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.
Hey, it's a Jersey judge in a Jersey courtroom. What more needs to be said.
That of course, would not make the convenants unactionable -- for a court, when title was traced, might uphold them -- but in fifty years -- who would take the action? Pursuing a court case like this is about as efective as any third-party amicus and risks the expense.
This partcular case is theft. About $6 million dollars -- where's Willie Sutton, these days?
Willie Sutton was the infamous the bank robber who said when asked why he robbed banks, "Bbecause that's where the money is"!
New Jersey has been very aggressive in setting big pots of open-space money in front of small town boards. A small town might run a 2 million budget a year -- with open space, make that 22 million, 60 million, even more. Bada bing. You bet there's plenty of pot chasers running for office to catch ahold of that big pot.
Yet in the mix of cozy self-renumerative deals a board must also show some evident progress towards open space. Why then, grab by eminent domain a parcel at the price of a songbirds's feed. And better the "eco"-activist judiciary to support it, failing to support the grand open-space moola project might impair the general ability to pick constituents wallets, for some misguided public evocal of governmental irreponsibility and corruption.
First, I have known Clara and her family for all of these 3 long years!!!! She and her family are not “willing-sellers” at NO PRICE!!!!!!!!!!! They simply want to live their lives on THEIR land the way they have for the last 80 + years doing what they have always done for those 80+ years!!!!!!!!!
Raising their families, growing produce for consumers, making a living and paying taxes! Basically being good responsible American citizens! Let me repeat......they do not want to sell anything for any price!!!!! They wish only to be left alone to enjoy what The Declaration of Independence and the resulting US Constitution IS SUPPOSED TO GUARANTEE THEM!!!!!!!
Of course I know you know what these documents say, and that is why Clara fights for her land....she is not just fighting for her land, she is fighting for all of us and those rights guaranteed by those very documents!
Now, once one “sells’ their development rights to whomever, those “whomevers” always find a way to finish off the landowners!!!!!!! The land owners will be found guilty of “violations” of those agreements made concerning “developmental rights”.....they will be taken to court, fined and eventually the “whomevers” will get all their money back and the family perhaps even put into jail!!!!! One example is of a person forced to sell his developmental rights to the NPS and because he placed a birdhouse one the property he was fined $10,000 a day!!!!!! He bucked, and he lost!!!!!!!! He lost everything!!!!!! I will include the following website for reference! http://www.nationalcenter.org/VictimDirectory00.html
I hope I have not confused you further, but always remember the old saying, “beware those bearing gifts”!
Amendment V...nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
With due process having been had, it only remains to receive just compensation. I think $4.3M is a little low. I'm not an expert on the residential construction market but I can easily imagine making $100K on each of those 100 houses. Of course that $10M would be earned over a course of years.
IMO the folks getting ripped off are the taxpayers.
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.
sauropod, I have not been following this issue. But is the above statement true to the best of your knowledge? If the only thing "lost" is the development option (paid for) and if it is true that the family REALLY DOES wish to farm then WHY DID THEY TURN DOWN COMPENSATION for the development option?
King Robert Longhi I.
It took a revolution to throw off the King of England, what now?
When do we start calling each other comrade?
BTW: Does the Halber family owe a whole bunch of taxes or what? Where's the justification for this land grab?[hiking trails?]
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.
You must be one of those "the U.S. Constitution is a living document" and can mean whatever the politicians and bureaucrats can get away with.
Article. I.
Section.8.
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
This nation was founded on the principle that men/women had a right to own and control real estate in order to have life (a living), liberty (personal responsibility and control) and the pursuit of happiness (freedom of decision making). You seem to want to rationalize all that and desperately explain it away.
That may be the way it is/was up in Alberta... but not here! Our ancestors died in battles to defend this dream/right!!!
New Jersey State Grange
National Grange
Founded in 1867, the Grange is the oldest general farm and public policy organization in the United States.
Actually, I'm one of those who thinks the Constitution means exactly what it says. The clause you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with this case or any other case involving a local government involved in an eminent domain proceeding. The clause you quoted deals specifically with the U.S. Congress -- it gives Congress the power to exercise authority over any lands that are purchased by the U.S. government (with the approval of the state legislature) for any of the various purposes you listed.
For a real application of Constitutional law to the case in point I'd recommend that you read the Tenth Amendment, along with this specific clause in the Fifth Amendment:
". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
In the Piscataway case, nobody is claiming that the municipality is taking the property without compensating the owner -- the issue is only whether the compensation is "just" or not.
To sum it up, folks: The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly allows for the taking of private property for public use, provided the owner is adequately compensated.
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.