New Jersey is doing something about grabbing land for private use with political strings holding the deal shut from public eyes. States like New York, with Michael Cardozo, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff, are not as lucky.

Group seeks reforms to redevelopment laws. Eminent domain concerns prompt calls for change,
Asbury Park Press, 3/8/06
By Michael Symons

LINK

TRENTON - The reform-minded Citizens' Campaign and a state senator unveiled a package of changes to redevelopment laws Tuesday, including banning campaign donations from builders and their legal and engineering consultants during a project.

The group and Sen. Ellen Karcher, D-Monmouth, also want to revamp the criteria municipalities use to prove an area is "in need of redevelopment," a subjective description that must be met before eminent domain powers can be used by government.

"Pay-to-play and eminent domain abuse are running rampant in our communities, and corruption is paving the way for overdevelopment that threatens our homes and our quality of life," Karcher said. "We must make sure that if a municipal government acquires property, it is for the right reasons."

The bill would apply to state, county and local redevelopment projects, such as - should it become law - the pending redevelopment of the Fort Monmouth property after the Pentagon closes the base.

Harry Pozycki, chairman of the Citizens' Campaign, said the bill is similar to an ordinance adopted in Asbury Park. His group will push, town by town, for similar rules, like what the group did in advocating for pay-to-play contracting reforms.

The plan also aims to get residents more involved in the development process by expanding public notice requirements to all properties within 200 feet of a project and giving people earlier opportunities to address planning boards.

The plan also would require developers to file annual reports about their political donations to the state Election Law Enforcement Commission.

Move on pay-to-play
Editorial Published in the Asbury Park Press, 10/25/06

Builders in areas declared in need of redevelopment - who can transform the landscape of a municipality and take homes and businesses that stand in the way by exercising eminent domain - should not be allowed to make political contributions to the public officials who approve the projects.

Legislation that would ban such contributions and provide tighter controls over the redevelopment process was introduced in June by Sen. Ellen Karcher, D-Monmouth, and Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen. But it has gone nowhere. "If you want to sell a redevelopment plan to the government, don't try to buy the government," Weinberg said Monday at a press conference designed to draw attention to the bill.

The legislation would prohibit companies negotiating redevelopment agreements from making campaign donations to officials who oversee the transactions. Donations to the officials' political parties or fundraising committees would be restricted during the redevelopment process.

In addition to limiting pay-to-play, the bill would restrict the use of eminent domain, broaden notification of residents living near redevelopment sites and expand public input at planning board and council meetings regarding redevelopment decisions.

The chairman of the good-government organization Citizens' Campaign, Harry Pozycki, said redevelopers deserve special attention in pay-to-play reform because of their power to condemn homes and the tax breaks and other financial benefits they can obtain for their projects from municipalities.

The abuse of property rights in redevelopment areas cries out for reform. It is essential that political contributions play no role in decision making. The Karcher-Weinberg bill was referred to the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee. Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Ocean, who sits on that panel, should join with like-minded colleagues to force committee chairman Ronald L. Rice, D-Essex, to act on it.

Bill would ban donors among redevelopers
Published in the Philadelphia Inquirer, 10/24/06
By Elisa Ung

TRENTON - A bipartisan group of lawmakers yesterday said it would push legislation to weed political money out of New Jersey's lucrative redevelopment projects.

The bills would prohibit redevelopers with active projects, or their consultants, engineers or lawyers, from making any political contributions in New Jersey. A cosponsor, Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D., Bergen), said the message was: "If you want to sell a redevelopment plan to the government, don't try to buy the government."

New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the country, has been increasingly turning to redevelopment of its older areas, waterfronts, and former industrial centers. Political money "has been playing a large, and too large, a role in redevelopment projects," Weinberg said.

Between 50 and 75 projects now under way in New Jersey would be affected by the ban, according to the nonprofit advocacy group the Citizens' Campaign, which has been calling for the legislation for the last year.

Included would be the massive Cherokee Northeast projects planned for Camden and Pennsauken. Key firms in those projects deny political motivations, but have have donated millions directly or indirectly to government officials with oversight over the redevelopment zones.

The bills could face an uphill battle in the Legislature, which has several members who either do work for redevelopment projects or are local officials who may have benefited from the contributions. Calls to include pay-to-play language in recent eminent domain reform legislation went nowhere.

Citizens' Campaign chairman Harry Pozycki, known for for helping to craft the state's pay-to-play legislation, said that on the local level, redevelopment pay-to-play reform had been an easier sell than general contract reform.

Twelve municipalities and Mercer County have adopted redevelopment reforms similar to the state bill. "Now is the time for the Legislature to provide the follow-through," Pozycki said.

Pay-to-play limitations take shape in Trenton. Legislators cite gifts from redevelopers
Published in the Star Ledger, 10/24/06
By Joe Donahue

Concerned that builders involved with redevelopment projects wield too much political clout because many of them are heavy political contributors, a bipartisan group of legislators yesterday called for an end to such contributions along with other reforms.

