Woodland Indians Forum

sschkaak · Jan-29-2010 07:25:pm

http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/ … consi.html

Bridgeton planning board considers downtown redevelopment; residents fear eminent domain, push for changes in city code
By Joe Green
January 28, 2010, 7:51PM
BRIDGETON - City residents, many with heavy hearts, packed the municipal court room for Wednesday night's planning board hearing on a redevelopment proposal for downtown.

Most, it seemed, were drawn by mention of one fearsome phrase - "eminent domain."

The much-loathed tactic was mentioned in public notices of the hearing and in the proposed plan itself, although only as a possible tool if deemed necessary. Officials said there are no current plans to use eminent domain.

The hearing was held to determine whether the planning board would recommend that city council designate as areas in need of redevelopment, numerous downtown lots.

But resident outrage helped convinced board members to table a recommendation at least until its next hearing Feb. 24. That call was made around 10:30 p.m., and the hearing that began at 6:30 ended.

City Planner Barbara Fegley presented a study of the proposed redevelopment areas compiled throughout much of 2009, along with an actual redevelopment plan for those areas. The planning board may recommend both the proposed designation and the actual plan to city council.

Officials say the redevelopment designation would open the door to various incentives for new businesses here and improve the city's chances of revitalizing a long-lagging business district.

Local Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) Coordinator John Barry said on Thursday it would make available state and local long-term financing and tax incentives for businesses moving into the area.

He said it's unrealistic to think redevelopers would wade through all the work and red tape of tearing down existing structures and building new ones while also obeying design regulations for the city's historic district. All areas involved in the proposal lie within the historic district, which is the largest in New Jersey.

Developers would more likely target the many vacant lots that are part of the board's proposal, Barry said, than try to acquire privately-owned properties.

But during Wednesday night's hearing, residents were unconvinced.

One of the largest groups attending were members of the Nanticoke Leni-Lenape tribe, whose cultural center is located on East Commerce Street.

Tribal Council Chairman Mark Gould and other members vowed to stand against what they consider a threat to their facility.

"You've got to give us a better explanation of what you plan on doing," Gould said, echoing the concern others voiced that officials' intentions were not clear.

"How many times are you going to move me out and keep a picture up there on the wall?" he asked, referring to the American Indian in the city's logo.

Gould noted that the cultural center plays a social as well as a preservation role for his people. Tribe members often come there even after years away from their hometown.

"12,000 people frequent that building. How many votes is that?" he challenged. "You want the waterfront too," he said, referring to a swath of land along the east bank of the Cohansey involved in the proposal. "But I'm not giving it back."

"It took me a long time to get in there," Gould said of moving into the cultural center. "I'm not giving it up."

"Are you going to give it up?" he demanded, turning to the audience behind him.

"No!" was the loud reply in unison.

Local businessman Hank Murad also railed against the prospect of eminent domain. He owns East Commerce's Ashley-McCormick Center, a new restaurant/theater combination housed in the former Ashley-McCormick building.

"Eminent domain is a destructive force against the people who live here, who work here," he argued.

He said he's leery of its mention in redevelopment plans, despite "the good intentions of the city."

Murad, who also owns the transport company Courier Systems outside the city, said he wanted to "put my money where my mouth was" and help revitalize the downtown.

Like Gould and others, he complained that the current city code not allowing people to live or operate businesses in upper floors here have helped create the need for redevelopment.

Planning board members said many of the old multi-story buildings don't allow safe egress and are not otherwise equipped to handle fires and other emergencies. The prohibition on upper level living was also brought about when local business people years ago complained that it created too much clutter in the area.

Residents said people in other cities, including Philadelphia, have been able to adjust to safety measures and operate from upper floors. They argued that the code is outdated.

Both the city's Master Plan and the proposed redevelopment plan call for the code regulation disallowing upstairs living to be overridden in the redevelopment areas.

The plan and study establish two distinct areas in need of work. Redevelopment Area 1 is a swath of land along the Cohansey's east bank consisting of lots owned by the city.

That area is eligible only for tax exemptions for newly arriving businesses, according to the plan as presented by Fegley.

Redevelopment Area 2 lies to the east of that and involves city-owned and privately-owned lots, both residential and commercial. Properties there are subject to possible eminent domain, the plan says.

Both Areas 1 and 2 combined are bordered by Washington and Broad streets on the north and south and by Bank Street and the Cohansey River on the east and west. The areas consist of many, not all, the blocks and lots between those streets.

