Anonymous Weighs in on Kelo v. City of New London

Anonymous has his own take on my Kelo v. City of New London post. According to Anonymous:

"...you should be aware that your comments regarding taking away property rights are off a bit. NJ operates under the "Redevelopment and Housing Law," which lays out stricter standards for a taking than in most other states. While a local government can, and has, used eminent domain, a property owner has certain rights and options guaranteed by that law"

Anonymous misses the point. The point of the Kelo v. City of New London decision was to allow for the taking of land for private not public benefit. Just like the law he cites. Just because a law exists doesn't make it right. The Redevelopment and Housing Law ,in the words of Anne S. Babineau, Esq. (a partner in the firm of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A. specializing in Land Use), writing for NewJerseyLaw.com

"The new Local Redevelopment and Housing Law streamlines the process of redevelopment by eliminating many overlapping and sometimes conflicting statutes, and replacing them with one coordinated source of legislative authority which expands municipal powers to act to improve areas in need of redevelopment. Resolving some of the problems inherent in the many statutes that it repealed, the new law is designed to allow the legal mechanisms for local redevelopment to be more efficiently employed in municipalities throughout New Jersey."

Additionally she states:

"The new, easier-to-use statute may also attract others, in urban and nonurban areas, to consider redevelopment as a new means to promote social and economic development in their municipalities."

Notice the words she chooses to use: "...expands municipal powers to act..." and "...allow the legal mechanisms for local redevelopment to be more efficiently employed..." and "...easier-to-use statute..." and "...promote social and economic development in their municipalities" These phrases clearly show that the legal profession views this law as a new and stronger weapon in the hands of municipal government to increase property tax revenues at the expense of some land owners.

Traditionally, "public use" was accepted to mean public roads or a public school or municipal building maybe even public housing (Notice the word "public"). In recent years with the advent of runaway and confiscatory government the term has evolved to mean redevelopment of "under-utilized" property. Or in other words, property that the town believes that if given to a different private entity it would generate higher tax revenues for the town. The new Redevelopment and Housing Law even goes so far as to eliminate the requirement that there be a quasi-public redevelopment corporation as were once required for redevelopment projects. The new law allows the property to be transferred directly to a developer generating immense long-term profits for the developer, hopefully, larger tax revenues for the town, but not one single public asset. The risk of corruption, fraud and abuse in this scenario is obvious.

Sandra Day O'Connor, in her dissent in Kelo v. City of New London said: "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Was Sandra Day O'Connor right? Let's just ask the poor people in Lodi's Brown's and Costa Trailer Court. Why does Lodi want to take their homes? "The trailer park is a poster child for redevelopment," Mayor Gary Paparozzi said. "The land is underutilized ... Aside from being a low ratable, it is an eyesore." Link

Look at today's Ledger article on the subject. According to the article "By the same token, planners all over the state sighed with relief at the decision. Many New Jersey towns -- at least 55 since 2003 -- are counting on their condemnation power.
Without it, they say, they would never be able to accommodate the grand designs they have hatched with developers."

Maybe Anonymous' house is a bad ratable. We can fix that problem too.