Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

NJFuture Redevelopment Forum 2016 Goldsmith

376 views

Published on

Presentation from Redevelopment Law Update

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

NJFuture Redevelopment Forum 2016 Goldsmith

  1. 1. REDEVELOPMENT LAW UPDATE Panel Session Sponsor Track Sponsor AV & Wi-Fi Sponsor
  2. 2. Robert S. Goldsmith, Esq. Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP Woodbridge, New Jersey REDEVELOPMENT MATTERS: Redevelopment Post-Hackensack, Post LRHLAmendments, and Post-Recession March 11, 2016
  3. 3. 2009 Rutgers Law Record Article • In 2009, my partner, Robert Beckelman, Esq., and I published an article in the Rutgers Law Record titled What Will Happen to Redevelopment in New Jersey When the Economy Recovers? • The article traced the history leading up to Gallenthin v. Paulsboro as well as its progeny cases which led to the creation of the so-called “heightened standard” upon municipalities in deeming an area in need of redevelopment. We argued that Gallenthin created no such standard. • Since the article was published, the Hackensack case clarified Gallenthin, the Supreme Court affirmed there is no ‘heightened standard’, the LRHL was amended, and the economy has begun bouncing back. • Consider this presentation, therefore, the article’s sequel: What Has Happened to Redevelopment?”
  4. 4. Half of New Jersey Is Developed and Policies Restrict or Prohibit Development In: • Highlands • Pinelands • Wetlands • Farmlands • Coastal Areas ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP4
  5. 5. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP5
  6. 6. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP6
  7. 7. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP7
  8. 8. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP9
  9. 9. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP10
  10. 10. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP11
  11. 11. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP13
  12. 12. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP14
  13. 13. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP15
  14. 14. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP16
  15. 15. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP17
  16. 16. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP18
  17. 17. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP19
  18. 18. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP20
  19. 19. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP21
  20. 20. The Lead-Up to Hackensack • Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) • First redevelopment case decided by U.S. Supreme Court • Established general parameters of the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes • Wilson v. City of Long Branch, 142 A.2d 837 (N.J. 1958) • New Jersey Supeme Court largely adopted Berman decision • Found condemnation of property for redevelopment constitutional • Enabled local governments to determine whether an area qualified as blighted and what property was needed to implement effective redevelopment • Principles reaffirmed ten years later in Lyons v. City of Camden, 243 A.2d 817 (N.J. 1968)
  21. 21. The Lead-Up to Hackensack • Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) • Court held that implementation of an economic revitalization development program designed to improve the general welfare of the community was valid • Kick-started wave of legislative activity in states across the country designed to limit or curb the use of eminent domain for what was deemed “private redevelopment” or “economic development” • New Jersey Constitution already required a finding of “blight” and specifically provides that the redevelopment of blighted areas constitutes a valid public purpose justifying the use of eminent domain.
  22. 22. The Lead-Up to Hackensack • Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007) • Paulsboro included a 63-acre largely vacant parcel of property in a redevelopment area based upon its stagnant and unproductive condition resulting in an underutilized and not fully productive use of the property. This was the subsection “e” standard from the LRHL. • Court found that Paulsboro’s determination essentially led to the conclusion that a property may be deemed blighted based solely on its status as “not fully productive”. Based upon this reading, the Court reasoned virtually any property may be deemed blighted and that such an interpretation was unconstitutional.
  23. 23. The Lead-Up to Hackensack • Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007) (CONTINUED) • With respect to subsection “e”, Court held that municipalities must demonstrate negative impact on the community or surrounding areas. • Court further emphasized that a redevelopment designation must be supported by “substantial” evidence, which would require more than the net opinion of a planner.
  24. 24. The Lead-Up to Hackensack • The Gallenthin Progeny • Following Gallenthin decision, there were more reversals of redevelopment designations than there had been in the nearly sixty years since the adoption of the first redevelopment laws in New Jersey: • Land Plus v. Borough of Hackensack • Mulberry St. Prop. Owners v. City of Newark • HJB Assoc’s, Inc. v. City of Borough of Belmar • BMIA, LLC v. Planning Bd. of Borough of Belmar • Evans v. Twp. of Maplewood • LBK Assoc’s, LLC v. Borough of Lodi
  25. 25. The Lead-Up to Hackensack • Many of these cases over-read Gallenthin to establish a “heightened standard” on all subsections of the LRHL, not just subection “e”. • Long Branch v. Anzalone and Long Branch v. Brower • Appellate Division determined that it must review the City’s actions under the “heightened standard” of review established by Gallenthin. • Court held that because Gallenthin discussed blight as necessarily having a negative impact upon surrounding areas, Long Branch’s findings were flawed because there was no analysis of the negative impact of the blight upon the surrounding areas.
