[brief] Rather, a review of documents in the public record at the time these actions were initiated demonstrated that the Township intended to convey the Defendants’ properties to a private developer in a proposed land swap with no requirement as to the use of either property.  While a municipality is authorized to take private property, such taking must be for a valid public use.  The law demands more than just a bald assertion that property is needed.  There must be an unambiguous public record in support of the purported need for and proposed use of the property.  The right of a property owner to contest a taking is grounded in the federal and State Constitutions.  Recognizing the awesome and intrusive power of condemnation to deprive property rights, our courts demand strict adherence to the Eminent Domain Act and the enabling legislation, in this case, the Local Land and Buildings Law.  Here, the record is devoid of any direct evidence of a valid public use of Defendants’ properties.  The ordinance authorizing the acquisition suggests in the preamble that it is for open space, but there are no specific findings related to such purported use.  In fact, it is clear the property will not be used for open space as the Township seeks to take Defendants’ properties to exchange them – along with other Township-owned lots—to a private developer, [...] (“Developer”), for land owned by the Developer.  By way of this exchange, the Township seeks to stop the development of religious based schools in areas of the Township where such use is permitted “as of right” under the Township’s Land Use Development Regulations.  As to Defendants’ properties, it is presumed that the religious schools would be built there although such use is not permitted under the Township’s regulations.  Nor is there any limitation on what the Developer may do with Defendants’ properties after acquiring same in the land swap.  Only after Defendants challenged the Township’s authority to take their properties by eminent domain did the township acknowledge in this proceeding that the purpose of the taking was for the land swap.  While the Township has an agreement in place for a swap of other municipally owned lots, that agreement acknowledges the Township does not own Defendants’ properties.  That agreement is not conditioned upon inclusion of Defendants’ lots.  Nor does that agreement limit the use of the subject property by the Developer after the land swap.  While the law allows local government to take property for open space, it requires also a showing of local action to substantiate that stated need to avoid pretextual takings.  Here, there is absolutely no record to support the Township’s claims.  The Township will argue its rights to take the property were settled in another litigation that challenged the ordinances that authorized the land swap.  But Defendants were not a party to that challenge.  That matter did not address the claims raised herein that may only be resolved in condemnation action as required by the Eminent Domain Act.  Defendants have an absolute right to challenge the Township’s power to take its property by eminent domains, and the trial court failed to undergo the inquiry required to determine whether this attempted taking has complied with all statutory and constitutional requirements.  For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court reverse the trial court’s orders appointing condemnation commissioners and authorizing Plaintiff to take Defendants’ properties.