Eminent domain deadline comes, but family stays put...

Charade

<font color=royalblue>I'm the one on the LEFT side
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
26,073
These cases are really starting to bother me. That was a BAD BAD BAD SCOTUS ruling that paved the way for this.

They've owned the land since 1921 and three generations.

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060711/NEWS03/607110309/1007

BY GENE RACZ
GANNETT NEW JERSEY

PISCATAWAY — The Halpers remained on their farm Monday night, defying an eviction notice after indicating earlier in the day they had planned to leave.
"Until they come and boot us out, we're still here," Zac Halper, 16, said at 10:30 Monday night. "It's our home, our land."

The teen said his parents, Clara and Larry Halper, were unavailable — his mother was at a taping of "Hannity & Colmes" while his father was out getting something to eat.

It was a different scene earlier Monday when the Halpers gave the appearance they planned to leave the 75-acre Piscataway farm on the day they were being evicted after a long battle with Middlesex County and township officials.

Minutes before Monday's 3 p.m. deadline set by the New Jersey Supreme Court, Clara Halper was moved to tears. As she and her family scrambled to gather their belongings in the midday heat, one of the many people she met throughout what has been a seven-year ordeal showed up at her doorstep.

Lisa Valle, a township resident who came to know and support Clara Halper in her struggle to keep the farm and business from being taken under eminent domain laws, hugged her, told her she was sorry, and gave her a necklace of her patron saint, St. Michael, that read "Pray for Us."

"I took this family into my heart, as should every American," said Valle.

A modest gathering had lingered throughout the day — friends, acquaintances, neighbors and some opponents of the eminent domain laws that were at the root of the family's eviction after legal wrangling with Middlesex County and the township.

The Halpers contend that the process was rife with conflicts of interest and that parts of the negotiations were not done in good faith.

Piscataway plans to use the property for passive recreation with an arboretum, gazebos, a dog park, several tree nurseries, and jogging and bike paths, according to plans presented in February.

Township officials have maintained the Halper property is an eyesore and has not been actively farmed for years. They also have said the cleanup and preservation of the property as open space is in the best interests of the majority of Piscataway residents.

Behind the scenes Monday, the Halpers' attorney, Barbara Schwartz, was in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark, trying to get a restraining order on the eviction. She was denied the ability to file the motion, according to someone familiar with the proceedings who asked not to be identified.

The case may be appealed further to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Charade said:
These cases are really starting to bother me. That was a BAD BAD BAD SCOTUS ruling that paved the way for this.
But the SCOTUS case wouldn't have had any impact here. The core of that case was whether or not private development could count as public use. This case is clearly public use. Doesn't mean it's a good idea necessarily.

Ultimately in this case, as well as those cases that are covered by "Kelo", it is the state and local goverments that decide when eminent domain should be used.
 
Any pictures of the farm? I know I have serious issues with what our city considers "blighted."
 
Free4Life11 said:
Any pictures of the farm? I know I have serious issues with what our city considers "blighted."

I grew and lived in Piscataway until 2004, the farm is a dump and has been for years.
 

Piscataway farm family packs bags
Deadline passes, but clan planned to stay the night
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
BY AMISHA PADNANI
Star-Ledger Staff

Clara Halper had been franti cally packing her family's belong ings yesterday when 3 p.m. rolled around and she suddenly broke down, her hands rushing to wipe the tears as they streamed down her face.

Neighbor and good friend Lisa Valle pulled Halper into a tight embrace, offering soothing words.

"My heart is always with you, okay?" she said.

Valle, 42, was one of many friends and neighbors who spent the weekend at the Piscataway farm to show support for family members, who were given until 3 p.m. yesterday by the courts to leave the farm.

Piscataway took ownership of the farm nearly two years ago with the intention of preserving it for open space, but the family won numerous delays from the courts allowing them to remain on the property at South Washington Avenue and Metlars Lane.

A small group of protesters began gathering at the farm Sunday and stayed with the Halpers, helping the Halpers pack and holding signs along the side of the road indicating their displeasure with Piscataway's use of eminent do main to seize the 75-acre property.

