Posted on 12/07/2002 5:39:00 AM PST by sauropod
Piscataway gets OK to condemn farmland
December 3, 2002
By Patrick Jenkins, Star-Ledger Staff
pjenkins@starledger.com
732-634-3607
To submit a Letter to the Editor: eletters@starledger.com
The future of the Cornell Dairy Farm was decided yesterday when a state judge granted Piscataway the power to condemn property that has been at the center of a bitter, three-year legal battle between the Halper family and township officials.
Superior Court Assignment Judge Robert Longhi rejected arguments by Halper attorney John J. Reilly to dismiss the condemnation proceeding.
Longhi restated his ruling from June 2000 that Piscataway had a legitimate purpose in taking the 75-acre tract at South Washington Avenue and Metlars Lane, in the southeast section of the township.
Longhi said he would appoint three commissioners to determine the value of the farm, which has been in the Halper family for 80 years.
Although she said she expected the decision, family member Clara Halper was devastated.
"I felt it was decided before today, but it's still sad to see your home taken away," a tearful Halper said. "It's sad to see, in my lifetime, the erosion of our rights. Everything our relatives fought for have been taken away. They fought for freedom and they've been slapped in the face."
Halper said the family would appeal the ruling.
"Your home is supposed to be your castle, your safe haven," Halper said. "Now they've shown us we don't have any safe haven, we don't have any rights."
But Piscataway Mayor Brian Wahler said he thought the judge made the correct decision.
Wahler said the township would negotiate with the Halpers on the value of the farm.
"In fairness to the Halpers, the offer has to be reasonable. The last thing we want is that they are paid money that is not fair market value," he said.
The township initiated the condemnation proceedings in December 1999, with an offer of $4.3 million, based on appraisals at that time, Wahler said.
He said the property would be used for open space, most likely passive pursuits such as hiking trails. Active pursuits, such as basketball courts or soccer fields, are banned by the covenant covering the condemnation proceedings, Wahler said.
The condemnation was put on hold for nearly two years while the Halpers, with the township's support, applied for admission into the farmland preservation program.
The application died in August when the Halpers rejected an offer of slightly more than $3 million for the development rights for their farm, and the township restarted the condemnation.
Wahler said then and again yesterday that he did not understand why the Halpers rejected the offer since they could have kept the farm in perpetuity or, if they later decided to sell, could do so for market value to someone else who wanted to operate the farm.
The township began the condemnation proceedings after officials said they learned that the Halper family tried to sell the farm to a developer who was going to put up more than 100 homes. [Where is the PROOF of this hearsay?]
They said Piscataway could not handle the traffic nor afford the additional costs of schools and other services those additional homes would generate.
The Halpers have long denied they intended to sell the property for development, saying they want to continue to live there and operate it as a farm.
As the last operating farm in Piscataway, it features egg sales, horse and pony rides, a horseback riding academy, horse boarding and grazing and hay rides.
The Halpers also grow nursery stock, vegetables, fruits, flowers, shrubs, ornamentals and pumpkins and sell agricultural supplies.
Several Piscataway residents who support the Halpers were in court yesterday, including Dan and Nancy Swarbrick.
"We've been lifelong Democrats but we just voted Republican because of what the Piscataway Democrats are doing," said Nancy Swarbrick.
"People have a right to own property," she said. "They're stripping away the Constitution."
After Longhi issued his ruling, Dan Swarbrick yelled, "You soulless old man. You're stealing a family's home. This is not over."
Clara Halper said the only good thing she sees coming out of the whole proceeding is that a strong property rights movement is growing across the country and in New Jersey.
"We are joining to protect and preserve what our forefathers fought for -- the American Dream. This is not what the authors of the Constitution envisioned," she said.
This could be an excellent FReeper project to correct a huge injustice in the making.
My country has so changed from what it used to be. Soulless old men run it now. Look at this result!
'Pod
"Legitimate purpose"? How does that compare with "compelling interest," may I ask?
Has the law changed that much?
The State thinks that all property ultimately belongs to them and they let us own it on suffrage. 'Pod
"People have a right to own property," she said. "They're stripping away the Constitution."
After Longhi issued his ruling, Dan Swarbrick yelled, "You soulless old man. You're stealing a family's home. This is not over."
Clara Halper said the only good thing she sees coming out of the whole proceeding is that a strong property rights movement is growing across the country and in New Jersey.
"We are joining to protect and preserve what our forefathers fought for -- the American Dream. This is not what the authors of the Constitution envisioned," she said.
When the Stamp Act, Quartering Act, etc., were issued by the British government, I'm sure it seemed a dark time for the American colonists. However, in the final analysis these tyrannical dictates were beneficial, because they moved a great number of people off the fence and on to the side of the Revolution.
The result was ultimately our Free Republic.
We can only hope that this is the case here.
????? That's the legitimate purpose? Condemn a farm and replace it with "open space"??????
Acts like these are occurring across our land. 'Pod
They just come and take it.
I have to say that the usual course of events in cases like these is for the State to offer pennies on the dollar.
