NJ Appellate Court Finds No Evidence of Blight to Support Eminent Domain Action

Relying on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Gallenthin v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007) which held that state statute requires a finding of actual blight (f N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5) an appellate court  remanded the matter for a plenary hearing, finding that the record was devoid of the requisite substantial evidence of blight.  

 

 

The New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog explains:

 

The remand willl also involve the resolution of the conflicting interpretations of the parties regarding the term, “residential infill.” The original redevelopment plan called for the MTOTSA properties to be “residential infill.” It is clear from the documents produced by Long Branch that this term means single family residential. The city interprets this term to mean that they could proceed to acquire these properties and build an additional 185 residential condominiums. The court will be asked to determine whether or not the MTOTSA area acquisitions are necessary for the implementation of the redevelopment plan. It is the property owners’ contention that the plan for Beachfront North, as originally designed, has been built. The MTOTSA property owners hotly contest the City’s interpretation of “residential infill,” and the Appellate Division has asked Judge Lawson to address that in a hearing with additional findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to R. 1:7-4.

 

City of Long Branch v. Anzalone, 2008 WL 3090052 (N.J.Super. A.D. 8/7/2008 ).

 

The opinion can be accessed at:

http://www.njeminentdomain.com/a0067-a0191-a0192-a0195-a0196-a0197-a0198-a0654-06.pdf

 

The Gallenthin case is discussed in an article reviewing eminent domain post-Kelo in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania available at:

 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1028893