  26. 26. The Hackensack Case • 62-64 Main Street LLC and 59-61 Monroe Street LLC v. City of Hackensack, 221 N.J. 129 (2015) • Facts • City of Hackensack included two (2) vacant dilapidated buildings and a parking lot with deteriorated pavement within an area in need of redevelopment. • Hackensack justified inclusion of the properties under three subsections of the Redevelopment Law: • Subsection (a) as the buildings were substandard and unsafe for occupancy; • Subsection (b) as the deteriorated condition of the buildings rendered them vacant and untenantable; and • Subsection (d) because of faulty arrangement or design.
  27. 27. The Hackensack Case • Facts (Continued) • Trial Court upheld City’s determination that the properties were in need of redevelopment • Appellate Court, however, reversed the Trial Court and cited to the “heightened standard” of Gallenthin. It held that the City must demonstrate, under every subsection of the statute that the properties suffered from “deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding properties.” • City of Hackensack was granted Certification by the Supreme Court
  28. 28. The Hackensack Case • Holding & Take-Away • Supreme Court, by 3-2 decision, held that Gallenthin specifically addressed only subsection (e) of the Redevelopment Law and its holding should not be extended to other subsections. • The Court reaffirmed the ability of municipalities to exercise their redevelopment powers and condemn properties that satisfy the requirements of a blighted area without requiring a further finding that the sites negatively affect surrounding properties.
  29. 29. The Hackensack Case • Holding & Take-Away (Continued) • The holding makes clear that Gallenthin did not create a heightened standard for finding blight. • The decision should facilitate further redevelopment and provide a greater level of assurance to municipalities in their efforts to effectuate redevelopment plans.
  30. 30. Lead-Up to 2013 LRHLAmendments • Harrison v. DeRose, 398 N.J. Super. 361 (App. Div. 2008) • Appellate Division held that if a property owner did not receive personal notice at the time of the redevelopment designation that (1) a potential consequence of the designation could be exercise of eminent domain, and (2) that designation must be challenged within 45 days, then that property owner would not be precluded from challenging the redevelopment designation beyond the 45 day limit imposed by the Court Rules.
  31. 31. 2013 LRHLAmendments • Amendment to 40A:12A-5(e) to address Gallenthin • Subsection (e) now requires a showing that the property condition is presumed to be having a negative social or economic impact or otherwise being detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the surrounding area or the community in general. • Harrison v. DeRose Notice Requirement Codified • Now required to be served to all record owners of properties within the delineated area and those whose names are listed on the tax assessor’s records. • Notice in a Condemnation Redevelopment Area must follow the Harrison standards (i.e. notice that eminent domain may be used and legal action must be commenced within 45 days.
  32. 32. 2013 LRHLAmendments • Amendments further clarified rehabilitation criteria and adds provision for rehabilitation designation based upon environmental issues • Municipalities now permitted to establish redevelopment areas with condemnation and redevelopment areas without the power of condemnation. • Since the passage of the Amendments, our unscientific analysis (Google) has shown that an overwhelming percentage of redevelopment areas established by municipalities since the Amendments went into effect have been Non-Condemnation Areas •
  33. 33. Success of Non-Condemnation Redevelopment • Since the 2013 LRHL amendments went into effect, more than 40 municipalities have designated redevelopment areas without condemnation. Examples include: Aberdeen Clinton Harrison (Glouc.) Middletown Raritan Bayonne Dover Hoboken Mullica Hill Somerville Belmar East Rutherford Keyport North Bergen South Orange Berkeley Heights Flemington Leonia Nutley Summit Bloomfield Freehold Lyndhurst Parisppany Union Chester Galloway Maurice River Passaic Wethampton Cinnaminson Hackensack Middlesex Pompton Lakes Woodbridge Woolwich
  34. 34. In re Referendum to Repeal Ordinance 2354-12 of the Twp. of W. Orange v. Township of W. Orange • Citation: 2015 N.J. LEXIS 1255 • Supreme Court held that a challenge to a redevelopment bond ordinance must be filed within 20 days of the final publication of the ordinance pursuant to R. 4:69-6(b)(11) and N.J.S.A. 40A:2-49, barring the most extraordinary circumstances. • While court rules permit an enlargement of filing period in the interest of justice, court found that the aforementioned statute counsels against exceptions as it states that a bond ordinance is conclusively presumed to be valid 20 days after publication. • Compare: Concerned Citizens v. Princeton, finding sufficient basis for trial court’s ruling that the designation was of sufficient public interest to warrant relaxation of the 45-day filing limitation
  35. 35. The “Presumptive Redeveloper” • Borough adopted Belmar Seaport Village Redevelopment Plan in 2003 and in 2005 initiated an extensive outreach program with residents in order to allow residents to analyze opportunities and to evaluate outcomes. • As a result of this process, Belmar implemented unique approach to dealing with eminent domain concerns by creating the “presumptive redeveloper” concept. • Under this concept, existing businesses and property owners are given a first right to participate in redevelopment of their own properties. • This created a win-win for both owners and the master redeveloper while mitigating eminent domain issues.
