Improper Delegation of Eminent Domain Authority.

Issue: Improper delegation of eminent domain authority to the redeveloper.

The appellants argue that the city has improperly delegated eminent domain authority to the redeveloper by entering into a contract, which requires the city to get consent form the developers to pay anything above the initial offers. This gives the redeveloper authority to initiate negotiations with any property owner and turn their property in favor of condemnation. They also argue that the first redevelopment agreement of February 2000, did not include their properties for condemnation and would be preserved as residential infill.

Reasoning: On February 22, 2000 the city and Beachfront North, L.L.C entered into a two phase redevelopment agreement for the Beachfront North area. The phase I consisted all of Beachfront North except MTOTSA, but the phase II consisted only MTOTSA with 200 residential units and another 10,000 square feet of retail space, therefore the appellants argument that their houses will be preserved as residential infill is incorrect.

As per the New Jersey Law, after the condemning authority decides what properties to condemn in connection with a redevelopment project, it may then "designate [ ] a private developer to negotiate an acquisition." Jersey City Redev. Agency v. Costello, 252 N.J. Super. 247, 257, 599 A.2d 899 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 332, 598 A.2d 890 (1991). Since the properties were part of redevelopment plan, the Ordinance 2-01 authorized the city to pay each owner "an amount based upon the fair market value". The city appointed McGuire Associates to come up with the fair market value for the properties and had asked the redeveloper to come to an agreement with the residents. There was no evidence presented by the appellants that city's offer failed to equal the fair market value as required by N.J.S.A 20:3-6.

Based on the above observations it is clear that the City did not improperly delegate eminent domain authority to the redeveloper, but had met its obligation of taking the necessary steps for eminent domain jurisdiction and then delegating it to the private developer for negotiations by assessing the fair market value of the properties.

The appellants can argue that the redeveloper can unfairly target their properties for condemnation, but this argument doesn't seems to hold any credibility as the fair market value had been provided by McGuire Associates and not by redeveloper to the city. The redeveloper is further offering a ten percent discount on Phase I condominium for the appellants.

The appellants can argue that site plan did not show any changes to MTOTSA and their houses, but this is due to the fact that it was a conceptual site plan for Phase I and as per the redevelopment agreement, Phase II consisted changes to MTOTSA.

References

City