Jury says Haberman train station is worth $2.9 million

Photo by Daniel Jackovino Howard Haberman in the Newark courtroom following the jury’s decision that he should be compensated $2.9 million, much more than the town’s offer of $440,000.
Photo by Daniel Jackovino
Howard Haberman in the Newark courtroom following the jury’s decision that he should be compensated $2.9 million, much more than the town’s offer of $440,000.

BLOOMFIELD, NJ — Following two weeks of testimony, a six-member jury in Newark Superior Court determined that Bloomfield would have to pay investor Howard Haberman $2.9 million as fair and just compensation for the historic train station property on Lackawanna Place. The verdict was 5-1.

Haberman owned the property until the township condemned it and took title Dec. 14, 2012. At the time, the property was appraised by the township at $440,000 and by Haberman at $3.2 million. The site is located across the street from the downtown redevelopment project, Glenwood Village.

The township intended to revitalize the derelict and padlocked station because it contained the entrance to an underground pedestrian tunnel owned by New Jersey Transit. An NJT train station is right above the tunnel. A usable walkway under the train tracks would allow commuters a shortcut to Midtown Direct Service and Manhattan. Township officials had hailed the station as the lynch pin in the Bloomfield transit village designation.

However, an individual close to the trial, who wished to remain anonymous, said that even though the township acquired the property through eminent domain with the intentions of refurbishing the historic train station, it was not prevented from further developing the site as it pleased.

In a telephone interview, Mayor Michael Venezia said the $2 million dollar price tag to revitalize the historic train station for pedestrians, with the jury’s decision, was now $5 million. The verdict would be appealed, he said.

“Obviously, no one in their right mind would pay that much money for it,” Venezia said in a telephone interview. “We will have to sit down with our legal team and determine why the jury made this decision.”

Glenn Dominick, the director of community development, in an email, said he had no comment.

At one time, the township and Haberman shared the same visions of redevelopment for the .62 acres of sloping land abutting the westbound tracks of the train station.

A site-plan was developed for a mixed-use project of 34 residential apartments and 12,500 square feet of retail space on the site. Parking to accommodate residents was proposed to be across the street in a parking deck which was conceived as having more than 900 spaces. That number, however, was reduced by half for the deck that was eventually built.

The township was represented by McManimon, Scotland & Baumann. Haberman’s attorney was Anthony Della Pelle, of McKirdy Riskin.

Following the verdict, Kevin McManimon, representing the township, said
he had no comment to make. Della Pelle issued a statement.

According to Della Pelle, the township hired five experts who suggested the property could not be developed or would be too expensive to develop even though the zoning ordinance permitted multi-story buildings on the site.

“Obviously, the jury rejected the town’s position and recognized that Mr. Haberman’s property had tremendous redevelopment potential,” Della Pelle said.

“The Haberman family had been eager to be a part of the revitalization of downtown Bloomfield for many years and was promised an opportunity to participate in the town’s redevelopment,” he said. “However, since the town changed its mind and took the property via eminent domain, the family was left with only one option — to seek a fair price for the property it had owned for 50 years. As the property owner is constitutionally entitled to receive just compensation for any property taken by eminent domain.”

Former Mayor Raymond McCarthy said he was absolutely amazed by the verdict.
“You can’t do anything with that property,” McCarthy said. “Because we’re a municipality, the jury thinks we can afford anything?”

Howard Haberman did not return phone calls requesting comment for this story.