Garfield property owners sue over eminent domain designation

GARFIELD — Eight property owners whose land could be taken by eminent domain are suing the city, alleging their businesses, home and church were improperly designated as "blighted."

In two separate lawsuits, the owners argue that their 1st Ward properties should not be considered in need of redevelopment and that resolutions designating them as such should be overturned. In one suit, filed by seven of the property owners, they further call for the city to be barred from condemning their land.

"We can fight this," said Howard Koval, who owns a mixed-use building at 67-69 Passaic St. "We’re going to fight it to the end."

Mayor Richard Rigoglioso, who has pushed for redevelopment of the 1st Ward, said he anticipated that some property owners would appeal and he is hopeful that the city can negotiate with them.

"If not, it will go through litigation," he said. "It definitely puts a delay in our plans, but we still want to go forward with the redevelopment."

Attorney Frank Regan, who is representing the city in the redevelopment process, could not be reached for comment Monday.

Transit village

City officials want to redevelop the area around the city's Passaic Street train station with the hope of being designated as a transit village. They envision a neighborhood of apartments, stores and restaurants running from the train station at Midland Avenue to the Passaic River that would attract millennials as well as seniors looking to downsize.

To accomplish this vision, the City Council in December designated 27 properties in the 1st Ward as a redevelopment zone. The designation gives the city the power to take the properties by eminent domain, though the redeveloper chosen for the project has said some lots — Zion Lutheran Church and a neighboring home — would not be part of its plans.

The joint lawsuit, which was filed against Garfield, its City Council and its Planning Board, argues that the study that led to the properties' designation as blighted was flawed. No structural analysis was conducted, nor were there interior inspections or a review of occupancy rates or the number of people employed in the area, the suit alleges.

The suit also contends that the city can't deem their properties in need of redevelopment in order to make way for a "transit-oriented redevelopment."

“It’s very disturbing. I think about it all the time,” said Abe Levine, co-owner of the Royal Slide Sales Company on Hepworth Place. “We put ourselves on the line to get here, and we picked this place so we would never have to move again ... All of a sudden they want to take it away. We’re trying our best to stay here.”

The second suit, filed by the owner of 106 Somerset St., names the City Council and the Planning Board as defendants. That suit contends that including the property in the redevelopment zone will deprive the owner of the use and enjoyment of the property.

DESIGNATION: Garfield residents in eminent domain zone get 45-day appeal period

PROTEST: Garfield residents rally over eminent domain proposal

DEBATE: Garfield trying to change image, but at what cost?

Rigoglioso defended the study and the redevelopment designation. The Planning Board and the city's planner, he believes, acted properly.

Whether the properties were incorrectly designated, he said, "That's up to the courts to decide."

The Planning Board is also conducting a study to determine whether an additional 65 parcels on nine blocks should be redeveloped.

Email: cattafi@northjersey.com