North Arlington, Our home town, labeled " A Ghost Town" by Robert Palumbo
Wednesday ,October 19,2005
Article from the "South Bergenite"
Robert Palumbo, a local hair stylist and budding real estate mogul, conceived of the Renaissance as he sat in the audience and watched Capodagli present two condominium proposals: the Grand View, a development to replace the Spring Air Mattress factory on Schulyer road and the Village development. Palumbo who owns the property where his salon is, is located across the street from the Sanborn strip mall.
Palumbo. A life long resident, coralled both Jimmy Castiglione, owner of Sanborn Deli, and Capodagli to see if they could work together to bring Palumbo's development ideas to life.
"I need to expand. Until I heard George application I was going to sell my business. I was going to relocate in the across from King's Court(Lyndhurst)," said Palumbo to the borough council during the monthly meeting on Oct 13 when he presented his ideas.
With the Capodagli's experts and a sophisticated rendering of the five story building with two stories of parking garage, the council easily grasped the trio's vision.
Palumbo has not yet talked to the neighboring photograpghy studio, but has discussed his propossal with the Chinese restaurant two doors away. The project would span these three properties. The AutoZone to the north of Palumbo's would not be part of the project Capodagli described the arrangement with Palumbo and Castiglione as a love fest and was very enthusiastic about the proposal.
The layout and rendering submitted to the council was only a rough proposal. Although he said the rendering represented a building that met the town's zoning rules, Capodagli did admit the height went beyond the current laws.
There would be one level of retail an four levels of housing said Capodagli. The 96 ,one and two bedroom apartments would be built above a parking garage with enough spaces for 161 cars. Eighty percent of the units would be two bedroom. Amenities would include a gym, a meeting room and a business center. In addition, there would be 5,000 square feet of retail, enough for Palumbo's spa/hair salon and a relocate Sanborn's Deli. Capodagli's sister project, The Village,is to have 32 one and two bedroom units.
According to Capodagli’s planner, Joe Gurgevich, the units would be between 1,000 and 1,600 square feet in size and would be marketed towards young professionals and seniors. The units would be priced from $300,000 to $365,000.
Gurgevich estimates the project would bring 8.6 school-age children to the borough.
Mayor Russell Pitman asked the borough council that night to pass a resolution recommending the proposal go before the Planning Board. He also encouraged Palumbo to talk with the owners of a business at the Canterbury and Ridge Roads who may be interested in his proposal.
While Palumbo said the owner of the Chinese restaurant was non-committal, because the properties fall within the Ridge Road redevelopment zone, Palumbo could use eminent domain to acquire the properties, but it isn't a step he is comtemplating at this time.
Article from "The Observer" Wednesday October 26th,2005.
A rendering of the Renaissance, a plan to redevelop Robert Palumbo Hair Design studio and neighboring businesses. Below, The official floor plan presented to Mayor Russ Pitman and the borough council Oct. 13. The design includes 96 residential units, retail space and a parking deck.
NORTH ARLINGTON - In as early as a year and a half from now, the block where Robert Palumbo Hair Design studio resides may be transformed into one large multi-level housing and retail site.
Palumbo, a hair stylist who has been in business in town for 26 years, presented his plan before the mayor and council on Oct. 13, along with Jimmy Castiglione, owner of Sanborn's Deli and developer George Capodagli.
Renaissance, as the redevelopment plan is called, includes 96 residential condominium units, 5,000 square foot of commercial spaces and 161 parking spots.
The council gave its approval and Mayor Russ Pitman said he would recommend the planning board to review the project at a future public meeting.
Palumbo has attended several council meetings the past few months because he was worried about the future of Ridge Road.
"Ridge Road has turned into a ghost town," said Palumbo. "I love this town and I feel we should continue to be the anchor on this side of it."
Palumbo expressed his sentiment for the town in front of the council and audience, describing how he had been considering moving to Lyndhurst. He even attended a Lyndhurst council meeting to support the Shop Rite redevelopment, where Palumbo was offered retail space.
But having grown up in town, Palumbo felt he should make an attempt to revitalize his current location. He approached Capodagli, a developer who had worked with the borough for the renovation of the former Spring Air Mattress site on Schuyler Avenue.
The one and two-bedroom condos are going to target young professionals and senior citizens, with a retail price ranging from $300,000 to $350,000, according to Capodagli.
