Thank You North Arlington

Eminent Domain Changes proposed

2006-10-23T07:41:00.000-07:00

There is no "magic bullet" for private property owners fighting the government over eminent domain, but a bill re cently passed by the state Assembly and now before the Senate would at least level the playing field.

That was a key piece of encouragement related by attorney Mary Lou Delahanty and her husband R. Kevin McGrory, former city municipal court chief judge, to about a dozen residents who attended a discussion concerning eminent do main at the Trenton Meeting of Friends yesterday.

The discussion, co-sponsored by the Latino Community Land Trust and BOOST (Building Open Opportunity Structures Together), came just days after the city council voted to allow the administration to condemn portions or entire private properties for a South Ward project if a deal cannot be reached with the owners.

The ordinances adopted by the council are for properties on Centre and Lamberton streets needed for the balance of an 84-unit condo project proposed by K. Hovnanian for the Champale Redevelopment Area.

Delahanty said it is next to impossible under current legislation for a private property owner to fight condemnation action by a municipality. Delahanty said in her practice she has found it is better to focus resources on litigating the issue of fair market value rather than trying to fight a municipality on eminent domain.

Practical strategies for dealing with condemnation actions include not accepting a municipality's first offer, which may be lower than subsequent offers, she said.

Delahanty also advised property owners to get an appraiser to assist in the initial negotiations.
But McGrory pointed out that in most cases of condemnation and eminent domain, it is difficult for property owners to incur the cost of attorneys and appraisers while the condemning authority easily can afford such expert assistance.

McGrory said a bill that passed the state Assembly and is pending in the Senate would make a number of changes to the local redevelopment and housing laws.

One of the most important changes would be a shift in the burden of proof for designating an area as in need of redevelopment, he said. Current law gives the condemning party the benefit of the doubt. Those challenging a condemnation ordinance are required to prove it is arbitrary and unreasonable, which McGrory said is an exceedingly high burden of proof.

The bill also would change the type of compensation offered to a property owner from fair market value to replacement value. Delahanty said that is significant in a city such as Trenton with so many "depressed" properties. "You are giving someone the price it will take to have that structure again and that becomes a more fair process," said Delahanty. "People will be more protected."

Others changes include increased notice to people who re side in potential redevelopment areas about pertinent meetings and hearings.

Brief update on some of the items happening in North Arlington

2006-08-22T05:38:00.000-07:00

As promised a brief update on what's been going on since the June 6th election;

The council has voted to get a special counsel to review the currently signed ENCAP deal

The law firm of CHASAN LEYNER & LAMPARELLO, PC of Secaucus has been choosen to perform this tasks. An appropiation for funds for the special counsel is currently underway.

Status of Porete Avenue property owners

16 of the companies on Porete Avenue have refused the offer made to them.

At the council meeting on the 17th. Mayor Pitman stated the he fully expected Encap to come back to the owners with a second offer.

Let it Go Mayor Pitman:

Mayor Pitman's continued insistence that eminent domain should be used to seize private property flies in the face of the voter's mandate which overwhelmingly rejected his candidacy for re-election on June 6th.

Mayor Pitman touts due-diligence reports that simply rubber stamp the notion that building 1,625 units of housing along some 75 acres of property is somehow a good idea for taxpayers. That using eminent domain to seize the property of North Arlington taxpayers makes sense.

Mayor Pitman is now a lame duck because he didn't protect the interests of the North Arlington homeowner. He has morphed into some cheerleader for a project the community does not want no matter how many times he claims he knows what's best for North Arlington.

What Mayor Pitman doesn't seem to comprehend is that his housing scheme has been rejected by the voters. That his backroom negotiations with EnCap which never included the governing body in a serious way have in fact backfired in his face!

Mayor Pitman's disdain for the electorate was exposed for all to see at the last council meeting when he opposed placing a referendum on the ballot vastly restricting the application of eminent domain. His opposition to the voters having a say is disturbing and troubling to me as a taxpayer and candidate for public office.

Since his defeat, Mr. Pitman has spent his time trying to undermine the wishes of the voters by playing obstructionist and opposing the hiring of an independent legal counsel to truly evaluate the deal he claims is so beneficial to North Arlington.Mr. Mayor, what are you afraid of? If the MOA as negotiated by you is in fact a good deal for taxpayers, why are you opposed to a third-party evaluating your proposal?

Not only is Mr. Pitman a poor loser, but he continues to ignore the voter's wishes by pushing something nobody seems to support except for himself and his legal counsel.

As we enter the fall campaign, Mr. Pitman seems determined to play some role in a contest that has already eliminated him from the competition. He openly meets with the Republican candidates for council and has no interest in stepping aside and serving the remainder of his term with the dignity and professionalism the office of mayor deserves.