"The government has been the biggest thief," said Logan Darrow Clements, executive producer for California-based Freestar Media, which organized the protest. "It's losing its moral legitimacy everyday."

Clements said he's working on a documentary about eminent do main abuse, and the Halpers were important to include to help spread awareness.

"I know that in the end, we're going to win," he said.

But the mood at the 75-acre farm yesterday was one of resignation as family members packed their belongings and tossed them into a trailer.

For seven years, the Halpers battled with the township to keep their property from being condemned through eminent domain. Their case received attention nationwide and even sparked a federal investigation into an extortion scheme involving a top fundraiser for former Gov. James McGreevey.

Despite fighting for years, the family finally accepted that it was over.

"Today feels like a funeral, that's what it feels like," said Scott Raiman, Halper's brother-in-law, during a small rally on the farm Sunday.

Raiman spent hours on the farm with several family members Sunday as they filmed the land as part of a family documentary on the farm's history.

"This is a time for reflection," said Ron Halper, who lived on the farm for 20 years but now lives in Manhattan. "I've been speaking to my siblings and it runs the gamut from anger to reflectiveness to sad ness."

Halper, who has been working on the documentary for nine months, said the film is mostly about his mother, Helen, whom he said was thrown off her farm in Hungary by Nazis. With his family's battle with the township in mind, Halper referred to his documentary as "a story of history repeating it self."

As he spoke, Halper picked up an empty carton of chocolate milk that had been made on the property when his father, Norman, ran a dairy farm. Right away, he remembered his father's secret recipe and how thick, smooth and cold the milk was.

"We worked for this," he said of the farm. "This is ours. For somebody to come in like this and take it arbitrarily -- it's wrong."

Valle, also at the rally on Sunday, said she was angered by how the family was not only losing its home, but its livelihood as well since the farm was their business.

"At the end of the day, this is what they have," she said, bending down and grabbing a handful of dirt. "And it's gone."

Many on the farm yesterday said they did not know what to ex pect come 3 p.m. after a letter from the Halpers' lawyer warned the family that armed personnel would forcibly remove the family unless they vacated in advance of the deadline.

But by as late as 7 p.m., family and neighbors stood by with no word from township or the Middlesex County Sheriff's office, which would be responsible for evicting the family.

With nowhere else to go, Clara Halper said the family planned to spend the night at the house. Protesters said they intended to return to the farm by noon today.

Middlesex County Sheriff Jo seph Spicuzzo could not be reached for comment late yesterday.

Earlier in the day, Anne Gor don, Piscataway spokeswoman, said there are no immediate plans for the property.

First, she said the township must complete an assessment of how much the environmental cleanup of the land would cost. Eventually, the township will construct a park with walking paths and gardens on the land, she said.

In the meantime, she said there is still a lot to be resolved with the case still active in court.

"It's in court. It's not over yet," she said.

One issue to be determined is the amount of money the township will compensate the Halpers for the property. The township is appealing the jury's decision to award the family nearly $18 million. Until a decision is made, the family will not receive anymore money than the $4.3 million the township gave them in 2004, which was divided among the farm's fourteen owners.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/middlesex/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1152598001277870.xml&coll=1
 
Don't really agree with the whole 'eminent domain' bit but since I live in Middlesex County I took a ride to look at the farm...as someone else said..it's a piece of trash. They should be spending time keeping it looking nice.
 
palmtreegirl said:
I grew and lived in Piscataway until 2004, the farm is a dump and has been for years.

I passed by it everyday to and from work from 1993 until 1999, and then had to pass it now and then to get to other places. palmtreegirl is spot on in her assessment. This place was a run down eyesore way back then even, long before the eminent domain fight began. I don't recall anything but maybe some pumpkins ever growing on that property. They had a handful of animals, but there are people in Plainfield (a city) with more chickens in their yard.

The place was not only an eyesore, but in all likelihood quite a health hazard as well.

