Strong words in opposition of Eminent Domain Abuse

[Mulberry Street Coalition]

In a press conference today Senator Ellen Karcher spoke out against Eminent Domain Abuse and introduced a bill to reform the current system

Redevelopment Reform News Conference
Senator Ellen Karcher, D-Monmouth
March 7, 2006

I would first like to thank the Center for Civic Responsibility for all their hard work and dedicated efforts to ensure that this issue is recognized by the state and that action is taken.

In 2003, I ran for the State Senate on a platform of ethics reform. No one single issue underscored the need for change more than the pay-to-play practice of trading lucrative contracts for campaign cash.

Often, pay-to-play and eminent domain abuse go hand-in-hand, with unscrupulous public officials forcing homeowners from their homes to give their developer buddies the property they need to build a strip mall or high-priced, high density development.

Unchecked development, fueled by the pay-to-play contributions of corrupt developers seeking to short-cut the regular permitting process, is eating up open space and threatening our quality of life.

I know firsthand the pressures that public officials face from developers seeking to fast track through their projects.

Prior to being elected to the State Senate, I served on the Marlboro Township Council. Unscrupulous developers and politicians harassed and threatened me and my family in an attempt to push me to support inappropriate land deals.

I went to the FBI and offered my help and together we brought down corrupt officials who were trading Marlboro's future for their own profit.

I wish I could say Marlboro was an exception to the rule, and not an example of the rule.

But pay-to-play and eminent domain abuse are running rampant in our communities, and corruption is paving the way for over-development that threatens our homes.

We must ensure that if a municipal government acquires property, it is for the right reasons. This proposal is designed to do just that.


As a resident of a town that has suffered the consequences of questionable and corrupt land deals, I fully understand the dire need to reform the current laws and ensure that eminent domain powers are exercised in a responsible manner, untainted by corruption and political favoritism.

Corruption and the abuse of our system is wrong for New Jersey, and jeopardizes so much that so many of us have worked for to make our homes in the Garden State. The measures that we are proposing today offer critical safeguards for New Jersey residents.

I also want to ensure that in the future, the public is fully informed of development and redevelopment proposals in their area. Decisions that affect residents throughout an area should not be made behind closed doors.

This bill recognizes the importance of public notification and input in the decision making process. It will ensure that a greater number of residents are made aware of development plans that are proposed for their neighborhoods and will affect the quality of life of the whole community.

It will also ensure accountability during the redevelopment process by generating opportunities for the public to ask questions and provide input at Planning Board Meetings.

This bill will curb pay-to-play problems in redevelopment projects and ensure that contracts are not awarded as payback or reward for campaign contributions.

If enacted it will ban pay-to-play contributions from the beginning to the end of a project's development, and ban contributions from consultants such as their lawyers and engineers.

These new regulations will apply to ALL redevelopment projects at the state, county and local levels and an annual disclosure would be required of developers to the Election Law Enforcement Commission.

For too long, New Jerseyans have lived with the negative effects of pay-to-play, corruption and eminent domain abuse.

Overdevelopment, spurred on by these corrupt practices, inflate our property taxes, promote overcrowding in our schools, and clog our transportation network.

In short, overdevelopment is making life in New Jersey for many unaffordable and nearly unlivable. Sadly, corruption in New Jersey has made us a punch line in jokes from coast to coast.

We must push for a better way. We must rid New Jersey of the old-guard practices that have gotten us into this mess.

Before we can realize a better tomorrow, we must face up to the mistakes of the past, fix them and assure they never happen again. Today's proposal will be a critical tool to do just that and ensure a brighter tomorrow for the Garden State.

Again, I'd like to thank the Center for Civic Responsibility for being out front on this issue.

[Mulberry Street Coalition]

Angry citizens get their say on eminent domain
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
BY STEVE CHAMBERS
Star-Ledger Staff
A legislative committee considering reform of the state's sweeping redevelopment law got an earful yesterday from property owners facing seizure of their houses or businesses.

"We're real people with real lives who are being affected," said Linda Brnicevic, a Bound Brook resident who was flooded out by Hurricane Floyd but now faces the loss of her property to a downtown redevelopment plan.

The hearing followed a protest by about 40 residents outside the Statehouse Annex and featured members of the public who were shut out of the committee's first hearing last month, which was dominated by planners, lawyers and elected officials who support the law.

Olga Pomar, a lawyer with South Jersey Legal Services, said she was pleased that people like her clients in Camden were getting an opportunity to speak. But she said late notice of the weekday hearing made it difficult for working-class people affected by redevelopment plans to attend.

"Look how many people showed up in spite of those hurdles," Pomar said. "Imagine what would happen if they held a well-advertised hearing on an evening or weekend. You can see how compelling this issue is."

The state law allows towns to seize private property deemed "in need of redevelopment" using powers of eminent domain and hand it over to private developers. Supporters call it a vital tool for alleviating urban blight, but critics say it has been abused by politically connected developers.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain by government for purposes of redevelopment, but the decision prompted a national outcry and a campaign by property rights groups to curtail its use.

Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester), chairman of the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee, which held the hearings, said he is determined to investigate all sides and correct any flaws in the 1992 law.

"We need to restore public confidence that government is not lurking around the corner waiting to steal someone's property," he said.

Critics have been pessimistic about their chances to repeal the law, given the fact that redevelopment is a clarion call in Democrat-controlled urban areas and powerful groups like the state League of Municipalities are battling such a severe step.

Still, with the hearings expanded to include private citizens and eminent domain taking a pounding nationwide, some said they sensed the tide was turning.

"I think they are looking for a way to stop the bleeding," said Jeff Tittel, chairman of the state Sierra Club chapter, of the ruling Democrats.

He predicted some significant reform and recommended a much more transparent system that bans the selection of redevelopers who have made campaign contributions.

In an unusual alliance, builders and Realtors agreed with environmentalists that reform is needed. Joanne Harkins of the New Jersey Builders Association suggested tightening definitions used to declare areas in need of redevelopment and said the selection of developers must be much more public and fair.

"We believe private property owners who live in and maintain their homes have the right to remain in that home," added Jarrod Grasso of the New Jersey Association of Realtors. "We believe small-business owners who maintain the property and contribute to the economy have the right to remain in business."

William Dressel, of the state League of Municipalities, a strong supporter of the law, said his organization, too, wants reforms that will protect property owners without eliminating the law.

"These people may not realize it, but we're on the same side," Dressel said following the fiery protest that proceeded the hearing.

That protest featured chants of "Moratorium Now," sign waving and emotional testimony by property owners wearing stickers with the words "eminent domain abuse" with a red slash through them.

"The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves," said Dorothy Argyros, a resident of Neptune, where officials poked a hornet's nest by proposing a redevelopment zone that contained about 1,250 houses and businesses.

"This is a terrible thing that is happening to us," added Willa Coletraine of Lawnside, where a proposed redevelopment of 100 vacant acres near a train station has expanded to include an adjacent community. "I'm not against redevelopment; I'm against taking people's homes."