In Long Branch, they don't need no stinkin' commission

In Long Branch, they don't need no stinkin' commission

Coda • GREG BEAN

Are your town elders being bothered by pesky members of the local Historical Commission who don't want to tear down historic buildings so a new Starbucks can go up (attention, Milltown)?

Then you ought to take a lesson from Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider and his rubber stamp City Council (with one notable exception). The problem, Schneider would undoubtedly tell them, is that they allowed the creation of a Historical Commission in the first place. It's kind of like giving women the right to vote and drive a car, he'd say. Once you give in, you've given yourself no end of headaches, and you can't ever take it back.

That's why he and his buddies are treating the proposal to create such a commission, a Historic Preservation Advisory Commission — first made in 2007 by the lone dissenting member, Councilman Brian Unger — like it's a land grab by the Taliban.

They absolutely do not want this notion to be adopted, so they've done everything in their power to kill it before it's born with one lame concern and postponement after another.

The most recent postponement was last week, when its introduction was once again put off until May 12. As this is written, I don't know the outcome of the introduction, but I think Unger's proposal has about as much chance of being adopted as Moammar Kadafi has of winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Historic preservation commissions, even if they only have the power to advise, just aren't the way they do business in Long Branch. There, the ruling junta likes to just take what they want without a lot of interference. They don't listen to anyone.

"We don't need no stinking badges," they say. "And we sure don't need no stinking Historical Commission."

Long Branch, after all, is the city that became the national poster child for eminent domain abuse when it started grabbing nice family homes on the beachfront so private developers could build high-priced condominiums. Then they started grabbing downtown properties so other private developers could build other expensive stuff. Granted, they backed off their eminent domain feeding frenzy a bit after they got their wrists slapped by the court of public opinion, the state appeals court and the state's public advocate, but the mind-set hasn't changed one iota.

You ought to hear the lame reasons they're "worried" about the creation of a Historic Preservation Commission that might save a handful of historic buildings.

Schneider, for example, expressed "concern" that a lot of the buildings that might be designated as historical are churches.

"I don't think I want to be in the business of regulating churches," he said.

Council President Michael DeStefano and Councilman David Brown said they were "worried" about safety issues in historical buildings, because they are, well, old.

"Who maintains them?" DeStefano reportedly asked. "Sometimes, things like this can become more burdens than anything else."

Brown jumped right on that bandwagon but had his own doubts. "An individual home, just because it's here 100 or 200 years, doesn'tmean it should stay. Especially if it's a fire hazard," Brown said.

And there you are. It's sad that even if they do eventually get around to establishing some kind of Historical Commission in Long Branch, it's already too late to preserve most of the really historical structures in that community, becasue they have already been torn down.

The summer homes of U.S. Presidents Arthur, Hayes and others? Gone. Torn down by the wrecking ball. The beautiful summer home of President U.S. Grant on Ocean Avenue, the place that served as the summer White House for seven years? Gone. Torn down by the wrecking ball.

The hotel where President Garfield died, the Elberon Hotel? Gone. Torn down by the wrecking ball. And unfortunately, that's only a few structures on the list of treasures lost in Long Branch.

When I lived in Illinois, we visited another of U.S. Grant's homes, this one in the beautiful river community of Galena. It's a small home by modern standards, very modest. But it was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960 and turned over to the community of Galena to be maintained as a memorial. In spite of the fact that it was an old building, and in Councilman Brown's view, probably a fire hazard, that's what they did. They also added another building that houses exhibits about Grant and the history of his home.

Today, that little house draws thousands of visitors to Galena every year. They take the tour of the home and the exhibits, and then they spend a few hours and some of their money in the shops and restaurants in downtown Galena. It's been an incredible boon to the local economy over the years, and there isn't a person in town who'd say the property would have been put to better use as a Mc- Donald's or a condominium development.

Nope, for that kind of thinking, you've got to go to Long Branch. Imagine what's been squandered in Long Branch. If a teeny home the Grant family lived in for a little over two years can do so much cumulative good for a local economy, what kind of good could a restored summer White House have done?

If there had been a few forward-thinkers in Long Branch in the past (the Schneider administration isn't responsible for all of the losses), they wouldn't have to worry about building high-priced condominiums and a new arts district to improve the community economy. They'd have a world-class historical district that would have drawn millions of visitors, all of them itching to spend a few dollars in local shops, hotels and restaurants.

But that ship has certainly sailed. Now, there isn't much left to save — and with the exception of Brian Unger, there apparently isn't that much desire on the council to save it.

