary. City officials have been working on redeveloping the city’s oceanfront and downtown Broadway area for more than 10 years. Netto said her home means too much to her to be able to accept what the city has planned for it. Netto works as the director of safety and risk management at a pharmaceutical company in New York City. She makes her home in northern New Jersey during the week and lives in Long Branch on the weekends to minimize the time she spends commuting. Her friend, John, lives in the house by the beach all week. "My home is my little piece of heaven on earth," Netto said. "I have a very demanding job and live for the weekends where I can get up in the morning and watch the sunrise over the ocean from my bed." She said her brick home is well-maintained and has all the modern-day conveniences, yet with a vintage charm. Her children, friends and co-workers travel on the weekends to visit her at her home on the beach. "Every one of them tells me how lucky I am to have found this home and the wonderful neighborhood," Netto said. "Why then does this neighborhood appear undesirable for preservation from the city’s viewpoint?" Netto has sacrificed to be able to make a residence in Long Branch, in addition to paying for her other apartment. "This is expensive, but I rationalize the additional expenses of the beach house by its contribution to rejuvenating me each weekend from the week’s pressures," she said. "I am looking forward to spending many days and years in my Long Branch home when I retire." Netto has expressed her concerns to city officials every other week when she stands up at the City Council meetings and asks Mayor Adam Schneider and the council to put an end to eminent-domain abuse and help the Phase II residents become a part of the redevelopment plan. "I am very disturbed by the fact that the mayor and City Council listen to members of the community every other week at the council meetings but have yet to show a spark of concern or empathy on any of their faces for what they are doing to the residents of this neighborhood," Netto said. "The threat of redevelopment has taken a heavy toll on the mental and physical health of many." Netto and her neighborhood residents have formed an alliance, MTOTSA (Marine and Ocean Terraces and Seaview Avenue), to fight back and convince the city that their homes belong in, and should remain, a part of Long Branch. Group seeks to keep homes in face of redevelopment BY CHRISTINE VARNO, Staff Writer Residents living in the section of Long Branch designated as the Phase II Beachfront North redevelopment zone are waiting to hear what city officials have planned for their neighborhood. They have been fighting to keep the city from taking their homes through its powers of eminent domain for months. On May 18, the Phase II residents, who have become known as the MTOTSA (Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue) Alliance, submitted a redevelopment plan for their three-street neighborhood titled "The Plan for the MTOTSA Alliance Neighborhood." At the council meeting June 8, MTOTSA member Bill Nordahl of Marine Terrace, asked council members when he and his neighbors would hear a response from the city regarding their submission. "We submitted our MTOTSA plan to the council, and we hope you are looking at it," Nordahl said. "We think we have a really nice neighborhood, and we hope for the opportunity to make it better." Mayor Adam Schneider said that city officials have had the plan for about three weeks, and by law they have 35 to 40 days to respond to the applicant. "It is a thoughtful process, and issues still have to be addressed," Schneider said. "I am not going to get into details." Schneider said that at the appropriate time a meeting will be scheduled to discuss the plan, but it will not be at a public forum. Attached to the redevelopment plan, MTOTSA wrote in a letter to the mayor and council: "This plan [the MTOTSA redevelopment plan] respects our often-stated desire to save our homes and the historic seaside community neighborhood we live in while conforming to the city’s redevelopment plan." The homeowners of the 36 properties in the Phase II area have committed to repairing, restoring or remodeling their properties to conform to the model of the neighborhood. "Everyone represented on the list [with the names of the MTOTSA homeowners that was submitted with the MTOTSA plan] has signed a statement that they want to keep and preserve their homes." Denise Hoagland of Ocean Terrace said. In addition to individual property changes and maintenance, the plan includes the following requests to the city: • More information on how to qualify for funding; • Year-round resident permit parking due to the seasonal influx of tourists; • Paving of the streets; • Sidewalks with Belgium block edging to keep in form with the current [redevelopment] work being done in Beachfront North Phase I; • Gaslight or solar-powered street lights; • Underground telephone and cable lines to support the ambiance of unobstructed ocean views and • Bike paths and open areas that MTOTSA members will work with the planners and developers to achieve common ground in all redevelopment aspects. On Feb. 27, redevelopment plans for the MTOTSA area were submitted to Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley by co-developers, Applied Development Co., Hoboken, and Matzel and Mumford Corp., a division of K. Hovnanian, Middletown, that Woolley said were in accordance with the city’s redevelopment plans. Those plans call for bulldozing the MTOTSA neighborhood and replacing the existing single- and two-family homes with town houses and condominiums. Hoagland said the MTOTSA plan, which calls for residents keeping their property, also follows the city’s plans for redeveloping the area. "We are already homeowners of the property," Hoagland said. "We should have the upper hand." "MTOTSA is positive that the threat of eminent domain has curtailed investment in our homes. If, in fact, eminent domain was not cast upon our area eight years ago, many homes would have already been upgraded," the residents stated in the plan. "Our goal is to blend with the newly developed Beachfront [North] Phase I, while retaining charm and neighborhood character of the Long Branch Seaside for future generations to enjoy."
