Casino Reinvestment Dev. Auth. v. Birnbaum
Decision Date | 15 February 2019 |
Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-0019-16T1 |
Citation | 203 A.3d 939,458 N.J.Super. 173 |
Parties | CASINO REINVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Public Corporate Body of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Charles BIRNBAUM and Lucinda Birnbaum, Defendants-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, and Louis Taylor Davis, Gerald Gittens, The Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority, The Atlantic City Sewerage Co., and The City of Atlantic City, Defendants. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Stuart M. Lederman argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent (Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP, attorneys; Stuart M. Lederman, of counsel; Rudy S. Randazzo, Kellen Murphy, and Katherine Nunziata, on the brief).
Robert J. McNamara (Institute for Justice) of the Virginia bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for respondents/cross-appellants (Potter and Dickson, Robert J. McNamara and Daniel L. Alban (Institute for Justice) of the Virginia bar, admitted pro hac vice, attorneys; Peter D. Dickson, on the brief).
Adam M. Gordon, attorney for amicus curiae Fair Share Housing Center.
Mark Miller, attorney for amicus curiae Pacific Legal Foundation.
Before Judges Koblitz, Ostrer and Currier.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KOBLITZ, P.J.A.D.
Plaintiff Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) appeals from the August 5, 2016 dismissal of its complaint for condemnation of a residential property in the city of Atlantic City owned by defendants Charles and Lucinda Birnbaum. The CRDA sought to condemn the Birnbaum property in furtherance of its mandate to promote tourism in Atlantic City. The property is located in the Atlantic City Tourism District, within the boundaries of the CRDA's South Inlet Mixed Use Development Project (Project), where the CRDA proposes private, economic redevelopment, including the construction of tourism-focused residential, retail, and commercial uses.
At the time of the decision under review, the CRDA had no specific redevelopment plans under consideration for the Project; it had not issued a request for proposals (RFP) to prospective developers, and no developer had committed to redeveloping within the Project area. Nevertheless, the CRDA maintains it had a right to "bank" the Birnbaum property for redevelopment at some unspecified time in the future. Atlantic County Assignment Judge Julio Mendez dismissed the condemnation complaint as a manifest abuse of power because the CRDA did not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed redevelopment would come to fruition in the foreseeable future. The CRDA appeals from that judgment. We affirm.
The Birnbaums cross-appeal from an earlier, November 17, 2014 determination that the condemnation was for a sufficiently specific public use and the Birnbaum property was reasonably included in the Project area. At that time the judge also held that the CRDA was taking the property to promote tourism and therefore was not required to comply with the Blighted Areas Clause of the New Jersey Constitution, N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 3, ¶ 1. But, Judge Mendez found, in any event, the taking did comply with those requirements. We need not reach the cross-appeal.
In 1976, a constitutional amendment authorized casino gambling in Atlantic City. N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, ¶ 2 (D). Eight years later, the Legislature created the CRDA, in, but not of, the Department of the Treasury. N.J.S.A. 5:12-153. See In re Plan for Abolition of Council on Affordable Hous., 214 N.J. 444, 448, 70 A.3d 559 (2013) ( ). The statutory purposes of the agency are set forth at N.J.S.A. 5:12-160, and include "directly facilitat[ing] the redevelopment of existing blighted areas," N.J.S.A. 5:12-160(a), and "encourag[ing] investment in, or financing of, projects which are made as part of a comprehensive plan to improve blighted or redevelopment areas ...." N.J.S.A. 5:12-160(k).
New Jersey courts have recognized that "[t]he general purpose of the [CRDA] is to manage the proceeds received under N.J.S.A. 5:12-144.1 and 5:12-162 and to direct the rehabilitation of blighted areas of Atlantic City." In re Casino Licensee, 224 N.J. Super. 316, 323, 540 A.2d 523 (App. Div. 1988) (citing N.J.S.A. 5:12-160 and 5:12-161 ); see also Barbara Nash Westcott, Note, Dealing a Fair Hand to Atlantic City Property Owners, 31 Rutgers L.J. 913, 921-23 (Spring 2000) (describing CRDA's funding sources). The CRDA is a "financing and investment agency" that facilitates redevelopment projects, but does not act as a developer or operator. CRDA v. City of Atl. City, 18 N.J. Tax 463, 476-77 (1999).
As set forth in N.J.S.A. 5:12-160, the purposes of the CRDA include:
The CRDA was granted the power "[t]o exercise the right of eminent domain" in Atlantic City. N.J.S.A. 5:12-161(p). N.J.S.A. 5:12-182 states in pertinent part:
The 2001 CRDA Urban Revitalization Act, N.J.S.A. 5:12-173.9 to -173.20, established an "incentive program," administered by the CRDA, "to facilitate the development of entertainment-retail districts for the city of Atlantic City ...." N.J.S.A. 5:12-173.12(a).
Ten years later, the Legislature adopted the Atlantic City Tourism District Act (Tourism Act), N.J.S.A. 5:12-218 to -233, which gave the CRDA power "to establish and exercise authority over the Atlantic City Tourism District...." N.J.S.A. 5:12-160(m) and 5:12-161(q). The CRDA also was required to develop a Tourism District Master Plan. N.J.S.A. 5:12-219(e).1
At the same time, under N.J.S.A. 5:12-220(f), Atlantic City was prohibited from "designat[ing] the tourism district or any portion thereof as an area in need of redevelopment or an area in need of rehabilitation, or adopt[ing] a redevelopment plan for any property within the tourism district pursuant to the ‘Local Redevelopment and Housing Law’ ... ( N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -73 [LRHL] ) without the consent of the [CRDA]."
In 2011, pursuant to the Tourism Act of the same year, the CRDA created the Tourism District in Atlantic City.2 Thereafter, in February 2012, by Resolutions 12-14 and 12-23, the CRDA adopted a Tourism District Master Plan, which called for redevelopment of several areas of the city, including the Inlet District.3
In May 2012, the CRDA issued Resolution 12-68, which preliminarily determined that the Project was of the type and character eligible for approval under N.J.S.A. 5:12-173,4 and authorized further action including holding a public hearing. The CRDA described the Project as being "constructed in phases that complement the new Revel Casino and assist with the demands created by the resort."
The CRDA also stated that "[p]rior to implementation of the project," certain privately owned properties would have to be acquired, and addressed funding for the Project, stating:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Montclair State Univ. v. Cnty. of Passaic
...and properly weighed without any mischaracterization or ignoring any of the critical witness testimony. Casino Reinvestment Dev. Auth. v. Birnbaum, 458 N.J. Super. 173, 187 (2019) (quoting Rova Farms, 65 N.J. at 484).VIII. Because we have concluded there is no reason to disturb the trial co......
-
Williams v. Casino Reinvestment Development Authority
... ... the tourism district, '" Casino Reinvestment ... Dev. Auth. v. Birnbaum , 458 N.J.Super. 173, 179 (App ... Div. 2019) (alterations in original) ... ...
- In re Civil Commitment of F.Z.S.
-
Friends of Historic Flemington, LLC v. Borough of Flemington
...if that municipal determination were supported by the record evidence. 191 N.J. at 372; see also Casino Reinvestment Dev. Auth. v. Birnbaum, 458 N.J. Super. 173, 188 (App. Div. 2019) ("Courts have recognized that there are inherent uncertainties in the redevelopment process . . . ."). Plain......