Should officials resort to eminent domain, state law requires that fair market value is offered for the property to be taken.

The developer must file a Workable Relocation Assistance Plan (WRAP) relating to helping displaced occupants get reasonable temporary and permanent housing.

Residents are also "entitled to relocation assistance and moving expenses," the plan submitted by Fegley says.

The state Department of Community Affairs must then approve the WRAP before the occupants are displaced.

During the hearing, planning board member and city councilman Nicholas Salvatore tried to calm residents' fears. He said officials would try to negotiate a price to buy a property they want to acquire for redevelopment.

Only if negotiations fail, he said, will officials begin the eminent domain process.

He and other board members also insisted the proposed plan was only a beginning, and not a final conclusion. Officials had to devise and outline some kind of plan to present to the public for input and comment, they said.

"The plan is just a plan," Salvatore said. "Everything will still need approval. This is just a starting point."

NanticokePiney · Jan-30-2010 02:06:am

THANKS RAY!!! I was just about to put this up. We just finished rehabing the place and I spent a lot of time on the mural, signs and display.
It's crazy! A City committee woman, who didn't know we existed came in and complimented Aunt Gail and myself on the displays and remodeling and then we get slapped with this.

PIN THIS AUNT HUGGER!

Chevy · Jan-30-2010 02:15:am

"eminent domain." phooey! spit! spit!

Didn't the Feds pass a law recently that eminent domain can't be used by ppl who want to take people's land for business?

Or did a State only, pass that law, and if so, which State?

lenape · Jan-30-2010 02:25:am

There are a lot of folks fighting this, not sure of where or if it was ruled against!

This is a real kick in the teeth for Chief Gould and the Tribe, Piney let me know if there is anything I can do to help?!

sschkaak · Jan-30-2010 02:48:am

Chevy wrote:
"eminent domain." phooey! spit! spit!

Didn't the Feds pass a law recently that eminent domain can't be used by ppl who want to take people's land for business?

Or did a State only, pass that law, and if so, which State?

NO! The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to allow private property to be seized by eminent domain. The case was brought by homeowners in New London, CT. They lost. Their homes were demolished to make way for commercial development of the area. The developer was unable to obtain financing for the project. Today, there's nothing there but a bunch of vacant lots.

http://nhregister.com/articles/2009/09/ … domain.prt

Chevy · Jan-30-2010 05:26:am

Okay, now this has me going, maybe it was in Texas, because there's been such an outcry against eminent domain, because of the proposed Texas Trans Corridor, and the border fence. I'll look around and see if Texas has passed something.
Thanks, sschkaak.

On a personal note, when I was married, and we owned a big whopping almost 10 acres, the State of Texas ran a road thru it. My then husband talked to a lawyer, and he told him he could have drug it out, but they'd take what they wanted with eminent domain.

Chevy · Jan-30-2010 05:38:am

Okay, Tx. did pass a proposition, but

http://volokh.com/2009/11/10/texas-amen … lls-short/

November 10, 2009 9:18 pm

It hasn’t gotten much media attention, but last week, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved Amendment 11, an eminent domain reform measure that purports to ban “economic development” takings of the kind the Supreme Court upheld in Kelo v. City of New London. Texas badly needs stronger protection for property rights, since it has a long history of eminent domain abuse, including recent examples documented by the Institute for Justice (the libertarian public interest firm that represented the property owners in Kelo) in this report.

Unfortunately, the new Texas law is one of a long series of eminent domain reforms that fall short of actually forbidding the kinds of abuses they supposedly target. The amendment does forbid the taking of property for “the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.” , But it continues to permit condemnations in areas with “urban blight.” And, as I document in this article (pg. 2124), Texas is one of many states where the definition of “blight” is so broad as to include virtually any property that the government might want to condemn. Indeed, Texas’ definition counts as “blighted” any area that, due to a wide range of possible causes, creates an “economic or social liability to the municipality” where it is located. This includes any area that creates an “economic . . . liability” because of insufficient development. Furthermore, the new Amendment still allows the power of eminent domain to be wielded by private organizations if they are “granted the power of eminent domain under [state] law.”

Amendment 11 is a small improvement over Texas’ previous almost completely toothless post-Kelo reform law (which I discussed in this article, pp. 2124, 2135–37). The main positive change is that “blight” now has to be shown on a property by property basis. Previously, local governments could simply declare an entire area blighted and then condemn any property within it, even if there was nothing wrong with that particular tract. However, the impact of this improvement is likely to be minor, at best, given the ease of proving the existence of proving “blight” under Texas’ definition of the term. Amendment 11 also closes the previous law’s loophole allowing takings for “community development.” However, the broad blight exemption undercuts this improvement as well. “Community development” takings can easily be couched as “blight” takings.

