Dear Mayor:

You have recently received a letter from Mayor Steven M. Lonegan of Bogota regarding the issue of eminent domain as used for redevelopment projects. The letter was sent via League mailing labels provided as a courtesy to Mayor Lonegan.

There is a great discussion going on throughout the country regarding the appropriate use of eminent domain powers which are vested in government under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as under the New Jersey Constitution and statutes since 1947.

Our concern as the League of Municipalities is to preserve the powers of local government, including the power of eminent domain. The policy question of whether to exercise that power should be made by the appropriate governmental unit, whether that is the State, a county, municipality or school district. I consider it the responsibility of the League to preserve the discretion of local government officials to solve the problems of their community, and to make sure they have to tools to do so. It is up to them as to how best utilize such tools.

Mayor Lonegan calls for the restoration of "property rights that were so critical to our Founding Fathers." What Mayor Lonegan misses is that the Founding Fathers recognized and preserved the historic power of government to acquire property when they embodied that power in the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, while including in the Amendment the requirement that there must be "just compensation" to the property owner.

Much of the debate has been triggered by the recent US Supreme Court decision in the case of New London, Connecticut, where the court held that redevelopment constituted a valid public use of the power of eminent domain. That decision did not change the law and the Court carefully pointed out that the policy decision of whether or not to exercise the power of eminent domain is a decision that should be made by the local government.

Redevelopment is a vital responsibility and concern of many local governments and it is sometimes necessary to exercise eminent domain powers in order to amass sufficient property to make the redevelopment plan workable.

Some have attempted to characterize the use of eminent domain in redevelopment projects as the use of governmental power to benefit the private developer. That is
simply untrue and is being used to generate a reaction against local government. Redevelopment projects are designed to revitalize a particular area of a municipality. Under New Jersey law, redevelopment areas are established only after a study and public hearing before the Planning Board and the subsequent enactment, with a public hearing, by the municipal governing body.

Redevelopment benefits an entire community, and in many cases, an entire region. It provides jobs, creates town centers, frequently includes housing, enhances infrastructure and can reverse the flight from urban areas to rural areas that contributes to sprawl.

While reasonable people can differ as to whether a particular redevelopment project is beneficial to the community or not, that decision is made by the elected municipal officials in carrying out their roles as representatives of the citizens of the community.

It should also be understood that the exercise of eminent domain powers requires a process through the Courts, and the courts have always had the power to address alleged abuses of the power. Of course, what one person regards as an abuse, because it is their property or the property of a friend, others regard as a benefit to the community. It is for that very reason that the policy decisions are vested in the elected officials of the community.

The New Jersey State League of Municipalities has been and will continue to be an advocate in favor of preserving the powers available to local elected officials. Where those powers are abused, the Courts are the appropriate avenue to deal with the officials who abuse their authority.

The League is most certainly not opposed to property rights, but the League is strongly opposed to efforts to undermine the historic powers available to local government, and eminent domain is one of those powers.

The debate over the exercise of eminent domain powers now underway in Congress and in various state legislatures should not focus on the availability or the exercise of the power of eminent domain, but on the important requirement of the 5th Amendment that there be just compensation. The development of criteria to ensure that property owners are justly compensated when their property becomes subject to eminent domain is an appropriate legislative function.

Unfortunately, the quick-fix reaction of some political leaders has been to attack the power rather than to address the just compensation issue.

We agree that redevelopment should be a cooperative exercise involving input and dialogue with residents, business owners, developers and local officials. That is precisely the process that is provided for in the public hearings that are required for an area to be designated as an "area in need of redevelopment." Ultimately, the decision must be made after the input and dialogue, and that decision is appropriately vested in the duly elected and appointed officials of the municipality.

With regard to the allegations that some local decisions are made for improper reasons or on the basis of improper payments from developers to local officials or to campaign funds, any such improprieties are violations of existing ethics and election laws and those public officials who engage in those practices can be and should be prosecuted for those violations.