  
Edison denied bid to condemn tract Judge voids taking of couple's bus service Saturday, April 10, 2004 BY SUE EPSTEIN Star-Ledger Staff A Superior Court judge has overturned Edison's decision to condemn a functioning business and turn the property over to politically connected developer Jack Morris, saying the action did not serve any "legitimate public purpose." The ruling from Judge James Hurley in New Brunswick voided the township's condemnation of six parcels of property that belong to Salvatore and Elvassa Quagliariello, who operate the Oak Tree Bus Service Inc. Edison condemned the property in 2002 as part of a deal with Morris, who had originally planned to build a drugstore and bank on a six-acre tract known as the Oak Tree Pond property across the street. Under the deal, Edison purchased five of the six acres from Morris for $5.6 million and agreed to condemn Quagliariello's property across the street and turn it over to Morris to build a Walgreen's Pharmacy. Morris, who purchased the property a year earlier for $1.4 million, received approval to build a Commerce Bank on the remaining one-acre site next to Oak Tree Pond. "This court finds that there is simply no basis on which anyone could conclude that the redevelopment (of Quagliariello's property) is necessary, other than a desire to construct a Walgreen's Pharmacy," Hurley said in a 14-page written opinion dated March 31. The judge said, "The adoption of the redevelopment plan did not serve any legitimate public purpose and, in fact, has the effect of closing down a lawful, functioning business." "If allowed, the township action would result in a public taking for a private purpose," Hurley concluded. The judge voided the resolutions by the township planning board that recommended the property be declared a redevelopment zone and the resolution that designated Morris' company, JSM at New Dover LLC, as the redeveloper. The judge also voided the township ordinances that made Quagliariello's property a redevelopment zone and ripe for the condemnation process. "The township's decision to declare the property an area in need of redevelopment amounts to a determination they are obsolete, underutilized and partially inactive," Hurley said in his decision. "After careful examination, it is clear to this court that the township's criticisms are superficial, and, even taken as a whole, this court finds they do not amount to substantial evidence to support a declaration that the area is in need of redevelopment," the judge said. He rejected the township's arguments that the gas station on the site, undergoing environmental cleanup, constitutes the inactive part and the unsuccessful efforts by the owners to sell their property and bus company, so they can retire, proves it is obsolete and underused. Quagliariello has contracts with two boards of education -- Edison and Plainfield -- to transport their schoolchildren daily and has five buses dedicated to operating charter trips, the judge said. Two of the parcels included in the redevelopment zone are vacant lots used to park the school buses when not in use. Hurley said the parcels included in the redevelopment zone gave it such an irregular shape that "this gerrymandering alone is enough to give this court concern as to the township's motives." Morris, who is a close friend and business partner of former state Sen. John Lynch (D-Middlesex, Somerset and Union), had approval to build a bank and a Walgreen's Pharmacy on the Oak Tree Pond site, but environmentalists and interested citizens protested that the property was part of Revolutionary War history as well as environmentally sensitive. The state Attorney General's Office investigated Edison's purchase of the Oak Tree Road site and found no criminal actions in the sale to Morris. Quagliariello filed suit to stop the township from taking his property -- the action that resulted in Hurley's decision. Neither Quagliariello nor Spadoro, nor any attorneys connected with the case, could be reached for comment yesterday, which was a state and municipal holiday. BY CHRISTINE VARNO Staff Writer LONG BRANCH — Denise Hoagland, Bill Nordahl and Lori Vendetti know that they are not the only ones fighting city hall over the use of eminent domain. The three city residents, members of the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue (MTOTSA) Alliance, stood on common ground with many others facing similar situations at a weekend conference at the Wardman Park Marriott Hotel in Washington, D.C., March 26-28. The conference was the third annual event sponsored by