Why did Amendment 11 turn out to be so ineffective? One possible explanation is that, under the Texas Constitution, a proposed amendment has to get the approval of two thirds of the state legislature before being submitted to a popular referendum. In my recent article on post–Kelo reform, I found that eminent domain laws that go through the state legislature are far less likely to impose meaningful constraints on condemnation than those that are enacted by an initiative process in which citizen groups can place propositions on the ballot directly. State legislators have strong incentives to water down eminent domain reforms so that takings that benefit influential interest groups can continue. And widespread political ignorance makes it difficult for voters to tell the difference between laws that actually ban economic development takings and those that merely pretend to do so, while allowing them to continue under a different name.

oldsalty · Jan-30-2010 06:23:am

When someone with a bit of power wants something the best way is to steal it!!

tree hugger · Jan-30-2010 11:25:am

A little about eminent domain from the New Jersey Dept. of Public Advocate:

http://www.state.nj.us/publicadvocate/p … tised.html

NanticokePiney · Jan-30-2010 08:56:pm

lenape wrote:
This is a real kick in the teeth for Chief Gould and the Tribe, Piney let me know if there is anything I can do to help?!

I will as soon as I find out all the nasty details. I have to get the names of the politicos who are involved.

NanticokePiney · Jan-31-2010 02:19:pm

The Tribal Headquarters is now no longer in question! The comic book shop that always bitches about us is!

tree hugger · Jan-31-2010 04:10:pm

Well that was quick. It must have been Mark's charming personality that made them change their minds.

lenape · Jan-31-2010 04:11:pm

tree hugger wrote:
It must have been Mark's charming personality that made them change their minds.

LMAO!!! or his steer horn club!!!

Last edited by lenape (Jan-31-2010 04:12:pm)

tree hugger · Jan-31-2010 04:20:pm

NanticokePiney · Jan-31-2010 08:32:pm

tree hugger wrote:
Well that was quick. It must have been Mark's charming personality that made them change their minds.

Him and Dad were clones. There was almost a riot and some of the old "Dog Patch" (Buckshutem) woodjins were hovering around.

Last edited by NanticokePiney (Jan-31-2010 08:33:pm)

bls926 · Jan-31-2010 08:37:pm

That is good news, Piney!

Chevy · Jan-31-2010 10:30:pm

good news, Piney!

sschkaak · Jan-31-2010 11:23:pm

I wouldn't turn my back on that planning board, though.

NanticokePiney · Feb-01-2010 01:46:pm

sschkaak wrote:
I wouldn't turn my back on that planning board, though.

I wouldn't turn my back on anybody involved with politics in Bridgeton. I don't trust those people as far as I can spit a rat.

lenape · Mar-16-2010 06:47:pm

Findings of investigation :

Question 1: Why wasn’t the zoning ordinance (§370) revised to reflect the new master plan as
it was intended. In fact, in progress work to do just that was stopped without explanation in
March 2009

• Included within the completed Bridgeton Master Plan of September 2008 was an
implementation plan, created to prioritize strategies designed to provide guidance on how to
put into practice the plan objectives in a logical and effective order.
• The highest priority strategy involved changes to the Land Use Master Plan Element. Within
that category, revising the zoning ordinances was the first priority.
• Meetings were scheduled by the City Planner in early 2009. The city planner, code official,
and a planning board representative went line by line through the zoning code marking
changes that implemented Master Plan goals to serve as the basis for the revised zoning
ordinance.
• These meetings stopped abruptly after March 9, 2009. Questions related to this action went
unanswered.
Someone needs to answer why the in-progress, top priority, Master Plan task (revise the zoning
ordinances) was abruptly stopped without any explanation.
• If this work had been completed in 2009 many of the Master Plan benefits in the tabled CDB
Redevelopment plan could have already been in place, without eminent domain.

Question 2: Who is responsible for allowing a redevelopment study process to be performed
that violated state law (NJSA 40A:12-6)?

