Show Us the Blight
Today a New Jersey appeals court overturned a ruling that allowed the city of Long Branch to proceed with its plan to condemn a seaside neighborhood and replace it with luxury condominiums. The appeals court found that the city had failed to support its claim that the neighborhood was "blighted," as required by state law and the state constitution. Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice, which represents many of the neighborhood's homeowners, says this looks like the end of the project:
The Court basically told the city that if that's all it has, it can't take these homes. It's too late for the city to manufacture more evidence, so the Court's ruling is a fatal blow to the city. We are confident the owners will prevail on remand.
The appeals court ruling was based on a 2007 decision (PDF) in which the New Jersey Supreme Court said a municipality cannot arbitrarily label property "blighted" simply because it has in mind what it considers a better use for the land. I noted the Long Beach case a couple of years ago, when I.J. first became involved. Click through to see examples of the allegedly blighted homes.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We need a case like this in Texas, badly.
I'm leaving everything i have to the Institute for Justice. Score...
Fuckin' A! That's wonderful news.
More good news on the freedom front.
Given how badly the market for condos has tanked pretty much everywhere, this project would be mostly dead in the water even if the city could get away with taking the property. I would hope the city takes this into consideration in deciding whether to keep thrashing around in the courts.
If you really want to stop this sort of thing, tightening up the "blight" definition is the most fertile ground.
One man's blight is another man's beauty, regardless of how "objective" Joe claims the definition can be.
One man's blight is another man's beauty, regardless of how "objective" Joe claims the definition can be.
Are you referring to another joe, not the one who commented directly before you? That one referred to the non objective nature of the word.
Or maybe it's opposite day for somebody.
I'unno.
Maybe the Free State Project should move to New Jersey...
...or, if you don't really want to stop this sort of thing, so much as complain about it, or just ride the issue to try to push some other agenda, then tightening up the definition of blight probably isn't much up your alley.
If you really wanted to stop this thing, you could remove blight as a criteria for ED.
If you really wanted to stop this thing, you could revoke the power of ED from the state.
If you really wanted to stop this sort of thing you could enforce the actual 5th Amendment to the Constitution as it is written instead of the etch-a-sketch version dreamed up by some judges who don't know how to read.
The city won't stop fighting this even if the project is dead meat. It undercuts all future ED projects in the state; they have every incentive to fight on the (non) principle of the thing.
"...this project would be mostly dead in the water even if the city could get away with taking the property."-ChrisO
Yes, but if the homeowners had not fought for their property a likely outcome would have been that the residents be kicked out, the homes razed, and the developer bugging out of the project before the condos were built. Leaving a truly blighted neighborhood.
The problem, MP, is that you couldn't really do either of those things.
Whereas tightening up the definitnion of blight is something that has a chance in hell of actually happening.
Which brings us back to the "really want to do something" vs. "want to complain" distinction.
As someone who lives 20 minutes from Long Branch, NJ, and frequent it fairly often, this is awesome. Its nice to actually be decently happy about a court decision once every few weeks.
If you really want to stop this sort of thing, tightening up the "blight" definition is the most fertile ground.
That would help, but that's a bandaid. Eminent domain shouldn't be used for private development, period. We need to tighten up the definition of "public use" is what we need. Kind of like what Gilbert said.
We need to tighten up the definition of "public use" is what we need.
You're up against 200 years of legal history, including the original intent of the framers, as well as overwhelming public opinion in favor of certain types of redevelopment planning.
There is political support for not allowing occupied homes in viable, lower-income neighborhoods to be taken. There is no political support for doing away with, for example, redeveloping vacant lots in order to save and enhance such neighborhoods.
Your, and Gil's, commentd bring us back to "or just ride the issue to try to push some other agenda." Like I said, if you want to stop this sort of thing, tightening up the blight definition is the way to go. If stopping some other things is your real goal, and takings like this are the equivalent of the farmers rolled out during debates over the inheritance tax, addressing the blight definition probably isn't going to do much for you.
I should say, you're up against 200 years of legal history, if you want to tighten up the definition of "public use" in a way that would eliminate all takings for redevelopment plans.
Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent was about putting some borders around that term, but not to the extent you're talking about.
I should say, you're up against 200 years of legal history,
And Thurgood Marshall was up against 170 years of legal history when he won Brown v. Board of Education. So what?
There is no political support for doing away with, for example, redeveloping vacant lots in order to save and enhance such neighborhoods.
The Constitution exists to stop the State from doing many things for which it has "political support."
Besides, joe, I never said anything about not trying to work every angle, including the definition of "blight".
So what?
So, you're not Thurgood Marshall, and stopping the government from combatting actual blight isn't the Civil Rights movement.
The Constitution exists to stop the State from doing many things for which it has "political support." That's nice. My comment is about political efficacy.
Besides, joe, I never said anything about not trying to work every angle, including the definition of "blight".
That's good. There are those who adopt a "worse is better" stance, and would prefer not to end the really abusive projects, so they can be poster children for a much broader agenda.
Although this just affects NJ, this is a big deal because most courts slavishly defer to the states in the definition of blight.