Impact of House bill on redevelopment unclear

Questions about whether bill restricting eminent domain applies to city

BY CHRISTINE VARNO Staff Writer

BY CHRISTINE VARNO
Staff Writer

LONG BRANCH –– The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last week restricting the use of eminent domain by local governments and there is disagreement over its impact on redevelopment in the city.

“It appears that Long Branch would not be affected in any way,” said James Aaron about H.R. 4128, the Private Property Protection Act of 2005, that passed by a vote of 376 to 38 in the U.S. House of Representatives on Nov. 3.

“The bill will affect commercial development,” Aaron explained. “Long Branch is working under a redevelopment statute. The bill says nothing about a redevelopment statute.”

The bill, which will now go to the Senate, denies economic development funds to state and local governments for two fiscal years that use eminent domain for private commercial development.

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-6) spoke in support of the bill during the debate on the House floor, according to a press release from his Congressional office.

“I believe the Private Property Rights Protection Act is a strong first step in the fight against eminent domain abuse,” Pallone said, according to a press release.

“We have an obligation to protect our citizens as we revitalize our aging neighborhoods. We should not sit idly by and tolerate abuses of eminent domain in the name of economic revitalization,” Pallone said.

According to Pallone spokesman Andrew Souvall, the bill must progress to the Senate.

“There are no plans at this time for Senate [to vote on the bill],” Souvall said. “Realistically, it may not happen for a couple of months.”

But an attorney who has been retained to represent two homeowners in the city’s Beachfront North, phase II redevelopment zone, known as MTOTSA (Marine and Ocean Terraces and Seaview Avenues) said the bill is unclear.

“If Long Branch has federal funds in the [MTOTSA] project, the city may not be able to go forward with the acquisitions,” William J. Ward of Carlin & Ward, Florham Park, said.

“But it is confusing. It is not clear if the city has to receive federal funds in general or if it has to receive those funds for the specific redevelopment project,” he said.

The residents living in the three-street MTOTSA neighborhood have begun receiving notices from the city that they could be evicted from their homes as early as Feb. 1.

Plans for MTOTSA call for designated redeveloper MM-Beachfront North II, comprising co-developers Matzel & Mumford, a division of K. Hovnanian, Middletown, and the Applied Cos., Hoboken, to bulldoze the neighborhood and construct three buildings with a total of 185 condominium units in its place.

The residents in the neighborhood have accused the city of abusing its power to invoke eminent domain and have been pleading with the city for two years to spare their homes from the redevelopment.

An attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit law firm based in Washington, D.C., that specializes in the protection of private property rights, said the bill could potentially affect all cities in New Jersey if it becomes law.

“Cities would have to choose between economic development or economic funds,” Dana Berliner, IJ senior attorney said.

According to the bill, economic development is defined as “taking private property without the consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property from one private person or entity to another private person or entity for commercial enterprise carried on for profit, to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment or general economic health.”

Berliner said, “The House, including large numbers of members from both sides of the aisle, should be applauded for passing the bill, which will help protect American homes and small business owners from the abuse of eminent domain.”

“The legislation strikes the perfect balance. It serves to reassure every American that federal dollars —- their own money — won’t be used to kick them off their land, while allowing state and local governments to use federal dollars for actual public uses, like roads and military bases.”

But Pallone said he thinks legislation stronger than this bill should be approved to “ensure that we curb all abuses of eminent domain.”

“The Protect Our Homes Act simply states there should be no taking of homes for economic development unless there are rare and exceptional circumstances involving a public health crisis,” Pallone said.

About one month ago, Pallone introduced his own legislation in the U.S, House of Representatives to prohibit communities from invoking eminent domain, except under extreme circumstances.

The legislation would seek to provide federal incentives to encourage municipalities to accomplish the following:

•Show that they have explored all necessary alternatives to eminent domain;

•Ensure that, in the rare cases where homes are taken, all homeowners receive compensation well beyond the market value to reflect relocation cost and intangible value of a family’s home;

•Redevelopment plans include affordable housing for families and seniors and an equivalent housing plan in the case of commercial development; and

•Provide the residents of a community have the ability to petition their local government to include a referendum on the project.

“We are hoping to receive support and move forward,” Souvall said about Pallone’s proposal.

Pallone said during the House debate on the Private Property Rights Petition Act of 2005 that he was pleased to support that legislation because “it will send a strong message that taking private homes for generating revenue will not be tolerated.”

“There is still much more for Congress to do to prevent eminent domain abuse,” he said.