New Jersey court OKs taking land from one developer to give to another

[Thom Little]

Pennsauken Township can take property from its owner so another company can redevelop the land as part of a $1.2 billion project, a judge has ruled.

Lawyers said the ruling was the first time a New Jersey court approved a town's use of eminent domain to take land slated for redevelopment.

In his ruling Monday, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Orlando said Pennsauken would have been wrong to take the land primarily to benefit its favored developer, Cherokee Pennsauken, a subsidiary of Raleigh, N.C.-based Cherokee Investment Partners.

But the judge said the project is primarily aimed at bringing "the redevelopment plan for the decayed and contaminated waterfront to fruition."


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NC_EMINENT_DOMAIN_NCOL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-13-14-32-39

[nicknameless]

1. How outrageous!

Presumably most developers have more $$ than modest homeowners.
Hopefully this will get more people involved and incite enough outrage to reverse that despicable SCOTUS ruling.

K&R

[Up2Late]

2. Sniff Sniff...

I smell corrupted judges.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Actually, wasn't that despicable SC ruling mostly the product

of the more "liberal" wing of the Court? I didn't understand it then & I don't get it now.

[RazzleDazzle]

4. You're definitely not alone. What I can't figure out is

exactly when I slipped into this bizarre, cruel and harsh fascist alternate universe. Sometime around Nov - Dec 2000, near as I can reckon, tho the Reagan years may have been the real turning point. Sure wish I could find my way back.

[Toots]

5. I like you am very puzzled by their actions but a DUer tried to explain it

First off I think the decision was wrong. The explanation I heard was that it didn't make this legal but made it legal for the local government to decide. I know there is not much difference but it sort of boils down to "State's Rights" The Liberal Judges backed giving the states the right to make that decision. IOW they did not say doing this was legal or illegal but that the decision rests in the hands of the state or local municipality. I think they should have imposed a federal mandate upon the states and said this could not be done period......the one thing that amazes me though is the right winger's objections to "States Rights".... That has been their ralliing cry for years... Ignorance i guess.