"For families living under the umbrella of a redevelopment zone, they feel vulnerable to the whims of a government that can be bought with well-placed political donations," said Sen. Ellen Karcher (D- Monmouth), the bill's chief Senate sponsor.

During a Statehouse news conference, Republicans agreed with Karcher on the need for tighter controls on the redevelopment process.

"Reform has to be bipartisan," said Sen. Peter Inverso (R-Mercer), who in 2002 co-sponsored early versions of bills that eventually led to a crackdown on public contractor donations. "It comes hard. Unless it is bipartisan, it has no hope of success."

Under Karcher's bill, builders who win redevelopment contracts -- along with their attorneys, engineers, lobbyists and other consultants -- would be barred from making political donations to officials who award the contracts or those who appoint them, as well as political parties or other fundraising committees that give them financial support.

Other reforms would require wider notification of residents near redevelopment projects, more opportunities for public input, and restrictions on the use of eminent do main power.

Harry Pozycki, chairman of the Citizen's Campaign, said redevelopers need special attention be cause they tend to receive extra benefits, such as loans, grants, tax breaks or the use of public condemnation powers.

"Citizens and local governmental leaders are realizing that the redevelopment process needs the added protection of pay-to-play reform," Pozycki said. "Now is the time for the Legislature to provide the follow-through."

Despite the bill's bipartisan support, its prospects are unclear. During last year's campaign, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine called for a contribution ban for developers that seemed broader than the one proposed yesterday. Anthony Coley, the governor's spokesman, declined comment pending the re lease of a new ethics reform package from the Democrat-controlled Legislature.

Joseph Donnelly, spokesman for the Assembly majority, said it is possible that some elements of the redevelopment legislation will become part of that reform agenda.

Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) agreed the reform proposals will receive consideration but said they must be fair: "It's im portant that we strike a balance between targeting those who wish to peddle their influence and creating an environment where only the personally wealthy can run for office."

Patrick O'Keefe, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the New Jersey Builders Association, said professional developers "would be at the front of the line" in calling for an end to pay-to- play, but believe reform of the redevelopment process should be done comprehensively, perhaps through a special legislative study commis sion.

"Most of these bills when I've looked at them are sort of patch work fixes to systematic problems," he said.

Lawmakers want to bar donations to campaigns in rebuilding towns
Published in the Asbury Park Press, 10/24/06
By Jonathan Tamari

TRENTON - Saying political clout must be removed from the process that often gives government the power to take people's homes and businesses, six state lawmakers called Monday for new rules restricting campaign donations from builders working on redevelopment projects.

The lawmakers, including both Democrats and Republicans, said the changes would "level the playing field" for residents who can sometimes see large swaths of their communities reshaped by redevelopment. They said political money should not be allowed to influence officials' decisions about such projects.

"If you want to sell a redevelopment plan to the government, don't try to buy the government. Don't try to buy them with campaign contributions or anything else," said Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen.

The proposal would bar companies negotiating redevelopment agreements from giving campaign money to officials who oversee the deals. Donations to the officials' political parties also would be restricted during redevelopment. The bills also call for allowing more public input in redevelopment plans.

The Citizens' Campaign, a good-government group, has pushed similar regulations into place in 12 municipalities and one county, according to campaign chairman Harry Pozycki.

Pozycki said limiting political influence is important, because builders often receive tax breaks, and the government often has the power to condemn homes.

Strict pay-to-play rules needed for development
Editorial published in the Courier Post, 6/15/06

Limits on the government's use of eminent domain must include restricting political contributions for those involved in redevelopment projects.
Legislators are acting to curb municipalities' authority to seize private property for redevelopment projects. Yet, legislators must do more than simply clarify when eminent domain can be used to clear blight and revitalize a neighborhood.

Widely discussed proposals in the Assembly and state Senate would tighten legal restraints. But the tremendous amount of money involved in redevelopment projects remains a powerful incentive for local officials to smooth the way for builders, even if it involves booting out their own constituents.

Developers usually contribute thousands of dollars to the ruling political parties who control municipal and county business. That's why New Jersey Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen has urged legislators to go beyond redefining blight in eminent domain regulations.

Chen wants lawmakers to ban pay to play for redevelopment projects, making it illegal for builders to make political contributions to local officials who must approve such proposals. Chen said strong anti-nepotism rules also are needed to ensure local officials' relatives don't profit from redevelopment.

These proposals would give local residents more confidence that officials who invoke eminent domain are motivated by the public's interest.
But legislators aren't even discussing Chen's recommendations.

Assemblyman John Burzichelli, D-Paulsboro, who is leading an effort to change the use of eminent domain in New Jersey, said ethics reform should be dealt with in other legislation. That means never.

After taxpayers demanded change, legislators took months to finally accept watered-down pay-to-play reform. Promises to further tighten ethics rules to limit political contributions from those doing business with government remain unfulfilled.

Burzichelli's bill does attempt to respond to fears expressed by residents from Cramer Hill to Westville and beyond that eminent domain projects could force them out of their neighborhoods permanently. His bill would require that residents receive enough relocation money to replace their homes in their same communities. It also would require government to provide better notice to residents that their homes could be taken through redevelopment plans and to prove that a neighborhood needs to be redeveloped.

