"At long last, we can get our homes, lives and neighborhood back"

Damon W. Root | September 15, 2009

Great news from New Jersey today as the libertarian legal aces at the Institute for Justice scored a major victory against eminent domain abuse. From IJ's press release:

"At long last, we can get our homes, lives and neighborhood back," said Lori Vendetti, who owns one of the homes across the street from the house her parents bought more than 40 years ago—a home where her mother still resides.  "I am so glad my father and the other seniors in the neighborhood were able to live out their days in their homes, but I wish they could have been here to see this wonderful conclusion."  Lori's father, Carmen Vendetti, passed away in June of this year while still battling to protect the home the former truck driver built for his family.

Under the terms of the agreement announced today, the city must dismiss the eminent domain actions filed against the MTOTSA homeowners in 2005.  (MTOTSA is an acronym for the streets Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue, the neighborhood targeted for eminent domain for private gain.)  Just as important, the order also provides that the city is barred from taking the homes in the future under the current or any subsequent redevelopment plan.  The agreement further provides that the homeowners can take advantage of tax abatements, just as the city-designated developer was permitted to do, for reinvesting in their properties.  The city is also paying a portion of the attorneys' fees for the homeowners.

Comments

|9.15.09 @ 4:57PM|#

Whoo Hoo!

Made my day,

Attorney|9.15.09 @ 5:05PM|#

This is interesting, from the press release:

Since Kelo, four state supreme courts have so far rejected the decision while not one has adopted it.

BTW -- The only thing Long Branch has going for it is that it's not as much of a dump as Asbury Park. (Not that that means people shouldn't be able to live there if they want!)

|9.15.09 @ 5:26PM|#

The fact that such a large swath of oceanside property is in such a dismal state is quite depressing, as well as very surprising, does not give the local government the power to take people's homes and land from them. If you think you can do something better with it, make a reasonable offer to the owners. If they turn that offer down, make a better one, or give up. Please don't resort to official theft to make your economic and zoning dreams come true.

|9.15.09 @ 5:29PM|#

Clearly an article from The Onion.

Or is there a new publication that can actually tap into alternate universes for their stories?

|9.15.09 @ 5:37PM|#

First reaction:
HA HA HA HA, Suck on that city planners everywhere!

I'm not so sure I'm on board with this:
...the order also provides that the city is barred from taking the homes in the future under the current or any subsequent redevelopment plan.
"This decision can never be reversed" pronouncements, are pretty much meaningless I think.

And I've got mixed feelings about:
The agreement further provides that the homeowners can take advantage of tax abatements, just as the city-designated developer was permitted to do, for reinvesting in their properties.
If there are tax abatements then they should be available to everyone. Just not a fan of tax abatements to begin with.

And I'm a fan of "loser pays" so:
The city is also paying a portion of the attorneys' fees for the homeowners.
is probably the correct decision, only umm.. where does the city get that money from?

hammeredHead|9.15.09 @ 5:45PM|#

Any arrests of city officials? Nope, looks like the taxpayers get screwed again. Good news otherwise....

Attorney|9.15.09 @ 5:51PM|#

Warren -- Just to be clear, this appears to be a settlement, not a court ruling.

Tricky Prickears|9.15.09 @ 5:54PM|#

Eminent Domain has been seriously abused in NJ. I tell you this as a resident of the state. These abuses have mostly occurred in the past 10 years or so. In fact, 35 years ago, when they were building the AC casinos, there was one homeowner, an elderly woman, who refused to sell her little bungalow to the casino (I forget which one). They kept offering her more and more money, but she refused. The city did not throw ED at her. Instead, they actually built the casino over her home. No shit. I wish I had a picture. I went down one day and saw it. It was amazing. The woman has since died, and the home removed.

The recent ED attacks started, probably when Rowan University (formerly Glassboro State College) wanted to expand. They needed to purchase the neigboring land to build a new engineering school. The land owner refused to sell, and the state threatened ED. I don't remember the outcome, but I believe the land owner eventually sold part of his property. After that, it was all downhill. Individual townships and municipalities found out that they had the ability to use ED. I won't go into any of the individual cases, but it got so bad that local politicians began using it in their campaigns.

Recently, I believe that the State of NJ passed a law requiring that all local ED cases get State approval. This particular case started before the law was enacted.

ED has been very effective in cleaning up urban blight. As you can see from the NJ Star Ledger Article there are still 20 homes (abandoned) that will be demolished as a result of ED.

