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

[phorsenuf]

So what if the owners had torn down all the buildings and cleaned up the area would everyone still say that its ok for the gov't to take their land? Can people not just own land anymore? I don't get it.

Seems to me the gov't will seize it, put in a small park, sell the rest to a developer and make money on that deal and all the subsequent taxes after that.

 

[brerrabbit]

I live in Texas and have no real understanding of the sitution going on in NJ but have read all the postings here and the links. What this sounds like to me is a rather simple case. These people are lottery winners. They happen to have a 75 acre piece of land in an area where development has surrounded them. The city says hey we want to buy your land and at least based on one of the things I read they were going to allow some homes to be built on the land initially. The owners are not really farming or ranching so they consider the offer and decide they want more money and try to negotiate. The city says forget it we will use imminant domain and force the sale. The landowners were at least willing to sell based on this information because they obviously made a counter offer. City is pissed off so they decide to zone the land open space to lessen the value and offer $4 million. The family then turns it into an issue of they are trying to take our home, and gets support from a lot of people. The zoning change merely looks like the city punishing the owners for not taking the original deal.

I spent some time in real estate and this is a classic highest and best use case straight out of the textbook. The highest and best use for the land is development of housing and if the owners were realistic they would have taken the first offer right out of the chute. When dealing with the government and land value the first offer is typically the best your going to get. If back in 03 or 04 when this started if I owned the land and didn't like the offer I would have immediatly sought other bids from developers, taken the best offer and let the new owners fight the zoning issues. They would have been in a position to influence city council members to get a favorable zoning ruling. If the original owners liked they are so much they could have retained 5 acres and used all the money to build a new house and stayed right where they were.

I own family land that dates to 1834 and belive me it has huge emotional value to me. I would die a little if I was ever forced into an imminent domain case on it. That said I am pragmatic enough to know that if I were in a similar situation I would just consider it akin to winning the lottery and make the best of it and try to retain a small piece of it while selling the rest for a serious windfall.

 

[BuckNaked]

So what if the owners had torn down all the buildings and cleaned up the area would everyone still say that its ok for the gov't to take their land? Can people not just own land anymore? I don't get it.

I think we're allowed to own land so long as someone else doesn't want it for "open space" or to keep out a Wal-Mart.

Seems to me the gov't will seize it, put in a small park, sell the rest to a developer and make money on that deal and all the subsequent taxes after that.

That's what I'm guessing too.

 

[SamRoc]

I saw a special news report on tv about a group of families in florida who were being evicted because of ED. They had been there for years, but the town thought it would be in the best interest of ALL the people in the area if a yacht club was put in the area. I have a bad feeling with all this taking of peoples land under eminent domain, that it is really getting out of control. I think there are alot of areas in Brooklyn where I live that are complete eyesores, but should these peoples homes be taken from them like the family in nj because they dont like the way it looks? to me that makes no sense, its all about greed and money and how the govt. in that town will stand to make millions from stealing these peoples farm. Not many things scare me, but eminent domain is definelty one of them.

 

[LuvDuke]

Socialism at it's best.

Don't fall into the trap of labeling this as anything other than what it is: Bad, out-of-touch government.

This abuse of eminent domain cuts across all party and philosophical lines. Case in point: In my area, a group of homeowners, who have been paying their taxes for road maintainence, mowing, etc. have had their homes seized for being blighted. Why were they blighted? The county failed to maintain that area and our 5 conservative, Republican county commissioners took their homes and land so they can build a new, upscale downtown area with upscale boutiques and resturants and shops which no one wants. Btw, everyone of these commissioners was re-elected and people are still debating the unfairness of eminent domain. Go figure.

This is bad, run-amok government that has no respect for people, their rights, or their property. And the only way to stop it is NOT to rely on a Supreme Court decision. The way to stop it is at the ballot box, paying attention to who you're voting for, and not assuming poliltical affiliation means a damned thing.

Our fate is in our hands and not some entity that we hope will "stop us before we kill again".

 

[Geoff_M]

The city says hey we want to buy your land and at least based on one of the things I read they were going to allow some homes to be built on the land initially. The owners are not really farming or ranching so they consider the offer and decide they want more money and try to negotiate.

I don't know if there's information to contradict it, but on the radio yesterday the head of the family clearly stated that they did not wish to sell the property at any price. The negotiations were only part of the eminent domain proceedings that they weren't a willing party of.

