Chen Watchdogs Redevelopment Processes Across State To Ensure Fairness;

Long Branch and Harrison Cases Ongoing,

 Hearing Scheduled for Mount Holly

TRENTON, NJ – Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen will hold a public hearing in Mount Holly this week as part of continuing outreach to residents, business owners, mayors, planners and other interested parties who would be affected by redevelopment and the use – or threat – of eminent domain in various towns throughout New Jersey.

The hearing on Wednesday evening is the latest action by the Department of the Public Advocate in its 18-month effort aimed at reforming the redevelopment process to ensure that citizens are treated fairly, receive adequate protections from abuse, and receive adequate compensation and relocation assistance if they are displaced by redevelopment.  The hearing is being held to take public testimony about the redevelopment of the Mount Holly Gardens area.

The hearing will be held from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Wednesday, December 12, 2007, at the Lily of the Valley Pentecostal Church, 149 Rancocas Road (off Levis Drive, just outside the Mount Holly Gardens), Mount Holly. 

Through extensive research and outreach, the Public Advocate has found that property owners are vulnerable to abusive practices because of significant problems in the procedures municipalities use when private property is potentially slated to be condemned so it can be turned over to private redevelopers. 

Chen has worked closely with the Legislature to seek reforms in state laws governing the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment so tenants, homeowners and businesses are protected from potential abuses.

The Department’s investigation in Mount Holly is one of three matters throughout the state where the Department is either conducting research or involved in ongoing litigation relating to redevelopment and the use of eminent domain.  The Public Advocate recently asked a state appeals court to allow him to participate as an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” in disputes over redevelopment in Harrison in Hudson County. 

Likewise, the Department is participating as amicus curiae in an ongoing dispute between Long Branch officials and the residents of a beachfront neighborhood known as “MTOTSA.”  The Department filed a brief in that matter, which has not yet been scheduled for oral arguments before the Appellate Division.  

See Public Advocate: Appellate Court Should Reject Long Branch's Attempt to Strike Advocate's Brief, 2/13/07

The Department has participated in two other cases involving the use of eminent domain – one in Lodi and the other in Paulsboro – and in both cases the courts ruled in favor of the property owners and the Public Advocate.  In a landmark ruling in June in Gallenthin v. Paulsboro, the New Jersey Supreme Court narrowed the overly broad definition of an “area in need of redevelopment” in the State’s redevelopment statute.  New Jersey’s constitution allows eminent domain for private redevelopment only in “blighted areas”; the Supreme Court made clear that this constitutional provision limits the reach of the statute.  Since then, several lower courts have rejected local efforts to take property for private redevelopment because the areas in question did not meet the definition of blight described by the Supreme Court in the Gallenthin decision.

In our ongoing work in Long Branch, Harrison and Mount Holly, the Department has heard complaints from residents that the local government did not engage in a fair and transparent process, and that property owners were significantly disadvantaged as a result:

• In Long Branch, the record contains no evidence that the homeowners received either meaningful notice that their homes might be subject to condemnation or a real opportunity to contest the city’s actions.  The Public Advocate also argues that the determination that the neighborhood was blighted was based on a cursory and superficial review of the area, and the residents should have been given an opportunity to engage in full discovery and to challenge the city’s actions in a hearing before a judge.

• In Harrison, the pending cases involve three business owners who contend that they were not properly notified that their businesses and land could be condemned for redevelopment, and thus did not have a fair opportunity to challenge the city in court.

• In Mount Holly, residents and an advocacy group called Citizens in Action sued the township claiming, among other things, that their neighborhood is not blighted, that the redevelopment plan will have a discriminatory impact, and that the township has not planned adequately for their relocation.  They also argue that the redevelopment project could lead to the demolition of a significant amount of the town’s affordable housing, in violation of the Mount Laurel doctrine.  Both the trial court and the Appellate Division ruled against the residents, and on December 6, 2007 their petition for review by the New Jersey Supreme Court was denied.

“I want to stress that we are going to Mount Holly to conduct a fact-finding hearing and we have not reached any conclusions about the redevelopment process in that community.  After hearing complaints from the residents, we want to hear directly from them how they have been affected by redevelopment, and we also want to hear the town’s perspective on this project,” said Chen. 

“We’re interested in hearing whether or not the process was fair, open and transparent.  We want to hear whether or not residents have been fairly compensated and successfully relocated,” he said.  “I also want to know if affordable housing is being demolished without plans to replace it.  This information could help us in our continuing efforts to reform not only our redevelopment laws, but also our rules on affordable housing, to better protect the rights of tenants and property owners.”

Chen’s department invited Mount Holly officials to speak at the hearing but they have declined, citing ongoing litigation.

The Public Advocate noted that while the facts in each controversy over redevelopment and eminent domain vary and are specific to each community’s plans and actions, existing statutes do not adequately protect property owners from abuse.

Mount Holly Gardens is a diverse and affordable residential neighborhood that once included more than 300 attached, garden-style units built in the 1950s.  Most of the units are owned by absentee landlords and rented to tenants.  The township declared the area “in need of redevelopment” in 2002 and has bought 219 of the units without resorting to condemnation proceedings.  More than two dozen units have already been demolished, and many of the township-owned properties have been boarded up and left vacant.  Roughly two-thirds of the 307 housing units in the Gardens are now vacant.  The current redevelopment plan lists a range of options, potentially including demolition of most of the units.

While the township has not attempted to seize homes through eminent domain, it deemed the area to be blighted, giving it the authority to ultimately use eminent domain.