Should New Jersey's Eminent Domain Laws Be Bulldozed?

Name: McKirdy & Riskin, P.A.
Address: 136 South Street, Morristown, NJ, 07850
Telephone: 973-539-8900

Home » Condemnation Law » Should New Jersey's Eminent Domain Laws Be Bulldozed?

by: Anthony F. Della Pelle

27 Apr 2011

Rutgers Law Review article urges redevelopment reform

A recent article in the Rutgers Law Review calls upon the New Jersey Legislature to adopt meaningful eminent domain and redevelopment law reform in the wake of the 2005 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London. The article, entitled “Toward Successful Urban Revitalization: Why New Jersey Should Relinquish Some of its Berman Power to Bulldoze for ‘Redevelopment’”, was authored by Rutgers Law student Brian Biglin, and analyzes the policies involved in the past and present use of eminent domain for redevelopment, particularly in Newark, and suggests that redevelopment practice has been found to frequently harms cities. In particular, the author proposes the deletion of a portion of the New Jersey Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (“LRHL”), Section 3, which presently allows non-blighted properties to be taken if ‘necessary to effectuate redevelopment plans. Mr. Biglin posits that posit that cities would be much healthier if cities were restricted to ‘piecemeal’ condemnation instead of broad-based or large-scale redevelopment, and provides evidence in support of this position.

A copy of the article is available here.

Since the 2005 ruling in Kelo v. New London, 43 of the 50 states have adopted legislative reform of their eminent domain laws, as was inferred as a possible course of action by Supreme Court Justice Stevens in the Kelo opinion. To date, New Jersey remains one of the 7 states that has not adopted such reform, despite several stalled or failed attempts in the State Legislature, which have yet to result in new law.