The unanimous decision limits a municipality’s ability to condemn one private property solely to trade it for different land intended for public use.
TRENTON, NJ – A municipality cannot condemn private property solely to use it in a land exchange for another parcel that will serve a public purpose, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously on July 20.
The decision in Township of Jackson v. Getzel Bee, LLC affirms an appellate ruling that invalidated Jackson Township’s effort to condemn two privately owned lots and exchange them with a developer for other land the township wanted to preserve as open space.
Open-space preservation can be a valid public use. The problem, the court found, was that the two condemned parcels were not themselves intended for public use. They would instead have functioned as assets in a transaction with a private developer.
The court concluded that neither New Jersey’s condemnation statutes nor existing state and federal case law authorized that type of arrangement.
The dispute involved properties owned by Getzel Bee, LLC and Bellevue Jackson, LLC. Jackson Township initially described open space as the purpose of the condemnation. A later ordinance disclosed that the properties would be part of a land swap.
A trial court permitted the condemnations, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed that reversal, substantially adopting the appellate court’s reasoning.
The decision does not address every municipal property exchange. Its holding concerns the use of compulsory condemnation to acquire a private parcel solely as consideration for a different property.
That limitation has statewide relevance. Municipalities routinely acquire land for roads, parks, schools, utilities and redevelopment, but eminent domain carries constitutional and statutory safeguards because an owner is being compelled to surrender property.
“Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a decision involving a land acquisition that dates back to 2022, before our Administration took office. Since many residents have questions about what this means, I want to provide some clarity.
“The Court found that the previous Administration improperly used eminent domain to acquire two small parcels of land from a Lakewood-based LLC as part of a much larger land swap agreement.
“It’s important to understand what the decision does not do.
“The Court did not overturn or invalidate the larger land swap. The ruling applies only to two parcels that together total less than one acre of the overall property involved in that agreement.
“Even though the amount of land at issue is relatively small, every acre matters.
“From my first day in office, I have made one thing clear: protecting Jackson’s open space is one of my highest priorities. I’ve said it before, and I’ll continue to say it because I believe it wholeheartedly: the best defense against overdevelopment is preserving as much open space as we possibly can.
“That’s why I have directed our Township legal team and officials to pursue every available legal option to protect these parcels and preserve every acre we can—not only on this property, but throughout Jackson.” – Jennifer Kuhn, Mayor, Township of Jackson [read Mayor Kuhn’s full statement here]
Under Monday’s ruling, an indirect public benefit somewhere else in a transaction does not automatically establish a valid public use for the particular property being condemned.
The case returns to the lower court for further proceedings concerning relief for the affected property owners.
For local governments considering complicated redevelopment or preservation agreements, the ruling emphasizes that the stated public purpose and actual intended use of condemned property must align before a taking proceeds.