Studies project the plan would produce 8 more children into the school system, since the limited bedroom availability would likely be desirable for those just starting a family and eventually plan to move to a larger house , according to Capodagli's planner Gurgevich.
Capodagli said they have until December to complete a Memorandum of Agreement needs, and that will be followed by a meeting with the planning board, which could be as early as December or January.
Palumbo is looking to work with the neighboring photography studio to join in on the project, as well as Uva's, which is the former Grand Buffet. <>
The current property
What is the existing condition that needs to be cured?
Why do three businesses and one family need to be replaced by 96 families and 3 smaller businesses?
How does the community of North Arlington benefit from the change proposed by this project?
Mr. Art Miller(owner of Art Roberts Photography Studio) is not selling his property and has repeatedly expressed his dismay at such blatant attempt by others to circumvent his rights of ownership. He recognizes the basic principle of law that said, " The right of any individual ends where the rights of others begin" . He only would like others to feel the same way, his property has been targeted for this project.
Mr.Miller's daughter Sharon Granell who lives in the home with her husband, son and daughter is livid." The right to own your own property is the most basic principle of a free society and a free enterprise system. Said Sharon,"It is the oil that makes our great ecomomy run and Democracy work. After we told our neighbor Mr. Palumbo, that we are not interested in selling or moving, he makes plans to develope our land, without our authority, permission or consent. It is very bold of him to think that we are going to let him get away with it! YOU CAN ONLY ENJOY THOSE RIGHTS THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO DEFEND!"
Mrs Granell concludes, "Are we willing to defend ours"?
Renaissance
96 Units One and Two Bedroom Apartments.
5 story building with 2 stories of Parking Garage.
This Project would span 3 properties,
Robert Palumbo, Art Roberts , and UVA restaurant
Capodagli admits the "HEIGHT" went beyond the current laws.
80% of Units will be 2 bedrooms
96 x 80% = 76 (2 bedroom units)
The developer would like us to believe that 76, 2- bedroom condos will only produce 8 school age child.
According to the Ridge Road Redevelopment Plan and Visioning Design Guidelines
for North Arlington on page 13:
Standards; Parking - new construction
50% of required parking may be accommodated off site at the discretion of the board.
Real life assumptions are:
2 cars per unit...................................................192
Robert Palumbo Salon ........................................50
Sanborn Deli .....................................................6
Additional Commercial space ................................5
Total ...............................................................253
The property will probably need 253 parking spaces.
The current project calls for 167 parking spaces provided.
The town at its discretion can allow only 50% of required. ...............84 spaces
We can have in our backyards, 169 cars parked in our streets if this project is approved.
Do you want these cars parked on your street?
Square Feet
602 - 604 Ridge Road (Old Jade Fountain)
Presently UVA Steak House 94.5 x 218. ............................. 20,601.
610 Ridge Road Art Roberts Studio 56.1 x 198....................11,107.80
612 Ridge Rd. Robert Palumbo 29.8 x 190.......................... 5662.
Total..............................................................................37,370.80 sq feet
Calls for 96 Condominiums + 5000 square feet of Commercial space.
37,370 square feet divided by 96 Units = 389 square feet per unit.
The "Village"(Where Sanborn's deli is today)" 601-623 Ridge Road
32 Units + Retail space
lot 205.99 x 100= 20,599 square feet of land
20,599 square feet divided by 32 units 644 square feet per unit of land
The Renaissance project is calling already for double the density of the "Village" project across the street which is already high density.
The Ridge Road Redevelopment Plan Purpose (at the North End Retail Commercial district) is to provide for a variety of opportunities for retail sales, services and office space at a "lower density" than the South End Retail Commercial zoning district.
A 96 Unit, 5 story building over 37,000 square feet is very high density.
The South End of Ridge Road calls for a maximum of 48 feet height for a building. The Northern End calls for only 40 feet height as a maximum. Maybe this project is more appropriate at the Southern End of Ridge Road or Newark.
As presently used estimated Commercial spaces:
Uva Steak House ------------------------------------8,000 square feet
Art Roberts Studio ----------------------------------1,000 square feet
Robert Palumbo -------------------------------------3,000 square feet
Total.....................................................12,000 square feet
The renaissance project calls for: 5,000
5,000 square feet of commercial space for 3 stores.
