Background
The Borough of Seaside Park sought to acquire the Desert Palm Inn, owned by Shree Jyoti, LLC, through eminent domain. In April 2022, the Borough adopted an ordinance stating that the acquisition would further a public use and promote residents’ health, safety, and welfare, but the ordinance did not identify the particular use planned for the property. Before adoption, Shree Jyoti questioned the public purpose and raised notice and procedural objections.
After negotiations failed, the Borough filed a condemnation complaint. The trial court dismissed that complaint without prejudice because the asserted public use was not specified. The Borough immediately filed an amended complaint identifying the intended use as including a public parking lot with electric-vehicle charging infrastructure. The trial court denied Shree Jyoti’s renewed motion to dismiss, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. It held that neither the Eminent Domain Act nor the Local Lands and Buildings Law requires a municipality to identify the particular public use within the ordinance authorizing acquisition by condemnation. The Eminent Domain Act does not prescribe the contents of an authorizing ordinance, and the Local Lands and Buildings Law requires acquisition “by ordinance” without directing what the ordinance must say about public use.
The Borough identified its intended use in the amended complaint early enough for the trial court to evaluate any challenge to that use, and Shree Jyoti did not substantively contest whether a public parking lot with electric-vehicle charging infrastructure was a valid public use. The Court therefore found no statutory, constitutional, or common-law violation. It nevertheless emphasized that municipalities should disclose an intended public use as early as practicable to promote transparency, meaningful owner participation, and public trust.
Justice Hoffman dissented. Although agreeing that the governing statutes do not expressly require the public purpose to appear in the ordinance, the dissent would have reversed because the Borough knew its intended purpose yet did not disclose it when Shree Jyoti specifically asked, which Justice Hoffman viewed as a violation of the government’s obligation to “turn square corners.”
Key Takeaways
- A New Jersey municipal condemnation ordinance need not state the specific public use planned for the property.
- The intended public use must still be identified in time for judicial review of its constitutional validity.
- Municipalities should disclose a known public use at the earliest practicable point even though the governing statutes do not require its inclusion in the ordinance.
Why It Matters
The decision resolves a question of first impression about the required contents of municipal condemnation ordinances. It prevents courts from adding a public-use disclosure requirement that does not appear in the statutory text while preserving property owners’ ability to challenge whether the asserted use is valid, pretextual, or primarily for private benefit.
The Court’s best-practice guidance also carries a practical warning: withholding a known public purpose may generate avoidable litigation and expense, even when the omission does not invalidate the condemnation.