It isn’t often we can write a sentence such as this one: The Supreme Court of New Jersey has struck a blow for common sense.
Yesterday, the court sided with the shore town of Harvey Cedars in a suit brought by homeowners who argued that protective dunes spoil their ocean views. A lower court had awarded Harvey and Phyllis Karan $375,000. But the high court reversed the ruling, saying the award did not weigh the compensation for their loss against the benefit: Without those dunes, the Karans might have lost their $1.7 million home to Hurricane Sandy.
The dunes were built partly on land taken from the Karans through eminent domain. Now, eminent domain is a power that has been much abused. In this case, however, the dunes serve a clear public purpose. All the court is really saying is that compensation should also reflect benefits received:
“The Karans are entitled to just compensation, a reasonable calculation of any decrease in fair market value after the taking. They are not entitled to more, and certainly not a windfall at the public’s expense.”
As we’ve seen from Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina to the Rockaways after Hurricane Sandy, what to do about beachfront property can be contentious. In New Jersey’s case, if every person who lost an oceanfront view could claim $375,000, building the remaining miles of protective dunes would quickly become too expensive, even with federal aid.
New Jersey’s high court deserves credit for helping to bring costs and benefits more in line with reality — and justice.