The City of Trenton NEEDS development. And yes, the homeowners should receive the highest compensation they deserve, not just for what their home is currently worth, but at least a percentage of its replacement value. There are other ways to compensate homeowners, such as offering the homeowners shares in the new project, or offering them one of the new homes as compensation, or at a discounted price. Other cities and towns have done it.

However, if the only accepted resolution to the problem is that no homeowners should be displaced, as some have said, then the answer is not to have development. Seems like we’re good at making sure that happens. And look at how quickly ALL of the property values in the city have fallen, at a much higher percentage than other towns. And Dan’s example of $60,000 for a property around the train station? Doubtful at today’s values. Trenton’s property values are a sinking ship. Best thing that could happen to a city property owner today is to have his property purchased through eminent domain, because NO ONE else is going to buy it, period. Property that no will buy has NO VALUE.

A city is seen as dying when there is no development. It’s that simple. Instead of making it easy for developers to bring their projects here, we fight it, as if we would somehow be losing something if, god forbid, we had a Performa here. Or an outstanding office building next to the train station.

•City’s and lets be clear about who the “city” is in this case. Politicians who have an interest in new development either because they’re honest and seek tax revenues or because their dishonest and receive donations from the developers, have big interests in development.
Therefore, they have extended the use of eminent domain, from its traditional use in clearing land for roads and schools to the modern manifestation in preferring developers over small home and business owners.

I would suggest that we not ignore the stated intention of using the powers of eminent domain to “reverse urban blight”. Statute currently requires a targeted neighborhood to be declared to be blighted prior to or predicating the use of eminent domain as a legal tool. This has much more a dramatic impact on property values than the “threat of” or actual negotiations once eminent domain has been invoked.

Those who remember the Performa “development” deal for the Apex Lumber site and the 700 blocks of So. Broad and Adeline Sts., might recall a once solidly blue collar neighborhood with a smattering of small businesses that served the local community. One could guess that at least fifty percent of the residential units were owner occupied.

Enter Performa and the stated intention of developing mixed use entertainment and housing for the four (maybe six or eight) square block area. There were no negotiations for these properties. There was a ‘drive-by inspection’ by the city inspector’s department, and then a request to declare the neighborhood ‘blighted’ was presented to city council and confirmed. Within weeks the owner occupied units were sold. I can only guess that owners were quoted ‘sale’ prices they could never expect to realize through the eminent domain negotiation.

We all know the outcome. The Performa redevelopment never materialized and a once stable neighborhood was ravaged. How many times has this happened in Trenton or in other parts of the state?

It comes as no surprise that, on 01/10/10, the NJ legislature introduced four pieces of legislation that seek: to establish parity in compensation of impacted properties by reflecting pricing of comparable relocation properties, to eliminate ‘pay to play’ in condemnation proceedings, to prohibit condemnation of residential and otherwise non-blighted properties, and/or to simply place a moratorium on the use of Eminent Domain.

Dan, when the NJ legislature positions itself as the ‘conscience’ of an issue, you know this is a process we all need to be very concerned about.