I might be wrong, and I'd love to be proven so. But my prediction is that even if the ordinance to create a Historic Preservation Advisory Commission in Long Branch was finally introduced this week, it will never be adopted and there'll be no committee, at least no committee with any real teeth.

That's just not the way the Schneider rubber-stamp council (with one notable exception) does business.

Gregory Bean is the former executive editor of Greater Media Newspapers. You can reach him at gbean@gmnews.com.

Long Branch Sued Again for it's development process...

Broadway- Gateway blight challenged
BY KENNY WALTER Staff Writer

Alawsuit filed against the city of Long Branch charges that the process used by the city to designate properties as "in need of redevelopment" in the Broadway Gateway redevelopment zone was unconstitutional and should be overturned.
The suit filed in state Superior Court in Freehold April 8 on behalf of lower Broadway property owners seeks to overturn what it alleges is the city's "unconstitutional designation of private property as blighted" and asks for "damages and injunctive relief against the mayor and the council of the city of Long Branch."
Filed by Princeton attorney R. William Potter on behalf of the owners of the property known as the Fuchsia Triangle, in the Broadway-Gateway redevelopment zone, the complaint names the city of Long Branch and the City Council, the city's designated redevelopment authority, as defendants.
Plaintiffs are the Fuschia Triangle Corp., 71 Broadway; Coach Corp., 80 Broadway; and Kevin A. and Adele Fister, principals in the corporations, whom the suit charges have been denied "their lawful right to own, use, enjoy, develop, redevelop or sell their property" in what amounts to the "loss of their property" due to the city's "de facto" condemnation of the commercial properties made up of five contiguous lots bounded by North and South Broadway, Long Branch Av enue and Ocean Boulevard.
"Their property remains 'frozen,' private in name but 'de facto' condemned for future use and without just, or indeed, any compensation," reads the complaint, which asks for a jury trial.
Potter, of Potter and Dickson, said Monday the suit advances two main arguments.
"One, we are filing that the original designation of property was unconstitutional. Two, we are arguing that the long standing failure for the city to use eminent domain resulting in a significant to almost complete loss of value of the property" which "has remained frozen for more then a decade.
"The thrust of the case is to get justice for Kevin and Adele Fister," Potter said.
"They have been trying for years to develop the land in a manner where the city would embrace. We are hoping that this is a wake up call to the city. Not only do we want the city to lift the cloud of the blight designation, now they must compensate for the loss of value."
He continued, "This lawsuit is coming only after extraordinary efforts by the Fisters to find a common ground with the city. We are still open to find a common ground. Fister still has a current proposal to develop the land."
Potter said he expects other legal actions to be filed.
"I expect similar cases to follow," Potter said.
"We are not trying to drain the city's20resources, we are seeking just compensation for the loss of value to the property."
City attorney James Aaron could not be reached for comment Monday. The city has 30 days after being served with the suit in which to respond to the filing.
According to the complaint, the city's unconstitutional actions date to the mid- 1980s with initial efforts to redevelop leading to a preliminary investigation by the Long Branch Planning Board into whether large sections of the city, including the Fuschia Triangle, were blighted under the 1992 Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL).
The suit claims the city used the terms "area in need of redevelopment" and "redevelopment area" while actually applying standards of "blighted" property or area that were rejected by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a 2007 case, Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro, which Potter successfully argued.
According to the complaint, the city designated the Fuschia Triangle as "in need of redevelopment" making the property and surrounding area subject to the LRHL; using the law to prevent the plaintiffs from developing their own property; to designate another redeveloper and to acquire the property through eminent domain.
However, the complaint states, the city for more than a decade has not exercised the power of eminent domain to acquire the Fuschia Triangle or to pay just compensation nor have any of the city's chosen redevelopers purchased it.
At the20same time, the owners have been subject to property taxes that do not take into account "the extreme loss of value and use" resulting from the city's actions, the complaint states.
Because the property could be subject to eminent domain, the suit argues potential purchasers or developers have been unwilling to invest in the property "despite its prime location … at the gateway to Broadway."
The filing of the legal action comes after the owners have exhaustively pursued alternative courses of action and failed to gain the city's approval of any plans to develop the Fuschia Triangle, the complaint states.
It notes that last July, a Notice of Tort Claim was filed in an effort to receive fair compensation for the "de facto taking" of the property.
"Therefore, this lawsuit seeks to overturn the blight designation of the Fuschia Triangle … and to obtain compensatory and punitive damages … for the inverse condemnation 'taking' of the Fuschia Triangle that has resulted from the city's ongoing pattern and practice of 'freezing' the Fuschia Triangle in place for some ill-defined future use or redevelopment purpose that may never transpire."
