NJ Man's family owned farm for 175 years, city says no more! City to convert to affordable housing...

[1srelluc]

‘Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.’ Family and neighbors make last plea to save N.J. farm from seizure

The Henry family’s 175-year-old farm is scheduled to be seized through eminent domain to build affordable housing for a New Jersey town.

www.nj.com

The Henry brothers received a letter notifying them that their property was being eyed for affordable housing.

If the family doesn’t agree to sell the farm, the land could be taken through the eminent domain process that allows the government to take private property. Land can be seized even when the owner doesn’t want to sell if the site will be used for a public purpose. The owner is paid a market price for the property.

The SCOTUS Kelo decision was disgusting.....It allows eminent domain abuse like this.

Kinda sounds like something kings would do. Will dem protestors be showing up in support of the land owner?

My bet is local politicians are eyeing it more for resale to their developer buddies as it makes no sense to put "affordable housing" in a warehouse district.

 

[pknopp]

Hopefully they are able to keep it tied up in court until the developers decide to move on.

 

[1srelluc]

Hopefully they are able to keep it tied up in court until the developers decide to move on.

Shit, they never give up......Especially if a lawyer group owns the land.

In my AO they have been trying to rezone 30 acres that's zoned agricultural on the town/county border for a "mixed use" build-out for 30 ******* years.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Well I hope they stock it with migrants to get that self righteous feeling

 

[progressive hunter]

‘Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.’ Family and neighbors make last plea to save N.J. farm from seizure

The Henry family’s 175-year-old farm is scheduled to be seized through eminent domain to build affordable housing for a New Jersey town.

www.nj.com

The Henry brothers received a letter notifying them that their property was being eyed for affordable housing.

If the family doesn’t agree to sell the farm, the land could be taken through the eminent domain process that allows the government to take private property. Land can be seized even when the owner doesn’t want to sell if the site will be used for a public purpose. The owner is paid a market price for the property.

The SCOTUS Kelo decision was disgusting.....It allows eminent domain abuse like this.

Kinda sounds like something kings would do. Will dem protestors be showing up in support of the land owner?

My bet is local politicians are eyeing it more for resale to their developer buddies as it makes no sense to put "affordable housing" in a warehouse district.

this would be one of the cases I would have to seriously consider dying for a cause,,

they arent just taking my home but the legacy of my family,,

 

[White 6]

‘Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.’ Family and neighbors make last plea to save N.J. farm from seizure

The Henry family’s 175-year-old farm is scheduled to be seized through eminent domain to build affordable housing for a New Jersey town.

www.nj.com

The Henry brothers received a letter notifying them that their property was being eyed for affordable housing.

If the family doesn’t agree to sell the farm, the land could be taken through the eminent domain process that allows the government to take private property. Land can be seized even when the owner doesn’t want to sell if the site will be used for a public purpose. The owner is paid a market price for the property.

The SCOTUS Kelo decision was disgusting.....It allows eminent domain abuse like this.

Kinda sounds like something kings would do. Will dem protestors be showing up in support of the land owner?

My bet is local politicians are eyeing it more for resale to their developer buddies as it makes no sense to put "affordable housing" in a warehouse district.

Seizing by eminent domain should not be legal. If you don't want to sell what you own, you should not be forced by the local government.

 

[TNHarley]

Wonder if it would qualify to be a historic landmark?

 

[TNHarley]

Seizing by eminent domain should not be legal. If you don't want to sell what you own, you should not be forced by the local government.

What about roads? Interstates? National parks? Sea shores?

 

[rightwinger]

Local Governments are held hostage in NJ

Unless they can come up with 250 affordable housing units, the state of NJ will seize land for developers who offer low cost housing mixed with McMansions

 

[1srelluc]

After the Kelo decision many states (including Virginia) made 3rd party eminent domain illegal.

In Virginia a local .gov can't take your land and sell it to a developer.

States like TX, NY, NJ, CA, and more, let it stand.

 

[White 6]

What about roads? Interstates? National parks? Sea shores?

We were not thrilled when forced to sell, in Kentucky for I-24. I would not support eminent domain, used to establish or expand and new national park or national seashore.

 

[1srelluc]

We were not thrilled when forced to sell, in Kentucky for I-24. I would not support eminent domain, used to establish or expand and new national park or national seashore.

Sometimes it works out better to sell to the .gov.

We had 50 acres (fairly level mountain land) that adjoined the George Washington National Forrest we wanted to sell.

The surrounding land owners wanted it bad (lots of prime timber on it) but they kept trying to low-ball us.

My dad called the US Forrest Service and they came out, accessed the property/timber, and made a very fair offer and they even said they would pay any costs and fees and we still got to keep the deeded RoW into it.

We sold it to them. Other than the old fire road they improved it remains as it was sold.

