Piscataway gets OK to condemn farmland

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."

"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.

Those unconstitutional property taxes paid to provide basic public roads and access and in cities, even street lighting and some utilities made possible by assessments on one's property would certainly make a strong legal case against any such action by any municipality.

That was exactly my point. If unconstitutional "settled law" is not supposed to serve as a precedent (as I thought you said), then how can you say that all these things that have been paid by "unconstitutional property taxes" are a legitimate (in your eyes) legal argument against such an action? It seems like you are advocating the use of "settled law" after you criticized me for pointing out that "settled law" has resulted in certain "unconstitutional" realities that cannot be ignored.

My experience with this issue has brought me in contact with lots of people who have no qualms whatsoever about being hypocritical in their dealings. It is very easy to live in a private home built under "unconstitutional" zoning laws, with unconstitutional street access and an unconstitutional water supply, connected to an unconstitutional sanitary sewer and unconstitutional telephone and electrical systems. But if you live under these circomstances and show up at a public hearing to complain about how "unconstitutional" it is to have zoning laws, public streets, etc., you can see why I won't take you very seriously.

You assign the wrong reason for the popularity of zoning law with government officials. Where I live, zoning is used to manage inventory for a closed set of politically favored developers. They destroy the holding property value immediately prior to aquisition and then (after the politially annointed have picked the property owners' bones) convert the forest or farmland to development.

That's what makes the case in this thread different than most of the ones you might be familiar with. New Jersey is a very densely populated state, and under this state's "home rule" system each municipality (there are over 600 of them) has the right to govern itself pretty much on its own. What makes this area unique is that there is no unincorporated land between municipalities, which means you can drive six miles down a busy road and go through four different municipalities in the process.

In New Jersey, the purpose of the zoning board is to make sure that all high-intensity development occurs at the edge of the municipality so that the people in the adjacent towns (who have no say in the approval process) are the ones who have to deal with the traffic problems.

Seriously.

These planning and zoning laws along with building codes, are all morally challengable in my opinion.

I can certainly accept that. But the same principles that you are using to argue against these things can be used to argue against any other government function. Nothing wrong with that, but why bother arguing against zoning boards and building codes when the ultimate extension of your argument is a complete elimination of all levels of government other than the Federal government?

In that case why didn't the town planning commission just amend the zoning regulations for that area?

Amending the zoning regulations would have accomplished the exact same thing, but it would have amounted to a "taking" of the property anyway because the value of the property would be much lower under a reduced zoning. The town is actually following the letter of the Fifth Amendment to a T here, at least in terms of how the issue is approached. Instead of screwing the property owner by forcing them to accept an agricultural land use in perpetuity, the town is going to "take" the land and compensate them for it. In these cases the big issue, as always, is the price tag on the land.

It's not different at all from my study area. I have watched this process all my life, from the time I lived in Walnut Creek, California when Ygnacio Valley Road was a two lane road. It's eight lanes now with high rises at the terminus. When we moved there the population was less than 25,000. It's now ten times that with suburbs of its own.

I analyzed thirty years of real estate transactions in Santa Cruz County California, just over the hill from Silicon Valley in research for my book on this very topic. It's not that different a process from Contra Costa (where Walnut Creek is located), but it has been slower because of topography. The book documents how resource land was converted to rural/suburban (and now urban) sprawl. I suggest you read it if you are really interested in an antidote to this mess. Consder the reviews (including a PhD in land use planning).

It all gets down to the proper, constitutional role of our multi-level governments. As an advocate of "Local Control In Local Hands," I believe the Federal Government should be in the "down-line" of this multi-level marketing scheme, not the pinicle of the pyramid!!!

Tom Jefferson said: "Each State should further be divided into Counties, each to govern what lies within it's bounds." Since each county has a Tax Collector, I believe that the sales taxes should be collected by the Counties, which should keep what is needed, with any excess passed down to the State which should keep what is needed and any excess passed down the the US government to defend us from enemies of our collective States & Counties.

I do not believe Counties should be considered just "political subdivisions" of States. Cities and Community Service Districts should be considered "political subdivisions" of Counties, however.

Counties, the governments closest to the people, should once again be able to appoint legislators to State Senates to restore the balance between "one person, one vote" in one house and "one county, one vote" to better represent property owner's interest in the other.

The current system that focuses money and power away from local and rural governments is completely contrary to the founding formula and creates dangerous clashes in "The balance of power" among the three branches.

Can you just imagine a lobbyist having to lobby the Boards of Commissioners/Supervisors in a majority of Counties in a State to get anything passed, statewide? I love it!!! That's grassroots government!!!

