Assemblymen John Burzichelli and Robert Gordon

BURZICHELLI/GORDON EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM BILL
CLEARS COMMITTEE HURDLE
Measure Would Set Stricter Parameters for Use of Eminent Domain,
Prevent Abuses in Cases of Private Development(TRENTON) -- The Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee today released legislation to dramatically rewrite New Jersey's eminent domain law, imposing new requirements for local governments for compensating and notifying landowners when private land is to be seized for development projects.

The bil'’s release in a 6 to 1 vote culminates a four-month process in which the committee's chairman, Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli (D-Gloucester), took nearly 15 hours of testimony on the eminent domain issue from the public, legal experts, municipal officials, and affected interest groups.

"A person's home is their most prized possession and the fact-finding aspect of this process clearly showed that the state's eminent domain laws need to be tightened and strengthened with respect to preventing abusive practices," said Burzichelli.

"We need to ensure transparency, accountability and due process when eminent domain is exercised," said Assemblyman Robert Gordon (D-Bergen), the bill's co-prime sponsor. "Seizures of private property should be the exception, not the norm. The redevelopment process should be accountable to property owners, especially those who are to be displaced through eminent domain."

The Burzichelli/Gordon bill (A-3257) would ensure property owners receive fair market value, are given more notification when a municipality is looking to redevelop, and shifts the burden on government to prove redevelopment is necessary.

Among other things, the bill would eliminate language in current state laws that allows for the possibility of a homeowner losing their home simply because a "better" use was envisioned for their property by a local governmental body.

Other provisions in the bill would do the following:

* Require compensation for seized property to equal the highest possible value of property;
* Eliminates open-ended blight designation and instead requires municipalities to demonstrate progress 10 years following designation;
* Revise redevelopment public hearing notices to require they be simply written and inform people that eminent domain could be involved;
* Ensure all documents relevant to an eminent domain hearing available for public inspection are posted on a municipality’s Web site;
* Require all affected property owners in a development zone get direct notice when eminent domain is being used;
* Mandate that owners of non-blighted properties in a redevelopment zone are given reasons why the property is needed for a proposed project;
* Establish mandatory waiting periods so property owners can educate themselves and seek legal action if they choose;
* Give residents dislocated by eminent domain first right to either buy or lease a new home built within a redevelopment zone;
* Prohibit eminent domain from being used in more than 20 percent of the land mass for a redevelopment project;
* Require redevelopment agreements involving eminent domain to include a schedule for acquiring such property;
* Require eminent domain requests to be consummated within five years of a redevelopment agreement;
* Require local governments to provide the state with information about redevelopment projects so that the information may be compiled in reports available to public;
* Require developers and local governments to identify all costs and benefits of proposed projects;
* Limits non-blighted property that may be included in a redevelopment area to 20 percent of land mass.

Eminent domain is the power of a government to take a parcel of private property, without consent, if "just compensation" is provided to the landowner. A public backlash against the practice arose last June when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government entities could seize private homes for purposes of facilitating economic development.

Burzichelli said revisions to the state's 1949 condemnation guidelines allowed government to take land deemed "underutilized" and "in need of redevelopment" and convey it to a private developer.

The legislative initiative to revamp the state's eminent domain laws was triggered by the public's backlash to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing a middle-class New London, Conn. neighborhood to be razed through eminent domain to make way for a private redevelopment plan. Although existing New Jersey law would not have invited a New London situation, the case exposed that New Jersey's law needed to be reexamined and revised.

"Eminent domain can be a great tool to bring about progress -- roads, bridges, parklands -- but it can be entirely counterproductive if abused," said Burzichelli. "We need to ensure that the state's eminent domain law is as tightly worded as possible to ensure that the interests of residents are sufficiently protected."

The Burzichelli/Gordon measure is scheduled for an Assembly floor vote on Thursday.

-- 30 --