the Castle Coalition, an organization set up by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a Washington, D.C., civil liberties law firm that has been litigating in property rights cases since 1991 as a means to educate activists on the issue of eminent domain. The trio of city residents attended the conference along with members of 19 other groups from around the country who believe their property rights are being threatened. The homes of Hoagland, Nordahl and Vendetti lie in the three-street Long Branch redevelopment zone, designated Beachfront North phase II. According to plans submitted by designated developer, Matzel and Mumford, a division of the K Hovnanian Corp., Middletown, those homes are to be leveled. The area around them is being developed with condominiums and townhouses. Mayor Adam Schneider said the plans are consistent with the city’s redevelopment plan and they are something that could work. The residents, who would be forced out if the plan goes forward, think the community is working fine right now and disagree with the way the city is exercising its powers of eminent domain. Replacing homes with newer homes is not a public use, according to the MTOTSA residents. "Giving property from a private person to a developer is absurd and becoming rampant throughout the United States," Hoagland said. "What the city is doing is wrong." IJ is looking into the possibility of taking MTOTSA’s case against the city of Long Branch, but cannot commit until the residents are issued eminent domain papers, according to Scott Bullock, the senior attorney at the firm. The purpose of the conference was to allow those directly involved in eminent domain battles to compare stories, share advice and ideas, and build support for their battles to defend their homes, according to a press release from the coalition. The workshops scheduled at the conference were designed to educate participants on the history of eminent domain, show support for the forming of a coalition, teach how to work effectively with the media, and prepare for ways to protect one’s property by taking legal action, according to a statement released by the coalition. "This was set up to help people who are subjected to eminent domain and help them fight it through activism, by learning their rights and knowing that they can fight for this," Hoagland said. In a 2003 report released by the Castle Coalition, "Public Power, Private Gain," the IJ and the Castle Coalition found more than 10,000 similar abuses around the country between 1998 and 2002, instances in which the government had taken or threatened to take by force, homes and other private lands for the benefit of private interests. The report noted that courts rejected private-use condemnation 30 out of 70 times, and politicians have proposed 13 bills (three of which became law) increasing protections for those threatened by eminent domain. Seven times politicians limited their own eminent domain power, according to the press release. Bill Nordahl said the conference was an opportunity to network with other people facing similar problems. "There were a lot of talks on legal situations and ways to organize different forms of activists," Nordahl said. "I networked with people from Neptune, Newark, Philadelphia, and with people from farther places like San Francisco and Daytona Beach, Fla." "The city of Long Branch is working on the beachfront community now," Hoagland said. "All the people who are in the redevelopment area do not understand that they are subject to eminent domain. It is going to be a whole bunch of pins down the corridor of Broadway." Hoagland said she and her husband, Lee, have begun to discuss with their three girls the possibility of having to leave their home. "My daughter, Daisy [age 9], said she was going to have to make new friends and go to a new school if we left," Hoagland said. "I told her to look at the glass as half full. She said, ‘But, Mom, my glass is already full.’ "She says it all," Hoagland said. "She is already happy. Why should I have to change because someone else thinks we should? My husband said, ‘How can someone else tip our glass?’ " Hoagland said MTOTSA has not given up. The alliance has decided it is going to open a checking account and begin fund raising. She said the group is planning a demonstration and will have public speakers on the effects of eminent domain. "We want these events to create publicity," Hoagland said. "We want to let the word out that it is us right now, but it could be you tomorrow."
 
|
Castle Coalition
IJ Client Vera Coking