[brief] The lower Court’s interpretation of the Ordinance fulfills no legitimate end and, in fact, undermines the incentive of redevelopers to build projects in challenging environments.  In addition, the Court’s ruling ignores the language of the Ordinance.  Section 345-98 provides that if a redevelopment plan is amended after disposition of “any land in the Redevelopment Area,” any modification must be consented to by “designated developers.” (Pa979).  This Ordinance applies, by its terms to [...].  In the undertaking to construe a statue or ordinance, every word must be afforded its plain meaning.  Dempsey v. Mastropasqua, 242 N.J. Super. 234, 238 (1990).  To ascertain the plain meaning of an ordinance or statute, courts look to the common usage, *id*, as well as dictionary definitions.  *Macysyn v. Hensler*, 329 N.J. Super. 476, 485 (App. Div. 2000).  And, when construing legislation, no word may be presumed to be superfluous.  *Sanchez v. Fitness Factory Edgewater LLC*, 242 N.J. 252 (2020).  These principles undermine the Court’s ruling.  First, the use of the phrase **after** the “disposition of any land” and the plural “developers” indicates that the Ordinance is to be construed to extend protection to all “designated developers. ”  There will never be more than one developer for a project, so the use of the plural, “developers,” must encompass all developers of “any land” within the redevelopment area, not just the one developer who is benefitted by a change.  It would be improper to read the word “any” out of the Ordinance, and to replace the plural, “developers,” with the phrase “current developers. ”  Second, the Court’s ruling makes no sense.  For were it correct, the Ordinance would be superfluous because, as a party to a redevelopment agreement, a currently designated redeveloper could always refuse to consent to an amendment to its redevelopment agreement.  Moreover, even though [...] and others may have completed the construction of their projects, any change they might propose would still be governed by the redevelopment plan: clearly they remain “designated developers. ”  Finally, as the Plaintiff’s Planner, [...] concludes, such commitments are not uncommon: It is common practice for any changes to the planned development approval or to its design guidelines to be subjected to a mandatory process of internal approvals by the participating developers to ensure that the developers in the project can collectively maintain the value of their separate investments.  In redevelopment the need for such protections can be even stronger.  To induce the first developer to participate where risks are high and outcomes are uncertain, offering long term participation in decision-making to protect that early, fledgling investment from future changes that could be damaging is appropriate public policy.  (Pa969).  The Court’s ruling might make sense if [...] had sold its property because a buyer would not be a “designated developer” and would have no expectation of protection.  In summary, § 345-98 and the 1996 Redevelopment Agreement lawfully require approval of all “designated developers” when a change to a redevelopment plan is to be made.  Those requirements cannot be rendered a nullity by a subsequent redevelopment agreement with a second developer that is not approved by other redevelopers within the redevelopment area.