These people are lottery winners.

I'm not sure that the proceeds of $4M, split 14 ways, and after taxes would be quite on the level of winning the state lotto.

 

[noodleknitter]

I also see nothing wrong with government entities purchasing land for parks and other facilities. But they should have to compete on the open market and pay fair market value. The Nature Conservancy has being doing this for years. If they can cut a good deal, more power to them but I can't support just taking the property and certainly not paying well below market value against the owners' wishes.

I'll agree with this. They shouldn't have the right to just decide to take lands that have often been in a family for generations, when they don't want to sell.

 

[brerrabbit]

Go back and look at the last quote on post 65. At one point the city was offering $13.9 million but the owners were holding out for $23 million. Thats akin to lottery winnings. Also if the city was at $13.9 million I am sure they could have found developers that would have come closer to the $23 million figure so in that regard yes I do think it's like winning the lottery. Especially if they had had the land in the family since 1921. It's no doubt debt free and therefore the money is all profit. I understand that they might have made the point along the way they did not want to sell or loose the land but the reality is when dealing with the government in these type cases you will eventually loose. Why not just make the best deal you can up front and move on with your lives? The people who have posted here that live in the area have said that the place looks run down and seem to feel that either they should fix it up or move on a let the city have the place so they were not going to win a lot of sympathy in the area.

 

[Teejay32]

Go back and look at the last quote on post 65. At one point the city was offering $13.9 million but the owners were holding out for $23 million. Thats akin to lottery winnings. Also if the city was at $13.9 million I am sure they could have found developers that would have come closer to the $23 million figure so in that regard yes I do think it's like winning the lottery. Especially if they had had the land in the family since 1921. It's no doubt debt free and therefore the money is all profit. I understand that they might have made the point along the way they did not want to sell or loose the land but the reality is when dealing with the government in these type cases you will eventually loose. Why not just make the best deal you can up front and move on with your lives? The people who have posted here that live in the area have said that the place looks run down and seem to feel that either they should fix it up or move on a let the city have the place so they were not going to win a lot of sympathy in the area.

But as it stands right now the township thinks the $4.4 million, the old appraised value, is sufficient even though everyone knows that's nothing close to market value. The government can appraise the property for whatever figure it wants, force the owners off it and use it for any old purpose, and the owners should just get over it?

 

[LuvDuke]

The government can appraise the property for whatever figure it wants, force the owners off it and use it for any old purpose, and the owners should just get over it?

That about sums it up.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I'm curious to know something from those people who think this is ok, if the gov't came to your neighborhood and wanted to take your home for commercial use, or in this case, a public park, would you fight it or just give in? I for one would fight it. With the rare exception for public need (transportation etc) I do not agree to the use of Eminent Domain...especially for commerical use (I know this isn't the case here). I see this as a rights issue. I have the right to own property. I bought and paid for it, so therefor it's my property. If the gov't wants it, then they can put a bid out on it.

 

[Geoff_M]

The people who have posted here that live in the area have said that the place looks run down and seem to feel that either they should fix it up or move on a let the city have the place so they were not going to win a lot of sympathy in the area.

I don't think that the correctness of what's happening to the family should have anything to do with the empathy the others in the city might have for them. Whether it looks like any number of farm properties I've seen in Michigan or a white picket fence framed horse farm outside of Lexington, KY, I don't see how it makes the situation any more or less "right" or "wrong".

As a side note on the subject, I'm always amused when people who built their homes next to long existing hog farm files an environmental complaint related to the smell. My thoughts: "You folks put homes next to an old hog farm... What'd you expect?"

 

[CapeCodTenor]

As a side note on the subject, I'm always amused when people who built their homes next to long existing hog farm files an environmental complaint related to the smell. My thoughts: "You folks put homes next to an old hog farm... What'd you expect?"

Its like people buying homes next to an airport...there's going to be noise. Back to the regularly scheduled debate.

 

[Teejay32]

But as it stands right now the township thinks the $4.4 million, the old appraised value, is sufficient even though everyone knows that's nothing close to market value. The government can appraise the property for whatever figure it wants, force the owners off it and use it for any old purpose, and the owners should just get over it?

