On Jan. 11, Salvatore and Pauline Gebbia, owners of Weathercraft, located at 13 Emerson Plaza East in Emerson, filed a lawsuit against the borough.

The Gebbias demand in their lawsuit that the borough declare all redevelopment activity pursuant to the redevelopment plan to be null and void. In support of their argument, the plaintiffs claim that the borough’s redevelopment plan does not “set out any facts by which… any properties within the Borough… could lawfully be considered blighted or which would subject any properties within the Borough to the risk of acquisition under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.”

Although the argument is one that has been rehashed several times during council meetings, the borough stands firm in its belief that the redevelopment plan is legal and viable, and plans to move forward with the project. Borough Attorney Philip Boggia stated that the redevelopment will proceed as planned. “The zoning is in place already. It’s not for us to redebate this issue. It’s been debated and decided.”

But the Gebbias are concerned that there are numerous issues that have not been adequately addressed by the current redevelopment plan. They have formed a lengthy argument challenging not only the inclusion of their property in the redevelopment zone, which would leave it vulnerable to the possibility of being acquired through eminent domain, but also the motives and practices of the borough throughout the process of formulating the plan and appointing a developer to handle the entire project.

In their suit, the Gebbias point to the letter in which Atkins Cos., the originally selected redeveloper, formally withdrew from the project, dated Nov. 29, 2007. In the letter, Atkins listed the reasons that its interests in the project and those of the borough were “not likely to converge.” First, Atkins advised the borough of its “serious concerns as to Emerson’s meeting the pre-requisites for redevelopment, including public purpose necessary to support the Borough’s use of its powers of eminent domain and other redevelopment related actions.” The letter went on to state, “We believe, based on statements made by several property owners and their competent legal counsel, that litigation against efforts to condemn their properties is likely.”

According to Borough Administrator Joe Scarpa, statements like these differ from the assurances that Atkins representative Scott Fishbone made to borough officials and the media regarding Atkins’ commitment to the plan throughout its involvement in the project. “They were on board and then they had an epiphany,” said Scarpa. Boggia echoes Scarpa’s sentiment. “Atkins was never going to sign an agreement, because they didn’t have the wherewithal to do the project… When they tried to bring in a different developer to assist them on the project, we told them it was unacceptable.”

Indeed, Atkins admitted in its withdrawal letter that the scope of the project was beyond what the developer was capable of handling on its own. Among the elements of the plan that posed an insurmountable challenge to Atkins was the County’s plans to re-align Kinderkamack Road and NJ Transit’s planned service expansion. Atkins claimed that the borough “imposes requirements that essentially leave our client to deal with the County independently of its obligations to Emerson,” and the redeveloper agreement “simply leaves the redeveloper at risk that [NJ] Transit’s plans will conflict with its interests.”

Following Atkins’ withdrawal from the project, the borough promptly reentered into discussions with Millenium Homes, Inc. The Gebbias are persistent in their belief that the borough has selected a developer to complete the whole project in order to fulfill certain objectives, such as the construction of a new Borough Hall, which are not in the community’s best interest. They also allege that Borough Planner Joe Burgis recommended certain residential densities (also a topic of debate) in the redevelopment zone, “not on account of municipal need or public purpose, but in order to make the proposal financially attractive to prospective redevelopers.” They have concluded, “the undisclosed purpose of the Redevelopment Plan was to subject some property owners… to the loss of their property, not for a public benefit, but to provide profit to a redeveloper.”

Boggia remains firm in his defense of the borough’s decision to appoint a developer to complete the project. The borough’s reasoning is that there are numerous requirements of the plan, such as the widening of Kinderkamack Road, that demand a uniform design, which could not be achieved if property owners undertook their own independent projects. “It’s necessary to have one developer to widen the road… relocate utility poles” and relocate the train station. Boggia said that he understands that some property owners are unhappy about the prospect of being forced to sell to the developer, but “we will do what we can to lessen the impact on all of the effected parties.”

In response the Gebbias’ assertion that the borough officials “concealed their desire to use the redevelopment to obtain a new Borough Hall,” Scarpa said that a new Borough Hall has never been formally included in any of the redevelopment plans. He explained that while “no one denies” the Borough Hall is an old building, constructed by the WPA in the 1930s, and it is in serious need of an upgrade, it has no bearing on the redevelopment.

Boggia pointed out that “The majority of the town is behind [the redevelopment]. The downtown needs to be improved, needs to be made safe… The betterment of the community is what’s at stake,” he said, “We have to look at it from a community standpoint.”

Karen F. Mrnarevic's e-mail address is Mrnarevic@northjersey.com.