Carry Okie, for your benefit, CSD's don't have a tax collector like counties have, so they can't be top dog. (grin) Cities? Well... they have Mayors instead, so they can't be either.

You have stated several times that the "taking" is legal, but the price is the issue. This declaration of yours has so far allowed you to dodge the one gaping hole in your argument, but no longer.

Explain to me the "public use" to which this land is being put? Who determines what "public use" is and is not? And if it is the government or the courts, then why have that Amendment at all, since the government can always declare its purpose as "public use"? You seem to be forgetting that the Bill of Rights safeguards inalienable rights here, rights that cannot be defined or modified by government (the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights). So tell me, who or what defines what "public use" is...?

The question you've asked here really goes to the heart of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment would seem to give the power to determine what exactly constitutes legitimate "public use" to each state, either through its own constitution or through its own legislative process. There is clearly a potential conflict here, for a strict interpretation of the Tenth Amendment would imply that it would be possible for a specific state to adopt a thoroughly collectivist system in which no private property ownership existed.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm quite certain that New Jersey has a very specific set of legal guidelines that determines what constitutes "public use." In fact, my understanding is that New Jersey interprets the "public use" standard more strictly than many other states. The casino case I cited was one example -- in some states, it appears that the government has the authority to condemn one's property if there is a "compelling interest" (measured only by a positive economic impact) in giving it to someone else.

"...adjacent towns (who have no say in the approval process) are the ones who have to deal with the traffic problems."

Gee... that resonates with the Beatles Commonist tune "Imagine." Also, the militant one whirlders who remind everyone that you can't see boundaries from space, or the Nature Nazis who think the only ones who deserve to live should be able to roam wild, like savages and animals without regard to boundaries, fences or NO TRESPASSING signs.

After all... "We're only hiking!" Or, "Your property's not private!" These statements made to riverfront property owners around here by employees of a County Supervisor and to a property owner by his spouse as she refused to climb back over the fence she had crossed next to a "NO TRESPASSING" sign.

Think of it as a river into which 15 different municipalities discharge their stormwater. The town furthest upstream designs a stormwater detention system that meets all of its own requirements and passes muster with every civil engineer who looks at it. The only problem is that the discharge rate, while adequate for that town and that point in the river, results in massive flooding in the 15th municipality downstream anytime the rainfall rate exceeds 1.5 inches in a 24-hour period.

"Your stormwater discharge causes floods in our town an average of six times per year!," complains Town #15.

"Our storm sewer system meets all of the appropriate design standards and all of our municipal guidelines," replies Town #1.

"We must have a regional authority that oversees this!," cries Town #15.

"Home rule is the law of this state," cries Town #1.

"@ssholes!" cries Town #15.

"Communists!" replies Town #1.

Under an ideal home-rule scenario, Town #15 would then construct a massive flow control system on the river, including a huge dam that alters the region completely. Towns 1-14 will have plenty of fresh water to drink, but 95% of the people who would drink it are going to be under ten feet of water or more.

So much for "enduring principles of inalienable rights."

Amusing and amazing!!!

Don't worry, be happy! everybody is downstream or downwind from somebody. Those poor fools in town #15 don't even realize their water's been through half a million sets of kidneys before it passes through theirs.

That's why metro areas along the coast vote Demonicrat, while all the high country rural inland areas vote Republican!!!

I'll have to pick this up later as I have a big week coming up peeing in all the streams for the benefit of all the poor flatlanders!(grin)

If a majority of folks want to use their tax money to buy open space, what is the problem?

That isn't what actually happens and you know it, else farmers would be lining up to offer open space contracts as an overlay to their existing uses at a fraction of the purchase price prior to expression of civic interest (note: I didn't say an easement). The very combination of corporate interest with police power attendant to civic enterprise lowers the price to be paid. "Just compensation" it is then no longer. Even the sale of only the development right becomes a weapon asserted against the owner who loses any means to use that right as financial leverage for continuing operations.

For one who claims such sophistication in her economic education, that was an instance of cynical baiting.

The Tenth Amendment would seem to give the power to determine what exactly constitutes legitimate "public use" to each state, either through its own constitution or through its own legislative process.

Does the Bill of Rights also give the power to the States to determine what "free speech" means? Does it give the power to the States to define "unreasonable search and seizure"? That is what you are saying. Just like the term "people" must be consistently applied in the Constitution (which is why the Second Amendment protects an individual right), the definition of the other terms must be consistent both within and outside of the Constitution. So where does that definition come from? If it comes from government, then there really isn't anything called a "right," now is there? The government can simply define away any "right" you or I might try to claim. In fact, the government has spent the last 40-50 years doing exactly that.

And you are, too. Now, where do you get your definition of "public use" from...?

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.