Public Advocate Enters Lodi Eminent Domain Case, 11/15/06
TRENTON, N.J. – Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen today announced that his Department has filed an amicus curiae brief in a case before the Appellate Division in which Lodi residents face possible eviction from private trailer parks because of the town’s decision to take the property through eminent domain. The target area includes just over 20 acres of land along the south side of Route 46 in Lodi. The proposed redevelopment would feature a strip mall and an upscale senior housing complex. If the local government is successful in condemning the properties through eminent domain, it would displace some local businesses and two mobile home parks that provide scarce housing for low- and moderate-income residents. The tenants of more than 200 house trailers would face eviction. Chen urged the court to set forth clear and consistent standards in reviewing the municipality’s redevelopment determination. The Public Advocate contended that the correct standard of review of a municipality’s blight determination is whether there is substantial evidence that the area is in need of redevelopment. “In this matter, the trial court reached the correct ultimate conclusion – Lodi’s blight designation must fail,” Chen said. “However, the trial court’s decision and this appeal present significant legal issues relating to a municipality’s use of eminent domain for private redevelopment.” The burden of proof should rest with the municipality when the determination is challenged, not the residents, as the law is currently applied, Chen said. The Public Advocate contends that a municipality exercising eminent domain must be required to show objective evidence both of conditions meeting the statutory criteria for “blight” and of the resulting detriment to the community. A municipality must also be required to demonstrate that an area is predominantly blighted before the entire designated area may be taken. In addition, the Public Advocate maintains that municipalities’ constitutional obligation to provide affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents, first articulated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in overturning exclusionary zoning in the landmark case of Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, applies equally to the exercise of eminent domain. The brief contends that a redevelopment plan is constitutionally suspect if it results in a net loss of affordable housing in a municipality that does not have its fair share of such housing. “The use of eminent domain for economic revitalization disproportionately targets low-income and minority communities,” Chen said. “The courts must review with great skepticism the condemnation of low-income housing, without provision for replacement housing, in a community that does not provide its fair share of housing opportunities for poorer residents.” The case in Lodi began last year when Superior Court Judge Richard Donahue in Bergen County ruled that the borough had not acted properly when it condemned the properties. The Public Advocate supports the results of the 2005 Superior Court ruling.
|
