LONG BRANCH — The city has come out on top in two separate Superior Court decisions regarding its controversial redevelopment plan and underlying blight designation.
Judge Lawrence M. Lawson ruled in the last two months in two separate decisions against plaintiffs challenging the city.
Lawson ruled against a suit brought by resident Robert Krebs on Nov. 16 and against business owners Kevin and Adele Fister on Oct. 12.
Krebs, a Beachfront South resident, was the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed in March challenging the city’s blight designation of the zone that includes his Ocean Avenue home.
The suit sought to overturn “an unconstitutional designation of private property as blighted” and sought “damages and injunctive relief against the City and the Mayor of Long Branch for their refusal to vacate the designation of blighted despite its unconstitutionality for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of his rights under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions to enjoy and protect his private property free of being taken without just compensation.”
Peter Dickson, of Potter and Dickson, Princeton, is representing Krebs, while Robert Beckelman, of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, Woodbridge, is representing the city.
The complaint challenged two actions adopted in January by the City Council: an ordinance clarifying zoning regulations within the zone and a resolution banning the use of eminent domain to take properties in the zone.
In his ruling Lawson said that Krebs failed to prove that the city’s blight designation caused him any harm.
“He has not demonstrated how the city’s alleged unconstitutional actions caused any injury,” the decision states. “This court is not bound to consider plaintiff’s constitutional challenges in the absence of any genuine controversy.”
The complaint also states that Krebs has been unable to improve his property because of constraints imposed by the redevelopment zoning regulations.
However, Lawson’s decision states that Krebs did not propose any plans to develop his property that the city would refuse.
The court also ruled that Krebs’ suit failed to meet the time requirements to institute a challenge, set at 45 days.
“Plaintiff argues that the 45-day rule has evolved from a firm rule to an instructive guideline or a default position to invoke when a plaintiff files late and does not explain its failure to appeal within 45 days by either demonstrating inadequate notice or that important public interests are at stake,” the decision states.
Dickson said that it is likely an appeal of the Krebs’ decision will be filed with the court’s Appellate Division.
“Obviously we are disappointed in the judge’s decision; we don’t feel like his decision was correct,” Dickson said in an interview. “[I’m] not quite sure what the next step will be, but I am pretty sure it will be to appeal.
“There hasn’t been a definitive final decision on that yet,” he added. “[I] wish it had been otherwise and I think we will get a different result in the Appellate Division.”
According to the complaint, Beachfront South became a redevelopment zone in 1996 and Krebs purchased his home in 2000, aware of the designation but unaware of its significance.
Beckelman said that the city was confident that it would win the case.
“The city is comfortable in what it was doing as far as the Beachfront South redevelopment,” he said in an interview. “We think we made a rational and sensible decision that was in everybody’s best interest and Mr. Krebs disagreed.”
Beckelman went on to say that the city is willing to work with Krebs.
“As was always the case, if Mr. Krebs wants to come and talk to the city about what he wants to do with his property, we’d be happy to listen to him,” he said. “If he wants to sell his property, we’ll help facilitate that; if he wants to develop it, we’ll talk to him and help facilitate that.”
The Fister suit was filed in 2009 against the city and the City Council on behalf of their Lower Broadway businesses, Fuschia Triangle Corp. and Coach Corp.
Lawson had already rejected the Fister case in 2009, but Dickson, who is also representing the Fisters, amended the complaint in July arguing that the city’s blight designation violates the Fisters’ civil rights.
“The freedom to acquire, own, develop, redevelop and freely to sell or transfer private property is a fundamental civil right guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution, the United States Constitution and laws enacted pursuant thereto, including but not limited to the United States Civil Rights Act,” the complaint states.
However, Lawson ruled against the amendment in his Oct. 12 decision.
In April 2009, William Potter submitted his original complaint against the city and the City Council on behalf of the Fisters, seeking damages and to overturn the city’s unconstitutional designation of private property as blighted.
The complaint was followed by a request for an enlargement of time that would expand the challenge window from 45 days to 13 years.
The two sides met in Superior Court on the enlargement issue in October, when Potter argued that his clients were not fully informed of the ramifications of being in the zone.
In his July 26, 2009, motion for enlargement, Potter cited criteria the courts have used to grant enlargements, including substantial and novel constitutional questions and an important public, rather than private, interest that requires adjudication or clarification as exceptions the courts have used for granting enlargement.
The court found that the plaintiffs did not give adequate reasoning for why the 2009 decision should be reconsidered.
“Plaintiffs fail to show good cause for reconsideration and merely argue that this court’s initial determination as to enlargement failed to address the potential impact of enlargement upon both Fuschia plaintiffs and the City of Long Branch,” the decision states.
Dickson said that the Fister case is still scheduled to be heard in state Superior Court in Monmouth County on an inverse condemnation complaint.
“In the Fister case there’s still an inverse condemnation claim, and that will go forward as I understand it,” he said. “There will be an appealable event in that case.”
City Attorney James Aaron said in an interviewthat the city is willing to settle with the plaintiffs.
“The city is still trying to settle the case with the property owner. The mayor has taken a trip to the attorney’s offices who represent the property owner,” he said. “The city has not gotten a response from the mayor’s visit.”
Aaron expects the case to evolve as the two sides move into the discovery stage.
“The case is going to proceed through the discovery stage at this point and we will see how it evolves in discovery,” he said.
In April a three-judge appellate panel released an unpublished opinion that the redevelopment ordinances in the Broadway Arts District are invalid. The opinion invalidated the 1996 redevelopment ordinances, specifically the blight designation.
The city’s six redevelopment zones are Beachfront South, Beachfront North, Broadway Gateway, Hotel Campus, Broadway Arts, and Pier Village.