Last week, New Jersey’s redevelopment law was amended to recognize that shopping centers and office parks which have experienced significant vacancies for a period of at least two consecutive years may be deemed an “area in need of redevelopment.” The amendment, designated A-1700 and enacted as P.L.2019, c.229, expands criteria b. of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, and takes effect immediately. Prior to the amendment, criteria b. authorized an “area in need of redevelopment” designation where the delineated area was characterized by the “discontinuance of the use of buildings previously used for commercial, manufacturing, or industrial purposes; the abandonment of such buildings; or the same being allowed to fall into so great a state of disrepair as to be untenantable.” The amendment contains three significant components: Buildings previously used for retail purposes, shopping malls or plazas, and office parks were added, so that discontinuance of use or abandonment of those stranded assets is now expressly within the statute; Experiencing significant vacancies “for at least two consecutive years” was added as a new threshold criteria, which applies not only to buildings used for retail purposes, shopping malls or plazas, and office parks, but also to buildings used for commercial, manufacturing or industrial purposes which were already encompassed by criteria b. of the redevelopment...
Tagged: Blight Designation
NJ Appellate Division Announces Evidentiary Standards for Condemnations “Necessary” for a Redevelopment Project
At what point is a piece of property “necessary” for a redevelopment project? On January 7, 2019, the New Jersey Appellate Division published a decision in Borough of Glassboro v. Jack Grossman, Matthew Roche, and Dan Desilvio, — N.J. Super. — (App. Div. 2019) (slip op. at 2) that – for the first time – clarifies the phrase “necessary for the redevelopment project” as stated in the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL) at N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(c). The three-judge panel addressed the question of whether a showing of necessity is required by a condemning authority beyond the designation of the area as one in need of redevelopment, and, what showing it must make in order to condemn a parcel of land located with a redevelopment area. Existing case law required the taking to be “reasonably necessary,” but had never clarified what standards should be used to evaluate how necessary a given property might be to a given redevelopment project. This decision now requires that when a landowner within a redevelopment area contests the necessity of a condemnation, the condemning authority must articulate a definitive need to acquire the parcel for an identified redevelopment project. In Grossman, the defendants owned or were purchasing a parcel located within a redevelopment area in the Borough of Glassboro. The area...
New Jersey Supreme Court Decides 62-64 Main Street, L.L.C. v. City of Hackensack, Clarifies Definition of “Blight” in Context of Redevelopment
On March 23, 2015, in 62-64 Main Street, L.L.C. v. City of Hackensack, the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that property does not need to have a negative effect on surrounding properties in order to be deemed “blighted.” Prior to the Court’s decision in this case, it was unclear whether a negative effect on surrounding properties was a prerequisite to a finding of blight, or simply one way to establish it. Because the New Jersey constitution allows municipalities to exercise their powers of eminent domain to redevelop blighted property, the Court’s decision could encourage more municipalities to move forward with the condemnation of property for private redevelopment.
One stop shopping. That is the goal of the bill that Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed into law on January 13, 2014, creating the Philadelphia Land Bank. The Land Bank, which is to be fully operational by the end of this year, is intended to streamline and consolidate the process by which the City acquires and sells vacant and tax delinquent properties. The Land Bank will also act as the single repository for the approximately 9,500 vacant and surplus properties currently owned by the City through three separate entities: the City, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority and the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation.
The redevelopment of vacant and blighted parcels has been a cumbersome, frustrating and, in many cases unsuccessful, process for municipalities and developers alike. Pennsylvania’s new land bank legislation could change all that. Philadelphia, with its own land bank legislation is poised to take advantage of the state legislation.
In 2007, just as regulations began to force New Jersey development into its urban areas, where the use of redevelopment is a virtual necessity, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Gallenthin Realty v. Paulsboro. There, the Supreme Court rejected a municipality’s designation of an area in need of redevelopment because the underlying investigation was insufficient under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law criteria.