Jury raises price for city on condemnation

City set value of property at $179,500, but jurors ruled it worth $500K

By carolyn o

By carolyn o’connell
Staff Writer

A jury has given Fred and Dorothy Strahlendorf what they say Long Branch would not — a fair price for their home.

On July 15, a six-person jury sitting in Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Reisner’s Freehold courtroom ruled that the $179,500 value the city placed on the Strahlendorfs’ two-story home was not adequate and awarded the longtime city residents $500,000 for their house and property, which is just 235 feet from the city’s beachfront.

"The appraisal done for the city excluded the fact that we were in such close proximity to the beach," Fred Strahlendorf said.

The Strahlendorfs’ home stood at 30 North Broadway, now the site of the Beachfront North construction site. The city’s appraisal of the property was conducted by McGuire Associates, Union City, before it was subject to eminent domain proceedings, which began on Jan. 23, 2001.

The five-bedroom residence with panoramic views had been home to the Strahlendorfs for 24 years before it was condemned and the family was evicted.

Over the years, the Strahlendorfs had updated the home to exactly the way they wanted it.

"We pampered and babied our home. There was a lot of sweat and tears put in," Strahlendorf said.

The property was formally condemned on Aug. 8, 2002, six years after the city declared properties on the oceanfront blighted in March 1996 as the first step in beginning the redevelopment process.

Following the city’s initiation of the condemnation process, the Strahlendorfs filed suit over the value the city placed on their property.

Judge Robert W. O’Hagan ruled in favor of the city, saying the value placed on the property was adequate. In that case, Paul Fernicola of Bowe and Fernicola, Red Bank, representing Beachfront North developer The Applied Cos., Hoboken, used comparative property sales that were west of Ocean Boulevard and 1.5 miles inland from the beach.

Fernicola argued that those properties, which are within the city, were appropriate, while the properties that the Strahlendorfs’ attorney, William Ward of Carlin and Ward, Florham Park, cited for comparison were not because they were in other communities, such as Belmar and Sea Bright, and could not be used as comparable for a home in Long Branch. O’Hagan accepted Fernicola’s argument.

O’Hagan also ruled that all three redevelopment projects — Beachfront North, Pier Village and Broadway — are considered one project.

That ruling made it virtually impossible for the Strahlendorfs to use any properties along the oceanfront in Long Branch for comparison, since the properties were all declared blighted in 1996. That declaration put a stop to sales of beachfront property in the city, according to Ward.

Because of the restrictions placed on the properties that could be used for comparison, the Strahlendorfs’ appraiser, Maurice Stack Jr., of Red Bank, had only one property, on Marion Place next to Charlie’s Restaurant, to use as a comparison for the Strahlendorfs’ home. Even that comparison was ruled out by O’Hagan because the sale of the property took place after the condemnation of the Strahlendorf property.

The jury of three men and three women, who heard the Strahlendorfs’ appeal, was not as quick to limit the parameters of comparison, and following Ward’s summation, delivered their very different verdict.

"This jury verdict represents a significant result for property owners whose land was acquired for this project," said Ward.

City Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. said the city would be appealing the verdict. "The verdict is absurd. I don’t know how the jury came to that verdict with the appraisals used."

Woolley noted that the property value most likely increased after the redevelopment efforts began.

Ward argued in court that the property was enhanced by its very location of being one house in from the beach. Secondly, he noted an increased value of the area and the shoreline because of the replenishment efforts made by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1997 and 1998.

During the hearing, Ward said that the city’s attorney created a presentation that the neighborhood was run down, inhabited by transients, and was a place for rooming houses.

Ward painted a different picture.

"The city has not been enforcing codes," said Ward, "which contributed to the decline of the neighborhoods."

According to Ward, city codes prohibit rooming houses, and the city allowed properties to become overgrown with weeds and lawns that went uncut.

Woolley said that the statement that there was a lack of code enforcement is totally without merit.

"Code enforcement was enforced fully," said Woolley. "But no amount of code enforcement could change the state of the neighborhood [Grinker and Grant avenues]," he said.

Woolley said he cannot recall for the past 60 years a neighborhood in that area, that it has always been run down, and that that is why city officials took measures to adopt a redevelopment plan for the area.

"For the last 20 years," said Fred Strahlendorf, "the attempts to redevelop the area was like living under a black cloud."

Ward said that when an area is deemed blighted and is subject to condemnation, people become reluctant to fix up their homes and sales cease.

"It’s the first verdict in any of the Beachfront North cases which comes close to the property owners’ position," said Ward.

Earlier condemnation cases which Ward represented in Beachfront North included the home of the Jennings family, located 400 feet from the beach, in which the city offered $119,000. A jury in March awarded the family $168,000.

Another property, owned by the Czeslaw family, one and a half blocks from the beach, was condemned with an offering price of $120,000 but was settled for $185,000.

According to Ward, another 20 appeals are currently pending.