  36. 36. CASE STUDIES ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP38
  37. 37. MORRISTOWN ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP39
  38. 38. Underutilization of land 2 surface parking lots ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP40
  39. 39. Chancery Square and Dalton Garage ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP41
  40. 40. Before After Vacant lot/building for more than 10 years. 149 apartments market rate 14,000 square feet retail Asking price $50 per sq. ft. & tenants are talking to landlord Could not have been built without Dalton Garage Washington Street ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP42
  41. 41. Century 21 Department Store (former Macy’s building) ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP43
  42. 42. Shared parking is a neat concept that recognizes two distinct elements of urban parking demand. The first is overlapping trips also known as “Park Once”. That is, a person driving to a downtown area for work can then walk to restaurants, stores, theaters, and there is but one car trip and one car parked, yet many distinct business transactions are possible. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP44
  43. 43. The second element is complementary parking needs. This is a key method of saving development costs only available in downtown development contexts. Both concepts are gaining recognition by the Planning and Engineering communities. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP45
  44. 44. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP46
  45. 45. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP47
  46. 46. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP48
  47. 47. SOUTH BOUND BROOK ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP49
  48. 48. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP50
  49. 49. South Bound Brook ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP51
  50. 50. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP52
  51. 51. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP53
  52. 52. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP54
  53. 53. LONG BRANCH Before ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP55
  54. 54. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP56
  55. 55. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP57 ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP57
  56. 56. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP58
  57. 57. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP59
  58. 58. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP60
  59. 59. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP61
  60. 60. LONG BRANCH After ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP62
  61. 61. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP63
  62. 62. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP64
  63. 63. PRINCETON ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP65
  64. 64. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP66
  65. 65. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP67
  66. 66. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP68
  67. 67. MORRISTOWN The “Epstein’s Project” Paul Philips, Michael Fabrizio and Robert Goldsmith, Esq. all played a role in this award-winning project. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP69
  68. 68. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP70
  69. 69. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP71
  70. 70. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP72
  71. 71. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP73
  72. 72. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP74
  73. 73. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP75
  74. 74. Maple Avenue Elevation ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP76
  75. 75. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP77
  76. 76. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP78
  77. 77. “It Don’t Come Easy” Ringo Starr “Too hard, too long, too slow.” Bob Goldsmith ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP79
  78. 78. RAHWAY ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP80
  79. 79. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP81
  80. 80. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP82
  81. 81. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP83
  82. 82. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP84
  83. 83. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP85
  84. 84. 86 THOR LABS Newton ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP86
  85. 85. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP87
  86. 86. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP88
  87. 87. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP89
  88. 88. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP90
  89. 89. TRENTON ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP91
  90. 90. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP92
  91. 91. NEWARK MULBERRY STREET BEFORE – CHINA TOWN ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP93
  92. 92. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP94
  93. 93. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP95
  94. 94. NEWARK Mulberry Street Now ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP96
  95. 95. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP97
  96. 96. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP98
  97. 97. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP99
  98. 98. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP100
  99. 99. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP101
  100. 100. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP102
  101. 101. ©2015 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP103

×