MTOTSA to ask high ct. to end blight fight

Agroup of oceanfront homeowners are planning to ask the state Supreme Court to close the chapter on a more than decade-long battle to save their homes, their properties and their neighborhood from being condemned.

Attorneys representing some 17 property owners in the Marine Terrace and Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue (MTOTSA) neighborhood filed a notice of cross-petition Sept. 3, seeking the New Jersey Supreme Court to dismiss the condemnation complaints served upon their neighborhood.

"We just want the complaints dismissed," said attorney William J. Ward, who is representing the Anzalone family in the case. "Then we will ask for counsel fees and costs.

"If the Supreme Court dismisses the condemnation complaints, then we would expect to be sent back before Judge [Lawrence M.] Lawson to set reasonable counsel fees and costs," Ward added.

The cross-petition comes in the wake of a notice of petition filed by the city, seeking that the Supreme Court review an Aug. 7 decision by the appellate court. The city is seeking the court to overturn the appellate panel's decision, which ruled that there was not substantial evidence of blight to condemn the MTOTSA area.

The Appellate Division further remanded the case back to Superior Court Judge Lawson to allow the city to expand the record in an attempt to prove that the MTOTSA neighborhood in the Beachfront North Phase II redevelopment zone is condemned.

The city's briefs were expected to be submitted Monday and the homeowners have 10 days from the date of filing the cross-petition to submit briefs, City Attorney James Aaron said last week.

As for when the city or the homeowners will learn if the Supreme Court will agree to review the case, Aaron said, "[The court] acts when it feels like it.

"We are hoping it doesn't take too long," he added.

Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider also does not favor the case being dragged out for another two to three years and had said previously that he is open to sitting at the table with all parties involved in the case to try to reach some sort of an agreement.

The cross-petition filed on behalf of the homeowners is for the sole purpose of affirming the Appellate Division ruling and dismissing the condemnation complaints, Ward explained.

"We decided to take advantage of the city's petition and cross-petition for the limited purpose of having them affirm the Appellate Division's finding that there is no sustainable, credible evidence of blight.

"And secondly, to dismiss the condemnation complaints outright rather than send it back to Judge Lawson. We think the Appellate Division erred in sending it back to Judge Lawson," he said.

Ward continued, "If there is no blight, the condemnation complaints have to be dismissed. If the city wants to develop a new record, they should have to go back to the Long Branch Planning Board."

Also representing another 15 MTOTSA homeowners in the case is Peter H. Wegener with attorneys from the Arlington, Va.-based public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice (IJ), acting as co-counsel.

"Since the city is appealing the loss, we are cross-petitioning to ask the court to address the remedy that was ordered by the appellate court," IJ attorney Scott Bullock explained.

"Rather than send the case back to the trial court, we are saying that the appellate court should have dismissed the condemnation complaints outright. Rather than let the city have a second bite at the apple, we want it dismissed.

"We are not petitioning an issue. It is on the remedy. We think the appellate court got it right. Now we are just asking for them to look at the remedy, rather than have the case remanded back to the trial court," Bullock said.

Ward said that the city has already built projects on the oceanfront as part of its 1996 redevelopment plan, which includes the Beachfront North, Phase I and Pier Village projects.

"The MTOTSA area was designated in that same [1996] plan as residential infill, which it is," Ward said. "Instead, in 2002, we think the city and the developers got greedy and said let's build condominiums because our first project's sold out. The original plan has been built.

"MTOTSA is not a hole in the doughnut. This is not in the middle of the project. The property is located at the northern end of the project. It was slated for single-family residential infill and it should stay that way," he said.

In August, a three-judge appellate panel unanimously reversed the June 2006 decision of Lawson, which permitted the city's use of eminent domain to condemn the MTOTSA neighborhood.

The court of appeals found that the lower court misapplied the law and the city did not prove blight under the Gallenthin heightened standard.

The Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro case, which reaffirmed that the New Jersey Constitution requires a finding of actual blight before private property can be taken for redevelopment, was decided after arguments were heard before Lawson in 2006.

Contact Christine Varno at aville@gmnews.

com.