Team Rhodi, LLC v. Jersey City Redevelopment Auth., DOCKET NO. A-3515-17T2

TEAM RHODI, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY¹,CITY OF JERSEY CITY, and FDAD MAPLE, LLC, Defendants-Respondents.

DOCKET NO. A-3515-17T2

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued telephonically October 10, 2019

July 29, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

Before Judges Nugent, Suter and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-2159-17.

Andy S. Norin argued the cause for appellant (Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, attorneys; Andy S. Norin, of counsel and on the brief; Angela R. Raleigh, on the brief).

Charles J. Dennen argued the cause for respondent Jersey City Redevelopment Authority (Archer & Greiner, PC, attorneys; James M. Graziano, Charles J. Dennen and Francis T. Jamison, on the brief).

John J. Curley argued the cause for respondent FDAD Maple, LLC (John J. Curley, LLC, attorneys; John J. Curley and Jennifer J. Bogdanski, on the brief).

Philip S. Adelman, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondent City of Jersey City (Peter J. Baker, Corporation Counsel, attorney, joins in the brief of respondent Jersey City Redevelopment Authority).

PER CURIAM

This appeal involves the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law ("Redevelopment Law"), N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -89. More than fifteen years after the Municipal Council of defendant City of Jersey City ("Council") declared an area within the City in need of redevelopment, plaintiff, Team Rhodi, LLC, purchased seven lots within the redevelopment area. More than seventeen years after Council declared the area in need of redevelopment, Team Rhodi filed a prerogative writs action challenging Council's declaration, as well as defendant Jersey City Redevelopment Authority's designation of a redeveloper and the use of eminent domain to acquire Team Rhodi's property. The trial court dismissed the prerogative writs action, concluding, among other things, it was untimely. Team Rhodi appeals. We affirm.

I.

A.

The events underlying this appeal began in 1998 when Council adopted a resolution and authorized an investigation of the Garfield Brownfield Study Area ("study area") to determine whether it qualified as an area in need of redevelopment under the Redevelopment Law. The parties do not dispute that although the original study area did not include the subject lots, the seven lots now owned by Team Rhodi are included within the final area eventually determined to be in need of redevelopment.

Upon completion of the investigation, the Jersey City Planning Board ("Board") held a hearing to consider whether the study area qualified as an area in need of redevelopment. The Board published notice of the meeting on October 3 and 10, 1998. The notice read:

Please be advised at their October 20, 1998 meeting, [the Board] will consider a Study Report to determine whether the area designated as the [study area] qualifies as an "area in need of redevelopment." Formal action will be taken. . . . This meeting is an open public meeting and those persons for or against such determination will be given an opportunity to address the board. . . .

Team Rhodi points out the absence of notice to the public that if the study area qualified as an area in need of redevelopment then the City could acquire property within the area through the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

During the hearing, the City's Director of Planning entered into evidence proof of a letter about the meeting that had been sent to each property owner in the study area. As noted previously, Team Rhodi had not purchased its seven lots and would not do so for more than a decade. The Planning Director proceeded to give a presentation, which included 215 slides and the introduction of a comprehensive report entitled "Report Concerning the Determination of the Proposed Garfield Brownfield Study Area" ("Study Report").

The Board analyzed each block within the study area. Block 2073—now Block 19003 in which Team Rhodi's seven lots are located—was described as follows:

This block's southern edge is across Maple Street from Block 2070. Its Maple Street frontage together with five lots depth from each Maple Street corner, also extends back to form a vacant rectangular plot, opposite the one in 2070. The Monitor Street corner is ARH ASSOC owned and blacktopped over with several trucks parked. The remainder of the Monitor Street lots consist of older two and three family homes and garages. Along Johnston Avenue is a row of three-story brick and frame multiple dwellings which are mostly in fair condition. This is similar to the row of buildings on Pine Street, only one of which is in poor condition.

