I'm out in six months or they'll use Eminent Domain!!!!!!

On Thursday December 22nd there was a Planning Board meeting held in borough hall. At the end of that meeting I asked the board for a listing of all properties in NA the were deemed blighted by the Planning Board.

The response was given to me by the Mayor who stood up and said to all the people on the board and those attending the meeting that no homeowner in the borough will have Eminent Domain used against them and their property and that my property on Ridge Road was not blighted at all.

This was followed up by a visit to my home Christmas eve by Mayor Pittman and councilman Roche. Both came to our home to assure my father-in-law and family that regardless of what the papers say or my neighbor (Robert Palumbo). That our home is safe from Eminent Domain.


This was followed up by a visit on January 9th from a representative of the developer(capodagli) today who told me my property at 610 Ridge Road has been designated by the planning board to be in the redevelopment zone for NA and has been deemed blighted by the board. He also stated that his company has been hired by the board to redevelop my property.

Also, if I'm not out in six months. They will pursue using Eminent Domain against my home.

And so a battle to keep my home begins.

I know alot has happened in the borough since the holidays concerning Encap. But last time I checked 610 Ridge Road wasn't in the Arlington Valley project.We will see what January brings.

I also understand that Councilman Tanelli is sponsoring a referendum against Eminent Domain for November.


I Promise to updated this site weekly. Thank you for all of you who have supported my family during this troubling time.



Articles from NAtoday.com website

Dear Editor,
So if our Mayor & Council are for all of us homeowners, then why are we all in fear of their "blighted neighborhood" policy?
What if Robert Palumbo and company come down any of our streets looking to make a fast buck on our home land?

We all need to be scared by this landgrab greed that is going on around us.

Mayor Pitman and council, HELP!



Curbing domain an idea worth developing

Friday, December 16, 2005
By JEFFREY PAGE RECORD COLUMNIST

One of these days, the ultimate abuse of eminent domain will play out and property owners will demand real and quick relief.

They know that only serious reform will allow them to again sleep through the night without waking in a cold sweat, wondering what might become of them if the mayor calls to say he wants their homes for redevelopment.

Incidentally, does anyone recall the last time it was the home of the mayor, the town administrator or the bank president that was needed for redevelopment?

Assemblyman Charlotte Vandervalk, R-Hillsdale, couldn't, either.
But she did hear some eminent domain horror stories and has introduced legislation to slap a statewide four-year moratorium on governments' snatching property to hand over to the private sector for redevelopment as something other than public use.

Her measure would also create a task force to come up with permanent solutions.
"We need a grass-roots movement to get Trenton to act," she said. "Those opposed to reform might be wealthy and powerful, but I believe the tide of public opinion is more powerful than their money."

Oh, and did anyone ever hear of a real estate developer's home being seized for redevelopment? How about a governor's home?
Vandervalk's proposal follows a five-justice Supreme Court majority getting its grubby little hands on the Fifth Amendment, which says: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

The Supremes ruled in a case called Kelo v. New London, Conn., that the city is within its rights to wipe out a neighborhood so it can turn it over to a developer for hotels and shops.
Uh, public use?
Public purpose is OK, the court ruled.

Vandervalk noted a Jersey case in which a man wishes to redevelop his own property, but is in a fight with his town, which wants to condemn the property and deed it to a builder - for redevelopment.

"I'm sorry, but you just don't expect this to happen in America," Vandervalk said, and then told of Kevin Brown, a minister whose town wants his little mission/soup kitchen so badly that it has withdrawn his right to conduct services, serve lunch or put people up overnight in it. The town wants to turn the property over to a developer.

Little by little, an army of furious property owners and some sympathetic government representatives are coalescing around an issue that most people thought was settled in 1791, when the Fifth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights were ratified.
But then came Kelo.

And now, the Legislature in Trenton is considering a constitutional amendment to limit condemnation to "essential public purposes," such as roads.

"New Jersey homeowners and business owners are now more vulnerable to overreaching government action which impairs private property rights," said Sen. Peter Inverso, R-Hamilton, who wrote the proposed amendment.

Ridgefield and Bogota are two of several municipalities that haven't waited but have enacted their own local limits.

Meanwhile, a bill in Washington by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, quotes Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who warned in the Kelo case, "any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party."

