Your Turn

William D. Giordano
Guest Column

On Thursday, May 18, the Department of the Public Advocate issued a report regarding the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment to the Legislature and governor. Public Advocate Ron Chen concluded what most people are already aware of, the fact that the current Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHS) is triggering the ongoing abuse of eminent domain law.

Additionally, Mr. Chen indicates that the current (LRHS) laws in New Jersey do not adequately protect the rights of property owners.

This leads to the question; now that Mr. Chen, the Legislature and Gov. Jon S. Corzine all know that the current laws do not provide adequate protection for New Jersey property owners, why isn't there a moratorium initiated until adequate protection is in place?

If it is now common knowledge that these current laws do not protect liberty and property rights, shouldn't all forcible property seizures via eminent domain stop until we are adequately protected?

Regarding Mr. Chen's recommendations, they are good starting points for a real solution, but more is required for substantial protection of property rights and liberty.

The most interesting aspect of Mr. Chen's recommendations is that if these recommendations were in fact law at the time the elected officials of Long Branch implemented their redevelopment plan, the travesties in the Beach Front North and Beach Front South would not exist and these property owners would be safe in their pursuit of happiness and rights to liberty.

Moreover, if the current administration would consider some of the recommendations made by Mr. Chen :

+ Revise criteria for "blight" to a constitutional standard: By this definition the term "blight" indicates properties that are unsafe, unsanitary or dilapidated and factors detrimental to the health and or safety of the community. None of these conditions are present in the affected neighborhoods of Long Branch in which property owners stand to lose their properties to the force of eminent domain.

+ Require meaningful notice to residents. The affected property owners in Long Branch received ambiguous notification. The initial notice of the ordinance for redevelopment never indicated that passing of the ordinance would subject property owners to the force of eminent domain. No place on the notice are the words "eminent domain" or "forcible seizure" of property mentioned.

+ Compensation to replace loss: The property value established by the developers' appraiser does not allow for the property owners to purchase similar properties of equal utility, condition and attributes of location.

Now that Mr. Chen (and the Department of the Public Advocate) has issued his report, everyone knows what the Long Branch property owners have been saying for years: this forcible seizure of private property is unfair, unethical, unjust and immoral.

Mayor (Adam) Schneider, it is time for you and your entire City Council to act responsibly, ethically and morally. It is time for you to protect property rights and liberty in your city.

The abusive application of the ultimate power of eminent domain law in Long Branch is completely inappropriate, unnecessary and, most importantly, non-essential.

City Council members, upon assuming your re-elected, positions, I ask that you protect us; give us the respect and human dignity that we deserve. Don't forcibly take what we rightfully own against our will. As elected officials protect our liberty as American government was designed to do.

William D. Giordano is a resident of Long Branch