The project will diminish the use of commercial space of 7,000 sq. ft.
Robert Palumbo Hair Salon is not getting any more space than he already has now.
So what relief is he requesting from the Mayor and council? So what is the real reason?
A " 33 Million Dollar Project"
2 Bedrooms 76 Units @ $ 365,000.00.........................$27,740,000.00
1 Bedrooms 20 Units @ $300, 00.00 ...........................$6,000,000.00
Total 96 UNITS..........................................................$33,740,000
With low interest rates from state and federal loans, the developer and Mr. Palumbo stand to make millions of dollars at the expense of your diminished quality of life , and reduced property values.
This monster of a building
- Will result in obstruction of views (5 story building) will overshadow every surrounding property.
- Will invade your privacy( in your backyard)
- Will create high Density - 96 families and 3 businesses where there now is only 3 businesses and one family
- Will increase lack of Parking by possibly 169 cars.
- Will increase school population. You do the numbers, 80% of 96 (2 bedroom condos possible 76 CHILDREN) at $9,198.00 per child would cost $699,048.00.
- Reduction of property values. ( Homes adjacent to apartment buildings are negatively impacted by them, less desirable to buyers , resulting in lower prices.
Question: Who needs the development?
Answer: Only the developer .
The people we elect to make irreversible decisions that impact the quality of our lives have to be made aware of how we feel . About our neighborhood, our homes, our investments, our bundle of rights. You will only enjoy those rights you are willing to defend. Defend what is valuable and dear to you.
Go to the meeting of November 3 at 7pm at the borough hall and let your elected officials know how you feel about this project.
Please e-mail them. http://www.northarlington.org/russpitman@northarlington.org
Let 's tell hungry, uncompassionate developers to stay away from our backyards!
A update from the Town Meeting of November 3rd,2005
First of all, "Thank you" all so much for showing up last night to the North Arlington Town meeting. Remember, your voices are crucial to keeping our town what it is today, a small town, with all it's pleasantness, quiet and decent, where we all purchase property and hope to keep it for our children. Without surrendering to politicians and developers what we feel is our community's future.
Do you live within 200 feet of the proposed project? If you do. You will supposedly receive a letter in the mail stating when the Planning Board for North Arlington is meeting on the Renaissance project. For those of you that would also like to attend the meeting to let your voices and concerns be heard. You can get the schedule for the meeting on this web page as soon as it's made available.
We appreciate your interest in last night's town meeting, and invite you to share your comments and input on this web page. We welcome your active participation and encourage you to engage in discussion with your neighbors about this proposed project.
We invite you to fill out a comment form located on the bottom off the web page. We would love to hear from the homeowners of North Arlington and publish their opinions as well.
Remember neighbors, you are making a difference in the future of our town.
Local and National information on Eminent Domain
Article from the 'Bergen Record' , November 4th,2005
Eminent Domain attacked by House
WASHINGTON DC-Contending that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of U.S society. The House overwhelminlg approved a bill Thursday, November 3rd to block the court approved seizure of private property for use by developers.
The bill which passed 376-38 would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.The Supreme Court , in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generated tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from private property, civil rights, farm and religious groups.
For information on the Bill(HR-4128) passed by the House. Please visit the link below.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109F3s4Nv::
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 3, 2005 (House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 4128 -- Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005
(Rep. Sensenbrenner (R) Wisconsin and 97 cosponsors)
The bill would also prohibit the Federal government from using its eminent domain power for such purposes. Private property rights are the bedrock of the Nation's economy and enjoy constitutionally protected status. They should also receive an appropriate level of protection by the Federal government.
The Administration looks forward to working with both Houses of Congress on legislation that is consistent with principles of federalism and that ensures the constitutional rights of private property owners are protected.
Article from the "Bergen Record"on November 11th.
Election of Democrat leaves Borough Council evenly divided Friday, November 11, 2005
By BRIAN ABERBACK STAFF WRITER
BOGOTA - When the new Borough Council begins work in January, it will be split 3-3 between Democrats and Republicans for the fifth time in the past 10 years.There was no split regarding the referendum that asked whether the mayor and council should pass an ordinance limiting the use of eminent domain to condemn private property to public purposes only, such as to build a school.