Anne
 
Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves! I don't think it should really matter how well it is kept up, as long as its not to be condemned. If this was my great grandparents property that they worked there entire lives for, but couldn't keep up with, I would be horrified if it was just taken from them. Taking it because its a great piece of land and not kept well is a pretty darn good deal for the state who didnt plan for enough parks and recreation. Pretty soon everything ugly must go...utopian society's don't exist.
 
I really don't care if it's an eyesore. If it's not a health hazard or they aren't able to pay the taxes on it (which means it would go up for sheriff's sale, not grabbed by the local govt) they (the govt) should keep their hands off it.

Of course if this were a pristine horse farm with snotty blue bloods running the place it wouldn't be in the news.
 
Poohgirl, some of the buildings on that property really needed to be condemned. I want to recall one of the barns blowing over during a Nor'Easter in maybe 1996 or so.

Those folks had plenty of time to clean up their act and bring the buildings to code. They chose instead to thumb thier noses at the government until there was no choice but take the property.

Does anyone remember the Roger Scott case in Skaneateles back in the early 1990's? This one isn't quite the same--the SCott's home was bulldozed due to massive code violations, and the Halpers were no where near as arrogant as the Scott's (that would have been nearly impossible--at least the Halpers weren't dumping raw sewage into a pristine lake) but the idea is along the same lines.

If you're going to thumb your nose at the laws put into place to protect society, you'll suffer the consequences. The Halpers should be mighty glad they are getting as much as they are for that property, considering it hasn't been an active farm in twenty years, it's NOT a "business" and the land itself is probably worth about a million, not much more, less if it's zoned for "open space."

Anne
 
Charade said:
I really don't care if it's an eyesore. If it's not a health hazard or they aren't able to pay the taxes on it (which means it would go up for sheriff's sale, not grabbed by the local govt) they (the govt) should keep their hands off it.

Of course if this were a pristine horse farm with snotty blue bloods running the place it wouldn't be in the news.

No, if it were a pristine horse farm it would have been kept up and not had buildings collapsing.

The photo's from the paper don't do the delapidated condition of teh palce justice.

Anne
 
ducklite said:
Poohgirl, some of the buildings on that property really needed to be condemned. I want to recall one of the barns blowing over during a Nor'Easter in maybe 1996 or so.

Those folks had plenty of time to clean up their act and bring the buildings to code. They chose instead to thumb thier noses at the government until there was no choice but take the property.

Does anyone remember the Roger Scott case in Skaneateles back in the early 1990's? This one isn't quite the same--the SCott's home was bulldozed due to massive code violations, and the Halpers were no where near as arrogant as the Scott's (that would have been nearly impossible--at least the Halpers weren't dumping raw sewage into a pristine lake) but the idea is along the same lines.

If you're going to thumb your nose at the laws put into place to protect society, you'll suffer the consequences. The Halpers should be mighty glad they are getting as much as they are for that property, considering it hasn't been an active farm in twenty years, it's NOT a "business" and the land itself is probably worth about a million, not much more, less if it's zoned for "open space."

Anne

Anne,

I think I remember reading about that! It was the Nor'Easter where my county (where this 'farm' is located) got 35 inches of snow! :scared1:

Not getting into the whole eminent domain bit, but as of yesterday when I saw it, the place was basically in ruins. They need to seriously keep their property nice. I'm not talking about having a gigantic mansion on it with perfect rolling hills, but it'd be nice to keep it in a condition that the neighborhood can be proud of.
 
This is such a slippery slope and we're already seeing the effects of it. In Texas, communities are starting to use eminent domain fdr commercial reasons such as a mall or a Wal-Mart all in the name of giving the area an economic boost. People are fighting back against such nonsense but it's difficult.

So where does such reasoning end? What will people who call this farm a blight say when their community decides to build a road through their backyard or throws them off their property so that Wal-Mart can build another location?
 
Poohgirl said:
Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves! I don't think it should really matter how well it is kept up, as long as its not to be condemned. If this was my great grandparents property that they worked there entire lives for, but couldn't keep up with, I would be horrified if it was just taken from them. Taking it because its a great piece of land and not kept well is a pretty darn good deal for the state who didnt plan for enough parks and recreation. Pretty soon everything ugly must go...utopian society's don't exist.