I fully expect my opponents in this race to embrace EnCap, eminent domain and the construction of low income housing. Like Pitman, the opposition would rather disagree for the sake of disagreeing than listen to the calls of the homeowner who are petrified by thought of this project and the consequences that come with urbanizing the Borough of North Arlington.

Fighting Eminent Domain

2006-06-07T08:15:00.000-07:00

The borough of North Arlington has spoken loud and clear. This is our home. The peoples support for Pete Massa, Sal Dibalsi and Al Granell sets forth a clear mandate to all that are listening.

NO EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE in North Arlington will be tolerated. If the elected officials do not support that stance. New ones that do will be put in their place.

Thank You North Arlington for setting a standard that all other towns can follow.

Thanks Again Albert Granell

For more information. please log onto www.natoday.net

Running for Council in North Arlington

2006-05-12T08:07:00.000-07:00

Hello Folks,

As you are probably aware. I'm running for a council spot in town. I'm running with Sal DiBlasi owner of Cobra Construction and co-founder of the North Arlington Property Right Coalition and Councilman Pete Massa. To all of you who have supported my family before. I ask you to support me in this run to put Eminent Domain and Encap to rest in North Arlington. Thanks Again to all of you.

NORTH ARLINGTON - Big promises and little detail best describes the political mailing sent to homeowners this week by the Pitman ticket as the race for mayor begins to heat-up in North Arlington.Paid for by the committee to re-elect The Pitman Team, the incumbents talk about the perceived benefits of the Encap agreement without ever mentioning the words Encap or Arlington Valley."The drop in the Mayor's poll numbers are directly reflected in his support of EnCap, eminent domain and random development. It's no accident that he would not refer to the very plan North Arlington homeowners overwhelmingly oppose.

North Arlington voters have lost trust in this incumbent who refuses to acknowledge the sentiment against EnCap and the usage of eminent domain to make this project a reality," said Massa Campaign Manager Steve Tanelli, a borough councilman."North Arlington is alarmed - and rightly so - because Mayor Pitman continues to operate in a vacuum where dissent and discussion have no place in the construction of legitimate public policy," noted Tanelli."

Mayor Pitman said the devil was in the details when it came to EnCap and Arlington Valley. When is he going to share those details with the voters?" questioned Councilman Peter Massa, who is challenging Pitman in the June 6th Democratic Primary."How can you make irresponsible statements about cutting taxes 35% when spending is set to increase because of this very proposal? Why not claim taxes are going to decrease 50% or 100%? These remarks lack any credibility and that's why I want to debate Mayor Pitman so the voters can see for themselves how reckless this course of action has become," said Massa."Mayor Pitman is disguising his Low Income Housing plan as something for seniors and middle income residents. He then insults the rest of the community by inferring that some homes in the borough are neither clean or safe. In the eyes of the Pitman Team, all of North Arlington must be some blighted, deteriorated slum. When you have a sitting councilman refer to the community as "an armpit," I think we need a change of leadership," observed Massa.

Massa and his running-mates Al Granell & Sal DiBlasi dismissed Pitman's pie-in-the-sky rhetoric."The Mayor will say anything to get re-elected. This is bait and switch salesmanship at it's worse.

What is North Arlington's financial obligation when it comes to schools, roads and public safety?

Why won't the Mayor admit that eminent domain will be used to seize private property?

Why won't the incumbent explain to voters that 40% of all property tax revenues will go to EnCap and not North Arlington?

Why didn't Mayor Pitman negotiate school impact fees paid directly to the Board of Education? Cost is word Mayor Pitman is avoiding at all costs," observed council candidate Al Granell."We have a Mayor who simply doesn't trust the people he claims to represent. He refuses to place a referendum on the ballot. He refuses any public input as it applies to his back-room MOA. His Advisory Committee is such a sham and a phony that one of the borough's finest citizens resigned in disgust. This is a Mayor who had a sitting councilman removed from a public press conference.

North Arlington has one opportunity to change the course of the community and that day is June 6th," said candidate Sal DiBlasi.

The Massa campaign was not surprised by the level of "hyped rhetoric" coming from the Pitman camp."They have no choice but to put the best face on a very flawed project. This election is a referendum on his handling and negotiation of EnCap. Droves of former supporters like myself have deserted his campaign. His closest supporters have left in disgust. EnCap is the single worst public policy initiative in the history of North Arlington and the only people who don't see it that way are the three incumbents," observed Massa.

As promised. A letter I received from the developer today. To those people that live 201 feet away. Here is the letter. Thanks to all of you.

2006-04-11T11:19:00.000-07:00

Special Planning Board Meeting

2006-03-27T10:54:00.000-08:00

Sign the petition
http://www.stopencapnow.com/newsletter.html er.html

Another link to Eminent domain bills. A good person on the nj.com forum provided this link info.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillsByKeyword.asp

Looks like there is a Special planning board meeting on Wednesday the 29th at 7:00 pm.
Agenda for Special Planning Board meeting

* - Agenda is subject to change for matters not known at the time of this printing.
This always make me nervous when they say this.