The ballot question, which passed 1,408 to 293, was proposed in reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this summer that stated towns could condemn private property for private development, such as a mall if the project would provide an economic benefit."It sends a powerful message that people care about their property rights," said Lonegan, who initiated the referendum. He said any less-prohibitive law passed at the state level should not supercede the borough's restrictions.
Copy of the referendum that passed in Bogota on November 8th,2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Frank J. Cifarelli
Phone #: (201) 489-6790
Date: Sept. 2, 2005
CIFARELLI AND GORLYN FOR STATE ASSEMBLYSUBJECT: EMINENT DOMAIN IN 37th DISTRICT(Bogota) There is a Referendum Question on the Ballot for the election on November 8th in the Borough of Bogota. As State Assembly Candidates: encourage all voters in Bogota to vote "Yes" for it, 3) We believe that this Referendum 1) We endorse the philosophy behind the Referendum, 2) We estion should serve as the model for the other 11 towns, boroughs and cities of the 37th District and 4) We will do everything in our power to encourage and mobilize the residents of the other 11 towns, boroughs and cities of the 37th District to get this type of referendum question on their ballot for next year's election of November of 2006.
The Referendum Question is as follows:Shall the Mayor and Council of the inBorough of Bogota adopt an ordinance stating that the Borough will not use the power of eminent domain to acquire private property, against the wishes of the property owner, for private development to crease tax ratables or tax revenue derived from the property, and that this power only will be used to acquire private property:
1) when the property is to be opened to the public or for the public's use, or
2) when the acquisition is necessary to eliminate an existing use of the property that inflicts an affirmative harm on society?
YES ______ NO______
The 37th District includes the following towns, boroughs and cities: Bergenfield Borough, Bogota Borough, Englewood City, Englewood Cliffs Borough, Hackensack City, Leonia Borough, Maywood Borough, Palisades Park Borough, Ridgefield Park, Rochelle Park Township, Teaneck Township and Tenafly Borough.
Bergen County briefs
from the "Star Ledger" Thursday, October 27, 2005
PARAMUS - A new law limits borough officials in taking private property for economic development.
The Borough Council on Tuesday unanimously approved the ordinance restricting the borough's powers of eminent domain. Both Democratic and Republican council members said the law would protect residents and their homes.The new law prohibits the borough from taking owner-occupied private property except for public use, which includes a road, hospital, sewer, water line, open space or erosion control
Jersey City drops plan to seize tavern for Catholic school field Saturday, November 5, 2005
ASSOCIATED PRESS
JERSEY CITY - The city has dropped a plan to use its power of eminent domain to seize a neighborhood bar and turn the land over to a Roman Catholic high school, Mayor Jeremiah T. Healy said Friday.Healy said he made the decision "after weighing all the issues" between property owner Cheng Tan, proprietor of the Golden Cicada tavern, and St. Peter's Prep, which wants the land to expand its football field."There are instances when the city's taking of private property for public purpose is appropriate, but this is not one of those instances," Healy said in a written statement.
The school built a new field last year next to the Golden Cicada, but its president, the Rev. James Keenan, has said it needs to be lengthened in order for the school's team to play its home games there.Tan had rejected offers from the school to purchase part of his property.
The prospect of seizing it by eminent domain had drawn concern from civil liberties proponents, including the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union."It's inappropriate for government to take land from one person and give it to another for their personal use. It's even more inappropriate to take it to benefit a particular religion," ACLU legal director Ed Barocas said last week.
Redevelopment issues dominate N.A. meeting
By Monica Curry "The Observer" article from November 9th,2005
NORTH ARLINGTON The boroughs senior center was packed with residents last week, as town officials moved forward with redevelopment business and proposals.
Over 700 notifications were sent to residents who live within 200 feet of the property being discussed at the Nov. 3 meeting, according to Mayor Russ Pitman.
We want people involved, said Pitman. No sneak attacks. Before moving on with business, Pitman showed the audience a rusted 8-inch pipe, saying it was evidence of the need for infrastructure improvements in town.
Acting as the redevelopment committee, Pitman and the council passed resolutions that will enable the borough to hire professionals for work on the Porete Avenue redevelopment site.
One resolution was to award a contract for an appraiser to relocate businesses now operating at the site, which will be thoroughly cleaned and turned into a 118-acre residential, retail and recreational facility.
