The City of Long Branch Eminent Domain

Defendants, the Anzalones, have challenged the city's determination that the location of their property in The City of Long Branch shall be deemed "in need for redevelopment" under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, pursuant to the New Jersey Supreme Court's new interpretation of the term "blight." The City of Long Branch determined the area in and around the Anzalone's property is need of redevelopment under subsection (e) of the aforementioned statute, which states:

"A growing lack or total lack of proper utilization of areas caused by the condition of the title, diverse ownership of the real property therein or other conditions, resulting in a stagnant or not fully productive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to and serving the public health, safety, and welfare."

The Court redefined what can be taken for eminent domain under this subsection in the case GallenthinRealty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, (2007) In this case, the court ruled that the term "blight" could not be applied to cases where the sole basis for redevelopment is that the property is "not fully productive" and only applied to cases in which "areas that as a whole are stagnant and unproductive because of issues of title, diversity of ownership, or other similar conditions." We argue that even under this new interpretation of "blight," and the application of this statute by the City, substantial evidence was provided to support the need for redevelopment. In expert reports, commissioned by the city of Long Branch, the engineers highlighted areas of deterioration and hindrances to development, "most of which applied to the City as a whole, including inadequate attention to the City's physical appearance and aesthetic qualities." The report followed that the City contained "overcrowding of houses upon the land in some areas," and "additional need for varied housing types not being served." including "functional obsolescence of housing in some areas especially the oceanfront." The plan specifically referred to the area using the term "blight". In the 1996 redevelopment study, the Oceanfront North area was described as deterring private redevelopment as it contained obsolete layout and faulty design, and there had been no building permits issued in the area between 1990 and 1995. The term blight in this study was used to describe the Broadway Corridor commercial area. The area of the Oceanfront North was reportedly composed of 20 percent vacant property and 29 percent described as in "poor" condition, meaning the property had three or more visible major structural issues. We argue that the classification of this area as in need of development was based on evidence and reasoning beyond just suboptimal land use and instead was characterized by its physical and social deterioration. The poor physical condition of housing, the large amount of vacant space in the area, one vacant lot which remained stagnant for ten years prior to the 1996 study, and the social deterioration or stagnation of the community, with the majority of citizens in the area being described as senior citizens, support this claim.

References:

City of Long Branch v Louis Anzalone and Lilian Anzalone, Docket No. MON-141-06

Determination of need for redevelopment, N.J. Stat. §, 40A:12A-5 (2003).

GallenthinRealty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 188 N.J. 492, 909 A.2d 767 (N.J. Sup. 2007).