Application One

Meadowlands development commission
RE: Subdivision of BCUA Transfer station
Property:
Decision:

Application Two
436 Ridge Road
RE: “Site Plan Review” proposed
Courtyard fencing in front of building.
Decision:

I believe this is the COAH item Mr Marinello was speaking about last meeting. This is also posted at borough hall. It ‘s to long to post here. Almost 9 pages.

Ordinance NO:1958

Whereas, the Mayor and Council of the borough of North Arlington are required by the
“Council on Affordable Housing”, to implement mandatory development fees to be used as required by law for providing low and moderate income housing.

Canceled Meeting

2006-02-22T16:22:00.000-08:00

First of all. I just want to say "Thank You" to all the people who have supported my family. Your support has been fantastic. You are the reason why the meeting was cancelled.

People can say what they want. But I believe certain developers, hair dressers and politicians wanted no part of borough hall being full of citizens and the media asking hard questions. But this fight is far from over. Eminent Domain will probably be used across the street from me 601-624 ridge road. I guess that is where Palumbo, Sanborn's and the Capodagli builders will target next.

That simply means the process that our borough has to use Eminent Domain has to be stopped. We have to fight Eminent Domain anywhere in the borough. Nobody has the right to take your property from you and hand it over to a developer. We are all still targets.

Here is the latest letter. This one is actually from the borough of North Arlington.

Save North Arlington from Eminent Domain

2006-02-20T09:32:00.001-08:00

The Borough meeting scheduled for 8:00 pm february 23rd has been cancelled.

First of all I want to say. That what is happening to my home can happen anywhere in the borough of North Arlington. Not just Ridge Road, or Porete Avenue.

With that in mind. Imagine if you will. You wake up on Saturday morning. You get your kids ready for the day. You take one of your kids to the middle school for her weekly traveling team practice. You get to the middle school and one of the parents at the school walks up to you with a local newspaper and say’s, ‘Hey I see you’re moving’. On the front page of one of the local papers is a project called the Renaissance and it’s where your house is.

That’s how my family was introduced to Eminent Domain. That’s how my neighbor Robert Palumbo’s Hair Saloon decided to tell us about his condo project. Nobody from the borough notified us. Nobody told us that this was going on. Just another parent reading an article, was sharing there concern. That’s the way that my family found out how some greedy developer and a hair dresser has plans for our home.

Art Roberts Studio has been a staple of North Arlington since 1958. Mr. Miller purchased his home and opened this business to make a better life for his family. Mr. Miller is typical of all homeowners, businessman and taxpayers. Buy your house, go to work, raise your family. I think they call that the American dream.

Mr Miller is my father-in-law. My family has lived in the second floor apartment at 610 Ridge Road for over 17 years. My wife was born here and our children were born and raised in North Arlington.

My family strongly disagrees with the power of government to take private property and hand it over to only developers. With the use of eminent domain a developer doesn’t have to negotiate. He just has to go to the City and say, listen; we have a better plan than what these property owners have. We can generate more property taxes. We want the property.

From what I understand, eminent domain is defined as taking a private property for public use. Public use should only be used for reservoirs, highways, police departments, schools.

That’s what our forefathers intended it to be for, not for luxury hotels, condos, industrial parks that only benefit one person, and that is the developers and their friends.

“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” - Justice O’Connor

The Ridge Road re-development plan places homeowners and business at risk. We are all exposed to Eminent Domain under this plan. Several Council members have stated publicly there stance on Eminent Domain. Councilman Massa has stated several times how he is against Eminent Domain for private development. Councilman Tanelli is looking to have this very issue addressed on the November election in the form of a referendum.

But this borough is not alone.

Several other boroughs have already passed legislation to protect property owners. Paramus and Bogota to name a few. In Bogota, the response to the threat of Eminent Domain was clear.
There, a referendum asked the mayor and council to pass an ordinance limiting the use of eminent domain to condemn private property to public purposes only, such as to build a school, build a highway. The ballot passed.

This is a very clear issue. Protect our property, our homes and our business’s. This is not New London, Conneticut, it’s North Arlington. This Planning Board and Council has the power to protect North Arlington residents. We need the borough to protect us from greedy people and developers who are looking to prey on people in the borough.

If not, you could be next.

Update on my home.

2006-02-16T03:15:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday the 16th early in the day my family reached out to Mayor Pittman and called the town hall to find out what was going on with the letters I received from the boro planning board. He wasn’t available then.