The council also made an official agreement to hire a traffic consultant for the Porete Avenue project and to have a school study conducted. This will determine how many additional students the schools will receive after over 1,500 residential units are built in the redevelopment area.
While the council has chosen which experts to hire, Cherokee Investment Partners, the developer, will pay for their services, according to Joseph Mariniello, borough attorney.
For the remainder of the meeting, the committee listened to proposals for renovations on existing property, such as a convenience/liquor store at 592-600 Ridge Rd. Edward McMullen, property owner, submitted a proposal to turn office space on the second floor into four two-bedroom apartments. However, the amount of allotted parking spaces 24 including 12 off sight would be affected by the proposed Renaissance, located at 612 Ridge Rd., if it passes through the planning board.
Although Renaissance, a retail and residential facility proposed last month by Robert Palumbo, was only presented before the council and approved for recommendation to the planning board, some people in attendance voiced concerns about the project.
Xiomara Ferrer, owner of Borgos & Borgos Real Estate, stood and stated her opposition to Palumbo expanding his business at the expense of others. Mr. Miller has not agreed to sell, said Ferrer, who represents the owner of a neighboring photography studio. And he is not willing to sell.
The committee repeatedly assured the audience that the presentations were in the preliminary stages and nothing was concrete until after the sites are evaluated by the planning board.
Article from the "Bergen Record", November 11th,2005
Keep your home - Keep eye on politicians
By JEFFREY PAGE
Smart politicians know that if they seize someone's home and turn it over to a developer to tear down and replace with fancier houses, there can be consequences, say in November.
Other pols, possessing the sensitivity of a rattlesnake, think they can just ride the issue out for a while and maybe it'll go away. Maybe people will just fall back asleep. Sometimes they're right.
But because condemnation through eminent domain can occur anytime anywhere, homeowners need to stay awake.
No one but developers and their pals in government ever thought much about eminent domain, but then came the Supreme Court's outrageous New London, Conn., decision, which allows government to take your property and hand it to the private sector so it can build snazzy condos and other savory ratables.
The New London case got Americans to go back to the Fifth Amendment, where they found those 12 significant words: "... our shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
It may say public use, but five Supremes - Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer - dissed the middle class and ruled New London was within its rights to condemn a small neighborhood and deed it to a developer. This is public use, the court ruled, because it would generate jobs and taxes.
They really said that.
The New London ruling virtually requires homeowners to stay informed of the plans of their governing boards.
"The problem is that a lot of people just don't know that much about eminent domain and what it means," said John Kramer, vice president of the Institute for Justice, a libertarian think tank in Washington that has tracked the seizure of private property for almost a decade and which litigates for people whose rights seem to be getting trampled by government.
"Many people still believe the government can take their home only if it's for public use, like a new street," Kramer said.
Of course, this is not the case. Jersey City officials were ready to condemn a Downtown tavern and give the land to St. Peter's Prep so the school could expand its football field. But now, after a barrage of negative publicity, the mayor has scotched the plan, saying it's inappropriate.
In Long Branch, officials are fighting some homeowners to condemn acreage near the beach so developers can build luxury condos on it.
In Norwood, Ohio, a couple who have lived in their little home for 36 years are battling City Hall, which wants to turn the property over to a developer for a mall.
These outrages are not as uncommon as you might think. In a study covering the years 1998 to 2002, the Institute for Justice found 10,000 cases - that was not a typo - of public seizures for private use. "And that might be an undercount," Kramer said.
It's important to know what the municipal council is up to and to maintain contact with elected officials at all levels.
Do you like the idea that the House of Representatives has voted to cut federal economic development aid for two years to state and local governments that grab private property and then give it to developers?
Let your member of Congress know.
Do you approve amending the state constitution to limit eminent domain "to acquisition of land for essential public purposes"? Trenton is considering this.
Good idea? Tell your Assembly member and state senator.
It's only your home that's at stake.
Artice from "The Daily Record" November 14th,2005
Some in Morris fearing for their property rights
Business owners afraid eminent domain could close up shops
BY ABBOTT KOLOFF DAILY RECORD
Bob Flynn runs what he calls a corner bar, a place for people to get together and have a burger and a beer. He has been in the same place in Netcong for more than 10 years. He says he doesn't make a lot of money but when he looks at his business, Rea's Tavern, sandwiched between a couple of houses on Stoll Street, he sees his livelihood.
