The idea of taking someone's home, and giving it to a real estate developer is a POLITICAL calculus, and not a judicial one.
If you look at the case, the right wingers on the court sided against the "taking", and they did so with an ulterior motive.
They were looking to make it a wedge for the "Fair Use" crazies, who want to be reimbursed for not putting a toxic waste dump on their land.
This decision is far more narrow, and simply says that fallow land is not blighted land under the NJ constitution.
Ruling limits use of eminent domain
Thursday, June 14, 2007
By SCOTT FALLON
STAFF WRITER
New Jersey towns will have a harder time seizing private property for redevelopment after the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that targeted property must be blighted and not merely underused.
The ruling will have far-reaching effects, state officials said, and could aid property owners fighting eminent domain in Lodi, North Arlington and Passaic.
The 42-page unanimous decision said that town officials cannot seize homes and businesses simply because they believe those properties can be put to better use.
"The court is giving notice that municipalities no longer have unfettered access to private property," said Harvey Pearlman, a lawyer who represents a Passaic homeowner whose house was condemned by the city without his knowledge.
The court wrestled with what constitutes blight in deciding a case from Gloucester County, where the town of Paulsboro sought to condemn a 63-acre tract made up mostly of wetlands.
....
0 comments :
Post a Comment