The year 2005 is upon us. Happy New Year, fellow planners! At the beginning of this New Year, our thoughts turn to redevelopment.

Most practicing planners in New Jersey are aware of the redevelopment statutes, which have created a growing field of activity for practitioners. The proliferation of redevelopment agencies and redevelopment plans all across the state is an eloquent testament to the latent needs these statutes were meant to address.

The redevelopment statutes – which were substantially overhauled in 1992, when they were given much broader applications – create significant opportunities for positive planning interventions in a wide variety of physical settings. To promote the informed use of the powers granted under these statutes, the NJAPA, along with DCA and NJ Future sponsored the award-winning "Redevelopment Handbook", a practical guide to redevelopment.

The NJ redevelopment statutes delegate to municipal agencies a broad range of powers, such as the granting of tax abatements, the disposition of municipally-owned properties to parties other than the highest bidder, and the exercise of eminent domain on behalf of private developers. When used for worthy purposes, these enhanced powers can achieve significant public good. When used strictly for private gain, these powers are questionable.

We continue to wholeheartedly support the use of the redevelopment statutes, in appropriate situations. But we also recognize the potential for abuse they have created. While most municipalities are using redevelopment for worthy public purposes, there are exceptions that should be remedied. There is, in our opinion, insufficient oversight and inadequate safeguards over the application of the redevelopment statutes.

Given the 10+ years of experience with their implementation, we believe it is time to amend the statutes to correct deficiencies and improve their application. We would suggest the following improvements:

• Enhanced planning content – the redevelopment "plan" required by statute is a legal document, not a plan. The statutes should be amended to require an enhanced planning content, such that it is apparent to the public what the planning intentions of the proposed redevelopment area really are.
• Enhanced design content – the statutes allow – but do not require – the redevelopment plan to contain a precise design component. (Ironically, this is not authorized by the MLUL for any other development circumstances). The revised statutes should require a design element, such that all stakeholders have a precise understanding of what is physically proposed, before the redevelopment agency is granted sweeping redevelopment powers.
• Increased public scrutiny at the local level – the single public hearing required by the statutes is inadequate, given the insufficient planning and design content.
• Improved scrutiny at the state level. The level of review provided by DCA is formulaic and entirely inadequate. If the state is involved in reviewing redevelopment zones, it needs to do a more convincing job of protecting the public interest and invest the time and energy in assessing the substantive merits of the proposed redevelopment. Otherwise, it should exit the scene.

The NJAPA’s Redevelopment and Legislative Committees will be discussing these (and possibly other) proposed modifications to the redevelopment statutes in the months to come. As always, we welcome your thoughts. Please contact us at ROV.ROD@VERIZON.NET.