Cornyn's measure declares simply: "The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use."

Period.


Article from NA today website

Dear Editor,
After attending the last council meeting. Now more than ever I am concerned with what Encap has proposed for North Arlington.

Expert after expert stood up in front of the council and did his job by saying exactly what Encap wanted them to say!

Where are the North Arlington Council experts with their feasibility study on the Valley project?
Does anybody want 4,000 more people in town, with new homes at $400,000 to $600,000? We go from about 200 plus children for this project to now 370.

Why does the number of school children that this project will create get closer to the number Dr Stringham stated around 500? Now the Encap lawyer wants to use Dr Stringham's numbers to be more accurate. Who is running this show? Looks like Encap! How is North Arlington validating any of the numbers from Encap? Just ask Rutherford and Lyndhurst residents if the numbers from Encap should be questioned.

The council also amended the redevelopment plan for Porete Avenue. Paving the way for eminent domain. Is there anybody who doesn't think that's next? Seizing the business's and properties on Porete Avenue. First Porete Avenue and then anywhere else in North Arlington.

I know that on a federal level H.R 3058 passed into law and H.R 4128 is in the Judicary Committee. On a local level. The ACR255 bill is in the New Jersey State house awaiting approval. But today, no home or business is safe from the North Arlington Re-development plan.

It was interesting to get no response from the Encap experts to Councilman Ferriero's question about whether this Project will create two North Arlingtons. Of course it will. According to Encap experts. The project itself based on the volume of people in the project will pay for the new Police, EMS, School funding, Fire and the rest of the needs for that part of the municipality. Really?

The project will pay for itself? Well according to their experts???????

Just another concerned NA Taxpayer


EnCap: Partner or Profiteer?

As time winds down on the governing body to approve the EnCap proposal, who is protecting taxpayers and homeowners from a plan that will bring close to 4,000 new residents to North Arlington upon completion?

Sources close to the negotiations now tell NA TODAY that the proposed agreement doesn't even address EnCap's tax appeal seeking an assessment reduction on properties never exposed to the open market.

How can you partner with an entity that rejects the very assessments of land that will be worth millions upon rehabilitation?

EnCap now doing business as Cherokee Investments will apparently urge this governing body to impose eminent domain on profitable firms and companies to move forward with this redevelopment scheme.

Why should North Arlington's governing body even consider eminent domain as an option to assist a private developer? Where is the public interest? How is there a public concern?

Who will pay North Arlington's legal fees to fight in court with companies that pay taxes and provide jobs?

Where is the public interest in assisting a developer who is seeking to "relocate" companies that actually pay property taxes to the community while Encap challenges property assessments in court?

The ratable myth has come full circle.

Increased ratables do not lower taxes on homeowners.

EnCap is determined to get an agreement signed, sealed and delivered without a shred of public input or consent. The last line of defense for homeowners is the North Arlington Borough Council. Is this governing body going to let the developer provide it's own impact consultants to rationalize approval? What is different from this scenario than the previous scenario under the guise of the now defunct Redevelopment Authority which sought to do exactly the same thing?

The timeline of determination of this proposal needs to be set by North Arlington, not EnCap.

If the borough needs additional time to properly evaluate the proposal, where is the harm in such a decision? Why the rush to judgment on the dubious advice of lawyers and consultants?

What public interest do they represent? Who really cares what they think?

Where in this region has EnCap enjoyed any public support? Lyndhurst? Rutherford? Kearny? North Arlington? What report or document exists that homeowners want this massive development taking place in their backyard in the first place? What public official has politically benefited from allying themselves over taxpayers in support of this highly controversial and questionable leap of faith?

As stated time and time again, what is the financial benefit to EnCap versus the impact on North Arlington? How do current homeowners benefit from this project? How will schools and services be impacted? Who will make those determinations?

EnCap or a credible third-party? More specifically, wasn't a committee being appointed to look at this very proposal? Is there a single objective point-of-view being considered in this process as it applies to impact and cost to the homeowners of North Arlington?

The details and fine print of this proposal have been presented. It's up to those elected, not appointed to protect the community from a process that can't be changed a year or three years from now. Lawyers don't speak for the public. Lawyers and political appointees don't set public policy.

You can't close the barn door after the horse has left the stable.