• City Council’s March 3, 2009 resolution 189-08, directing the Planning Board to conduct a
study and to hold public hearings pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A never made it to the Planning
Board – no mention of that topic (or resolution) appears in the board’s minutes from February
through December 2009.
• Unbeknown to the Planning Board, someone took independent control, and managed a
process, that state law assigned to the Planning Board.
Question 3: What other mistakes were made, and how much taxpayer money will be wasted to
correct the administration’s (Mayor & BA) mistakes?
• The process was not managed by the Planning Board as required by State law
• Newspaper notices sent people to the wrong location.
• The Notices said a map was available in the City Clerk’s office, but none could be found.
• If the Planning Board is responsible for this process, and its public meetings, why were
meetings held at the Shepard House without the Planning Board in attendance?

Note: The Mayor is NOT the planning board he does not have the authority to act on its behalf without
the approval of the full board and no such approval was given – no one member speaks for the Board.
Bridgeton residents need to know why the proper procedures were not followed, especially
when our taxes paid for a redevelopment consultant to oversee the process.

40A:12A-6 Investigation for determination as redevelopment area, public hearing.

a. No area of a municipality shall be determined a redevelopment area unless the governing body of the
municipality shall, by resolution, authorizes the planning board to undertake a preliminary investigation to
determine whether the proposed area is a redevelopment area according to the criteria set forth in
section 5 of P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-5). Such determination shall be made after public notice and
public hearing as provided in subsection b. of this section. The governing body of a municipality shall
assign the conduct of the investigation and hearing to the planning board of the municipality.
b.
(1) Before proceeding to a public hearing on the matter, the planning board shall prepare a map
showing the boundaries of the proposed redevelopment area and the location of the various
parcels of property included therein. There shall be appended to the map a statement setting
forth the basis for the investigation.
(2) The planning board shall specify a date for and give notice of a hearing for the purpose of
hearing persons who are interested in or would be affected by a determination that the
delineated area is a redevelopment area
(3) The hearing notice shall set forth the general boundaries of the area to be investigated and
state that a map has been prepared and can be inspected at the office of the municipal clerk. A
copy of the notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality
once each week for two consecutive weeks, and the last publication shall be not less than ten
days prior to the date set for the hearing. A copy of the notice shall be mailed at least ten days
prior to the date set for the hearing to the last owner, if any, of each parcel of property within the
area according to the assessment records of the municipality. A notice shall also be sent to all
persons at their last known address, if any, whose names are noted on the assessment records
as claimants of an interest in any such parcel. The assessor of the municipality shall make a
notation upon the records when requested to do so by any person claiming to have an interest
in any parcel of property in the municipality. The notice shall be published and mailed by the
municipal clerk, or by such clerk or official as the planning board shall otherwise designate.
Failure to mail any such notice shall not invalidate the investigation or determination thereon
(4) At the hearing, which may be adjourned from time to time, the planning board shall hear all
persons who are interested in or would be affected by a determination that the delineated area
is a redevelopment area. All objections to such a determination and evidence in support of
those objections, given orally or in writing, shall be received and considered and made part of
the public record.
(5) After completing its hearing on this matter, the planning board shall recommend that the
delineated area, or any part thereof, be determined, or not be determined, by the municipal
governing body to be a redevelopment area. After receiving the recommendation of the
planning board, the municipal governing body may adopt a resolution determining that the
delineated area, or any part thereof, is a redevelopment area. Upon the adoption of a
resolution, the clerk of the municipality shall, forthwith, transmit a copy of the resolution to the
Commissioner of Community Affairs for review. If the area in need of redevelopment is not
situated in an area in which development or redevelopment is to be encouraged pursuant to any
State law or regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, the determination shall not take effect
without first receiving the review and the approval of the commissioner. If the commissioner
does not issue an approval or disapproval within 30 calendar days of transmittal by the clerk,
the determination shall be deemed to be approved. If the area in need of redevelopment is
situated in an area in which development or redevelopment is to be encouraged pursuant to any
State law or regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, then the determination shall take effect
after the clerk has transmitted a copy of the resolution to the commissioner. The determination,
if supported by substantial evidence and, if required, approved by the commissioner, shall be
binding and conclusive upon all persons affected by the determination. Notice of the
determination shall be served, within 10 days after the determination, upon each person who
filed a written objection thereto and stated, in or upon the written submission, an address to
which notice of determination may be sent.
(6) If written objections were filed in connection with the hearing, the municipality shall, for 45
days next following its determination to which the objections were filed, take no further action to
acquire any property by condemnation within the redevelopment area.
(7) If a person who filed a written objection to a determination by the municipality pursuant to this
subsection shall, within 45 days after the adoption by the municipality of the determination to
which the person objected, apply to the Superior Court, the court may grant further review of the
determination by procedure in lieu of prerogative writ; and in any such action the court may
make any incidental order that it deems proper.
c. An area determined to be in need of redevelopment pursuant to this section shall be deemed to be a
"blighted area" for the purposes of Article VIII, Section III, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. If an area is
determined to be a redevelopment area and a redevelopment plan is adopted for that area in accordance
with the provisions of this act, the municipality is authorized to utilize all those powers provided in section
8 of P.L.1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-8) [Eminent Domain]

