Eminent Domain | Condemnation

On October 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in Rumber v. District of Columbia, No. 09-7035, an appeal challenging an attempt to take property by the District of Columbia and the National Capital Revitalization Corporation. Note: in 2007, the District abolished the NRDC, and the Districtsubstituted…

Remember that kid in grade school, the one who misbehaved behind the teacher’s back and then when he turned around, the kid sat back silently while you took the blame? If like me you still remember that kid, we’ve got a case from the Washington Supreme Court for you, Noble v. Safe Harbor Family Preservation …

Willets Point United has filed an amicus brief supporting their fellow New York City property owners in the public use case now pending in the New York Court of Appeals regarding the Atlantic Yards “redevelopment” project in Brooklyn, Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. As we noted here, Willets Point is…

Justice Stevens’ majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) held the government’s public use determination isoff-limits if thedetermination was the result of a “comprehensive plan,” regardless ofwhether than plan has any realistic chance of actually beingaccomplished. Thus, property owners can be forcibly dispossessed of their homes based merely…

In an expansive opinion in Township of Readington v. Solberg Aviation Co., No. A-3083-07T3 (Aug. 19, 2009), the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court determined that a municipality abused its condemnation power when it attempted to take property to thwart the expansion of a nearby airport. 

The facts are set forth in detail in the opinion and will not be repeated here, but the most interesting portion of the opinion deals with the property owner’s claim of pretext. It argued that the condemnation was “at least substantially motivated, by the desire of Township officials to limit airport expansion and to prevent [Solberg-Hunterdon Airport] from becoming a jetport.” Slip op. at 35.

The Township did not dispute the contention, but argued the motivations of individual officials are not relevant in determining the public use or purpose of a taking. Under New Jersey law, a court will not overturn a decision to use eminent domain “in the absence of an affirmative showing of fraud, bad faith or manifest abuse.” Township of West Orange v. 769 Assocs.,LLC, 800 A.2d 86, 90 (N.J. 2002). A condemnation may be set aside when the “real purpose” is other than the “stated purpose.” See Casino Reinvestment Dev. Auth. v. Banin, 727 A.2d 102 (N.J. Super. 1998).

The court examined the objective factors surrounding the adoption of the condemnation ordinance, and concluded they “impugned its validity.” Slip op. at 38. First, it was unlikely to achieve its stated purpose. The taking was purportedly for

open space and farmland preservation[,] land for recreational uses, conservation of natural resources, wetlands protection, water quality protection, preservation of critical wildlife habitat, historic preservation, airport preservation, and preservation of community character.

Slip op. at 39. However, “[r]eports prepared by the Township’s experts indicate that the airport is in poor physical condition and has limited prospects for future economic success.” Id. The court compared expert reports which questioned the viability of the airport. See id. at 40-42. The court also looked at the context of the condemnation to conclude the real purpose of the taking was to control airport operations, and that much of the area was already open space. See slip op. at 43-45.

The fact that the condemnation of development rights to the airport will not achieve its stated purposes indicates that the true purpose of the condemnation was to secure a greater measure of land use authority over the airport than the Township currently enjoys. Further, objective evidence suggests that the condemnation was initiated to secure Township control over airport operations. These are improper purposes in that they subvert the Commissioner’s ultimate authority over aeronautical facilities.

Slip op. at 44. The court concluded the Township abused its power of eminent domain “to avoid the limitations on municipal zoning power imposed by State airport statutes and regulations,” and “is not within the police powers delegated to the municipalities by the Legislature.” Id. at 48. The full opinion is worth a read.

Continue Reading NJ Appeals Ct: Eminent Domain Pretext Determined Objectively, By Context

From The Destin Log, the hometown newspaper from the location of the U.S. Supreme Court case on judicial takings and beachfront land (Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009)), comes the report “Destin may be Sotomayor’s first test: Analysts think new justice …

A press release from Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn links to the opening brief filed recently by the property owners who object to the taking of their property for the Atlantic Yards “redevelopment” project in Brooklyn in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp.

Here’s the summary of the issues presented in the brief:…

These past few days, I’ve been attending the annual meeting of the ABA in Chicago. It was a chance to meet new colleagues, associate faces with those whom I’ve only had e-contact, and reacquaint myself with old friends.

I’m also the new Chair of the Condemnation Law Committee of the State & Local Government…