Attorneys from Becker Meisel LLC – A Top Redevelopment Law Firm in NJ – Discuss the Lessons to be Learned from Landmark Court Cases Involving Urban Redevelopment

LIVINGSTON, N.J., Dec. 6, 2007 – The New Jersey Supreme Court recent ruling in Gallenthin as well as several Appellate Division decisions this year further shaped redevelopment law in the Garden State. Developers and municipalities involved in urban redevelopment projects can look to these rulings to better understand the complexities of redevelopment law and eminent domain.

In the following Q&A, Martin Borosko, Esq., managing member of Becker Meisel LLC, joins Michael Elward, Esq. and Michael Oxman, Esq., members of the Firm’s real estate finance, investment and development practice area, in a discussion on these landmark court decisions and the lessons to be learned from them. Recognized as a leader in redevelopment law and eminent domain, their firm represents designated redevelopers in redevelopment projects throughout New Jersey, including Rahway, Paterson and Asbury Park, where the estimated $1 billion redevelopment of the waterfront is taking place.

Q. What was at the heart of Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case involving eminent domain?
Borosko – This case stems from the Borough of Paulsboro’s attempt to deem property in need of redevelopment based on its historically vacant and unimproved condition. Although the trial court and Appellate Division agreed with the Borough’s determination, the New Jersey Supreme Court did not and, in a unanimous decision, reversed those rulings.

The decision narrows the scope of a municipality’s authority to condemn private property, making it clear that the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL) is not an independent source of authority for condemnation purposes. Instead, the LRHL was enacted in accordance with the Blight Clause of the New Jersey Constitution, which provides that the redevelopment of blighted areas is a public purpose for which private property may be taken. The Court made clear that the designations under the LRHL must be founded upon conditions historically understood as “blight.” Mere under-utilization is not sufficient to deem a property blighted and in need of redevelopment any longer.



Cont'd next page >>


<< Back