The Study Report concluded the entire study area as a whole satisfied the criteria under the Redevelopment Law for designation as an area in need of redevelopment. When asked how the redevelopment designation would impact private owners of the properties within the study area, the Planning Director responded, "anyone who owns private property in the study area is free to buy it and sell it and redevelop it today, tomorrow and the next day." However, he also explained that a blight designation triggered the City's authority to acquire the property through condemnation, a determination to be made during the redevelopment plan drafting phase.²

The Board voted to recommend the area in need of redevelopment designation for the entire study area, and two months later, in December 1998, Council adopted a resolution to that effect. According to Team Rhodi's appellate brief, the City provided neither public nor private notice of its determination that the Study Area was an area in need of redevelopment.

In 1999, the City adopted the Morris Canal Redevelopment plan ("MCR plan") as the redevelopment plan for the study area. The MCR plan has been amended more than twenty-nine times between 2002 and 2016.

In 2004, the Jersey City Redevelopment Authority ("Authority") designated LMD #13 Urban Renewal, LLC ("LMD") as the redeveloper. Their 2006 agreement obligated LMD to begin redevelopment of certain lots in Block 2073 and begin construction by April 1, 2008. LMD took no action for nearly ten years.

In 2015, Team Rhodi began its acquisition of Lots 1 through 7 in what was formerly Block 2073, now 19003 ("Rhodi Property"). In May 2015, a company named MC Maple, LLC, ("MC Maple") filed an application with the Authority for a redeveloper designation with respect to lots 13, 14, 15, and 16 in Block 19003 ("MC Maple Property"). That October, the Authority approved the transfer of LMD's redevelopment rights in the MC Maple Property to MC Maple.

The next day, entities that Team Rhodi characterizes as "affiliates" of MC Maple and defendant FDAD Maple, LLC ("FDAD Maple"), reportedly contributed $100,000, and months later an additional $50,000, to the Coalition for Progress, a Super Pac that supported Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop's campaign for governor. The Jersey City Redevelopment Pay-to-Play Ordinance, §3-51.2, prohibits an entity from making certain political contributions, including to candidates for elective office in Jersey City, any Jersey City or Hudson County political committees, or other PAC's, three months prior to applying to enter into a redevelopment agreement. In the redeveloper application, MC Maple certified its compliance with the pay-to- play ordinance. There is no evidence that either MC Maple or FDAD Maple made any improper political contributions.

Meanwhile, from 2015 to 2017, Team Rhodi completed its acquisition of Lots 1-7, Block 19003. After the acquisition, Team Rhodi commenced environmental remediation of the property, demolished several buildings, hired personnel, and asserted it was "ready, willing and able to develop the Property in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan." Notwithstanding its asserted readiness, however, Team Rhodi never submitted an application to the Authority to be designated as the redeveloper of the Rhodi Property within the MCR plan.³

FDAD Maple eventually submitted an application for redeveloper designation with respect to the remaining lots in Block 19003, lots 1-12 and 17-19. In November 2016, the Authority approved the transfer of LMD's redevelopment rights respecting these lots to FDAD Maple. FDAD Maple wrote a February 2017 letter to Team Rhodi's managing member. The letter stated:

Thank you for meeting with Rob and me on Tuesday. I am writing this letter to follow up and memorialize our discussion, specifically to offer in writing the two proposals we made that we feel will resolve our situation fairly.

As you know, our company, . . . has been designated as the redeveloper of Block 19003, including Lots 1 thru 7 (the Johnston Street properties), within the Morris Canal Redevelopment Plan Area. In that regard, we have an obligation to attempt to acquire parcels within Tax Block 19003.

We understand that your company . . . owns or is contracted to purchase Lots 1 thru 7 (the Johnston Street properties).

Since we both have pursued the possible development of these parcels for a significant time and at significant costs, we trust you agree that a fair resolution is for both of our companies to participate equally in the development of these parcels.

The letter also presented two options for purchasing the Rhodi Property, either through joint venture or division of the properties. It is unclear from the record if or how Team Rhodi responded. In April 2017, the Authority and FDAD Maple entered into a redevelopment agreement for the remaining lots in Block 19003. That June, the Authority ratified the agreement by resolution.

B.

In May 2017, Team Rhodi filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs. The eight-count complaint alleged, among...