Peter,

As you are aware, our firm represents Christ Church of Toms River. Our client is in the midst of a highly contested application before the Zoning Board of Toms River. All testimony has been concluded at this time and the Board is in the process of hearing public testimony which we expect to conclude on May 22, 2025. Presumably, a vote approving or denying the application will be held at that time.

Yesterday we learned of the Township’s proposed ordinance to either purchase or use eminent domain to acquire the property located at 415 Washington Street. The Mayor of Toms River and the Ocean County Commissioners have been in the public spotlight discussing this application, at length. They have also offered various commentary regarding their opinions as to the situation involving Ocean County’s ongoing homeless situation. Our client, nor our firm, takes no position in this regard and does not get involved in political matters. Notwithstanding this, it is clear and obvious that the Mayor is not in favor of the application and continues to voice his opinion. It would appear that he is now taking the position that he can either purchase the property (although same is not for sale) from the Diocese or use Eminent Domain to prevent the application.

While we have had less than 24 hours notice of the Mayor’s proposed taking, even a cursory review of the relevant case law would indicate that the Township is in a perilous position. “Ordinarily, when a municipality adopts an ordinance in the exercise of its power of eminent domain, that determination is presumed valid and entitled to great deference. Taxpayers Assn. of Weymouth Tp. v. Weymouth Tp., 71 N.J. 249. Courts will generally not inquire into a public body's motive concerning the necessity of the taking or the amount of property to be appropriated for public use. Riggs v. Long Beach Tp., 109 N.J. 601. “However, the decision to condemn shall not be enforced where there has been a showing of improper motives, bad faith, or some other consideration amounting to a manifest abuse of the power of eminent domain.” Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. v. Hirschfield, 39 N.J. Super. 286. Within the context of these well established principles, the issue…is whether the borough is acting in bad faith in seeking to appropriate…land. Bad faith generally implies the doing of an act for a dishonest purpose. The term also contemplates a state of mind

affirmatively operating with a furtive design or some motive of interest or ill will. Lustrelon Inc. v. Prutscher, 178 N.J.Super. 128. “Thus, although the public purpose for taking land may be valid, if the true reason is beyond the power conferred by law, the condemnation may be set aside. In other words, public bodies may condemn for an authorized purpose but may not condemn to disguise an ulterior motive.” Borough of Essex Fells v Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, Inc., 289 N.J. Super. 329.

It is clear and obvious that the Township and Mayor Rodrick are acting in bad faith and have ulterior motives. Clearly, they are not even trying to hide their actions. This attempt to use eminent domain as an excuse to obtain property is not disguised in this instance. Adding a property as a last minute Council agenda item is clear and obvious bad faith. Should the Township continue down this path, we will have no choice but to seek all remedies at law and equity. Quite obviously, this will include a Section 1983 claim against all individual members of the Town Council and all members of the Township Staff who knowingly participated in this bad faith action.

As discussed by phone today, I felt it imperative that you have this information in writing before the Township takes further action and am informing you of our position as a professional courtesy.

Very truly yours,

Michael York

Michael B. York, Esq.

Novins, York, Jacobus & Dooley

202 Main Street

Toms River, New Jersey 08753

(732) 349-7100 Office