Latest twist in Eminent Domain
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:24 pm
Full Story
Exerpts:
Dec. 8--In a decision highlighting the value of open space in the nation's most densely populated state, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Mount Laurel acted properly when it seized a developer's land to preserve open space.
...
Yesterday's ruling came in a court battle over a 16.3-acre parcel owned by MiPro Homes L.L.C., which had obtained approval from the Mount Laurel planning board to build 23 homes on the site. A previous owner of the land had intended to build an assisted-living facility there, but MiPro bought the land and opted to build houses. The township then tried to buy the land. When MiPro refused, officials opted to use eminent domain to acquire the property.
...
The decision came with a strong dissent from Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, who concluded that the case presented an "improper exercise" of the power of eminent domain, which allows government to take private property as long as owners are fairly compensated.
"In my view, a judge's individualized and idiosyncratic view of what is or is not socially redeeming has no place in determining whether the sovereign's exercise of the power of eminent domain is proper," Rivera-Soto wrote.
...
That the municipality sought to limit development "does not alter our disposition of this case. The town's motive is not inconsistent with the motive driving the public interest in open space acquisition generally," the court said. The majority also concluded that MiPro should be compensated based on the fair market value of the land.
** I wonder if that's fair market value now that the gov't has decreed that it remain vacant, therefore useless and worthless, or fair market value of the land the developer bought as zoned at the time, which has far more value. **
...
"If you own property in New Jersey, you are not immune from having the ownership of your land taken by force to preserve open space, whether there is a true plan for it or not and whether you are willing to sell it or not."
-- Richard S. Van Osten, Builders League of New Jersey
Exerpts:
Dec. 8--In a decision highlighting the value of open space in the nation's most densely populated state, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Mount Laurel acted properly when it seized a developer's land to preserve open space.
...
Yesterday's ruling came in a court battle over a 16.3-acre parcel owned by MiPro Homes L.L.C., which had obtained approval from the Mount Laurel planning board to build 23 homes on the site. A previous owner of the land had intended to build an assisted-living facility there, but MiPro bought the land and opted to build houses. The township then tried to buy the land. When MiPro refused, officials opted to use eminent domain to acquire the property.
...
The decision came with a strong dissent from Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, who concluded that the case presented an "improper exercise" of the power of eminent domain, which allows government to take private property as long as owners are fairly compensated.
"In my view, a judge's individualized and idiosyncratic view of what is or is not socially redeeming has no place in determining whether the sovereign's exercise of the power of eminent domain is proper," Rivera-Soto wrote.
...
That the municipality sought to limit development "does not alter our disposition of this case. The town's motive is not inconsistent with the motive driving the public interest in open space acquisition generally," the court said. The majority also concluded that MiPro should be compensated based on the fair market value of the land.
** I wonder if that's fair market value now that the gov't has decreed that it remain vacant, therefore useless and worthless, or fair market value of the land the developer bought as zoned at the time, which has far more value. **
...
"If you own property in New Jersey, you are not immune from having the ownership of your land taken by force to preserve open space, whether there is a true plan for it or not and whether you are willing to sell it or not."
-- Richard S. Van Osten, Builders League of New Jersey