Elected officials set the tone and agenda for the weary voter begging for tax relief.

The time for credible and sensible evaluation of this project is today and now.
A redevelopment strategy that seeks a return on investment

Porete Avenue could be transformed again under plan offered by Cherokee

It's too early to speculate what will be the final plan for North Arlington as it applies to Porete Avenue and the borough's Meadowland parcels in wake of the major revisions offered by Cherokee Partners last night.

What was once a marketed as a golf community and resort has been changed to reflect more open space, recreational facilities as well as more housing. While the proposal is no longer vertical, the amount of housing and its impact on essential services needs to be closely monitored and scrutinized.

Local Democrats in the late 1980's and early 1990's were highly critical of the Kaiser Administration's commitment to revitalizing Porete Avenue calling the folly a "white elephant." A charge that so deeply infuriated local Republicans they handed out white chocolate elephants at a press conference touting the highly controversial policy.

Fifteen years later and several million dollars in capital improvements now finds Porete Avenue being drastically altered once again.

While the previous efforts were noble, the latest proposal to transform this blighted portion of the borough has a component that Porete Avenue never had before - an investor seeking to make a profit.

The reality is that the previous redevelopment of Porete Avenue just didn't work. There was is no market for industrial space with no access to Route 3 or 17 when you could easily find better locations in Lyndhurst, Rutherford, East Rutherford or Kearny. With the exception of the one large warehouse constructed, the area for the most part remains unproductive and unprofitable to the borough given the level of investment by taxpayers.

But as North Arlington grapples with this new proposal, other serious questions loom in the process.

For one, the closure of the baler facility will cause North Arlington homeowners to assume the cost of tipping fees like most municipalities. The fees could be as high as $1 million dollars annually.

This lost revenue needs to be considered in any final agreement.

The issue of traffic also demands expert analysis. Previous efforts to link North Arlington to 3 & 17 have died in other planning efforts. Given the potential for thousands of new residents, what is the strategy to provide new access to this portion of the municipality? What state and federal funds are available to help cover the costs? Is light rail or links to PATH options that could in fact take place down the road?

Most importantly, what is North Arlington's financial exposure should this real estate market begin to correct itself as inflation seems to set in?

How will increased interest rates effect buyer activity when so many units will be available for purchase?

Mayor Pitman has instituted a series of what has been dubbed "circuit breakers" to effect any changes or conditions that could have an adverse effect on North Arlington. It will be interesting to see how this policy could be applied and how it effects the long-term conditions of any final agreement.

If nothing else, this departure from industrial redevelopment to residential housing is a process that deserves to be public and open.

We trust that this will be the case and that other issues surrounding North Arlington's long-term financial health will also be addressed from the standpoint of protecting the homeowner.


Haledon, residents tussle over redevelopment

Sunday, December 11, 2005
By PAUL BRUBAKER HERALD NEWS

HALEDON - If borough planners want to improve Belmont Avenue, they're going to have do it without designating a redevelopment area.

Two hundred residents have retained lawyer James Segreto of North Haledon to convey that message at the Planning Board's special meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. on Monday in the Manchester Regional High School auditorium.

Many property owners say they are concerned that with redevelopment come the prospects that they will lose their homes. But a study commissioned by the borough indicated that redevelopment could enhance property values.

It is expected that the board will decide to "accept, reject or modify" a proposal to designate 205 properties on Belmont Avenue and surrounding streets as an area in need of redevelopment.

"People and businesses in town are really concerned," said John Block, a former councilman. "After the attorney told them exactly how this redevelopment thing works, people became more concerned that developers can come in and their homes could be lost."

Block said that residents held two impromptu meetings that resulted in their hiring Segreto and organizing as "Save Our Homes and Businesses," after more than 100 residents attended the board's Nov. 7 meeting.

At that meeting, Steven Veltri, attorney for the Planning Board, said any discussion about eminent domain was "jumping the gun."

But residents are not convinced by Veltri's opinion about using eminent domain.
"The people are not unduly alarmed," Segreto said Thursday at his office in North Haledon, where he is the municipal attorney. "Condemnation is an integral part of the redevelopment statute."

Segreto said he intends to urge the board not to approve the redevelopment area partly on the basis that the municipal government's original intent was a beautification project. In May 2000, the state Division of Community Affairs approved the borough's application for a town center designation, Segreto said. To that end, the borough has already received state and federal grants.

