Mayor Adam Schneider claims Long Branch’s eminent domain is different from the Connecticut case, now in the highest court in the land (Kelo v. New London).

Well, how is it different, Adam? You’ve said we, the citizens of Long Branch, just don’t understand. Unfortunately we understand all too well what this development means. First, no family property is safe from being stolen if a developer comes up with a plan for more high end condos, i.e., better ratables. Second, most homes in that area were well kept and family owned, while only a few areas on the beach could be called “blighted” — and these were rentals.

Third, profit for the few comes ahead of, and at the expense of, the many (aka long-term property owners).

The city is blame for those blighted areas, by not having enough code inspectors to keep after and penalize those landlords.

Too, these plans were pushed forward by the “project development specialist” — noncitizens of New Jersey, and the building developer — also noncitizens of New Jersey, both hired by the mayor and council. Hmmm.

Think of it! The developer gives a home owner, say, $200,000, fair market value at that time. Then he builds four units on that property, at $300,000 to $450,000 each. Thus he gleans a profit of $1,000,000 to $1,800,000 per property!

That’s when development doubles or triples the sales value of all Long Branch homes.

Why is that bad? Well, take the value of the home where I was born. Bought in 1946, it was worth $7,000, then rebuilt at $22,000 in 1954, then $50,000 in 1981 (27 years to double), then $169,000 in 2000 (19 years, more than tripled). Today it could sell at $400,000. Adam, that is about 240 percent in only four years!

Consider this, every time home values increase, the taxes increase (never decrease). At this inflated rate of growth, who can hold on to their homes for long?

Adam, that’s what we citizens know and fear most. And where can we go to find an affordable home, South Carolina?

His response to Sunday’s (Feb. 20) MTOTSA rally was that they haven’t wanted an honest dialogue yet.

So, Adam, I take that to mean they haven’t caved in to the developer’s demands yet.

Then Adam had the audacity to say the council only is obligated to listen to them twice a month.

I suppose that means city officials only have an obligation to listen to L.B. citizens at city meetings? There is no obligation to them for the other 341 days a year? Or, to acknowledge their loyalty to this city for the decades they’ve made this their home (and paid taxes)? Again, Adam said the city wanted to avoid the mistakes of the 1980s when it undertook the redevelopment project.

Well, how many L.B. citizens did you recruit to be an integral part of the debate on those plan objectives when you started? How many L.B. citizens knew the extent of your plans? You (and the council) ran for office against such development! We took you at your word. We voted for you and that ideal. You reversed direction, we did not. Long Branch’s slogan is “The Friendly City.” Friendly to whom, the citizens who’ve lived, worked, shopped, and paid taxes for generations? Or to those with enough big bucks to afford living here? Our rents are atrocious, house prices are perverse, and taxes are outlandish.

This development project only exploits the citizens who have been paying the city’s bills for decades. These new “homes” are no benefit to the residents of Long Branch.

Kathleen E. Lo Pinto Vignolini

Long Branch