Go Home


NOW SERVING MONTCLAIR, GLEN RIDGE AND BLOOMFIELD
daily dish

August   5

Master of His Domain

Bloomfield_center_1A wrench was thrown into Bloomfield's redevelopment plans this week. David Mandelbaum, a principal of 110 Washington Associates, will keep his building, a former toy factory, as a result of a ruling that may help other Bloomfield owners retain their properties rather than be swallowed by the township's eminent domain machine. From the Star Ledger:

Judge Patricia K. Costello issued a written decision Wednesday dismissing the township's condemnation complaint against 110 Washington Associates, citing a flawed redevelopment planning process.

The property was the first one the township tried to condemn in a 13.5-acre redevelopment zone that encompasses dozens of businesses.

The judge, sitting in Newark, also said there was a conflict of interest when the property was declared "in need of redevelopment" because Steven Martino, assistant township attorney, represented both the planning and zoning boards. Michael Rubin is now the attorney for those boards.

In today's news, other developments in eminent domain beyond Baristaville.

August 5, 2005 in Controversy | Permalink

Comments

Now I'm depressed. I was truly looking forward to a redeveloped Center sooner rather than later (including 110 Washington St.). I recall the neighborhood successfully fighting Mr. Mandlebaum's proposal a few short years ago to place a factory on the property. This property owner is obviously more concerned about profit than the surrounding community, not to mention lacking vision!

If this property doesn't fit the description of rundown and underutilized in the judge's opinion, then nothing will. Hopefully, the township will appeal this shortsighted decision.

Posted by: Todd | Aug 5, 2005 12:13:40 PM

It's too bad we've come to the point that rather than finding taking of private property against our laws and principles we can only stave it off by citing procedural flaws.

Todd - I'm surprised you think that a business owner trying to make a profit should be punished by the taking of his property. While I agree that a factory might be bad for the neighborhood, the town already has means to stop this, like zoning, short of confiscating what is his.

Just remember that if the town can do this to him, they can do it to you.

Posted by: MiloG | Aug 5, 2005 12:50:35 PM

I too am looking forward to a better downtown, but I can't help cheer for those folks who were about to have their properties taken out from under them.

Before this decision the town had made low-ball offers and the owners had the option of taking less than true market value for their property or fight and possibly get nothing. Now the town and the developer will be forced to negotiate with the property owners in good faith.

I know it may cost me more in taxes, but these people deserve to get what their property is really worth.

Posted by: State Street Pete | Aug 5, 2005 1:08:59 PM

Forgive me. I know Washington Street but what profitable business(es) does this building house?

Thanks.

Posted by: Surrounded | Aug 5, 2005 1:52:46 PM

From the article:

"One of the crucial points in Costello's ruling was the township did not prove the 110 Washington St. property is blighted.

"She cited a lengthy passage from the township's 2000 redevelopment study that described the property as 'in poor condition,' 'vacant for a period of years' and underutilized.

"'In order to make a determination that a property is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare ... there must be something more than a mere finding that it meets the description,' Costello wrote. 'There must be substantial evidence.'"

-----

1. I don't see how the property can be both vacant and underutilized. Vacant and unutilized, yes. Or vacant for a while and now underutilized.
2. Sounds like the town just needs to document its evidence better.

Posted by: Chris | Aug 5, 2005 2:36:02 PM

Hmmm...waiting patiently for a reply. (not that the Baristanet is the end all, be all source of local info)

Perhaps this/these business/es are expendable and the plight is just to prove a point??

Posted by: Surrounded | Aug 5, 2005 4:20:51 PM

According to the article, the technicality was that the attorney for the town was acting in more than one capacity, and that's what led the judge to rule against the town. It had nothing to do with the property itself or its condition or utilization.

Posted by: Alison Meyer | Aug 5, 2005 7:58:27 PM

The property used to be used as a factory, I believe kids' toys. It was International Playthings and had been vacant for a long time. The current owner tried to turn it into a metal stamping factory and local opposition by the neighborhood helped prevent this as was mentioned above. I may be wrong, but as I recall I think the owner bought this property when it was already not in use so he knew it might be a hard sell to get something going there. While I think eminent domain can be misused, and should be more tightly regulated, in this case I think the property does fit the definition and should be used for the redevelopment. I hope this glitch doesn't prevent the redevelopment of the downtown. While there are some viable businesses in the downtown area, they have not been enough to bring the whole downtown up to what it should be. Other methods have been tried and it seems as if redevelopment is the key. I do think the businesses being taken should be compensated appropriately, however. Plus I think they should offer businesses that are taken by eminent domain, a reduced rental rate or whatever in the new redevelopment area. Right now no matter who you are, the plan is that everyone would pay market rate. To me, if a business is displaced by the construction, that business should have an opportunity to be a part of the new development when it's complete, and not at market rate.