"We have no objection to making improvements to Belmont Avenue," Segreto said. "Trees, pavers, improved sidewalks - it [beautification] does not involve condemnation. Nobody lives under the specter of somebody coming in and taking their property away from them."

Segreto said that the redevelopment idea was introduced when the borough hired Kauker Gregory & Kauker Planning and Development Consultants of Wyckoff in September 2004.
On Oct. 28, Michael Kauker submitted a $30,000 field study commissioned by the Borough Council of 205 properties on 16 blocks.

Isn't Mr Kauker the North Arlington Borough Planner ???????

The 27.45-acre area begins at Belmont and Haledon avenues - the intersection of the borough's main thoroughfares - and extends south to John Street, two blocks shy of the Paterson border.
The area also reaches into neighboring streets, as directed by the council, to investigate the possibility of extending the business district, Kauker said at the time.

The 40-page study cited scarce parking and buildings that occupied too much lot space as part of its conclusion that the area was ripe for redevelopment.

Redevelopment of the area could potentially increase property values, the study indicated.
Total building and land values for the area could jump from their current appraisal of $55 million to as a high as $179 million.

If the Planning Board accepts the redevelopment area recommendation, it will be referred to the Borough Council for final approval at a later meeting.



Ridgefield set to limit taking of property


Wednesday, December 7, 2005 By JOHN A. GAVINSTAFF WRITER Bergen Record

RIDGEFIELD - The borough is proposing an ordinance to limit its authority to take private property through eminent domain. The move is intended to give homeowners an added sense of security that their properties won't be seized for redevelopment.

With this ordinance, the governing body has spoken about the use of eminent domain in the borough, and we have said that homeowners will not have to be concerned, as their rights are sacred, and will not be taken away in these cases," Mayor Anthony R. Suarez said.

The move comes just weeks before the borough is scheduled to enter a new stage in its quest to redevelop a 43-acre commercial strip next to Overpeck Creek and south of Route 46.

This month, attorneys for the borough and three large commercial properties targeted for redevelopment agreed on setting a 90-day moratorium on litigation while negotiating dismissal of pending lawsuits.

We are in the process of dotting the i's and crossing the t's to dismiss all three lawsuits," Borough Attorney Stephen Pellino said. "What we are talking about is language."

For the past several months, owners of the former Pfister Chemical plant; Agrix Direct, a national retail distribution company; and Lowe Paper Co., a paperboard manufacturer, had been adamant in their opposition to the redevelopment plan.

Even today, Burt Ross, managing owner of the 12-acre parcel leased to Agrix Direct, said he still has doubts about the upcoming talks.

"I'm willing to negotiate but what does the town want to do with the property?" Ross said. "I'm not against redevelopment but nobody likes to have something driven down their throat."

The clock on the 90-day moratorium has yet to start, Pellino said.
Suarez, Pellino and other borough officials said they have been satisfied with the progress they've made over eminent domain, downsizing several controversial proposals.

More than a year ago, eminent domain became a hot-button issue when the borough looked at several ideas, including a plan that would have displaced more than 60 businesses in a 60-acre area between Overpeck Creek and Grand Avenue.

In one proposal, several private homes on Hoyt and Alexander avenues were included, a plan "that was done more inadvertently, than anything else," Pellino said.

The latest proposal includes only the three businesses, which lie west of the CSX railroad tracks.
In its plan to limit its eminent domain powers, the borough would be prohibited from taking private property except for public use, "including but not limited to a road, hospital, military base, sewer, water line, sidewalk, right-of-way, flood control, park, open space, erosion control mechanism and the like," the proposed law states.

"We just wanted to make it clear to the community that in no way would we consider exercising eminent domain as far as private owners," Suarez said.

The ordinance stems from a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June. In that case, Kelo v. City of New London, the high court justices decided in a split decision that municipalities could use the power of eminent domain to take private property for economic development.

Before the high court's decision, eminent domain could be used solely for public use.
This had been interpreted as something to benefit the public, such as a hospital or park or road, not a shopping center or office buildings as New London, Conn., proposed.

The move was also influenced by talks with fellow municipal officials at a recent statewide conference and a similar law passed in Paramus, Suarez said.