Actually, there is no real argument that that is the constitutional part: taking land for public use. The debate is whether taking land to turn over to capitalistic interests is constitutional, and the Supreme Court (as mentioned above) has decided that it is. If there is no local or state law to prevent this, the Halperns have no leg to stand on.
It is, at any rate, only conjecture that the government intends to turn the land over to development, and such action can be fought if and when it occurs.
Oakminster, NJ has been abusing Eminent Domain quite often. Eminent Domain is not suppose to be about forcing someone to sell their property for a fair market price and turning around and selling it to developers. This has been done in Long Branch and I believe Asbury Park recently. Piscataway has done this in the past. Eminent Domain was supposed to be for public works. Parks, Schools, Right of Ways for trains and highways, etc.
It is good that groups are forming to stop this abuse of power before they come knocking on your door or mine. I like where I am living, I moved to the town I am in for the schools and because my Wife & I grew up nearby. If I was paid fair market value and nothing more, I could not afford to replace my home in this town with an equal home. I definitely could not afford another home with 2 acres.
If they used Eminent Domain to seize my home to make a park or a new school or expand the reservoir, I would not be happy, but I would understand it. If they turned around an sold it to a developer that put up two more McMansions selling for $2 million a piece, I would be rightly and justly pissed.
Jim {Of course if they paid me fair market plus 33%, I would gladly go my way without argument.}
Right, I get that. I am just disputing whether an “open space” law qualifies as public use. Of course, I strongly disagree with the definition of “public use” as defined in the Kelo decision, as well. I think the limits of what “public use” means should be very, very strict.
I think the outrage is with the law itself, which allows the confiscation of private property for reasons of dubious value to the public good. I don’t think anyone has claimed that the law has been broken, but rather, that the law is poorly written and open to manipulation.
I’m not in agreement with the recent Supreme Court case on Eminent Domain, but it is the law of the land. IMHO, the OP states a grossly one sided version of the story, and whoever is behind the protest appears to be taking advantage of anyone that participates. If people are fully informed, and still wish to lawfully protest, more power to them.
That said, the Halpers are going to collect somewhere between 4 and 18 million for land that apparrently was not being farmed, and contained only a horse riding facillity of dubious merit. That’s plenty of money to re-establish themselves anywhere in the country. If they want a farm, for that kind of cash, they can get more land than they had in many places, and still have enough to retire on.
Eh. The additional information didn’t change my reaction to the story. As far as I’m concerned, it contained the salient details.
So? For whatever reason, they want that farm. I’d take the money, too, but if they don’t want it, they shouldn’t be forced to sell it. That’s what’s at stake, here, not the wisdom of the Halper’s decision to stay.
So you do not think it is a good idea for groups to protest the unfair use of Eminent Domain? Are you suggesting that because it is the law, protesting the law is wrong?
Seriously, the power is being abused, even in this case, where the family will probably do fine with it. Maybe they wanted to sit on the property for a few more years and work out a development deal for themselves, if the town is not go to make proper and long term use of their property, they should not be seizing it. I do not know the details of this case, but I do know that in Long Branch many elderly/minority residents were removed from private homes and were given an amount that while fair market value, hardly came close to what the developer who was handed the land should have paid. It was a blatant abuse and there should have been more outcry over it.
If you completely trusted that the property would remain open space - turned into hiking trails or whatnot - would you still believe it was of dubious value?
Give me a break…no matter what the Supreme Court says, it’s ok with you, because it’s the law of the land?
Nothing I have learned about this matter subsequent to the OP has altered my opinion even a little.
If they are being offered $4 million, then it is worth at least that, and probably more. But, whether or not they are really being paid market value is totally beside the point. It is their property, and it should be their decision whether or not they want to sell it to a developer. Maybe they think it could be worth more in a few years…maybe they just don’t want to move. Whether or not YOU think that $4 million is enough for their retirement is totally irrelevant.
Of course not. Don’t think I’ve suggested anything remotely close to that on any reasonable reading. Lawful protesting is a constitutional right. I’m saying that in my opinion, whoever is behind the protest is grossly misrepresenting the truth of the situation and by doing so, unfairly taking advantage of those who participate.
Add to that the fact mentioned above that the Halpers themselves won’t even be present during the protest, and this thing just reeks of manipulating emotion to advance an agenda. I suspect that some people might be less willing to participate if they knew the poor oppressed Halpers are walking away with millions.
I think eminent domain has gotten far out of control and need to be restricted. But it’s silly to get worked up over arguments about whether it’s more like communism or fascism (here’s a clue - it’s neither, communists and fascists don’t have any political power in the United States).
As to the OP, I’d support them - based on what I’ve heard so far. But before going any further, I’d like to hear what the other side has to say. The quoted section in the OP hardly sounds like it was written by an unbiased source.
Yeah, I think that I would. A park is nice, but it’s not necessary. I think eminent domain should only be used for projects that are absolutely necessary for the public good.
I don’t see why, as the whole point is that the Halpers don’t want to walk away with millions. The large price tag makes it less of an injustice, but it also makes their conviction to stay that much more admirable.
Except that they ain’t staying, and will not even be present at the protest that is supposedly meant to “help” them somehow…which leads me to question the motivation of whoever is behind the protest.
Is it bad if the protest is about the misuse of Eminent Domain? Would you support it, if that was the reason for the protest?
Are these leading questions? Yes, they were.
In the linked article, the very next header is
I think the groups intentions and hearts are in the right place and you are reading too much into their actions. Go to the front page of the site and you will see they are trying to fight “EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE” all over this land.
Agreed. I think their general cause is a good cause, it does not mean I will be joining them tomorrow. I would have picked my fight over Eminent Domain Abuse in an easier to raise righteous objection location. Shots of million dollar Condos going up where $100,000 small private homes were is the abuse that gets me truly angry. One farm and huge payout for it is just another statistic to me.
Larry Halper went undercover for the FBI. He was in contact with someone close to McGreevy (if I remembered his name I could link the story for you). The guy took a large bribe to convince the gov to intervene on the behalf of the family. Little Jimmy was supposed to give a code word if he agreed. He said the word on a taped line. The insider was convicted of misconduct and went to prison. Some how they didn’t have enough evidence to go after McGreevy. Or you can read between the lines and that was one of the reasons he resigned.
They have been cited for animal abuse. I can’t remember the last time it happened. Probably not for a while. The township tries not to play into their persecution complex so they only go after them when they have to.
Almost all of the above.
In general I am sympathetic with their plight. It’s just that you couldn’t pick a worse bunch of people to be a cause’s poster child (children). Actually most of the family is fine. It’s Larry and Clara that are a problem. In fact that is one of the main reasons they didn’t want to sell. There are a large number of family members that are entitled to a piece of the sale price. Something like 30. Most don’t live on the property and many don’t live in the state.
The Halpers will be there during the protest, if there is one. They say they will be joining them throughout the weekend. However the court order says they need to vacate sometime on Monday. They have stated they won’t be there after that time. The protestors are threatening to stay on the property after the deadline which will probably mean they will be arrested.
