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.
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.