As an alternative, the suit asks the court to order the city to purchase the Fuschia Triangle property within 30 days and end the "legal limbo which has prevented the Fisters from making profitable use of their property for more than a decade."
The complaint alleges t hat the unconstitutional process of designating the Fuschia Triangle a redevelopment area dates to August 1995 when the City Council directed the Planning Board to investigate whether the Broadway-Gateway area and other areas met the criteria for designation as redevelopment areas.
In January 1996, the Planning Department issued a Redevelopment Report, and property owners were noticed that there would be a public hearing would be held on Jan. 16. However, the complaint states that the Planning Board failed to inform property owners that designation as 'in need of redevelopment' or 'redevelopment area' were the legal equivalent of declaring the property or the area as blighted and could result in condemnation. Nor did the board explain other consequences including that the city was empowered to designate a person other than the owner to be the redeveloper of the Fuschia Triangle and could prevent the plaintiffs from developing their property.
Because of the failure to explain the consequences of the redevelopment area designation, the complaint argues, "The city failed to provide the constitutionally necessary and sufficient notice of the investigation as mandated by the court" in three 2008 decisions.
The Redevelopment Report concluded that the Oceanfront North and Broadway corridor met the statutory criteria for "areas in need of redevelopment." However, the complaint charges the Redevelopment Report did not provide "the constitutionally required substantive evidence of actual blight of any of the properties" as mandated by the Supreme Court in Gallenthin and recently in Long Branch v. Anzalone.
Specifically, the suit charges the report failed to examine building interiors within the study area to determine if there were any severe structural, safety or health hazards or illegal activity; if the property was uninhabitable or dangerous or abandoned or in a state of disrepair beyond restoration, among other criteria.
"In short, there was no actual, credible or reliable evidence that the plaintiffs' property or the property of any other property owner within the study area was in a condition of blight and part of a blighted area," the complaint states.
"The Redevelopment Report relied upon and employed unconstitutional standards of what is a blighted property or area in that it was not based on objective factual evidence of severe and continuing detriment or harm to other property or the public."
Instead, the report was based on "a contrived and subjective 'rating' system of properties and assumed that any property deemed … to be 'underutilized' by comparison to some assumed future and potentially more profitable use is a sufficient basis … to render the properties blighted in direct contravention of the Supreme Court's enunciation of constitutional standards," the complaint states.
As a result, the Redevelopment Report amounts to "an unreliable and misleading net opinion which cannot form the substantial evidence basis which is required to support a constitutionally sustainable blight designation," the suit argues.
As a result, the board and the city failed to rely on the standard of substantial evidence required to support a redevelopment area or blighted area designation.
Citing the Gallenthin ruling, the complaint notes: "The Supreme Court ruled that the substantial evidence standard is not met if a municipality's decision is supported, as here, by only the net opinion of an expert or consultant."
The council adopted the Planning Board's findings and directed the board to develop a redevelopment plan for the area including the Fuschia Triangle. The council voted to adopt the Oceanfront-Broadway Redevelopment Plan in May 1996.
However, the complaint argues, since the blight designation for the Fuschia Triangle and the Gateway area did not meet standards set forth in the New Jersey Constitution, "it follows that the Redevelopment Plan is null and void and cannot supersede local zoning, nor may the city utilize the Redevelopment Plan to prevent plaintiffs from developing their property."
For the same reasons, the suit states, the city lacked the authority to designate the City Council as the redevelopment agency for the area and the council has "no power to determine who will be the redeveloper of the Fuschia Triangle unless it is the rightful owners."
The complaint also addresses the impact of the city's "inverse condemnation" of the Fuschia Trian gle.
The complaint notes the prolonged delay in the city exercising eminent domain diminished the value of the property. It states that for more than a decade, the city engaged "in a consistent pattern and unlawful practice of delaying action" to acquire the property and of denying the owners the right to develop their property, rejecting numerous redevelopment proposals. At the same time, purchase or lease offers have fallen through due to the "cloud of potential eminent domain that has been hanging over the property since 1996."
The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the Fuschia Triangle "is not, nor has it ever been, lawfully properly designated as an area in need of redevelopment or blighted." Also, it asks the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions directing the city to discontinue and nullify the designation of the property as blighted or in a redevelopment area.
As an alternative, the suit asks the court to order the city to initiate the acquisition of the Fuschia Triangle within no more than 30 days and to empanel a jury to determine the value of the property during the period in which it was taken through inverse condemnation and to assess damages including compensation for the financial losses and pain and suffering experienced by the Fisters.

