L.B. plans for Beachfront South despite controversy

L.B. plans for Beachfront South despite controversy
Critics: Court rulings show blight designation is illegal
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer
Long Branch will unveil a redevelopment plan to residents of the Beachfront South oceanfront zone next week, despite criticism that the plan is based on an illegal blight designation.

Councilman Brian Unger said last week that the blight designation and redevelopment zone designation in Beachfront South and MTOTSA are illegal and would be overturned in court.

"Many Beachfront South residents are confused by the city's actions and are asking why the Schneider administration still pretends that its blight designation is defensible in court when it is not," he said.

Beachfront South extends from Bath to Morris avenues, between Ocean Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, while MTOTSA, an acronym for the neighborhood contained within Marine and Ocean terraces and Seaview Avenue, is part of the Beachfront North II redevelopment.

Also weighing in on the matter was the state Public Advocate's Office.

"It is our understanding that the city's longstanding blight designation for the Beachfront South area has not been lifted and that this is proving to be a hardship for residents because it affects their ability to sell or obtain financing for their homes," spokeswoman Laurie Brewer wrote in an email.

Brewer cited a landmark eminent domain case in South Jersey

"Clearly, any blight designation must comply with the standard set forth in the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2007 landmark decision Gallenthin v. Paulsboro," she said.

According to Unger, there are several recent legal precedents, including Gallenthin, that have successfully challenged blight designations that laid the groundwork for the use of eminent domain to take private properties.

"There have been two or three major N.J. court decisions throwing out similar blight and redevelopment designations, including the city's own blight designation in MTOTSA," he said.

On Aug. 7, 2008, a state appeals court declared the three-street neighborhood is not blighted. The three-judge panel of the New JerseyAppellate Division unanimously reversed the June 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, which allowed the city of Long Branch to condemn the MTOTSA neighborhood to make way for a luxury condominium development.

Unger said the city's failure to acknowledge those landmark rulings could prove costly and unfair to residents of Beachfront South.

"I think that City Hall has to acknowledge that the blight and redevelopment designation in Beachfront South is unfeasible, and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny or a legal challenge," he said. "I really don't want to waste millions more taxpayer dollars on failed legal strategies."

Unger went on to say that he wants to give residents an opportunity to discuss the situation.

"As policy makers, we need to give Beachfront South residents clear means to redress the situation legally," he said.

"I want our taxpayers to know what is at stake.

"We should avoid additional costly liabilities to their pocketbooks," he added. "In the end, the taxpayers pay for this nonsense."

The city has scheduled a meeting with the residents of BFS for Aug. 19 at City Hall.

The residents were alerted by a letter from Business Administrator Howard Woolley Jr.

"After meeting with each of you individually and jointly over several months, we have developed a concept plan for Beachfront South," the letter stated.

Woolley explained what the city looks to accomplish in the meeting in an interview last week.

"We want to go over some modifications and clarifications," Woolley said. "We want to give these folks a chance to move forward with what they want to do.

"It's all part of the process," he added.

BFS and MTOTSA [phase II of Beachfront North] are two of the six areas labeled as redevelopment zones.

Also labeled as redevelopment zones are Pier Village, Hotel Campus, Broadway-Gateway and Broadway-Corridor.

Woolley said the city has met with the residents of Beachfront South in the past and Schneider said that he has stayed largely out of the talks.

"I have stayed away from these meetings," Schneider said. "I didn't want it to be about me.

"It's about the interaction with the residents and the planner," he said. "I don't want to be the buffer between them."

However, Schneider did say that he plans to attend the upcoming meeting.

The biggest issue at hand is the possibility that the city will

again, as it did in MTOTSA, use

eminent domain to condemn and take private homes in the Beachfront South zone.

Last April, Unger proposed an ordinance eliminating the use of eminent domain by the city, but the ordinance did not get off the ground.

While there is no ordinance barring eminent domain, Schneider said last week it is not an option at the present time.

"Eminent domain is off the table," he said in an interview last week. "I've been very public that eminent domain will not be used in Beachfront South or MTOTSA."

However, Unger wants eminent domain to officially end and blames the administration for not enacting an ordinance barring its use.

"There is no solid defensible legal reason why the city can't immediately adopt an effective eminent domain ordinance," he said.

The Paulsboro case Brewer cited was successfully argued by Princeton attorney William Potter, of Potter & Dickson.

Potter filed a lawsuit against the city of Long Branch this spring on behalf of Kevin and Adele Fister and their properties, Fuschia Triangle Inc. and Coach Corp.

The suit claims the city used the terms "area in need of redevelopment" and "redevelopment area" while actually applying standards of "blighted" property or area that were rejected by the New Jersey Supreme Court Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro.

The Long Branch suit challenges the legality of the blight designation that underlies the city's entire redevelopment plan.

Potter briefly explained the ruling in an email last week.

"Basic points of Paulsboro is the court struck down the common metric of what is an area in need of redevelopment that is land, property, etc., [that] is under utilized [instead] only actual blight measured as continuing pattern of off site harm due to severe problems on the property," he said. "Not its relative future value as redeveloped is the proper measure."

However, according to Schneider, Long Branch did nothing illegal in labeling areas of the city as blighted.

"The blight designation was not ruled illegal," he said. "There is no determination as to the designation being inappropriate."

The Public Advocate's Office previously intervened on behalf of MTOTSA where the city was attempting to take the homes for a private development of upscale condominium units.

Public Advocate Ronald Chen's office submitted amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs in support of residents of three municipalities fighting their towns' use of eminent domain: Long Branch, Lodi and Paulsboro.

In the Long Branch brief, Chen asked the appellate court to allow the residents to have their day in court to challenge the city's use of eminent domain to condemn their oceanfront properties.

In addition to filing the briefs, Chen and his office staff studied eminent domain procedural findings and court records in towns across the state where officials are using eminent domain to acquire property for private redevelopment projects.

According to Schneider, the city and BFS residents have met several times since the new year in hopes that they can reach a common ground.

With the meeting two weeks away, Schneider doesn't think anyone should be commenting on the matter before that.

"We are working on adopting a plan with the residents," he said. "It's really inappropriate to say anything now."


Click here to enlarge



No Flash Detected
Please download the latest version by clicking below:

Get

Advertisement for Brock Farms