TRENTON, NJ -- In a unanimous ruling that will limit the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment, the state Supreme Court ruled that towns cannot condemn property unless the area is deteriorated or stagnant and harmful to the surrounding community.

“This ruling provides stronger protections for people whose homes, businesses or property are targeted for condemnation so a town can redevelop an area,” said Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen. “This is a victory for New Jersey citizens.”

“The decision rejects the argument that municipal government can take New Jersey homes and businesses simply because they believe the land could be put to better use,” Chen added. “The ruling also requires municipalities to better document the reasons for using eminent domain.”

The Public Advocate had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro.

Chen said the ruling would have far-reaching effects both on current and future redevelopment projects where blight is at issue. The ruling will give property and business owners stronger protections and a better chance of contesting a town’s blight designation.

Essentially, the court narrowed the definition of blight to its historic roots by allowing properties to be taken only when they are part of an area that is a detriment to the health, welfare and safety of a community.

 “At its core, ‘blight’ includes deterioration or stagnation that has a decadent effect on surrounding property,” Chief Justice James Zazzali wrote in the 42-page decision.

The Public Advocate had argued that current state law defines blight so broadly that it could apply to virtually any property in New Jersey. Chen urged the courts to narrow that definition to protect the rights of property owners across the state.

The justices agreed.

“If such an all-encompassing definition were adopted, most property in the State would be eligible for redevelopment,” the ruling said. “Such an approach is not reconcilable with the New Jersey Constitution.”

In the case, Paulsboro sought to declare 63-acres of undeveloped land in need of redevelopment – a precursor to condemnation -- because it was “not fully productive.”

The court rejected that blight designation, essentially enforcing the state constitutional limit on the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment.

In addition, the court said that towns must show “substantial evidence” to support their blight designations. “A municipality must establish a record that contains more than a bland recitation of applicable statutory criteria and a declaration that those criteria were met,” the ruling said.

While the decision strengthens protections for property owners, the state Legislature still needs to act to prevent the misuse of eminent domain, Chen said.

The central question before the court was the definition of blight. But, the Public Advocate’s recent report documented other areas of eminent domain abuse, including lack of proper notification, an uneven playing field when people challenge a town in court and inadequate compensation when towns take property.

Proposed legislation, A-3257, which was sponsored by Assemblyman John Burzichelli, not only further narrows the definition of blight, but also provides these additional protections.

“We look forward to working with the Legislature to get a measure passed by the end of the year that provides for a fair and transparent process that protects people’s rights, while allowing sound redevelopment projects to move forward,” Chen said.

To read the Public Advocate’s reports and briefs on eminent domain, go to state.nj.us/publicadvocate.

Read the court's ruling.