At least here, they are not insulting the farmowner with a ridiculous compensation offer. 'Pod
If you have no land available for a desperately needed new school, for example, and the only available acreage of any size is a chunk of farmland, THAT might be considered a "compelling interest."
But the fact is, from what I can see here (and I'm not familiar at all with this situation outside of what 'Pod has posted), it looks like the city of Piscataway is in the grip of Eco-freaks who all of a sudden, living on the East Coast, realized that there are a lot of people around and they think they need "nature." So they used this pretext that these people MIGHT sell to a developer as an excuse to condemn the land.
In the first place, it was only hearsay. In the second place, even if a developer DID buy the land to develop homes, the city has every right to expect the developer to come up with a plan to provide infrastructure and services to the development, so this is a red herring as well.
Cities in MY experience LIKE to have developed areas. Developed land pays higher tax rates, and economy of means leads to lower costs for services per capita.
The Lefties are lying through their teeth about this whole thing. That's my take on it. Here's hoping justice can be done on appeal.
These people are being made to suffer the consequences of bad planning on the part of Piscataway.
I bet the imaginary 100 lots could sell for $20,000 each.
The application died in August when the Halpers rejected an offer of slightly more than $3 million for the development rights for their farm, and the township restarted the condemnation.
Wahler said then and again yesterday that he did not understand why the Halpers rejected the offer since they could have kept the farm in perpetuity or, if they later decided to sell, could do so for market value to someone else who wanted to operate the farm.
In this case, I do not know what the complaint actually is. They could have kept their property, done whatever they wanted, except develop it commercially, and have received $3 million to boot.
I beleive that they should have been able to develop the land, if they wished, in this case it is not what they said they planned to do.
I don't think they should loose their land even now, but it seems they had a good deal going if they really only wanted to keep the land.
What do you think?
(Still agree their property rights have definitely been violated.)
Hank
Yeah. I understand your point. Huge difference there.
Who is "part of Piscataway?"
It is the citizens of Piscataway. The citizens have authorized there elected city commissioners, alderman, whatever, to represent their interest.
It is obvious that these elected alderman feel no pressure from the citizens of Piscataway to stop this condemnation.
Don't castiage the judge. At minimum the U.S. Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, Amendment V, states, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." The judge is ruling within constitutional boundaries.
I presume the New Jersey Constitution has a similar amendment.
That being the case, the Halper's property has been declared needed for "public use" and the will be justly "compensated."
But the Halper's need to blame their fellow citizens for allowing their predicament. Their fellow citizens, through their silence, are telling the elected local alderman to use their tax money, compensate the Halper's, and make the propery into a public use area.
Halper's, appeal and get mad at your fellow citizens. They are the ones taking your property away.
The common denominator here is the refusal of the State to acknowledge there are any boundaries that exist within the individual's right to property ownership.
And I would not have been rah=rah for taking property w/ a few pot plants on it either. They could have been planted by anybody.
And that land is worth waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than $4 million. I remember when that whole area was farmland. Then the developers came in. And people complained about the smell of the manure on other farms. They're farms people. It smells that way!!!
Another case of bad planning in Piscataway. The traffic is horrendous. And this is right near that new construction for Route 18 to get to 287. hmmmm. Sad to see property rights going down the toilet.
My one bone of contention is that the "fair market value" should be equivalent to whatever the owners could have received for the highest and best use for the land, NOT the land's value in its current state. Any lawyer Freepers out there who know how New Jersey law works in this case?
This is why we're condemning farms nowadays? An absolute outrage of the highest degree.
Nobody is trying to shut down this farm -- What the municipality is trying to do is ensure that once the farm ceases to function as a farm, it doesn't get sold off to build another 150 homes on half-acre lots.
Maybe so; then again all of the PDR's I've heard of have the following cast-iron restriction:
-- they would be unable to add any other buildings to their property, or section off some acreage to allow a son to build his own home.
Secondly ... who gets the 'development rights'? There are countless times those 'rights' have been passed around the 'do-gooder' conservation orgs and eventually sold [at a very tidy profit] to a government "for the good of the community".
Eminent Domain, as practiced in this case, is nothing more than legalized theft.
Deus Vult! 'Pod
Uh, hellooooo. In free countries bureaucrats don't get to dictate away someone's rights or condemn property because they get bright ideas about hiking trails.
Do you actually believe they're dealing with density issues when they commit takings like this? Get back to me when you get a clue.
This is a specious argument for if one takes it to its logical conclusion no existing homes and their occupants would currently support the government at this point in time.
Worse, in this particular case, the community will lose the tax base (what is taxable) on this property and forgo any future tax revenue by turning it into a virtual park, except for federal grant money or state support.
If a state had no citizens, the only source of revenue would be travellers who can only travel on guess what? - streets and roads.
This is a clear case of esthetic theft and should be illegal.
I totally agree. I just wonder if individuals aren't doing enough to fight it themselves. If they had kept their land, and then sought a land patent, they might have been able to do more. This way, they've lost the land altogether.
Of course, once the government has decided to take your property, or your money, or your life, there really is nothing you can do to change that. If the property is real estate, you're sunk, but other kinds property can be hidden, and sometime it is necessary to, "dissappear."