Boy were those Farmer Johns pissed.....Come to find out they were trying to buy it together and one blamed the other for the low-balling.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

God bless you and each past and present band member always!!!

Holly (a girl who saw them on June 6th)

P.S. They still sing this song during their shows.

 

[White 6]

Sometimes it works out better to sell to the .gov.

We had 50 acres (fairly level mountain land) that adjoined the George Washington National Forrest we wanted to sell.

The surrounding land owners wanted it bad (lots of prime timber on it) but they kept trying to low-ball us.

My dad called the US Forrest Service and they came out, accessed the property/timber, and made a very fair offer and they even said they would pay any costs and fees and we still got to keep the deeded RoW into it.

We sold it to them. Other than the old fire road they improved it remains as it was sold.

Boy were those Farmer Johns pissed.....Come to find out they were trying to buy it together and one blamed the other for the low-balling.

That did not work like eminent domain. If it had, they would have sent you a notice of intent, had an appraisal of fair market value. If there was legit disagreement on value, there could be some negotiation, but they were going buy, no matter what, as unlikely to reroute and interstate highway for an attempted hold out.

In some instances, it can be used to sell to a private contractor to construct something, like a business or facility needed by the county or city. If the project falls through, you don't get the property back.

It can be used unscrupulously at times. I know of one case of a guy with a civil engineering degree, wanting to start a business in a town. A very expensive feasibility study done, legal fees paid, zoning cleared for the use, architectural construction plans drawn up, submitted and approved. But then somebody wanted the land left alone, undeveloped, and convinced the city commission to stop it. So they simply said, they wanted to build a park. No plans, no drawings even, just something they said, when voting to condemn per eminent domain. Now the land is tied up in litigation and appeal, and the guy that bought the property and was paid less than he paid for it, is out a ton of money and not able to start his business.

To me, it is often bad business, where the little guy gets shit on, whether he wants to sell or not.

 

[1srelluc]

That did not work like eminent domain. If it had, they would have sent you a notice of intent, had an appraisal of fair market value. If there was legit disagreement on value, there could be some negotiation, but they were going buy, no matter what, as unlikely to reroute and interstate highway for an attempted hold out.

In some instances, it can be used to sell to a private contractor to construct something, like a business or facility needed by the county or city. If the project falls through, you don't get the property back.

It can be used unscrupulously at times. I know of one case of a guy with a civil engineering degree, wanting to start a business in a town. A very expensive feasibility study done, legal fees paid, zoning cleared for the use, architectural construction plans drawn up, submitted and approved. But then somebody wanted the land left alone, undeveloped, and convinced the city commission to stop it. So they simply said, they wanted to build a park. No plans, no drawings even, just something they said, when voting to condemn per eminent domain. Now the land is tied up in litigation and appeal, and the guy that bought the property and was paid less than he paid for it, is out a ton of money and not able to start his business.

To me, it is often bad business, where the little guy gets shit on, whether he wants to sell or not.

Without a doubt Keto and Citizens United were the poorest decisions since RvW.

At least many states amended their state constitutions to prevent Keto.

 

[TNHarley]

We were not thrilled when forced to sell, in Kentucky for I-24. I would not support eminent domain, used to establish or expand and new national park or national seashore.

Without ED we wouldnt have any of that to begin with. How are you going to freely travel without public space? You gonna get permission from every land owner till you get to walmart? Or visit the mountains or a beach for a vacation?
Im against ED for many things, but for some things we have to have it.

 

[martybegan]

Seizing by eminent domain should not be legal. If you don't want to sell what you own, you should not be forced by the local government.

The problem isn't the concept of eminent domain, the problem is expanding it beyond things like highways, government buildings, dams, bridges, railroads, and other infrastructure things.

Hopefully the current SC looks at Kelo v New London and overturns it like they have done other crap SC cases.

 

[rightwinger]

The problem isn't the concept of eminent domain, the problem is expanding it beyond things like highways, government buildings, dams, bridges, railroads, and other infrastructure things.

Hopefully the current SC looks at Kelo v New London and overturns it like they have done other crap SC cases.

In many cases, it is not seizing land for the public use, but claiming someone can make better use of your property than you do.

Trump exploited this in Atlantic City to build his casinos.

 

[martybegan]

In many cases, it is not seizing land for the public use, but claiming someone can make better use of your property than you do.

Trump exploited this in Atlantic City to build his casinos.

And because of Kelo it was A-OK. overturn Kelo and the problem goes away.

Don't blame people for using the law, blame the law.

 

[1srelluc]

The problem isn't the concept of eminent domain, the problem is expanding it beyond things like highways, government buildings, dams, bridges, railroads, and other infrastructure things.

Hopefully the current SC looks at Kelo v New London and overturns it like they have done other crap SC cases.

Roberts was the driver of the decision.