CityWorks in the Press
Property Rights Battle Isn't Over, Some Argue
State Limits Sought On Eminent Domain
Published in the Asbury Park Press 06/24/05
BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
The case against eminent domain - the government's power to acquire private property for public purposes - now moves to state courts and legislatures after a U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday ruled it a valid way to revitalize a community, an advocate said.
Steven Anderson, coordinator for the Castle Coalition, the Washington-based Institute for Justice's grass-roots property rights division, called the 5-to-4 decision in favor of the use of eminent domain in economic development cases "an unfortunate decision that marks a sad day for American homeowners and small business owners."
He said the decision, which allows government to take private property after paying "just compensation," provides for an "unconstitutional land grab" in which the middle and working classes will be most vulnerable.
He said Utah recently became the first state to use a state statute to ban eminent domain by redevelopment agencies. Michigan and Illinois use court decisions to limit the practice.
Anderson called New Jersey "one of the worst abusers. . . . It is mind-boggling how many places . . . are under the threat of eminent domain for private development," Anderson said.
In Monmouth County alone, the issue has surfaced in Long Branch, Neptune, Asbury Park and Belmar.
Gail L. Oliver of Neptune said that while eminent domain is appropriate when a community is deteriorating, the power is easily abused.
"I'm horrified by it," said Dorothy Argyros of Neptune, leader of a citizens group opposing the taking of property in redevelopment efforts there. "The whole nature of the nation has changed by this decision. . . . We've kicked the Constitution to pieces."
Asbury Park Councilman Ed Johnson, a political scientist by occupation and education, believes eminent domain should only be employed for critical needs, such as building a road or hospital or providing for civil defense.
"I'm troubled by the theory of "let me take your house to give to another private property owner to generate money,' " he said. "I don't think that is a public good. . . . We really need to be careful not to get on a runaway train of disregarding the personal lives of everyday people."
William G. Dressel Jr., executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, applauded the decision in "one of the most important local government cases to come before the Supreme Court because redevelopment efforts are an essential element in revitalizing our older, primarily urban areas."
He said the concept of "smart growth" - forcing growth into areas where infrastructure to support it already exists - sometimes makes it necessary to acquire entire blocks.
"It has been our experience that local governments try to avoid the exercise of eminent domain powers unless it is truly necessary to accomplish the redevelopment," he said in a statement.
Mayor Kenneth E. Pringle of Belmar, where proposed downtown redevelopment is being undertaken without acquiring homes, said he was not surprised by the Supreme Court decision.
"I thought the court recognized this isn't a black-and-white issue," he said.
State Limits Sought On Eminent Domain
Published in the Asbury Park Press 06/24/05
BY CAROL GORGA WILLIAMS
COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU
The case against eminent domain - the government's power to acquire private property for public purposes - now moves to state courts and legislatures after a U.S. Supreme Court decision Thursday ruled it a valid way to revitalize a community, an advocate said.
Steven Anderson, coordinator for the Castle Coalition, the Washington-based Institute for Justice's grass-roots property rights division, called the 5-to-4 decision in favor of the use of eminent domain in economic development cases "an unfortunate decision that marks a sad day for American homeowners and small business owners."
He said the decision, which allows government to take private property after paying "just compensation," provides for an "unconstitutional land grab" in which the middle and working classes will be most vulnerable.
He said Utah recently became the first state to use a state statute to ban eminent domain by redevelopment agencies. Michigan and Illinois use court decisions to limit the practice.
Anderson called New Jersey "one of the worst abusers. . . . It is mind-boggling how many places . . . are under the threat of eminent domain for private development," Anderson said.
In Monmouth County alone, the issue has surfaced in Long Branch, Neptune, Asbury Park and Belmar.
Gail L. Oliver of Neptune said that while eminent domain is appropriate when a community is deteriorating, the power is easily abused.
"I'm horrified by it," said Dorothy Argyros of Neptune, leader of a citizens group opposing the taking of property in redevelopment efforts there. "The whole nature of the nation has changed by this decision. . . . We've kicked the Constitution to pieces."
Asbury Park Councilman Ed Johnson, a political scientist by occupation and education, believes eminent domain should only be employed for critical needs, such as building a road or hospital or providing for civil defense.
"I'm troubled by the theory of "let me take your house to give to another private property owner to generate money,' " he said. "I don't think that is a public good. . . . We really need to be careful not to get on a runaway train of disregarding the personal lives of everyday people."
William G. Dressel Jr., executive director of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, applauded the decision in "one of the most important local government cases to come before the Supreme Court because redevelopment efforts are an essential element in revitalizing our older, primarily urban areas."
He said the concept of "smart growth" - forcing growth into areas where infrastructure to support it already exists - sometimes makes it necessary to acquire entire blocks.
"It has been our experience that local governments try to avoid the exercise of eminent domain powers unless it is truly necessary to accomplish the redevelopment," he said in a statement.
Mayor Kenneth E. Pringle of Belmar, where proposed downtown redevelopment is being undertaken without acquiring homes, said he was not surprised by the Supreme Court decision.
"I thought the court recognized this isn't a black-and-white issue," he said.
© 2005 - 2007 CityWorks, All Rights Reserved