NJ Supreme Court to Hear Two Eminent Domain Cases

Two potentially significant eminent domain cases are set to be heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court. At the heart of these cases is the public use doctrine rooted in the U.S. Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution. Let’s see how these cases could impact the government’s use of this constitutional power.

Township of Jackson v. Getzel Bee

In Township of Jackson v. Getzel Bee, the issue is whether a particular parcel of land to be acquired by a municipality through eminent domain may be exchanged for other land that will serve a public use. In that case, the Township wanted to condemn two privately owned lots. The Township’s ordinances and communications to the condemnees misleadingly suggested that the land would be put to a public use. However, an amended ordinance ultimately revealed the town’s true intent, which was to use the condemned property in a land swap transaction with a private developer. The property owner challenged the authority to condemn.

The trial court ruled in favor of the township. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed. The court reasoned that private property may only be taken for a public purpose. In this case, the condemned property was not going to be used for a public purpose. The fact that the land would have been swapped with other land, which in turn would have been put to public use, was held on appeal to be insufficient to meet the public use requirement.

Should the government be allowed to take private property if it intends to swap it for property to be used for a public purpose? On the one hand, this would allow the government to acquire property more efficiently, thereby allowing it to quickly assemble land needed for schools, parks, infrastructure, or environmental preservation. However, this also raises concerns of potential eminent domain abuse. Allowing eminent domain land swaps may be perceived as unfair if it significantly benefits private developers. Also, it may allow governments to use pretextual or misleading justifications for exercising eminent domain.

To read more on the appellate court’s decision, read our post here: Appellate Court Rejects Condemnation Due to Lack of Public Use or Purpose | MROD.

Borough of Seaside Park v. Shree Jyoti, LLC

In Borough of Seaside Park v. Shree Jyoti, LLC, Seaside Park sought to acquire property using eminent domain. The ordinance authorizing the use of this power didn’t specify the public use for the acquired property. The trial court ruled in favor of the township, and the Appellate Division affirmed. In doing so, it ruled that the government need not identify the public purpose with partiality when exercising eminent domain. The court determined that the town’s flexibility to adapt public uses was lawful.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the issue is whether the ordinance that authorizes a municipality to acquire property through its eminent domain power under the Local Land and Buildings Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12-5(a), which requires that the specific public purpose for which the property is being acquired be set forth.

It will be interesting to see how the New Jersey Supreme Court will rule. On the one hand, freedom to adapt a public use could provide flexibility for the effective use of eminent domain. However, it could also give the government too much leeway and raise the potential for pretextual, vague justifications for taking private property. On the other hand, requiring specificity may help mitigate governmental abuse of this power, but such a requirement may be overly restrictive. As circumstances change, a property once suitable for a public use may no longer be suitable for that use.

Conclusion

Township of Jackson raises the issue of allowing land swap transactions to fulfill the public use requirement. Borough of Seaside Park addresses whether a condemnor must specify a public use before taking private property. The government’s ability to exercise eminent domain will either be curtailed or expanded based on how the state’s Supreme Court decides these cases.

To read Township of Jackson v. Getzel Bee, click here. To read Borough of Seaside Park v. Shree Jyoti, LLC, click here.