Eminent Domain is at least Constitutional
Not many issues raise tempers as quickly as discussing Eminent Domain, but it needs to be discussed as it is an important issue that directly effects our district. First, unlike most other issues I've wrote about, Eminent Domain is constitutional, and legal, despite what many people think or say. Officially, the 5th Amendment to US Constitution limits the power of eminent domain by requiring that "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use. The debate is what is "public use" and the Supreme Court, which is the judicial branch of the federal government, has determined that "The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest.

The Long Branch Case Study
In our district, Eminent domain has been used extensively in Long Branch in order to redevelop the beach front area between Seven Presidents Park and West End. Was this use of Eminent domain justified? Did it benefit "the public welfare or public interest"? Absolutely, and let us consider some facts:

Crime is down. Pallone was a member of the Long Branch city council from 1982 to 1988. From 1985 to 1988, violent crime numbers are: 310 violent crimes in '85, 280 violent crimes in '86, 278 violent crimes in '87 and 314 violent crimes in '88. Those numbers SOARED to a peak of 430 violent crimes in 1992 for a population of 28,875 in Long Branch. For comparison, in 1992, there were 16,926 people in Asbury Park and 276 violent crimes. The violent crime rate in Long Branch was 1.5%, slightly better than the rate in Asbury Park which was 1.6%. Fast forward 14 years and let us then compare those same numbers in 2006. Asbury Park had 16,637 people and 386 violent crimes, a rate of 2.3%, sad, compared to Long Branch which had 32,115 people in 2006 and only 172 violent crimes, a rate of "only" 0.5%, a significant drop in crime, which means a significant increase in the public welfare. And just looking at the total numbers doesn't give a fair and honest perspective in my opinion. In 1992, there were 26 forced rapes in Long Branch. In 2006, there were *2* forced rapes. Had the trend continued, as it did in Asbury, the welfare of dozens of people every year in Long Branch have benefited from the changes initiated by the City. It would be naive to credit this significant drop in crime to anything other than the redevelopment of the beach front area, which was the center of most of those crimes.

Economic Revitalization of Long Branch is good for the public welfare. As reported in the linked APP article, "Pier Village is absolutely a help because there is so much to do," said Joseph Jenci, director of sales and marketing for Ocean Place. ". . . The construction you see next door (at Pier Village), at a time when the housing market is so slow and so bad, this certainly shows Long Branch is dedicated to moving forward and continuing its renaissance.". Fine, so a private company is profiting from the use of our tax money to redevelop the property adjacent to their establishment, so what? If the majority of the public was truly so enraged by Eminent Domain use to create the Pier Village area, then certainly the majority of people would boycott the area right? But that is not the case. On any given day or night, thousands of people flock to Pier Village from around the state, and even out of state, and spend money in Long Branch. City revenue, if not from beach badge sales alone, was up over $300,000 this past year. While neighboring towns have watched property taxes rise and services decrease and age, Long Branch has added new ball fields and parks, an all new High School, a new Middle School, several new elementary schools and property values in town have risen drastic. To suggest that such a significant change in local economy could have happened without the initial actions of the city is again being naive.

But what about the MTSOA? Their houses are nice and crime is down, leave them alone!
If we were to forget what existed in that area in the late 80s, and assume that the area would look the same, and have the same high crime rate, just as no changes have occurred in Asbury in the last two decades, then would these people still want to live there? City Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr says about the Ocean Place Hotel, "They were alone down there. There was nothing going on on the oceanfront. To the north, you had Rooney's (Ocean Crab House). Period," Woolley said. "To the west, you had a burned-out lumberyard and a used-car dealer. If you stayed in that hotel, you might walk on the promenade, but in 1990, you were probably only doing that during the daylight hours." and again to try to forget about how bad the area was in the 80s and early 90s would be the deciding factor. Is the MTSOA area STILL a problem area? Not at all! However, the rest of us tax payers in the city, and state, including the people of the MTSOA, were sold a plan that called for redevelopment of the entire area. We tax payers bought into that plan by reelecting the current Administration, multiple times. We also continue to buy into the plan by spending, A LOT, of money in the area. For the property owners in the MTSOA area to now demand that they be left alone means that the rest of us tax payers, the majority, who bought the original plan are denied what we have paid for, and what we apparently want. If the MTSOA properties are left alone, the rest of us were basically charged to improve the property values of a few people. I'll be honest, if the rest of the city, state, nation want to donate their money to improve my property value and I owe nothing back, please, start sending your money, but generally, if we pay for something, we want, and deserve, what we've paid for. In addition, how does one calculate "just compensation" of the property today? Do these owners really deserve the millions of dollars that they claim their property is worth? Surely, if the area had been left alone, and the MTSOA area was to be developed in the first phase of redevelopment, some properties in a high crime area neighboring a visual nightmare, wouldn't be worth money. I'd bet most people would have been happy to get out of that area for a million bucks in the late 80s and early 90s. Fast forward 15 years and now these homes are in a low crime area, neighboring the shore's newest entertainment city, and are only worth more money because the rest of us tax payers paid to improve the area. Again, if you want to talk about "unjust" or "abuse", then I find it abusive that these people are demanding millions of dollars (that come from the other tax payers) for their property when our money was already spent to improve their property values AND then have had the past 15 years to benefit from their proximity to Pier Village which was built at our expense. This of course not to mention that the sidewalks in that area are in pretty poor condition which makes walking access to the beachfront a problem (and violates city code) and there are a few street lights in the area that haven't been reported out in years, so much for people who care about the appearance and safety of their community.

It is easy to write about an issue that is unconstitutional and costly to the tax payers, but I find that this one particular issue, which is costly to the tax payers, but is also constitutional, generates the most controversy. Do I think more coastal towns in our district should take the approach of using Eminent Domain to reduce crime, increase services, reduce or level property taxes? Absolutely I think it's a good idea. No one WANTS more crime or higher taxes, but clearly, the only way to determine if that is what the people want is to have a local mayor and counsel run on a platform of redevelopment and eminent domain use, and if the majority of people elect said local leaders, then clearly the local people want redevelopment to occur, even if it means the use of Eminent Domain. I don't think this is a federal issue where the federal government needs to demand cities change an area, I think the people of the locality need to be in control of their own property, and through their voting choices, they will get, or not get, redevelopment in their community.

In the meantime, just consider the number of victims of crimes due to Pallone's inability to rein in crime during his tenure in office for the people of Long Branch. He not only failed the hundreds of victims of crime, but he failed the entire city of Long Branch, just as he continues to fail to entire 6th District of New Jersey.