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.
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
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.