Suit seeks to overturn Highlands Act BY COLLEEN O'DEA DAILY RECORD Thursday, April 19, 2007
Warren County and six property owners -- half from Morris County -- today filed a lawsuit asking the courts to scrap the 2004 Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, saying it should be declared unconstitutional because it confiscated much of the value of undeveloped land in half the North Jersey region.
The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court in Mercer County, contends that the law violates the constitutional equal protection and due process rights of property owners. Politics dictated the delineation of a protection zone for half the 860,000-acre region that includes most of Morris County, say the Warren freeholders and property owners in their suit. And the New Jersey Highlands Council, which is drafting a master plan and zoning map for the entire region, has failed to provide ways to compensate landowners for the loss of equity in their property.
"Warren County has worked for improvements in the Highlands Act since it first became law in 2004, but the affected farmers and other property owners can wait no longer," said Freeholder Director Everett A. Chamberlain. "This is a terrible piece of legislation that must be overturned."
Among the plaintiffs in the suit are David Shope of Long Valley and Andy and Lois Drysdale of Chester Township, who have been protesting and attending most of the council's meetings since its beginning in December 2004, and Charles W. "Bill" Shoop of Washington Township.
" - - - nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
------------------------------------
I know that many people consider the US Constitution to be a totally archaic document, but there it is in black and white folks. I am certain that the more liberal local NJ courts will uphold the Highlands law per se, but I wonder what the Federal Courts will do with it if those Plaintiffs have the wherewithall to carry forth (but that costs big bucks).
But, since the Fifth Ammendment has already been shot through the heart by the Kelo Eminent Domain case, I would imagine that these Plaintiffs would have to focus on the Equal Protection clause afforded by the 14th Ammendment.
Any legal scholars here willing to offer any commentary?
