Public advocate challenges eminent domain timetable Tuesday, February 05, 2008 BY TOM HESTER Star-Ledger Staff The state public advocate ar gued before a state appeals court yesterday over whether a provision of the state redevelopment law that gives property owners little time to react to a condemnation is unconstitutional.
The case out of Harrison was one of two involving the issue of eminent domain -- the condemna tion of privately owned property by government for redevelopment -- dealt with by the courts yesterday. In a separate case, a two-judge panel ruled that the condemnation by the Borough of Belmar of the Belmar Mall -- a complex where three major tenants and 20 small "mom-and-pop" stores are located near the center of the business district and train station -- was unconstitutional. In the Harrison case, state Pub lic Advocate Ronald Chen and lawyers for three present and past property owners argued that the state's redevelopment law does not give property owners enough time to challenge a town's plans to take their property. They said the owners may not know their property is actually targeted for condemnation until years after the deadline for legal action has expired. In 1997, the Harrison Planning Board determined a portion of the town south of Route 280 was blighted and designated it as an "area in need of redevelopment" by Hoboken-based Harrison Commons Inc. Chen and supporting lawyers said when the planning board conducted a required public hearing, officials provided property owners only positive information about the benefits of redevelopment and told them it would not affect their property rights. A year later, the Harrison council adopted the planning board's redevelopment recommendation. Property owners had only 45 days under the law to initiate legal action opposing the blight designation, but the town did not identify any specific properties it intended to take through eminent domain. Another six years passed before property owners were notified the town planned to condemn their properties. By then, Chen said, the 45-day period to take legal action had long passed. "Under our current law, New Jersey residents can lose their property without adequate notice that their property will be taken and without a hearing," Chen said. "This case demonstrates why the current law fails to satisfy the due process requirements of the federal and state constitutions." The plaintiffs are Anthony De Rose, who owns a truck tire repair business at Middlesex Street and Second Avenue, which was described as doing $500,000 in business annually; Steve Adler and his sister, Marion Seltzer, who owned a 9-acre commuter parking lot and factory complex near the Harrison PATH station, and Manuel Amaral whose vehicle sales and service business faces eviction. Chen argued that any government notice of condemnation procedures must include notice of a property owner's right to challenge in court. Gregory Castano, counsel for the planning board, said the 45-day rule is intended to prevent last- minute challenges that can be expensive and time-consuming to a government. The appeals panel did not make an immediate ruling. In the Belmar decision, a two- judge panel overturned a state Superior Court ruling upholding the condemnation of the mall. The judges found the state constitution restricts government redevelopment to "blighted" areas and the businesses in the Belmar Mall are doing well. Borough officials want to erect a transit village of shops and houses there. The judges said a property is blighted if it is detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of a community, and the mall cannot be considered a "blight." "Private property owners de serve to know that their property will not be taken away from them simply because some third party wants to develop it," said Karen Harned, a lawyer and director of the legal arm of the Washington, D.C.-based National Federation of Independent Businesses.
