on use of condemnation
Resident presses council
on use of condemnation
BY KATHY BARATTA
Staff Writer
An amended version of the Howell Township Council’s Route 33 redevelopment study was scheduled to be released for public review this week.
The redevelopment study prepared by township planner Michael Vena was returned to him because property owners who were required to be formally notified of the proposal had been excluded in an initial notification, according to township officials.
In another aspect of the redevelopment issue, a promise made by a councilman not to use the government’s power of eminent domain (condemnation) to redevelop the Route 33 corridor from the Freehold Town-ship border to the Wall Township border is being doubted by some whose property lies in the sights of the area slated for redevelopment.
"I’ll be damned if we’re going to do that" was the promise made earlier this month by Republican Councilman Joseph DiBella, who is running for mayor of Howell in November.
At the time, DiBella suggested that the council pass a resolution stating that condemnation of property would not be used to redevelop Route 33. His proposal for a resolution was opposed by Republican councilmen Peter Tobasco and Juan Malave, who said they did not want to eliminate a power provided to them under state law.
However, Tobasco and Malave amended their opposition to DiBella’s proposal at the July 20 council meeting. Both men said they would now agree to pass a resolution that was carefully crafted to reflect that condemnation of a property would be left available to them, if only to be used as a last resort, to rehabilitate a property that was obviously in a state of abandonment with no pretext of viable use by its owner.
That did not appease Fran Malsbury a Route 33 resident and business operator. To applause from the crowd, Malsbury compared the proposed redevelopment of Howell’s Route 33 corridor to the redevelopment and regentrification of Hoboken that she said was achieved by driving out established property owners who were paying lower assessed taxes in favor of private developers who received tax abatement incentives.
Malsbury also compared the situation to Long Branch, where she said property owners are facing eviction from their homes so that a developer can proceed with a beachfront project that would produce more tax revenue for the city.
Council members reassured Malsbury that Howell is not Hoboken or Long Branch and said there are no plans to offer sweetheart deals to any developer.
Malsbury countered that assertion by asking why a redevelopment plan is necessary if present property owners are going to be left to conduct life and business as usual.
DiBella restated the council’s position that the redevelopment effort, along with any property acquisitions, would be aimed at any dilapidated, run-down buildings or properties along the Route 33 corridor.
The redevelopment authority, which would be the council, would, according to state statute, have the power of eminent domain to complete the redevelopment plan.
Some of the stated criteria in the present proposal for a parcel eligible for redevelopment includes an area where "the generality of buildings are substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated or obsolescent, or possess any of such characteristics, or are so lacking in light, air or space as to be conductive to unwholesome living or working conditions."
The report goes on to state the intention of the criteria is "…to address outdated buildings or deteriorated conditions across a range of properties which combine to create a blighting influence on a neighborhood or section of a municipality."