Posted by: Mauigirl | Aug 8, 2005 9:56:59 AM

I don’t understand why Montclair should have all the nice restaurants and shops. I believe the people of Bloomfield should want the same or better for their town, and the only way that is going to happen is if you improve the physical appearance of downtown.

How are you going to attract nice shops and restaurants with the way the current situation is? I certainly would not invest in that location the way it is now.

I am new to Bloomfield and it would be a shame to see this wonderful project be put on the shelf, because of this ruling. I have walked around this entire area set for redevelopment and to me a changed is needed. This change maybe drastic and some businesses may suffer, but in the end it will change Bloomfield for the better. I have seen that factory many times traveling along Washington Avenue….what purpose does a vacant factory serve the town? I would much rather have the property taxes generated from the construction of the condos proposed to be developed.

I grew up in Englewood, NJ and the change happening on Palisades Avenue is bringing new life to a part of town that you would never think about walking around in the day, let alone at night. Now there are outdoor dining restaurants, nice shops for the family to enjoy....it’s great.

My point is the evidence of what redevelopment can do to a town is around in many towns in NJ, and Bloomfield can be another great example.

Posted by: GB | Aug 8, 2005 5:37:06 PM

GB- I agree! I've been here a little over a year. I have WANTED to give my business to Bloomfield, but sadly, even Sundays, the few shops & restaurants in the downtown are closed. Of course, we need a nice "pedestrain-friendly" street that most places lack. Church Street is the example even in Montclair. There needs to be a parking area where people can then browse, stroll, shop....spend lots of time and money.
As for the business owners, couldn't they be offered a compromise of "improving" and "utilizing" their space themselves? If they don't comply, then go for other options.

Posted by: Bloomfield Not-so Newbie | Jul 14, 2006 1:49:46 PM

Click & Jump to our INSIDE PAGES:
CLASSIFIEDS
THRILLS
FOOD
AT HOME

» RECENT POSTS
· In Case You Don't Look at Our Announcement Box
· Window Painting
· Flatulent Friar
· Ballyowen -- The Best $140 a NJ Golfer Can Spend
· Corzine Budget Gets MSU Calling For Action
· Open Space Call For Action
· Closed For Renovations?
· Thrill Seekers
· Heroic Dudes
· Making Montclair's History Demo-Proof


» ARCHIVES
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004


» CATEGORIES
A Friend Writes
April Fool's!
Bada Bing
Barista Does the Math
Barista's Sunday Poll
Betty Says
Books
Brand New
Buzz
Cheap
Civic Virtue
Comings and Goings
Controversy
Correction
Culture Club
Current Affairs
Cute as Hell
Don't Ask: Dating in Baristaville
Film
Flu Shot Central
Food and Drink
Footlights
From the Crazy Mixed-Up Files of Raymmmondo
Froth
Funniest Home Videos
Games
Good Reads by Neil Baldwin
Goodbyes
Growing pains
Happenings
Hardball
Help Your Barista!
In Your Dreams
Intersections We Hate
Java
Karma Violation
Lights! Camera! Craft service!
Lights, Camera..... Roll Tape
Major Dudes
Marlboro Inn
Memorials
Mexican
Movie Mojo
Music
Only in Montclair
Our Favorite Diversions
Paranoia Beat
Parties We Crashed
Party With Baristanet
Photo of the Week
Politics
Pop Culture
Postcards from the EB
R.I.P.
Really Freaking Weird
Scandal
Science
Scooped by Phil Read, Again
Scot's Photo Journal
Seasonal Decorating Violation
Seen around town
Seen in Cyberspace
Sheesh!
Shopping With Barista
Sirens
Songs We Can't Get Out of Our Head
Sports
Suburban Archeologist
SUV-bashing
Television
The Daily Chat
The Sunday Barista Poll
The View from Her Pickup
Theater
Those Crazy Kids
Time Capsule
Tweaked
We All Bow to Java
We Ask Random Strangers
Web/Tech
Weblogs
Where For Art Thou?
Wildlife
Win Stuff
Yard Sale Treasure Map
Yogi