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.
Yes, it's in the book.
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
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).
That's all? Newcomers.
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.
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!
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!!!
I dunno... I mighta hurt myself doin it. Alberta's Child sure won't take it seriously!
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.