These are necessary changes to protect the rights of property owners. But the absence of a pay-to-play ban for those involved in redevelopment would still leave residents vulnerable to abuse.

Slam the door on land grabs
Editorial in the Asbury Park Press, 6/12/06

Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen's recommendations last month for reforming eminent domain laws fell short of what is needed to protect property owners from seizure of their land for private redevelopment purposes. Reform legislation proposed by Assemblyman John Burzichelli, D-Gloucester, scheduled to be discussed at a committee hearing today, is even more deficient.

Burzichelli, who chaired a number of hearings on eminent domain this spring, says his bill would ensure property owners receive fair market value, give property owners more advanced notice that a municipality is looking to redevelop and shift the burden on government to prove redevelopment is necessary.

"The goal here has been to restore public confidence that government is not just waiting in a corner somewhere to take your home at a whim," Burzichelli said. "When you look at this structure from top to bottom, there will be no whim involved."

Maybe not. But it doesn't provide the level of protection needed. It fails to provide a limited, objective definition of "blight" - a designation required to proceed with condemnation for private redevelopment - and lacks pay-to-play provisions that could reduce the amount of self-interested decision-making by government officials prone to hopping in bed with developers.

Burzichelli contends the state's newly enacted pay-to-play law addresses those concerns. It doesn't. It is full of loopholes, and it doesn't cover municipal redevelopment agreements. With the huge sums of money at stake in redevelopment projects, and the fact redevelopment now accounts for more than half of the new residential construction in the state, pay-to-play provisions in any eminent domain legislation must be airtight.

Chen's report noted that state law allows municipalities to declare virtually any area "blighted." It described how the definition of "blight" over the past 40 years has expanded from four narrowly drawn criteria to seven broader ones, and how the Legislature's interpretation of the state Constitution's blighted area clause "has expanded to the point where it provides virtually no limitation on taking private property."

Burzichelli's bill does little to limit or clarify the definition of "blight," and leaves the door wide open for seizure of "underutilized" property. Its holes are too big to warrant serious consideration by the full Assembly.

Instead, lawmakers should massage a bill by Assemblyman Mike Panter, D-Monmouth, that would impose an outright ban on condemnation of code-compliant residential properties for economic redevelopment purposes. The bill should be expanded to include commercial properties as well. And while legislators are hashing out a permanent fix, they should impose a moratorium on the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment.

End redevelopment pay-to-play
Editorial published in the Trenton Times, 3/12/06

Under New Jersey's current redevelopment law, a municipality that wants to redevelop a section of the town to bring in ratables doesn't even have to stigmatize it as "blighted" any longer. As frequent Times columnist Bill Potter has written, local governments have been given almost unchecked power in this area.

They are able to 1) select a master redeveloper without competitive bidding; 2) negotiate the size, scope and cost of projects behind closed doors; 3) condemn private property within the designated redevelopment area, whether the property is blighted or not; 4) grant long-term tax abatements that withhold revenue from schools and counties; 5) issue bonds to pay for it all, and 6) prevent citizens from voting in a referendum on the greater indebtedness, no matter how many may sign a petition demanding one.

This huge grant of discretionary power to elected officials is an open invitation to abuse citizens' rights and pocketbooks. One obvious abuse that it facilitates is the kind of favoritism toward generous campaign contributors that New Jerseyans know all too well as the pay-to-play system. Some 60 towns and two counties have enacted ordinances curbing pay-to-play for contractors doing business with their officials; but only Hightstown, Asbury Park and Mercer County have broadened their laws to cover redevelopers.

As more and more development in New Jersey takes place through the use of the state redevelopment statutes, the need for reforms has become more pressing. Now Sen. Ellen Karcher, D-Marlboro, has introduced a bill, backed by the statewide Citizens' Campaign, that would provide the kind of far-reaching changes that are called for. It would curb the influence of pay-to-play contributions in the redevelopment process and make redevelopment decisions more transparent and the decision-makers more accountable.

Sen. Karcher's bill would:

-- Ban political contributions by redevelopers, their attorneys, engineers and other consultants, from the start of the redevelopment process to the completion of the redevelopment agreement.

-- Eliminate the "smart growth" basis for authorization of the "area in need of redevelopment" designation and for use of the condemnation power.
-- Make the redevelopment process more open by expanding the public-notice requirements covering citizens who live outside the boundaries of the designated area and imposing new requirements for public hearings on the redevelopment plan, on all applications to be designated a redeveloper, and on other aspects.

-- Require annual disclosure by redevelopers of all campaign giving to the Election Law Enforcement Commission.

-- Apply to redevelopment projects at every level of government, including the Meadowlands Commission and all independent authorities.

Sen. Karcher's bill offers the Legislature the opportunity to change the laws to make redevelopment, in Citizens' Campaign Chair Harry Pozycki's words, "fair, open, transparent and beyond the influence of pay-to-play cash." The Legislature should seize that chance.

FATAL $ubtraction: How State-Mandated Property Tax Exemptions New York City Private Education at the Expense of Public Schools and CUNY