Outrageous Abuse of Eminent Domain

[DFWdem]

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1128229442104780.xml?starledger?nnj&coll=1

On May 21, Albert G. Mauti Jr. and his cousin Joseph hosted a fundraiser for Assemblyman Joseph Cryan at the Westmount Country Club in Passaic County. The two developers and family members picked up the $10,400 dinner tab, donated another $8,000 and raised more than $70,000 that night for the powerful Union County Democrat, according to state election records. Three days later, the governing body in Cryan's hometown of Union Township -- all Democrats -- introduced an ordinance paving the way for the Mautis to build 90 or so townhouses on six acres of abandoned industrial land along the Conrail line in town.

There is just one problem: Union Township doesn't own the land. It is owned by Carol Segal, a 65-year-old retired electrical engineer. Over the past 10 years, the Union Township resident says, he has spent about $1.5 million to acquire the property, and he, too, wants to build townhouses there.

Segal said he met with Cryan, who is head of the township's Democratic Party, and other local officials "scores of times" over the past five years to discuss the project. He claims the talks turned adversarial after he rejected proposals to work with various developers they proposed. On May 24, the five-member township committee voted unanimously to authorize the municipality to seize Segal's land through eminent domain and name its own developer.

"They want to steal my land," Segal said. "What right do they have when I intend to do the exact same thing they want to do with my property?"



I can't believe the "brilliant" minds on the SCOTUS could not foresee these types of abuses occurring when they said land could be seized for public good rather than public use. This is absolutely criminal.

[mcscajun]

1. It *is* outrageous...and not a 'done deal' yet.

Hopefully, this publicity is just what the real property owner needs for leverage.

A good part of NJ politics is second only to LA politics in terms of corruption...and that holds true no matter Which Party Is In Power. It's been true for decades, unfortunately.

[Another Bill C.]

2. A scheme hatched at the Bada Bing club? n/t

n/t

[Jersey Devil]

3. I agree it is outrageous but don't think the SCOTUS decision had anything

to do with it. This type of condemnation has been going on in New Jersey for a long time. Over 20 years ago a large number of single family homes in Teaneck were condemned to build a hotel and condos. Parts of the Meadowlands were condemned to build Giants Stadium and the Arena, several blocks in Ft Lee near the GW Bridge were condemned to make way for development and unless I am mistaken condemnation was used in Newark very recently for the new hockey arena for the Devils.

The argument usually goes like this for condos: A certain number will be set aside to satisfy "Mt. Laurel" requirements for low and moderate income housing, therefore, there is a "public purpose." They have been upheld by the NJ Supreme Court long before the SCOTUS decision.

This particular instance seems fraught with corruption but the idea of eminent domain used in this way has been around for a long time.

[mcscajun]

4. Yet this isn't condemnation of existing housing...this is outright

Taking of open land from one owner who wants to develop it, and placing it into the hands of someone else who wants to develop it.

It's going to be developed; the question is: Who Profits?

[Jersey Devil]

5. indeed

It seems an invitation to corruption to allow this sort of thing. I remember being on my town council (in NJ) when someone proposed condemnation (mixed site, commercial and residential) to build senior housing. The Repubs controlling the council were luke warm about it. Then, when a new developer entered the scene (with connections to county Republican who ruled the roost in those days (Bergen), they could not approve it fast enough.