## Facts

- Hackensack authorized a study of a two-block, twenty-lot downtown area to determine whether it qualified as an “area in need of redevelopment” under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL).
- The Planning Board commissioned a planner’s report, held a public hearing, and recommended that eleven lots—including plaintiffs’ five lots—be designated in need of redevelopment.
- Plaintiffs owned five lots containing two deteriorated buildings and adjacent parking areas.
- The Planning Board found plaintiffs’ properties met LRHL criteria under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(a), (b), and (d), citing conditions described as dilapidated, poorly maintained, obsolete, and contributing to stagnation and underuse relative to the surrounding business district.
- The Mayor and Council adopted the Planning Board’s recommendation by resolution, designating the area (including plaintiffs’ lots) in need of redevelopment.

## Issues

1. Whether the redevelopment designation under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(a), (b), and (d) complied with the New Jersey Constitution’s Blighted Areas Clause.
2. Whether prior precedent imposed a heightened constitutional blight standard applicable to all LRHL subsections, rather than addressing only subsection (e).
3. Whether the municipal record contained substantial evidence to support the Planning Board’s blight findings and the governing body’s designation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s judgment upholding the designation.
- The Court held that the prior precedent addressed a constitutional problem specific to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(e) and did not impose a heightened standard for determinations under subsections (a), (b), and (d).
- Applying deferential review, the Court concluded substantial credible evidence supported the municipality’s findings under subsections (a), (b), and (d).
- The Court determined the designation rested on evidence of physical deterioration and harmful conditions, not merely on lack of optimal use.

## Legal Principles

- The Blighted Areas Clause permits redevelopment laws aimed at genuinely blighted areas; it does not permit condemnation or redevelopment designations of non-blighted property based solely on underutilization.
- A precedent limiting blight findings based on underutilization primarily constrains N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(e) and does not categorically heighten the constitutional standard for subsections (a), (b), and (d).
- Municipal redevelopment/blight determinations are reviewed deferentially and will be sustained when supported by substantial credible evidence in the administrative record.
- Subsections (a), (b), and (d) encompass traditional indicia of blight (e.g., dilapidation, obsolescence, unsafe or unhealthy conditions, deleterious land use) that can satisfy constitutional limits when supported by evidence.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Hackensack’s designation of plaintiffs’ properties as part of an area in need of redevelopment because the record contained substantial evidence of deterioration and conditions harmful to public welfare, and the constitutional limits articulated in prior precedent did not impose a heightened blight standard on LRHL subsections (a), (b), and (d).


62-64 Main St., LLC v. Mayor & Council of Hackensack, 221 N.J. 129, 110 A.3d 877 (2015)