S600: Prohibiting Campaign Contributions by Individuals and Organizations Who Purchase Property Taken By Eminent Domain
This proposed bill supplements New Jersey Statutes 19:44A-1 et seq. (New Jersey Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reporting Act) and seeks to keep political influence separate from the acquisition of property taken under eminent domain. Banned under the bill is the ability to take title of property acquired by eminent if during the previous year the person or organization 1) is subject to the reporting requirements of the New Jersey Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reporting Act or 2) is an organization organized under section 527 or 501 of the IRS Code. In addition, a person who purchases property taken by eminent domain may not make a political contribution described within the bill for a period of 3 years. Violation is punishable by a $50,000 fine for an individual and $150,000 for a political organization.
Currently, this bill is relieved from the Senate State Government Committee with no action pending.
S160: Compensation for Business Loss in Municipal Redevelopment Programs
Business owners bear a heavy burden when it comes to eminent domain actions. Loss of parking areas, vehicle access or gas station fuel pumps can have a disastrous affect on a business' profits. More importantly, compensation for business damages are only allowed by statute and not in all states. So in a state where compensation for business damages are not allowed, a business owner can end up shouldering the brunt of redevelopment.
Senate bill 160 is offered as a solution to the above negative effect eminent domain can have on an ongoing business. As proposed, the bill would allow a business to claim losses caused by eminent domain with the loss calculated based on assessment of business insurance coverage in the insurance industry. This may be different from the calculation of business damages in other states. For instance, business damages in Florida are calculated based on general accounting principles. Further, the calculation formula for loss of business based on business insurance coverage is proposed as a separate statute at New Jersey Statutes 20:3-29.1 and is also pending approval.
After introduction in the State Senate, the bill was referred to the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee. No further action has occurred.
SCR22: Constitutional Amendment Allowing Eminent Domain for Only "Essential Public Purposes"
As a further response to the Kelo decision, New Jersey is proposing to amend New Jersey Constitution Article 8, Section 3, Paragraph 1 by narrowing the definition of public purpose. Under the amendment, public purposes will be limited to utility and transportation corridors, educational facilities, airports, correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, landfills, sewage treatment facilities, storm water management facilities, in-patient health facilities, and recreational facilities. The amendment would also prohibit the taking of private property by eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. Clearly, this is New Jersey's anti-Kelo constitutional amendment.
This proposed constitutional amendment was referred to the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee where it awaits action.
S154: 24 Month Moratorium on the Use of Eminent Domain
This bill proposes a 24 month moratorium for any taking other than for the direct use by a governmental purpose. During the moratorium, a committee will study the use of eminent domain and make recommendations for its further use.
The bill is currently in the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee awaiting action.
As one can see, there has been no shortage of proposed legislation within the state of New Jersey concerning the use of eminent domain. The problem is no action is being taken to move the legislation out of committee. Most of the above was introduced in January 2008. As it now stands everyone is waiting to see what the final outcome will be. Will the legislature put handcuffs on the use of this extraordinary power? Or will the status quo continue?
More to come.............. Steven E. Taylor Taylor Law Firm, LLC http://www.tlf-llc.com/