Eminent Domain Abuse Update

Certain residents of Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace & Seaview Avenue recruited the assistance of the Institute For Justice and fought back. At the local level, Freehold Court, Judge Lawson, they lost every bid to save their homes.

The appeal was heard early last year and the appeals division ruled that, Long Branch did not designate the areas for redevelopment properly. They should have dismissed the condemnation of these property and thrown the 1996 Redevelopment ordinance out, based on faulty methodology, but they sent it back to Judge Lawson for trial, where in the City of Long Branch would have been given an opportunity to present more evidence to the "real" blight necessary to take these homes.

Lawson's response was to cause the parties into negotiations to see if the parties could come to some compromise. Judge Lawson assigned the negotiations to the Chancellery Division where Judge Cavanaugh presides.

The parties were instructed not to discuss the negotiations outside the courts publicly. They met and recently met again on Friday, in the court.

Either the method of determining the area was ripe for condemnation under Statutory eminent domain requirements, or it wasn't. The appeals court should have dismissed, because Long Branch has nothing more to add to the record. It is time that the people whose homes have been in limbo for so long, and for the public, to see that Long Branch had no right to indiscriminately decide whose property would be taken by Eminent Domain and whose would not.

The 1996 plans and ordinances are in error and the whole redevelopment of Long Branch was wrong in the first place, simply because they did not do a proper study on the area to determine "real & necessary blight."

Where in the areas of redevelopment, one may see such decay to justify Long Branch's position, must realize the blight appearance was created by the ordinances which depressed the neighborhoods intentionally, so that at minimum the city would look "right" in their quest.

For instance, lower Broadway, whose appearance is boarded up and empty today. Well the city prohibited former owners from redesign and renovation and refused to accept any proposal to redevelop or renovate on their own.

In the matter of the Lighthouse Mission at 162 Broadway. After renovation of a major percentage of that property, they city decided the mission had to right to occupy and use the property. This prohibition cause a cessation of the forward movement of the renovations of 162 Broadway. The mission won, on appeal, however 13 years after the prohibition. Far too late to avoid what appears to be a run down condition, mostly on the rear exterior of one of three buildings at that location.

The whole matter should be dismissed, and the property owners who are in these areas should be allowed to stay and where renovation is necessary, they should be given the opportunity to chose to renovate or sell independently of the force of eminent domain.

Long Branch TV

I have been publishing web sites about Long Branch, New Jersey as far back as 1996. I originally came to Long Branch to service the poor and spiritually conflicted as an Ordained Baptist Minister. I founded the Lighthouse Mission on lower Broadway and operated a very active on site food program until we purchased an abandoned, blighted building at 162 Broadway.

We started renovating the building and completed two of four redevelopment phases until all of a sudden we were smack dab in the midst of a political plot to take private property from current owners by force through eminent domain.

My plight started as early as 1994, as the city did an "about face" with us. After pre approving our plans to use 162 Broadway, by granting us funds to buy it, and expand into it, the city fell in league with long time political allies and they prohibited us the right to use 162 as church. It took us 13 years to win a ruling in The Federal Courts.

On November 26, 2007 the Third Circuit Court of appeals reversed an earlier decision to dismiss our claims that Long Branch violated our constitutional rights to operate our church. Unfortunately this victory came all too late for the Lighthouse Mission, because the rest of the neighborhood was already fallen prey to the plans of Adam Schneider, the city council, Siperstien's paint, Larry & Todd Katz and PAX Construction of Broadway Arts Center.

As a result of the back room deals and questionable ordinances, it became necessary to watch more closely the activities of the governing body. As a result one councilman, John "Fazz" Zambrano has already been arrested and found guilty of taking bribes for demolition contract awards. Up until recently, we catelogued videos and documents on longbranch.tv, longbranch.net & freelongbranch.com, as well as The Electric News & njeminentdomainabuse.com.

On March 19, 2009 I had to consolidate all these publications into this blog. I will be transferring as much of the archived materials as time permits. I am uncertain if we will be able to continue the taping of the city council meetings, where much of the evidence of this abusive government continues to take place

For more information contact me at jerseykev@aol.com or call 732.665.6583.

Thank You

Kevin Brown