Of course, the real problem is most people just have no idea that once they loose property rights, there really aren't any others. In this country, they are pretty well gone, and very few understand that or care.
Hank
In fact, you are absolutely wrong about that. It's called the power of eminent domain, and a government can use that power to take someone's private property to use it for a public purpose. And this power has been used (and abused, of course) for as long as this "free" country has existed. How do you think railroads and highways got built here?
New Jersey is actually one of the better states for eminent domain laws because it requires any such acquired land to be used for a public purpose.
There were two nearly identical court cases in New Jersey and Nevada in the last few years, both of which involved casinos that wanted to have the local government condemn a piece of private property in order to allow the casino to expand. In Nevada, the casino won the case on the grounds that a "compelling public interest" was served by using the power of eminent domain to help the gambling industry. In New Jersey, an 80+ year-old woman fought Donald Trump when he wanted to expand one of his casinos in Atlantic City, and the court ruled in her favor when it decided that there could be no "compelling public interest" in using the power of eminent domain to support any private industry.
Forget about that. I would contend that it is not your property once you connect it to public services such as streets or utilities. If we want to talk technicalities here, then the people in question have the right to do whatever they want with their land, but then the municipality has the right to close off all the streets that access the land. It's difficult to argue about property rights in an age when most property (especially in a state like New Jersey) has zero value without a substantial amount of "public support."
I don't know about this specific case, but many of these "fair market value" proceedings are nothing more than a charade on the part of the property owner. If you do a little research into some of these cases, you'll often find situations where the property owner was forced to sell his land for $200,000, but he fought it in court by contending that the land is actually worth $500,000. Lo and behold! -- a careful look at public records reveals that this same land owner successfully appealed his last tax assessment by claiming that his $250,000 assessment should have been $200,000.
Actions have consequences..
Put fools into office, and have fools running your life..
Semper Fi
Hey, it's a Jersey judge in a Jersey courtroom. What more needs to be said.
That of course, would not make the convenants unactionable -- for a court, when title was traced, might uphold them -- but in fifty years -- who would take the action? Pursuing a court case like this is about as efective as any third-party amicus and risks the expense.
This partcular case is theft. About $6 million dollars -- where's Willie Sutton, these days?
Willie Sutton was the infamous the bank robber who said when asked why he robbed banks, "Bbecause that's where the money is"!
New Jersey has been very aggressive in setting big pots of open-space money in front of small town boards. A small town might run a 2 million budget a year -- with open space, make that 22 million, 60 million, even more. Bada bing. You bet there's plenty of pot chasers running for office to catch ahold of that big pot.
Yet in the mix of cozy self-renumerative deals a board must also show some evident progress towards open space. Why then, grab by eminent domain a parcel at the price of a songbirds's feed. And better the "eco"-activist judiciary to support it, failing to support the grand open-space moola project might impair the general ability to pick constituents wallets, for some misguided public evocal of governmental irreponsibility and corruption.
First, I have known Clara and her family for all of these 3 long years!!!! She and her family are not “willing-sellers” at NO PRICE!!!!!!!!!!! They simply want to live their lives on THEIR land the way they have for the last 80 + years doing what they have always done for those 80+ years!!!!!!!!!
Raising their families, growing produce for consumers, making a living and paying taxes! Basically being good responsible American citizens! Let me repeat......they do not want to sell anything for any price!!!!! They wish only to be left alone to enjoy what The Declaration of Independence and the resulting US Constitution IS SUPPOSED TO GUARANTEE THEM!!!!!!!
Of course I know you know what these documents say, and that is why Clara fights for her land....she is not just fighting for her land, she is fighting for all of us and those rights guaranteed by those very documents!
Now, once one “sells’ their development rights to whomever, those “whomevers” always find a way to finish off the landowners!!!!!!! The land owners will be found guilty of “violations” of those agreements made concerning “developmental rights”.....they will be taken to court, fined and eventually the “whomevers” will get all their money back and the family perhaps even put into jail!!!!! One example is of a person forced to sell his developmental rights to the NPS and because he placed a birdhouse one the property he was fined $10,000 a day!!!!!! He bucked, and he lost!!!!!!!! He lost everything!!!!!! I will include the following website for reference! http://www.nationalcenter.org/VictimDirectory00.html
I hope I have not confused you further, but always remember the old saying, “beware those bearing gifts”!
Amendment V...nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
With due process having been had, it only remains to receive just compensation. I think $4.3M is a little low. I'm not an expert on the residential construction market but I can easily imagine making $100K on each of those 100 houses. Of course that $10M would be earned over a course of years.
IMO the folks getting ripped off are the taxpayers.
Wahler said then and again yesterday that he did not understand why the Halpers rejected the offer since they could have kept the farm in perpetuity or, if they later decided to sell, could do so for market value to someone else who wanted to operate the farm.
sauropod, I have not been following this issue. But is the above statement true to the best of your knowledge? If the only thing "lost" is the development option (paid for) and if it is true that the family REALLY DOES wish to farm then WHY DID THEY TURN DOWN COMPENSATION for the development option?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.