And BTW, where was NJ Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate Ken Kaplan in all of this? I haven't seen or heard, hide nor hair of him.

|9.15.09 @ 6:03PM|#

The fact that such a large swath of oceanside property is in such a dismal state is quite depressing, as well as very surprising, does not give the local government the power to take people's homes and land from them. If you think you can do something better with it, make a reasonable offer to the owners. If they turn that offer down, make a better one, or give up. Please don't resort to official theft to make your economic and zoning dreams come true.


I suspect the problem is that zoning restrictions prevent the propety from being used for commercial development, and since it's a depressed area, offers from residential developers are scarce.

The combined effects of zoning and eminent domain are grotesque. The homeowner can't develop his own property or convert it to commercial activity as long as it is zoned residential, but it can be seized by the state, rezoned as a block and sold to a commercial developer en masse. Which in the process not only screws over small property owners, but rewards politically connected developers.

It's absurd and unjust that a small homeowner can't turn his house into a commercial property, but a large developer can get the city government to seize it and rezone it and then sell it to him at a steep discount.

If the small homeowner was allowed to convert his own house to a commercial property without zonign restrictions, not only would he be able to profit economically from his property, but the converted homes would make for a more aesthetic urban landscape, protect historic districts from destruction, and avoid wasting resources tearing down buildings to construct new ones.

Attorney|9.15.09 @ 6:05PM|#

Tricky -- Is this it?

In Other News|9.15.09 @ 6:09PM|#

"The House voted 240-179 along party lines to admonish Rep. Joe Wilson over his 'you lie' outburst to President Barack Obama during the president's health-care speech to Congress last week."

Tricky Prickears|9.15.09 @ 6:30PM|#

Attorney

No, the house I'm talking about was a little one-story bungalow. It was a long time ago, but I asked my Father and he concurred. And it was when they first started building the casinos. That picture looks recent. Although, I'm sure they are still having problems with holdouts, especially now that the casinos are expanding. But wait, they're not making any money, right?

Tricky Prickears|9.15.09 @ 6:41PM|#

The homeowner can't develop his own property or convert it to commercial activity as long as it is zoned residential,

No, that's not necessarily true, not in NJ. A homeowner can apply for a zoning variance with the local planning board. When purchasing a property, a variance can be applied for before the sale. And if the variance is not approved, the buyer is released from the contract of sale. Say, if a builder wanted to subdivide 50 acres of agricultural into residential, and vice versa. It can be difficult, but it's not impossible. Usually, with large projects, the person applying for the variance must get approval from the owners of the neighboring properties, then a town meeting will be held.

|9.15.09 @ 7:35PM|#

No, that's not necessarily true, not in NJ. A homeowner can apply for a zoning variance with the local planning board.

Hmm, well in these eminent domain cases, it would be interesting to investigate whether any of the property owners had been denied zoning variances prior to the eminent domain seizure. It strikes me that a developer looking to acquire a parcel of property through eminent domain could easily influence the planning board to stop small landowners from redeveloping property on their own.

|9.15.09 @ 8:40PM|#

MTOTSA is an acronym for the streets Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue...

Obviously they just wanted to get the three streets of the same color, put a hotel on it, and then next time someone landed on any of them -- pow! wiped out of the game!

Tricky Prickears|9.15.09 @ 9:22PM|#

Hmm, well in these eminent domain cases, it would be interesting to investigate whether any of the property owners had been denied zoning variances prior to the eminent domain seizure. It strikes me that a developer looking to acquire a parcel of property through eminent domain could easily influence the planning board to stop small landowners from redeveloping property on their own.


I would say that's a stretch. There's not a whole lot a property owner, in this case, could do with a single piece of land. Except maybe tear down and rebuild, and there's no special variance required for that. The properties themselves are very small lots. The developer was looking to acquire several adjacent lots. But, I have no doubt, that regarding the developer and the planning board, there were some back room dealings going on. I've always said, that if it were not for bribes, payoffs and kickbacks, nothing would get done.

jtuf|9.15.09 @ 9:45PM|#

Thanks, I needed some good news.

|9.16.09 @ 1:04AM|#

I would say that's a stretch. There's not a whole lot a property owner, in this case, could do with a single piece of land. Except maybe tear down and rebuild, and there's no special variance required for that.

Why couldn't the homeowner just convert the home into a business directly? Why tear down and rebuild? Why not open a cafe or a shoe shop in the living room. A lot of businesses in older areas are in converted houses.

|9.16.09 @ 1:52AM|#

I would say that's a stretch.

What, you're forgetting the "use eminent domain to seize land where the owners want to put a CVS so the city's favored developer can build a Walgreen's because the owners wouldn't pay that developer a bribe" case? You know, the Didden v. Port Chester case that new Justice Sotomayor was on?

It sounds like a stretch, but considering Didden v. Port Chester, I'd believe anything out of New York and New Jersey.