Supply-Side Liberalism: Fiscal Crisis, Post-Industrial.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

OCA Member Dana Berliner and the Institute for Justice received a great victory for the Birnbaum familly recently in CRDA v.Birnbaum. A New Jersey appellate court ruled that the state’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) could not use eminent domain for the purpose of seizing private property in order to “bank” it for a possible future use.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

OCA Member Dana Berliner and the Institute for Justice received a great victory for the Birnbaum familly recently in CRDA v. Birnbaum. A New Jersey appellate court ruled that the state’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) could not use eminent domain for the purpose of seizing private property in order to “bank” it for a possible future use. The appellate court upheld the.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

If Mr. Birnbaum’s story sounds familiar, that’s because it is a repeat of what the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority tried in 1996. In that case the New Jersey authority tried to take the home of an elderly widow, Vera Coking, as well as Sabatini’s Italian Restaurant and a jewelry store, for a proposed limousine parking lot for Donald Trump’s Plaza Hotel and Casino.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

For Birnbaum and his family, the house had been a refuge and source of strength in tumultuous times. All of that changed in 2012, when the New Jersey Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) threatened to seize Birnbaum’s home and transform the property into a mixed-use development. The Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

The state’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority could not provide assurance that its plans for the property and surrounding area “would proceed in the reasonably foreseeable future,” the court ruled. Therefore, there was no immediate necessity for the taking (“necessity” is a required element in any eminent domain taking-where none exists, then the taking cannot go forward.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

Court strikes down taking that is “a manifest abuse of the eminent domain power” Charles Birnbaum, standing in front of his house, which the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority sought to.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

CASINO REINVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CHARLES BIRNBAUM :: 2019 :: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions :: New Jersey.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

Judges upheld a 2016 decision. The Casino Reinvestment Development Authority tried to use eminent domain in order to take the Atlantic City home of Charlie Biernbaum. Judges agreed. CRDA is abusing their power. For past 5 years, Birnbaum, a piano tuner, has been relentlessly hammered. The CRDA’s non-stop pursuit of land-banking his family home. NOTE: CRDA land-banked properties pay NO taxes.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

Meanwhile, in Atlantic City, New Jersey, the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) is attempting to use eminent domain to help take over the home of a piano tuner named Charlie Birnbaum so that a private company that had previously gone bankrupt can build a casino on it.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v, Birnbaum, 458 N.J. Super. 173 (App. Div. 2019) (condemnation, CRDA statutes and “land banking”) Borough of Glassboro v.

Casino reinvestment development authority v. birnbaum

The Casino Reinvestment Development Authority on Wednesday appealed a judge's decision last month to let Charlie Birnbaum keep the home the agency wants to condemn. Superior Court Judge Julio.