Garrett backs move to hamper eminent domain for private business

Sussex County — The U.S. Supreme Court says towns can use eminent domain to promote private businesses—but the House of Representatives has just declared that it won’t be easy for anyone who tries. And if a bill passed overwhelmingly by the lower congressional house last week does become law, some see it as a safeguard that could withstand any possible legal challenges to a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. The court said that local governments can opt to turn private properties over to the hands of developers - if there is an overall economic benefit to the surrounding community. In a 376-38 tally, the lower house on Nov. 3 passed a bill that would withhold federal money from any state or local government attempting to force homeowners and businesses to sell their land for commercial use by another party. Both the court ruling and the proposed law could have local effects, as Franklin has considered using eminent domain to redevelop a downtown tract and Vernon is currently considering establishing redevelopment zones. One of the reasons Vernon officials have cited for establishing redevelopment zones is that projects initiated in such zones could be eligible for federal grants. Eminent domain is most commonly used to condemn private land for public works, such as a new highway, public park or school. Just compensation to private landowners has always been guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. “I do think it would withstand (challenges) because they (Congress) framed it around what they can control, their budget,” commented Carl Nelson, a partner in the Franklin-based Koch & Nelson law firm. “They’re not seeking to overturn the law, but they’re exercising their rights to decide what they can decide. And legally, I think it will work.” The Supreme Court vote came in a suit brought by a group of Connecticut homeowners—a case known as Kelo vs. City of New London, Conn.—fighting the 2000 seizure of their land along the Thames River to a pharmaceutical firm. The firm wanted to expand its operations with a redevelopment project that would also include a hotel and riverfront project. New London approved the project, citing the overall economic benefits to the community of the proposed development. The new congressional bill, which has received the strong support of Congressman E. Scott Garrett, will be referred to the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, according to the Garrett’s Washington, D.C. office. If it does reach the desk of President George W. Bush, the bill is expected to become law, since the White House declared its support in a public release soon after the bill’s passage. Garrett, a Republican who represents most of Sussex and Bergen County, all of Warren and a few communities in Passaic County, made clear his belief that the rights of private property owners should not be subjugated by anyone. “Private property rights are the bedrock of the nation’s economy and enjoy constitutionally-protected status,” said Garrett in a statement soon after the vote. “They should also receive an appropriate level of protection by government at all levels. Consistent with the principles of federalism, Congress has a responsibility following the Kelo decision to ensure the constitutional rights of private property owners are protected.” Nelson, who feels that the Supreme Court decision gave “too much discretion for local authorities to have,” feels that if the bill becomes law, it is not likely to be “successfully challenged.” Franklin borough attorney Richard Clark also feels that Congress does have the right to make its own decisions within its jurisdiction without affecting the sovereignty of the Supreme Court. However, Clark added, there is no guarantee that any local or state government couldn’t use its own money to finance any condemnations, even if federal money is withheld. “As to the (legality), yes, because that makes it a (congressional) policy decision,” explained Clark, who said he has mixed feelings about the Supreme Court’s ruling. “Also, the state can determine on their own the same issue. That’s the power of the purse string. But that doesn’t change the law.”