What our forefathers are the ones that started these types of things all the back to buying land from the Indians for wiskey.

I'm saying it's right by no means in this day and age but come on.

Bottom line is they should have to pay fair marketshare for it plus a % because of the force out.

I hate when then do this to a run down area give them pennies for the land then give the Developers a hugh tax break that could have gone to the residents.
 
Planogirl said:
This is such a slippery slope and we're already seeing the effects of it. In Texas, communities are starting to use eminent domain fdr commercial reasons such as a mall or a Wal-Mart all in the name of giving the area an economic boost. People are fighting back against such nonsense but it's difficult.

I am vehemently opposed to using eminent domain for commercial use, however the town will zone this land as open space. It's not financially benefiting anyone. In fact the taxpayers are paying them to go away so they can pay more to tear down the dilapidated structures and secure the property.

So where does such reasoning end? What will people who call this farm a blight say when their community decides to build a road through their backyard or throws them off their property so that Wal-Mart can build another location?

Had these folks actually been using this as a farm (they weren't) and had they kept the place to a reasonable standard of repair (this wasn't even close to the loosest interpretation of "reasonable") we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Anne
 
tmt martins said:
What our forefathers are the ones that started these types of things all the back to buying land from the Indians for wiskey.

I'm saying it's right by no means in this day and age but come on.

Bottom line is they should have to pay fair marketshare for it plus a % because of the force out.

I hate when then do this to a run down area give them pennies for the land then give the Developers a hugh tax break that could have gone to the residents.

These folks are getting more than a fair shake on the land, even at the lower figure. This is not an inner city slum area. It's a small piece of "rural" property in a mostly middle income suburban area that contains a mixture of single family homes, townhouses/condo's, office buildings, small shopping plazas, and a university campus. There might be a development of Mcmansion's around there someplace, but overwhelmingly the homes are conservative in size and a mix of older and newer. If you could imagine "Middle America" that would be it.

There will be no development on this land. It's being deeded as open space. It will be used by people for recreation. No one is making money on this deal--except perhaps the Halpers, because in all honesty they are making out like bandits.

Anne
 
ducklite said:
I am vehemently opposed to using eminent domain for commercial use, however the town will zone this land as open space. It's not financially benefiting anyone. In fact the taxpayers are paying them to go away so they can pay more to tear down the dilapidated structures and secure the property.


Anne

But according to the article, it WILL benefit the local govt if they win their appeal to get the jury's $17.9 million figure tossed out and back down to the $4 million the govt thinks it's worth. If it is indeed worth $17.9 million and the govt only has to pay $4 million, they are getting it for 25 cents on the dollar.

How much is 75 acres worth in that part of the state? Is it buildable?
 
Charade said:
I really don't care if it's an eyesore. If it's not a health hazard or they aren't able to pay the taxes on it (which means it would go up for sheriff's sale, not grabbed by the local govt) they (the govt) should keep their hands off it.

Of course if this were a pristine horse farm with snotty blue bloods running the place it wouldn't be in the news.


Yipes!!!

I agree!

This doesn't mean that I am turning into a republican does it? :artist:
 
ducklite said:
These folks are getting more than a fair shake on the land, even at the lower figure. This is not an inner city slum area. It's a small piece of "rural" property in a mostly middle income suburban area that contains a mixture of single family homes, townhouses/condo's, office buildings, small shopping plazas, and a university campus. There might be a development of Mcmansion's around there someplace, but overwhelmingly the homes are conservative in size and a mix of older and newer. If you could imagine "Middle America" that would be it.

There will be no development on this land. It's being deeded as open space. It will be used by people for recreation. No one is making money on this deal--except perhaps the Halpers, because in all honesty they are making out like bandits.

Anne

Anne-As a resident of Middlesex County I agree with you and thank you for explaining it better than I could!
 





Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE









DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom