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

[ducklite]

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?

The $17.9 figure came out of their assertations to a misinformed jury that they were running a farming business on the property, thus much of that figure was compensation for "business disruption." They weren't for all practical purposes running a business. They never grew crops, and a few horses, chickens, and cats don't constitute a family farm. They were making their living giving pony rides and doing "haunted hayrides" (no hay, no haunt, just an empty field) in the fall. That's more of a carnival than a farm.

The land *would* be buildable, but under the court ruling it is only to be used as open space recreation. No building other than perhaps a nature trail or perhaps a small playground area. In other words no developer is going to get their hands on it and give it value. If it were "buildable" land being sold to a developer it would be worth $15-30 million or more based on a couple of comps I was able to locate in the general area. But because it's not buildable land, the value is negligable, and $4 million is generous.

They should have been smart and gone for a rezoning from R20 to R1 or R2 (which they would have easily gotten!) and sold that land to a developer for a fortune!

Anne

 

[palmtreegirl]

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

You are right on, the place was just downright nasty. Around Halloween they'd put up these wooden cut outs that were falling apart, paint all peeled off and say they were having hayrides. But never once did I ever see an actual hayride going on and I lived within a few miles of the place. LOL. As Anne said above, I also detest eminent domain but in this situation I'm all for it because the place was dangerous and most likely a heath hazard.

 

[palmtreegirl]

They were making their living giving pony rides and doing "haunted hayrides" (no hay, no haunt, just an empty field) in the fall. That's more of a carnival than a farm.

I just posted about that above. Yeh no hay, no haunt, just nasty old wooden cut outs and really no actual rides either.

 

[LuvDuke]

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

Actually, what paved the way was local government officials who were elected. It didn't start with the Supreme Court, but they certainly didn't help.

 

[LuvDuke]

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.

I'm with you, John.

 

[dopeys biggest fan]

The only thing about that place that was a "farm" was the name. I grew up in Piscataway and ever since I could remember the place was dump! They didn't grow anything, the only animals were a few horses that they used for nothing more than pony rides around in a circle. They didn't even take care of the horses. I had a friend who kept her horse there and he became so ill he was under veterinary care for months. All this because the "farm" was so dirty that it was a health hazard for the animals kept there.

The "Hay rides" that have been mentioned where nothing more than a wagon pulled by a tractor around old card board cut outs. I did actually did see one once! Pathetic!

This was not a place that the family took care of and as far as I'm concerned the land will serve the community much better as a park than as the bacteria farm it is now.

All this comes from a girl who grew up in Piscataway and saw first hand how nasty this place was! Argue all you want about this "poor family" being kicked off the land after generations, but I'm sure if there relatives were alive today they would either be taking much better care of their land or leading the fight to close the place so it does not continue to disgrace the families name.

 

[Charade]

I'm with you, John.

( )

 

[ducklite]

All of the people who agree with the governments position in this matter lived near the "farm" at some point and know first hand of the situation--and in most cases have no vested interest as they no longer live there.

Everyone who is in disagreement has never seen the palce and obviously doesn't understand the history behind it or what the government is going to do with the land.

Interesting.

Anne

 

[NewJersey]

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,

Very eloquent post and it describes that area of Middlesex county perfectly. Actually, that pretty much sums up the whole county perfectly. The family is making out like bandits, and the land will be put to much better use than that sorry excuse for a "farm" they have.

 

[Caradana]

When was the court decision that rezoned the land from buildable to open space?
I'm not aware that there is one. I have a place across Middlesex County in Cranbury, and the government here paid out many farmers for the development rights, in effect, they compensated them to rezone and prevent more building.

Anne ... whoa. Not sure where these financial estimates are coming from, but 75 acres in Piscataway, easily commutable to NYC with strong rental base, an above-average high school, tremendous job growth, a university paying the ratables and highway access. Middlesex County is one of the 100 richest counties in the US. 75 relatively flat acres? It's virtually all buildable. But, assume that they excluded 25 and built on 50, quarter-acre lots. The lots alone would be worth at least $150K, lowball. Plug that into the calculator. Wow. There's a reason Piscataway is dead-set on converting this property to public use - it would make any developer in America salivate.

 

[Becky2005]

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?

Happened in my hometown...there is an empty corner lot here that a grocery store wanted to build on, except they would have needed a piece of property from another business to make an access way wide enough or something to make the grocery chain happy (instead of making the store fit the lot -- I think for a drive-thru or something like that). The neighboring business didn't want to sell their strip of land. Eminent domain was threatened because apparently the town thought the existing business didn't *really* need that strip of land and was just being selfish for not selling, therefore they would just take it so the grocery store could go in. It got voted down but it was the talk of the town for months as the debates raged on, so that particular grocery store chain went away and amazingly enough another one is interested in it and they don't seem to need to infringe on the other's property to do it (at least the preliminary plans).

It was amazing how many people thought the business was being selfish for not selling and that the government should just take it so that the other business could be built. They could not equate it to the same thing of a neighbor saying "gee, I want a bigger back yard, will you sell me some of yours? No, then gee, I'll just take it because you don't REALLY need that big of a backyard"

 

[BuckNaked]

So that I understand ducklite and Joisey's position clearly...if people don't keep their rural land up to the standards of someone else, the state should have the right to come in and take if for pennies on the dollar?

 

[NewJersey]

Bucknaked,

With the vast majority of eminent domain cases, I'm against the government seizing land. I actually applaud when towns seize land from developers like Wal-Mart who do more harm than good. In this case, I'm on the fence but I took a ride past the place and it's a mess. I don't even know if you can call it a farm. What's my point? The land seems to be better served as open space. My county (the one in question) is bent on finding more and more open space. But the problem I have is where does it end? It seems to be a slippery slope in the making.

I see the family making out like bandits here. Could they get more? Definitely so from a contractor, especially for that land in NJ. Would they still walk away millionaires from the state? Yep.

 

[bevtoy]

At 4 to 17 million dollars the government is more than welcome to take my home by imminent domain. After a good cry, I would relocate to a better place, educate my children, be set for life and hand down wealth for generations.
We had several very well kept homes and farms taken to make a huge spill way to cool down water from a power plant before dumping it into the lake, so the wildlife wouldn't be boiled alive.
Wish it had been us, I love my home (on the lake). Everyone here got far more than fair market value for their homes, probably over 10 times fair market value. But for the fickle finger of fate I could have been a millionaire.

 

[BuckNaked]

In this case, I'm on the fence but I took a ride past the place and it's a mess. I don't even know if you can call it a farm. What's my point? The land seems to be better served as open space.

And that's the problem I have - people deciding that land belonging to other people would be better if it belonged to "everyone".

Socialism at it's best.

I see the family making out like bandits here. Could they get more? Definitely so from a contractor, especially for that land in NJ. Would they still walk away millionaires from the state? Yep.

So what if they're walking away millionaires? If they're being forced to do it against their will, just because someone else thinks the land should be made "open space for everyone", it's still wrong, IMO.

 

[LuvDuke]

So that I understand ducklite and Joisey's position clearly...if people don't keep their rural land up to the standards of someone else, the state should have the right to come in and take if for pennies on the dollar?

That's my understanding and I don't get it. Unless the place is a health hazard, which would still trigger a condemning process, since when does the government have the right to seize someone's property?

 

[ducklite]

When was the court decision that rezoned the land from buildable to open space?
I'm not aware that there is one. I have a place across Middlesex County in Cranbury, and the government here paid out many farmers for the development rights, in effect, they compensated them to rezone and prevent more building.

It was part of the original lawsuit that the town filed. The entire premise was to take the land for two reasons, first, to get rid of a hazardous eyesore, and second to keep them from selling off the property to developers. However they could have done so ten years ago and gotten the land rezoned--which ten years ago would have been a piece of cake when that area was clamouring to catch up with North and East Brunswick for ratables.

Anne ... whoa. Not sure where these financial estimates are coming from, but 75 acres in Piscataway, easily commutable to NYC with strong rental base, an above-average high school, tremendous job growth, a university paying the ratables and highway access. Middlesex County is one of the 100 richest counties in the US. 75 relatively flat acres? It's virtually all buildable. But, assume that they excluded 25 and built on 50, quarter-acre lots. The lots alone would be worth at least $150K, lowball. Plug that into the calculator. Wow. There's a reason Piscataway is dead-set on converting this property to public use - it would make any developer in America salivate.

I did my calculations based on similar but smaller properties in Piscataway that are listed at $1.8 and $1.5. Here was the math. If those lots were sub'ed into four buildable lots per acre, they would be worth about $160-180K per lot. The farm had 75 acres, which is about 18+/- buildable lots based on quarter acre lots. So the farm is worth as subdivided land about $3.375 million.

BUT, the land is not being subdivided, it is not being sold to developers, it is being deeded as open space. Open space land has minimal value as no one "profits" financially from it.

So in that case it's probably worth less than $500,000.

Anne

 

[BuckNaked]

That's my understanding and I don't get it. Unless the place is a health hazard, which would still trigger a condemning process, since when does the government have the right to seize someone's property?

Unfortunately, since the Supreme Court said they could. Huge mistake, IMO. I guess if the county decides that the rolling hills on which our subdivision is built would be better as public park land, we're all screwed.

And I just finished decorating the kids' bedrooms! Damn it!!

 

[ducklite]

So that I understand ducklite and Joisey's position clearly...if people don't keep their rural land up to the standards of someone else, the state should have the right to come in and take if for pennies on the dollar?

That's not the case at all. The buildings were falling down, posing risk of injury and health problems. The family was given YEARS to bring the place up to code. They chose not to do so.

They are actually getting a lot more than pennies on the dollar.

Anne

 

[NewJersey]

And that's the problem I have - people deciding that land belonging to other people would be better if it belonged to "everyone".

Socialism at it's best.



So what if they're walking away millionaires? If they're being forced to do it against their will, just because someone else thinks the land should be made "open space for everyone", it's still wrong, IMO.

Guess I'm just being wishful in hoping to see more land dedicated to open space. Ideally, I would rather it be land that is currently not used, such as those up for sale to commercial or residential use. The last thing this county needs are more developments! I guess in my perfect world with this situation, the county would find land that would other wise be used for development, and the family would get to keep their house AFTER they deal with its problems.