lenape · Mar-26-2010 03:17:pm

http://www.nj.com/bridgeton/index.ssf?/ … mp;coll=10

Redevelopment has questions to be answered
Friday, March 26, 2010
By Joe Green
jgreen@sjnewsco.com

BRIDGETON - Residents and local business owners are still skeptical, some even suspicious, of redevelopment plans for part of the city's downtown.

The city planning board at its Wednesday night hearing tabled a decision on whether to recommend that city council designate various lots downtown as an area in need of redevelopment.

Although they didn't pack the municipal courtroom as they did at the question's last hearing in late January, not many seats were left open.

Many continue to fear eminent domain will be used to take properties, although officials have said that is unlikely.

Nanticoke Lenni-Lenape tribal Chairman Mark Gould was the first to speak.

His people's cultural center on East Commerce Street is part of the proposed redevelopment area.

Gould criticized the city's citing the property for violations used at least in part to include in the redevelopment area.

"You can find something wrong if you want to write a report on it," he said, noting the difficulties for a small business or nonprofit in avoiding petty offenses.

Since downtown businesses couldn't use upper floors, he explained, he boarded up the windows there at the cultural center to keep vandals and burglars out - and even that wasn't allowed.

Gould, like several others present, said he felt a redevelopment plan and designation would be overkill and possibly do more harm than good.

He encouraged officials to use existing ordinances instead to sold problems.

"You weren't the governing body that caused the problems," he said (partly referencing the ban on upper floor use), "but you can address the deficiencies."

Bob Thompson, owner of Thompson Realty, on Pearl Street, said bad things can happen despite "all the best intentions" of officials.

He said developers can approach the board seeking changes and expansions originally unforeseen.

And the end results can end up turning into something no board or council member wanted.

Flavia Alaya, who chairs the city's Historic District Commission, deemed the redevelopment designation a "radical approach.

"We should take a smaller, more targeted approach" to individual lots, she argued, rather than label a large area.

"It stigmatizes the area. Because you haven't explained other options (alternatives to designation), it gets labeled a blighted area, and instead of developers flocking here, they will run," she said, to audience applause.

Planning board Solicitor James Maley said fixing problems on individual properties can be an arduous and drawn-out process fraught with legalities.

"They're people who aren't taking care of their properties," Maley said. "The people who are coming here (to the hearings) are taking care of their properties."

He added that city council has tried enforcement on individual lots, and it hasn't done much overall.

Designation as a redevelopment area would allow more flexibility in dealing with potential developers, he said.

The normal process is arduous-like enforcement, Maley explained, whereas designation would be more efficient.

It cuts through red tape and "allows governing bodies to act like a business rather than a government," he said.

Woodland Indians Forum

Announcement

#1 Jan-29-2010 07:25:pm

Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#2 Jan-30-2010 02:06:am

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#3 Jan-30-2010 02:15:am

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#4 Jan-30-2010 02:25:am

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#5 Jan-30-2010 02:48:am

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

Chevy wrote:

#6 Jan-30-2010 05:26:am

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#7 Jan-30-2010 05:38:am

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#8 Jan-30-2010 06:23:am

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#9 Jan-30-2010 11:25:am

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#10 Jan-30-2010 08:56:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

lenape wrote:

#11 Jan-31-2010 02:19:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#12 Jan-31-2010 04:10:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#13 Jan-31-2010 04:11:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

tree hugger wrote:

#14 Jan-31-2010 04:20:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#15 Jan-31-2010 08:32:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

tree hugger wrote:

#16 Jan-31-2010 08:37:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#17 Jan-31-2010 10:30:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#18 Jan-31-2010 11:23:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#19 Feb-01-2010 01:46:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

sschkaak wrote:

#20 Mar-16-2010 06:47:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

#21 Mar-26-2010 03:17:pm

Re: Chief Mark Gould addresses the Bridgeton Planning Board

Board footer