Netcong officials see a building that doesn't fit into a residential area. They see a piece of property that would fit into plans to build housing on surrounding land, mostly vacant lots, while the borough also redevelops a commercial area around the train station. "Maybe they want this to be the entrance to Pinewood Estates," Flynn said the other day of his tavern.
Pinewood Estates is the fictional name Flynn has for the condominium complex he imagines will be built behind his tavern -- even though the borough has not yet approved a plan for redevelopment, or a developer to build on the land. Netcong officials have not said they plan to seize properties for redevelopment, but they have not said they won't use that power.
Flynn could end up part of a growing controversy over the use of a process called eminent domain that allows governments to force the sale of land for market value --often to be handed over to private developers. Planners have placed Flynn's tavern in a proposed redevelopment zone, an area where the borough would have the legal right to use eminent domain.
State and federal legislators took steps in the past week to end what they say is the misuse of eminent domain for private development. They said they were responding to a U.S. Supreme Court decision this past June that some observers say makes it easier for governments to force the sale of property to benefit private developers.
He is the link to the web page for the Bill
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2004/Bills/SCR/139_I1.HTM
State legislators introduced a bill on Thursday that would amend the state constitution by banning the use of eminent domain for anything but public uses such as schools and roads. The state constitution presently allows eminent domain to be used as a tool for the private redevelopment of blighted areas, saying that is a public purpose. State law provides a broader definition of public purpose, allowing eminent domain to be used to redevelop areas considered underutilized.
A little more than a week ago, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of a law, now before the Senate, that would hold back some federal money from states and towns using eminent domain for economic redevelopment.
Some urban planning experts say that while eminent domain might be subject to some abuse, it's also an important tool for urban renewal. Taking away that tool altogether, they say, could kill projects designed to rejuvenate city centers and build a tax base to pay for municipal services and schools. It could, those experts say, lead to cities' continued reliance on state aid.
State law requires governments to go through several steps before being allowed to use eminent domain. They are required to hold public meetings to discuss creating a redevelopment zone, and are required to show during those meetings that redevelopment serves a public purpose.
There presently are many redevelopment projects across the state that might require the use of eminent domain -- including downtown Newark, Long Branch and Asbury Park. Locally, Morristown has designated some areas as redevelopment zones, including a portion of Speedwell Avenue.
Dover officials plan to redevelop part of Bassett Highway but have not designated the area as a redevelopment zone, saying they do not anticipate using eminent domain.
Some experts suggested that state legislators might toughen present laws rather than do away with eminent domain for redevelopment. James Hughes, dean of the Edward Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers, suggested adding another level of oversight to the process.
"You could have the Department of Community Affairs review the decisions," he said.
Hughes said that might help to stop towns from misusing eminent domain. He pointed to a recent case where a judge barred Lodi from condemning a trailer park to make way for a senior citizen complex. The judge ruled that planners didn't prove the trailer park property was underutilized. The town, which had been projecting tax revenues to increase by 12 times as a result of the project, has said it plans to appeal.
Some critics of eminent domain say it's overused by towns trying to increase tax revenues, and could be used to help line the pockets of private developers. "One person's urban renewal can be someone else's sweetheart deal under the table," State Assemblyman Joseph Pennaccio, R-Morris, said. Pennaccio and Richard Merkt, R-Morris, co-sponsored a state assembly bill that would amend the state constitution and allow eminent domain to be used only for "essential public purposes" such as highways, schools, airports, and jails. The same bill has been introduced in the state senate.
The proposed state bill is part of a larger national backlash against a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that allowed officials in New London, Conn. to force homeowners to sell land to be used for a private commercial development. Congress recently voted 376-38 to approve a bill that would withhold federal economic redevelopment money from governments using eminent domain for redevelopment. Local municipal officials said such a law would affect large cities but probably have little impact on suburban municipalities, which don't depend as much on federal money.
U.S. Representatives Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-Harding, and Scott Garrett, R-Sussex, both voted in favor of the bill. Both issued statements last week expressing their concern over the potential for property rights being trampled.
"I was deeply concerned by the Supreme Court's decision in June to expand the power of eminent domain," Frelinghuysen said in his statement.
posted by Eagle Project @ 8:08 AM
0 comments
