If you have been lucky enough to view the Manhattan skyline, you have seen one of the world's most spectacular skylines. Manhattan's building density, the variety of building shapes and sizes, and the manner in which they are all illuminated, combine to create this dramatic effect.

Of course, if you are located in Manhattan, you cannot experience the skyline. The best place from which to view this magnificent display is along the Hudson River, in New Jersey. For this reason, some of New Jersey's priciest apartment and office space is situated on the Hudson River, where building occupants can enjoy their own private view.

When people have this view, they tend to fight to protect it. This is what lead to the case of Hartz Mountain Industries v. the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, which was decided on March 1. At issue in this administrative law case was an attempt by Hartz Mountain to build right office buildings along the Hudson River, thereby eliminating this view for many people.

Hartz Mountain owns property along the Hudson River in Weehawkin, New Jersey. That property is currently vacant and because it is vacant, millions of New Jerseyans are able to view the skyline from an exceptional vantage point as they approach the Lincoln Tunnel to cross from New Jersey into New York. Many residents and tenants in nearby office buildings also have the benefit of the view.

Hartz Mountain proposed to construct two office buildings on the property. If they were erected, the view would become severely compromised. An environmental group called the American Littoral Society believed that this view was very important and therefore challenged Hartz Mountain's application for a development permit that was required from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

The State concurred that the permit should not be issued because construction would ruin the view. In a March 1 opinion, a New Jersey administrative law judge agreed that New Jersey properly withheld issuance of the permit.

The judge found that the proposed construction was not "visually compatible" with the existing scenic resources. He also ruled that the development would detract from the "signature view" of the Manhattan skyline by eliminating the contrast with relatively low rise development.

The judge held that New Jersey law is intended to protect these "marvelous viewing opportunities." In upholding the permit denial, the judge ruled that it is better to require Hartz Mountain to redesign the proposed building now rather than to "needlessly destroy an important regional asset."

So as things stand now, Hartz Mountain cannot build a new mountain, and New York bound commuters will still have the view. That is how things stand today. Appeals are sure to follow and we may not have a final outcome for many years.

To many, this is a very good result. It certainly would be sad for that picturesque scene to replaced by brass and glass twin office towers.

But, there are two sides to every story. Don't people who own waterfront property have a justifiable expectation that they will be able to develop their property so as to maximize their view? After all, what good is water front property if use of and enjoyment of the water is effectively prohibited? Isn't the view one reason why water front property owners will pay so much to acquire the property in the first place?

Blocking development to protect a view is a great idea for everyone --except the poor guy who owns the property and cannot completely realize the fruits of his/her investment. In this case, the poor guy happens to be corporate giant Hartz Mountain, but Hartz Mountain should enjoy its property just as much as any other purchaser.

These are very thorny questions. Views are limited and as development increases, quality views continue to be lost. And views are important to people.

Since views are generally natural, such as water front views, views of forests and views of mountains, it is not completely right to allow just those who are wealthy enough to purchase the closest property to block everyone else from enjoying the splendor. On the other hand, when people pay a premium for this property, why shouldn't they have an opportunity to enjoy the view.

Laws which promote preservation of public views are found throughout the country. As development pressures increase, expect more development challenges by view preservationists.

The answer is found by balancing the competing interests. Water front property owners should have a reasonable view and efforts should be made to ensure that this happens. On the other hand, the public should be left with a quality, meaningful view as well. Where a balance is not possible, the government should consider purchasing the property, or a portion of it, to ensure that public enjoyment continues.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.