Casino Reinvestment Dev. Auth. v. Birnbaum
203 A.3d 939
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2019Background
- CRDA sought to condemn the Birnbaums’ residential property in Atlantic City’s South Inlet Tourism District to assemble land for a mixed-use redevelopment Project aimed at promoting tourism.
- CRDA had adopted a Tourism District Master Plan (2012) and approved the Project concept and some pre-acquisition funding, but had no finalized massing plan, no approved RFP, no committed developer, and relied initially on the now-defunct Revel casino as a funding source.
- CRDA deposited an offered compensation amount; Birnbaums contested CRDA's authority and sought a plenary hearing. The trial judge initially allowed condemnation but later reevaluated after changed circumstances.
- Between filing and decision, Revel declared bankruptcy, Atlantic City’s finances worsened, and legislation (MSRA) reallocated some CRDA funding—undermining CRDA’s financing assumptions.
- On remand the judge held an evidentiary hearing and concluded CRDA was effectively "banking" land without reasonable assurances the Project would occur in the foreseeable future, dismissing the condemnation as a manifest abuse of power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CRDA may condemn property for unspecified future public use absent timing assurances | CRDA: statute authorizes acquisition "whether for immediate use" so it may bank land for future projects | Birnbaums: taking must be supported by reasonable assurance project will occur; stockpiling is impermissible | Court: delegation is constrained; takings must be supported by evidence that use will occur in the reasonably foreseeable future; banking land indefinitely is manifest abuse |
| Whether CRDA established a public purpose and complied with statutory process | CRDA: Project promotes tourism and falls within CRDA statutory purposes and master plan | Birnbaums: do not dispute public purpose but dispute necessity and timing | Court: public purpose present, but insufficent assurances on implementation timing; therefore taking unjustified |
| Standard of review for alleged manifest abuse of condemnation power | CRDA: statutory determination of necessity should receive deference; timing is within CRDA discretion | Birnbaums: where necessity contested, condemnor must present evidence substantiating need | Held: manifest-abuse is factual; condemnor bears burden to produce evidence of reasonable necessity when challenged |
| What evidence suffices to show reasonable assurance Project will proceed | CRDA: existing plans, dedicated acquisition funds, draft RFPs, and ability to use other funding sources | Birnbaums: lack of approved massing plan, no developer, loss of Revel funding, legislative funding changes | Court: evidence here was only conceptual/draft; lost funding and stalled project meant CRDA failed to show project likely in foreseeable future |
Key Cases Cited
- Twp. of W. Orange v. 769 Assocs., LLC, 172 N.J. 564, 800 A.2d 86 (recognition of manifest-abuse standard for eminent domain)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (redevelopment is a permissible public use)
- Rova Farms Resort v. Inv'rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 323 A.2d 495 (trial judge's factual findings binding on appeal)
- Borough of Glassboro v. Grossman, 457 N.J. Super. 416, 200 A.3d 419 (condemnor must substantiate necessity beyond mere stockpiling)
- Trenton v. Lenzner, 16 N.J. 465, 109 A.2d 409 (deference to condemnors absent fraud, bad faith, or manifest abuse)
- Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344, 924 A.2d 447 (constitutional limits on eminent domain)