Posted on 12/07/2002 5:39:00 AM PST by sauropod
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.