Eminent Domain Ruling Dismays NJ, PA Owners in Bulldozers' Path

WENDY RUDERMAN & DIANE MASTRULL / Philadelphia Inquirer 24jun2005

Owners of properties targeted for seizure in the name of redevelopment from the Main Line to the Shore voiced dismay yesterday when the U.S. Supreme Court sided with local governments on the reach of eminent domain.

"All I can say is that my feelings go from irate to numb," said Michelina Benoit, a homeowner in Ventnor, N.J. "They can bulldoze us and they can laugh all the way to the bank and the government and federal court can cheer them on, but it's morally wrong, and they know it."

Officials in Benoit's Shore town want to seize 17 tracts, including her home, through eminent domain, and deed them to developers who plan to build condos, townhouses and retail space.

Ventnor is one of dozens of towns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania considering the use of eminent domain for redevelopment proposals.

But unlike New London, Conn. - the subject of the ruling - these towns face a range of problems, including crime and congestion, that require the projects for revitalization, officials in the region said. New London officials said they needed the properties for a project that would simply give the town an economic boost.

Because the arguments differ, the Supreme Court decision will have little, if any, impact on redevelopment projects in this region, property-rights experts say.

At least for now.

David B. Snyder, a lawyer who specializes in eminent domain with Fox Rothschild in Philadelphia, said the Supreme Court had given a "stamp of approval" to New Jersey and Pennsylvania officials who would like the power to seize property purely for economic benefit.

Under statutes in both states, local officials can use eminent domain to take property only in redevelopment zones or in areas deemed in need of repair. However, opponents say both statutes are so broad that virtually any area can be declared a redevelopment zone.

'Not a green light'

Still, the Supreme Court opened the door for state lawmakers to consider retooling the statutes to give local officials more power to take property, Snyder and other experts said.

Owners of properties earmarked for demolition said they had hoped the court would give them some ammunition to fight for their homes and businesses. Instead, local courts - where some owners have filed suit - may be more inclined to follow the high court's lead.

"Certainly, this court case puts momentum on the side of the developers," said George Baker of Westville, a Gloucester County town on the Delaware River where officials want to replace his home and several others with condos and a marina.

Officials in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey sought to calm fears sparked by yesterday's ruling.

"This is not a green light to just go ahead and take people's homes because you don't like their homes," said Joe Manko, a Lower Merion commissioner who is a land-use lawyer.

In Ardmore, a village in his Montgomery County township, officials want to convert an old train station into a centerpiece for a transit-oriented development of housing and stores, and demolish about 10 historic buildings.

A local effort

Manko defended the Ardmore revitalization plan as necessary to replace the station, address congestion and parking shortages in the business district, and strengthen the community as a place where people can live and work around a transit hub, something the state is encouraging.

"If a developer can give us what would accomplish what we want without taking any property, we would look very favorably at that," Manko said.

Sharon Eckstein, president of the Save Ardmore Coalition, called on legislators to respond to the ruling by changing Pennsylvania law to preclude using economic development as justification for seizure by eminent domain.

Robert Sugarman, a Philadelphia land-use lawyer representing Eckstein's coalition in its federal lawsuit against the township, saw some hope in the ruling. What excited him, he said, was Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the majority that each use of eminent domain for economic development should be evaluated to ensure it is justified and part of a well-conceived plan.

For instance, Sugarman said, the court found that New London was seriously depressed citywide and had complied with elaborate procedural requirements to support its use of eminent domain. He said that was not the case in Lower Merion.

source: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/11971149.htm 25jun2005