That about sums it up.

well as best as I can figure it, this is what happens: the township can't afford the near $18million judgement, and they had previously assured the residents that it would cost $4m. So they're appealing, and they'll probably lose, and will be bailed out by a County open-space fund (which apparently County residents have to pay back) and have to make up a $2-6 million dollar shortfall some other way (via Piscataway residents?), plus pay the legal fees.

so it's not exactly foolproof.

 

[brerrabbit]

Well if in NJ the government can just "put a value on it" then there is something significantly wrong with the system. In Texas if the government wants your property and you can't agree to price you go to court and the court mandates that several independent apppraisers value the property and the highest and best use principle is applied. Then the court rules on the sales price. In almost every case (again in Texas) the price as determined through the courts is substaintialy higher than what the governments offer is. The court system here recognizes that the government trying to obtain the property may control things such as zoning so the current zoning for the property is not an issue in the valuation process. Of course in Houston it's not an issue because they have no zoning laws.

As far as what the current offer stands at in this case, I understand it's $4.4 million but my point was if in the beginning they would have accepted the inevitability of the situation they could have negotiated a much better deal.

I am in no way advocating that it is fair that the government claim property in this manner just the fact that in the end the government usually wins and if that is the case you might as well get the best deal you can.

 

[BuckNaked]

Don't fall into the trap of labeling this as anything other than what it is: Bad, out-of-touch government.

ITA, and I should clarify what I meant. My socialism comment wasn't directed at the eminent domain action, but rather at the comments of a poster on this thread that doesn't seem to believe that there is any such thing as private property rights.

 

[RickinNYC]

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.

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?

Where is that fainting smilie? Can someone find it and blow it up huge for me? Holy moly! I so totally agree with Charade and Buck Naked! C'mon guys you have to admit, lots of folks (all three of us included) never would have thought that'd ever happen, eh? But it's true.

Eminent domain is a dangerous business. Whether for public open space or yet another Walmart, the government should never had the right to move in and claim private property. It's a slippery slope. I can imagine the township claiming the land, paying pennies on the dollar, going through the motions of creating a public space. Then they "realize" they can't afford the clean up it'd take, so what's the next step? Sell it of course. To whom? A major company that can afford the clean up and building.

If this happens to that family, you can bet in 5-10 years, you're going to see office parks, condos and a Super Walmart on that land.

Eyesore notwithstanding, it's not anyone's right to make that determination but the owners of the property themselves.

Like several things as of late, the government has once again completely disgusted me.

 

[RickinNYC]

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

Anne, don't think for a second that if the government wanted to grab up your property, and your entire neighborhood for that matter, so they can build a superhighway, that you're protected. It can happen and it does, all the time.

Whether you have a nicely manicured lawn or not, if the gov't wants your space, they can and will take it.

Given that thought, I'm schocked that anyone would support this.

 

[palmtreegirl]

Anne, don't think for a second that if the government wanted to grab up your property, and your entire neighborhood for that matter, so they can build a superhighway, that you're protected. It can happen and it does, all the time.

Whether you have a nicely manicured lawn or not, if the gov't wants your space, they can and will take it.

Given that thought, I'm schocked that anyone would support this.

Even though I personally don't own any property right now, I totally see your point. Normally, I never would support something like this but I had made an exception for this situation. It's so unlike "me" to feel this way, I'm usually a support the little man, anti "The man" kinda person. I guess it's because I spent years watching this fight and know some backround details about the people involved that aren't flattering and I wouldn't repeat; my vision was clouded. But in retrospect, I can see the very slippery slope and reconsider my opinion.

 

[budbeerlady]

I dont care what the land looked like, it was theirs! Theirs to do as they wish with it! The govt should never be able to come in and TAKE someones land, I dont care what they pay them. I live in a county of eyesores, I have seen some things out where we live that I have never seen before. (Imagine two OLD Dilapidated single wide trailer, but side by side, rig up a tin roof over top and you have a house!) Its nasty, its unkept, there is trash and old cars around the property but that doesnt mean they deserve to lose thier homes. Not even for a few millions!

I have my little 10 acres, we paid $29000 for it 10 years ago. We cleared the land, we built our home, we did the landscaping, we spent alot of time and made many memories in the process. I dont care what I was offered there is no way I'd sell it.

This was these peoples home, wether you liked how it looked or not! The county/township could have stepped in and made them tear down dangerous structures and clean it up a bit. But they must not have ordered so or it would have been done and they would have been billed for it. It's just plain wrong!