But later in the day Councilman Roche stopped by my home to speak with my family about the letters and to ensure us that Eminent Domain wasn’t an issue for my property. He explained to my family that indeed there were two projects that were presented to the mayor and council. One of them was the 5 story Renaissance project on my side of the street (Palumbo’s, UVA and Art Roberts’s studio).

The other project is called the ‘Village’. That’s across the street from me. That’s 601 to 623 ridge road. That’s’ also where Joe’s Bakery, Jade Chinese Takeout, and Sanborn’s deli are today. That project will be looking to create a first floor parking lot and a three story condo complex if Palumbo gets his way.

Later in the day. Mayor Pittman stopped by my home. I wasn’t home, be he left me a number to call him to address this issue. I called the number and spoke with the mayor. He to, was like councilman Roche and unaware of this mailing by the boro concerning my property. He pointed out that even though both letters have the boro seal on them. The mailing was from the developer, not the boro.

I know it's legal to only send letters to people within 200 feet of a proposed project. But these aren't little projects and they both affect the boro dramatically. I would hate to live 201 feet away and not know what's going on next door to me. There has to be a better way of communicating that info throughout the boro.

He also mentioned to me that the boro lawyer spoke with the developer and made the mayor's position on Eminent Domain very clear.The Mayor made it quite clear he hasn’t changed his stance on Eminent Domain and didn’t understand what Palumbo and his developer were up to. We will all find out on the 23rd of February.

I have also found out today that I’m not alone in receiving letters from this developer on Eminent Domain. At least one other family across the street from me has had to endure the abuse by Palumbo’s developer.

I don’t know why we would do business with Palumbo’s developer. If Palumbo wants to move and expand. Move. But not at some family’s expense.

Greedy Palumbo and Planning Board Meeting to defend our home.

2006-02-11T09:12:00.000-08:00

Well it looks like besides Porete Avenue. The boroughs first case of Eminent Domain and seizure of a home to build a condo complex will begin on Febuary 23rd at the boro Planning Board meeting at town hall.

There are two projects that will be discussed at this meeting.

One is for the building of the Renaissance project. That's where Palumbo wants to take his business, my home and business "Art Roberts Studio" and The UVA restaurant to build his condo project.

The second project to be discussed will be right across the street from me. That's where Joe's bakery,Chinese takeout, and Jim Sanborn's deli are. If Palumbo can't get my house. He's gunning for the second project property.

This is Palumbo playing one property against the other. He and his builder friend are manipulating the boro. Must be nice to do that. What project are we meeting on? I said once before and dozens of times since. I'm not selling my home and business. I guess the Hairdresser(Palumbo) doesn't care that I'm not interested in selling my home and business. Ive told him and his groupies dozens of times. I'm not sure who's next in the boro.

I recently gave a letter to the mayor and town lawyer. It was from the developer of the renaissance project and palumbo. They basically said that if I didn't take their deal. They would move forward with Eminent Domain proceedings. Our Boro lawyer said he would take care of it.

Thanks Marinello.

It time for Pittman and the council to stand up to these bully's. NA is not for sale. Homes and business's are not for sale for greedy developers (Encap and Capaodagli) who want to to come into our town and scoop up properties, and certainly not a hairdresser who thinks he is a real estate tycoon now. The mayor and Council member Massa have been consistent about the use of Eminent Domain against a homeowner. The mayor and Councilman Roche both visited me and told me that Eminent Domain would never be used against a home.

It's time for our elected officials to stand up and defend their words and stance on this issue.
The boro doesn't need rhetoric. It's needs leaders!

It's time for people to stop talking about it and do something about it.
It's time for NA to defend itself from the greedy and selfish developers.
It's time folks, homeowners, business people,taxpayers to protect and take back their boro.

Call the mayor, Call the council, Find out for yourself. What is their position on Eminent Domain.

It's Time!!!!!!!!!!

By the way. Another out of towner. Palumbo doesn't even live in town.

I invite all to attend this meeting. I need your help. You and I both need to know what the Planning Board is planning for our children's future. Please come to this meeting.

I have posted both letters on the projects below.

letter 1

letter 2

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

2005-12-14T07:53:00.000-08:00

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.

North Arlington, Our home town, labeled " A Ghost Town" by Robert Palumbo

2005-11-02T08:08:00.000-08:00

Wednesday ,October 19,2005
Article from the "South Bergenite"

The Renaissance , A 96 unit condominium and retail complex , may soon be coming to the north end of Ridge Road, opposite the Village at North Ridge, a project the developer George Capodagli is building and is slated to replace the Sanborn strip mall on the west side of Ridge Road. That project is slated for 32 units and retail space.

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 Administration supports House passage of H.R. 4128 in order to safeguard the rights of private property owners. H.R. 4128 would prohibit States and local communities that receive Federal economic development funds from using their eminent domain power to seize private property that is subsequently used merely for economic development purposes.

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.