Search Site
Menu
The Dune Abides

In State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection v. City of Margate, Docket No. ATL-L-2295-15 (Law Div.), the Atlantic County Superior Court ruled, among other things, that the municipal defendant (“Margate”) made a sufficient showing of arbitrariness to warrant a hearing on the issue of whether the condemnation action brought by the plaintiff, the State of New Jersey (the “State”), constitutes a manifest abuse of its eminent domain power. 

The State is attempting to revive a storm damage and shore protection project that lay dormant for over a decade.  The project would entail the construction of a system of protective sand dunes for 127 miles, the length of the Jersey coastline.  In response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy, the Federal government enacted the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, P.L. No. 113-2, which appropriated billions of dollars to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for shore protection projects in New Jersey and other vulnerable states.  Based on the availability of these federal funds, the State’s stagnant shore protection project became a viable option.

In order to implement its sand dune project, the State needed to obtain around 2,850 easements, the vast majority of which were voluntarily given to the State.  However, the State faced opposition from Margate in acquiring 87 oceanfront parcels and subsequently sought to take the property through its eminent domain power.  Margate, which is located near Atlantic City, argued that the loss of a portion of its usable beaches would create substantial economic, social, and safety concerns, and that improving its existing system of bulkheads would serve as a better alternative than the State’s proposed dune project.

Superior Court Judge Julio Mendez was satisfied that Margate raised a sufficient factual issue as to whether the alleged flaws of the State’s dune project, coupled with Margate’s alternative bulkhead fortification  proposal, constitute an arbitrary State action or a “manifest abuse of discretion.”  In deciding that a hearing was necessary, the Court found particularly persuasive the affidavits presented by two of Margate’s experts, both of whom opined that the analysis supporting the State’s dune project was flawed.  The court-ordered hearing, which affords the parties an opportunity to introduce additional evidence on the issue of arbitrariness, is scheduled for February 3, 2016.

Despite the substantial evidentiary burden that Margate faces at the hearing, its opposition to the State’s dune project may serve as a blueprint for other municipalities seeking to resist the State’s seemingly absolute power of eminent domain.  Municipalities may follow Margate’s lead by challenging the supporting evidence of other eminent domain plans and proposing a more beneficial alternative that achieves the same result without condemning property.

Lieberman & Blecher’s attorneys have extensive experience in handling eminent domain cases and have worked for many years to ensure the best results for our clients.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Our Attorneys

Recent Twitter Posts

  • Newark and Camden receive $400K each to clean up contaminated sites. https://t.co/x3V6AZHkOb
    5 days ago
  • Murphy Administration rejects golf course expansion onto Liberty State Park. https://t.co/cy8lGbz1uJ
    2 weeks ago
  • Preservationists score big win in fight to protect Princeton Battlefield. https://t.co/80vdiYX0GQ
    3 weeks ago
  • Glass recycling plant breaks ground on former quarry land in Sussex County. https://t.co/puNFMPIaOe
    3 weeks ago

Recent Blog Posts

United States Supreme Court Tackles Key Clean Water Act Judicial Review Issue

National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, et al. 583 U.S. ____ (2018) Decided January 22, 2018 Since the passing of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the definition of “the waters
Read More
United States Supreme Court Tackles Key Clean Water Act Judicial Review Issue

New Jersey Voters to Decide Important State Constitutional Amendment concerning the Environment

On Tuesday, November 7, 2017, New Jersey voters will be asked to decide on a state constitutional amendment regarding the use of natural resource damages collected by the State in
Read More
New Jersey Voters to Decide Important State Constitutional Amendment  concerning the Environment

Appellate Division Case Demonstrates Importance of Carefully Negotiated Escrow Agreements

Real estate transactions involving commercial and residential properties frequently employ the use of escrow agreements to address potential environmental issues.  This practice is widespread in New Jersey and it permits
Read More
Appellate Division Case Demonstrates Importance of Carefully Negotiated Escrow Agreements

NJDEP Updates Soil Remediation Standards for 19 Contaminants

Effective September 18, 2017, new soil remediation standards govern the cleanup of contaminated sites in New Jersey.  The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) recently updated remedial standards for
Read More
NJDEP Updates Soil Remediation Standards for 19 Contaminants

In the media

  • Gulf Coast Town Center facing foreclosure

    Naples Daily News, September 16, 2015

    Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 against an affiliate of CBL & Associates, the owners of the decadeold, 1.2 million-square-foot mall in south Fort Myers for a $190.9 million unpaid loan. The center has 94 stores on 204 acres, with such anchors as Super Target, Belk, Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marshalls and Costco...

    Read More
  • Town liable for private company's leaking underground tanks, court rules

    NJ.com Jul 26, 2017

    CRANFORD -- A couple that owned a businesses in town and became sick from leaking underground tanks owned by an adjacent business can sue the township for damages because the tanks were partially ...

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Contact Our Firm

Quick Contact Form