Piscataway gets OK to condemn farmland

New Jersey Star-Ledger | December 3, 2002 | Patrick Jenkins

[Carry_Okie]

You complaint seems to be that the condemnation price is too low, on a systematic basis. Do you have any evidence of that?

Yes, it's in the book.

[forester]

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."

First of all, this passage offends me because it implies that government bestows the right of access to your property. I would contend that this is an "unalienable right" that we are all born with. How do you know that what is now a city street did not start out as a common dirt road in which the adjacent owners granted each other reciprocal easements to use? This paragraph is dangerous because it confuses god-given rights with the road maintenace function of local government. If you don't like a developer getting his own freeway off ramp, then expose it for what it is ... corruption. But don't reduce the rights of the majority to protect us all from the excesses of the minority (tyranny of the majority).

[steelie]

The fifth amendment is hampered by the 17th clause because it all pertains to the Federal Government.

However this is New Jersey and thier state constitution will rule the day.

I am a county official here in California and under Cal Enviro Qualitiy Act(CEQA) a conversion of farmland would require a full environmental impact report. That would at least tie things up for a year.
Under NEPA (national epa) the same standards are required as farmland is considered an important resource.

The law still stinks, but at least we could turn it back against the enviros.

Besides we just had a sale this week of some farmlands that went for $385,000/acre for about 80 acres of vineyard in NAPA.($31mill+/-) I figure the place in NJ is worth about $10 mill.

[Alberta's Child]

That's certainly a valid point, but I don't see how that really changes anything. So each and every case of a potential land taking for "public use" must be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court?

[Alberta's Child]

How do you know that what is now a city street did not start out as a common dirt road in which the adjacent owners granted each other reciprocal easements to use?

Because this is New Jersey, which used to operate under a "freeholder" system, and while I'm sure that the scenario you laid out was common two hundred years ago, I'm willing to bet that 99% of the roads that are in existence today were put there through a public "taking" of some kind.

I would contend that this is an "unalienable right" that we are all born with.

Now this is something new. A government goes out and buys a huge spread of land (the Louisiana Purchase, for example), sets up a system for titling the land, then offers to "give" it to people in 160-acre blocks provided they live on it for 5 years and improve it in some way. And after all that massive government intervention in a "natural" settlement process, we are supposed to assume that human beings now have a God-given right to their land that cannot be abrogated by a government in any manner?

Does this mean that all of us here on the eastern seaboard have to give "our" land back to the heirs of King George III? Or that you folks out west there have to give back "your" land to whatever tribe roamed there up until 100 years ago?

[mommadooo3]

Here's a blast frm the 'past'.

Is there any reason why the 'tactics'/agencies used for the Darby Refuge rally (In Ohio), couldn't be used to help save THESE folks' land/livlihood?

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

No, each case of taking must conform to the "original intent" of the Framers, including the definition of "public use" recognized by them and by common law to that point. I would be willing to wager that public sanitation or public roads would qualify, and that to provide hiking paths or to prevent development of a farm would not...

[countrydummy]

I am very sure that Clara will be able to give you the "real story" here, much better than I....please email here......

[Alberta's Child]

No, each case of taking must conform to the "original intent" of the Framers, including the definition of "public use" recognized by them and by common law to that point. I would be willing to wager that public sanitation or public roads would qualify, and that to provide hiking paths or to prevent development of a farm would not.

The problem with that argument is that it is based on a historical condition that is frozen in time. I have no problem with that, but you would then have to say that things like television, radio, the internet, etc. are not covered under the First Amendment right to free speech.

It's worth noting, BTW, that this whole notion of the COnstitution as a great, "inspired" document that embodies principles that may as well have been written by the hand of God is a lot of nonsense. A quick look back at the events leading up to the Whiskey Rebellion will show you just how quickly those freedoms and liberties got tossed out the window by many of the very same people who ratified the original Constitution in the first place.

[Incorrigible]

Bump!

[Alberta's Child]

But that is exactly what so many of these "property-rights purists" would have you believe. If the United States truly recognized this "inalienable" right to private property as sacrosanct, then this country would never have been anything more than narrow strips of developed land along navigable waterways. Because once the land along the rivers is "owned" by someone, then there is no way for anyone else to secure access to lands beyond that.

Which is precisely why the U.S. government never kidded itself about the whole issue of private property. I have yet to meet a property-rights champion who is calling for every rail and railroad tie to be torn up and this country restored to its "rightful" owners (whoever the hack they may be).

[Wolfie]

Well, at least there's a lesson to farm owners in developing areas: sell fast to the highest bidder before the township decides they don't want any more land developed.

[RightWhale]

which has been in the Halper family for 80 years.

That's all? Newcomers.

[Alberta's Child]

Anyone who pays top dollar for a piece of farmland without first securing their development approvals would be a damned fool.

This kind of transaction is normally done through an option agreement. The potential buyer pays the property owner $50,000 or so for the right to purchase the property at a certain price within the next two years. Then the potential buyer goes out and gets all the applications in order over the next two years. If there is no approval forthcoming for his proposed development, then he walks away and loses $50,000 instead of paying $4 million for a piece of land that turns out to be worth only $200,000 or so.

[SierraWasp]

Well, you're right about one thing... Us western States are certainly not on an equal footing with you original 13! Our legislators sold out under pressure in each "Statehood Act," just to become part of the "Hood!"

Each State, except Texas, is a second class member of the United States and yes, the Federal Government is an abject "Indian Giver" due largely to attitudes like yours. The next "Uncivil War," will not be between north and south!

[Wolfie]

All I'm saying is that if all the farms in your area are being sold to developers (with all the i's dotted, and t's crossed), and you're not sure if you want to sell, it would be wise to consider selling before you end up being the one the local township is pointing to as a conservancy project.

[countrydummy]

Oh I just love this one!!!!!!!! I can not say or respond any better than you just did!!!!!!! Thank you for using your brain!

[SierraWasp]

"The law still stinks, but at least we could turn it back against the enviros."

Hey Carry_O!!! He's talkin suma yer talk!!!

As a county official emeritus, I wish you could get together with some of us and help get that idea ball rollin. So far, it seems to be a heavy rock to lift out of it's socket, so it'll roll down that hill and start some momentum!!!

[SierraWasp]

"Thank you for using your brain!"

I dunno... I mighta hurt myself doin it. Alberta's Child sure won't take it seriously!