TRENTON – Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen, left, today praised the Appellate Division’s landmark eminent domain ruling that guarantees property owners greater protections when their property is targeted for condemnation so it can be redeveloped by another private party.
In a published opinion, the appeals panel held that the “government has an overriding obligation to deal forthrightly and fairly with property owners.” The Public Advocate participated in the case as amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” and Chen personally presented oral argument to the court on February 4.
Under the New Jersey Constitution, a municipality may take private property from one owner and transfer it to another for redevelopment only if it is in a “blighted area.” The “public purpose” of such a taking is to stop the spread of the deterioration and clear up the blight.
The decision today in Harrison Redevelopment Agency v. DeRose makes clear that a property owner retains the right to challenge a blight designation until the last stages of the redevelopment process when the municipality exercises its power to condemn the property through eminent domain. The Township of Harrison, like many other municipalities around the State, had argued that property owners lose the right to make such a challenge years earlier, around the time when the area is declared to be blighted or “in need of redevelopment.”
The ruling applies to any challenge to eminent domain that is still active in the court system, and could lead to reopening disputes over blight designations in other pending cases.
The court held that, if a municipality wants to settle the legality of a blight designation earlier in the redevelopment process, it must go beyond the requirements of the current statute governing redevelopment and provide individualized written notice to all owners in the targeted area. That notice must inform the owner (1) that his or her property has been designated for redevelopment, (2) that this designation authorizes the municipality to take the property against the owner’s will, and (3) that the owner has 45 days to challenge the designation in Superior Court. Only owners who receive such notice may lose the right to challenge a blight designation later in the process, and even in such cases, the courts may exercise their discretion to extend the time “in the interest of justice.”
The rulings in the Harrison appeals reverse the trial court and gives three business owners the opportunity to contest the taking of their property for a private redevelopment project. The ruling also resolves conflicting unpublished rulings by appeals panels and trial courts as to what due process protections property owners have when their property is targeted for redevelopment.
EDITORS' NOTE: There will be more on this ruling in this weeks' edition of The Observer and an in-depth article in the March 5 issue.
In a published opinion, the appeals panel held that the “government has an overriding obligation to deal forthrightly and fairly with property owners.” The Public Advocate participated in the case as amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” and Chen personally presented oral argument to the court on February 4.
Under the New Jersey Constitution, a municipality may take private property from one owner and transfer it to another for redevelopment only if it is in a “blighted area.” The “public purpose” of such a taking is to stop the spread of the deterioration and clear up the blight.
The decision today in Harrison Redevelopment Agency v. DeRose makes clear that a property owner retains the right to challenge a blight designation until the last stages of the redevelopment process when the municipality exercises its power to condemn the property through eminent domain. The Township of Harrison, like many other municipalities around the State, had argued that property owners lose the right to make such a challenge years earlier, around the time when the area is declared to be blighted or “in need of redevelopment.”
The ruling applies to any challenge to eminent domain that is still active in the court system, and could lead to reopening disputes over blight designations in other pending cases.
The court held that, if a municipality wants to settle the legality of a blight designation earlier in the redevelopment process, it must go beyond the requirements of the current statute governing redevelopment and provide individualized written notice to all owners in the targeted area. That notice must inform the owner (1) that his or her property has been designated for redevelopment, (2) that this designation authorizes the municipality to take the property against the owner’s will, and (3) that the owner has 45 days to challenge the designation in Superior Court. Only owners who receive such notice may lose the right to challenge a blight designation later in the process, and even in such cases, the courts may exercise their discretion to extend the time “in the interest of justice.”
The rulings in the Harrison appeals reverse the trial court and gives three business owners the opportunity to contest the taking of their property for a private redevelopment project. The ruling also resolves conflicting unpublished rulings by appeals panels and trial courts as to what due process protections property owners have when their property is targeted for redevelopment.
EDITORS' NOTE: There will be more on this ruling in this weeks' edition of The Observer and an in-depth article in the March 5 issue.
