The City Commissioners of Ventnor, New Jersey, have passed a law limiting that City’s ability to condemn properties. On July, 17, 2008, the City Commissioners voted to prohibit Ventnor's use of eminent domain for redevelopment projects that involve private developers. According to press accounts of the meeting, there was overwhelming support for the law and no contrary opinions.
A New Jersey Senate Committee has passed a statute that is designed to deal with alleged eminent domain abuses. This statute has been discussed for two years and is purportedly designed to protect homeowners from developers seeking the land for private development. Senator Ronald Rice, the sponsor, said that the bill would limit the use of eminent domain for redevelopment. It also adds new requirements regarding pre-condemnation negotiations between the condemning authority and the property owner. The bill was passed by the Senate Committee and Urban Affairs Committee and can be found at www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/S1000/757_I1.HTM. The bill now moves to consideration by the full Senate.
The Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that a property owner that withdraws the “estimated just compensation” deposited into court waives its right to challenge the condemnation.
In Township of Piscataway v. South Washington Ave., LLC., the Township of Piscataway condemned a 75 acre farm to preserve it for open space. In New Jersey, condemnors initiate a condemnation action by filing a complaint and also file a “declaration of taking” either at the time the complaint is filed or some time thereafter. In this case, the property owners challenged the condemnation when the Township filed its complaint. While that challenge was pending, the Township filed its declaration of taking and deposited its estimate of the fair market value of the property – known as “estimated just compensation” or “EJC” – into court. The property owners withdrew the money but continued the challenge to the condemnation.
The New Jersey Superior Court held that a condemnee who withdraws the EJC funds is barred from asserting any other than those relating to the amount of compensation owed to the condemnee. The Court explained that “having accepted the benefit” of the funds, the condemnee cannot now challenge the taking.
Enter keywords:
