Meanwhile, Van Ness and his PR team readied the second half of their strategy: an all-out media blitz opposing the referendum, set for January 24, 2006, for the building of the expanded school on the Van Ness property. They blanketed the media with a simple message: The industrial site was unsafe for a school, there were viable alternatives in town, and the plan cost too much. A slick 30-second commercial showing a picture of the site, with close-ups of an 18-wheeler and school-age children, aired on cable channels like ESPN. The Marcus Group ran a phone-a-thon that reached 5,000 voters and took out full-page ads in local papers. They mailed antidevelopment post cards to 7,000 households in Clifton, a town with 80,000 residents. The households were screened from public databases in an attempt to target those most likely to vote in school and municipal elections, senior citizens, and--in a nod to the company's line of business--local pet owners (Clifton residents must register their dogs with the city). Some mailers came back with nasty comments saying that Van Ness should stay out of the town's business. The school board, for its part, spent $8,000 on a smaller campaign that touted the benefits of the new school, including smaller class sizes, to voters.
On the day of the vote, Van Ness, his son, and a sales manager were attending a Wal-Mart vendor conference in Kansas City, Missouri. Van Ness was not optimistic. He had spent nearly $300,000 and a third of his time on the issue, but he didn't feel that he had convinced enough voters that the Brighton Road school was a bad idea. "We were resigned to the fact that they were going to destroy Clifton as a viable place for our business," he says. Sitting alone in his room at the Embassy Suites that night watching CNN, Van Ness got a call on his cell phone. It was Denyse Dabrowski, an executive with the Marcus Group, calling with the results of the vote. Van Ness knew the outcome as soon as he heard her voice. He had won, by a 3-to-2 margin. Voter turnout was double what it had been for the first referendum. "I was shaking, I couldn't believe it," he says.
Despite Van Ness's victory, the variance for the freshmen annex was still up in the air. Van Ness and his team of experts continued to attend hearings. Finally, after 17 three-hour meetings spanning seven months, the zoning board issued its decision in March with a 5-2 vote: No variance. The Board of Education appealed the ruling to New Jersey's Superior Court, which heard oral arguments in November and can uphold it, overturn it, or send the variance back to the zoning board for changes. The loser can appeal to the court's appellate division. "It's not over yet," Van Ness says. Nevertheless, his new driveway and parking lot should be done by the end of December.
The Experts Weigh In
A flawed strategy
Van Ness made the right decision, but he should have communicated with his employees about what he was doing and why. If he had done so, his employees would have had a message to carry outside the company. There are only two choices when a situation is being widely discussed already: Control the message yourself or let the rumor mill control it. By keeping his staff out of the loop, Van Ness denied himself a force that could have worked to his advantage.
Best choice for the business
This case proves that there are ways to win eminent domain battles outside court. Speaking from experience, it probably would have been much more costly for Van Ness to choose the legal route. My company lost its building after a six-year eminent domain battle that cost about $200,000. Even worse, we temporarily lost our biggest client because of the time and energy we put into the legal fight.
The safest bet
Van Ness didn't have much of a chance in court. Even if he had pressed the safety issue, there would have been a presumption by the court that the Board of Education knew what it was doing. The government is given a tremendous amount of discretion to acquire private property. In 20 years of practice, I've been able to stop the government about 10 times. That's why you have to fight an eminent domain case in the press, at city hall, and only then in the courts, if it comes to that.
On the day of the vote, Van Ness, his son, and a sales manager were attending a Wal-Mart vendor conference in Kansas City, Missouri. Van Ness was not optimistic. He had spent nearly $300,000 and a third of his time on the issue, but he didn't feel that he had convinced enough voters that the Brighton Road school was a bad idea. "We were resigned to the fact that they were going to destroy Clifton as a viable place for our business," he says. Sitting alone in his room at the Embassy Suites that night watching CNN, Van Ness got a call on his cell phone. It was Denyse Dabrowski, an executive with the Marcus Group, calling with the results of the vote. Van Ness knew the outcome as soon as he heard her voice. He had won, by a 3-to-2 margin. Voter turnout was double what it had been for the first referendum. "I was shaking, I couldn't believe it," he says.
Despite Van Ness's victory, the variance for the freshmen annex was still up in the air. Van Ness and his team of experts continued to attend hearings. Finally, after 17 three-hour meetings spanning seven months, the zoning board issued its decision in March with a 5-2 vote: No variance. The Board of Education appealed the ruling to New Jersey's Superior Court, which heard oral arguments in November and can uphold it, overturn it, or send the variance back to the zoning board for changes. The loser can appeal to the court's appellate division. "It's not over yet," Van Ness says. Nevertheless, his new driveway and parking lot should be done by the end of December.
