Opinion: Gov. Christie's Chance for a Good Veto

By R. William Potter

[R. William Potter is a partner in Potter & Dickson, a Princeton-based law firm. His views are his own and not necessarily those of the firm or of any client.]

After vetoing legislation to expand Medicaid access, the governor should continue his vetoing ways -- but this time for good reason -- when he gets around to S-2447.

This bill passed both houses of the state Legislature with bipartisan support and is self-described as "codifying protections set forth in certain case law and limits use of eminent domain under the ‘Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.'"

What's not to like with that? Plenty, as it turns out, is wrong with this innocuous-sounding bill -- both with what it does and with what it doesn't do that needs fixing to prevent continued abuse of eminent domain laws.

But first some background:

In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to take private property -- Suzette Kelo's famous "little pink house" -- not because it is "blighted" or to make way for a highway or other "public use." New London, CT, wanted to clear the waterfront of housing so that a pharmaceutical giant could build a new headquarters there, producing more jobs and tax ratables.

While most local residents took whatever they were offered for their homes, Kelo, a hard-working nurse and single mom, would not budge. Represented by a public-interest law firm, she took her appeal to the top court in the land.

Read more at NJSpotlight.com

NJ Spotlight is an issue-driven news website that provides critical insight to New Jersey’s communities and businesses. It is non-partisan, independent, policy-centered and community-minded.