New JerseyCities and towns would specify public uses for property taken through eminent domain
New Jersey cities and towns could not rely on a general public-purpose statement when authorizing eminent domain, the power to take property for public use.
What it does
Cities and towns would have to name exact public uses in local laws authorizing property takings through eminent domain. A general statement of public purpose would not be enough.
Argument forNaming the intended use could help property owners understand why a town wants their property and examine its stated purpose.
Argument againstCities and towns could have to rewrite authorizing laws that describe only a general public purpose, adding steps before taking property.
More detail
Cities and towns would have to name exact public uses in the local law authorizing the taking. This would cover land, improvements such as buildings, and movable property within their borders acquired through eminent domain. A general statement that the property would serve a public use or purpose would not meet the requirement. The requirement would take effect immediately if the bill becomes law.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed 1st Chamber
- Passed 2nd Chamber
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Oct 19Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Community and Urban Affairs CommitteeIntroduced
Government & Ethics