Quote:US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that the USDA is moving to assist the New Jersey farmer whose 175-year-old family farm is facing seizure by local government through eminent domain.

Rollins posted on X that she had spoken directly with the farm’s owner, Andy Henry, after Cranbury Township approved a plan to take his 21-acre property for the development of affordable housing.

“The city govt has approved seizing his 175-year-old family farm via eminent domain for affordable housing units,” Rollins wrote. “Whether the Maudes, the Henrys or others whom we will soon announce, the Biden-style government takeover of our family farms is over. While this particular case is a city eminent domain issue, we @usda are exploring every legal option to help.”

Rollins also posted a link to the USDA Lawfare Complaint Form, a web portal for “potential farmer, rancher, and USDA customers who have fallen victim to unfair and politically motivated lawfare originating under the Biden Administration.”

Henry’s farm, located on South River Road in Middlesex County, has remained in his family since 1850, surviving generations of hardship and waves of nearby development. It is now the last working farm in an area overtaken by industrial warehouses and distribution centers.

“My family sacrificed on this land for 175 years,” Henry said, according to AgWeb. “All the other farms disappeared. We did not. We will not.”

The farm was purchased by Henry’s maternal great-grandfather in 1850 and has withstood generations of hardship, including a house fire in 1879, the death of Henry’s grandfather in 1936, and increasing development around it. Despite the construction of the New Jersey Turnpike nearby in 1952 and a connecting exit in 1972, the farm has remained intact while neighboring properties were sold off and replaced.

In 2012, Henry and his brother inherited the farm, which is now leased for cattle and sheep grazing. He says the offers to sell have ranged between $20 million and $30 million, but he has never been tempted.

“Didn’t matter how much money we were offered,” Henry said. “We saved the farm no matter what. We turned down all the offers to preserve the legacy for our family, city, and even state.”

That preservation effort is now under threat. In April, Cranbury Township sent Henry a letter notifying him that his property had been selected as the site for new affordable housing units. The letter stated that if he refused to sell, the land would be taken through eminent domain. The township committee officially approved the plan on May 12.

“It was incredibly stunning,” he said. “The letter said if I didn’t agree on a price—they’d take my land by eminent domain.”

Timothy Duggan, Henry’s attorney, criticized the township’s actions as “misguided and rushed,” arguing that the use of eminent domain in this case is inappropriate.

“Government behavior should be the opposite—preserve instead of destroy,” Duggan said. “This is not a proper, reasonable use of eminent domain. No way.”

“Andy Henry could sell out for tens of millions of dollars to developers and walk away. It’s mind-boggling in this day and age to think you have someone genuinely standing on principle, but that’s who Andy Henry is, and that’s how much he wants his 175-year-old farm protected. He’s preserving history at no cost to the public,” he added.

Duggan noted the farm's continued agricultural use and its historical value, calling it a “special” site. “There is an architect from upstate New York scheduled to visit the house and look at the porch because he wants to be accurate in one of his rebuilds. That speaks to the amazing historic condition of Andy’s place, and to think the city government chooses to erase it defies common sense.”

(06-21-2025 06:37 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Eminent domain is for projects promoting the general welfare, not just Dem voters.

(06-21-2025 06:37 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Eminent domain is for projects promoting the [i]general welfare/i], not just Dem voters.

(06-21-2025 09:10 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-21-2025 06:37 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Eminent domain is for projects promoting the general welfare, not just Dem voters.

Oh my sweet summer child.

(06-22-2025 10:10 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Eminent domain for nearly anything is just plain fuckery.

(06-22-2025 09:36 AM)banker Wrote:  The SC screwed up when they ruled ED could be used by govt to facilitate private development. Can’t remember if that was when Bush or Obama was in office, but it was a hotly debated issue. Our bank made the decision we would not finance projects where the govt did that. Before that decision, ED could only be used for govt projects like roads and such.

(06-22-2025 11:41 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 09:36 AM)banker Wrote:  The SC screwed up when they ruled ED could be used by govt to facilitate private development. Can’t remember if that was when Bush or Obama was in office, but it was a hotly debated issue. Our bank made the decision we would not finance projects where the govt did that. Before that decision, ED could only be used for govt projects like roads and such.

Dollars for donuts the people that voted to approve this are getting greased.

(06-22-2025 10:14 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 10:10 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Eminent domain for nearly anything is just plain fuckery.

Agreed. It should be limited to things deemed absolutely essential, not "just because" or whatever excuse they're using now.

And the debate originally started under GWB. There may have been a SCOTUS ruling on this under Obama though. I just dont't remember.

(06-22-2025 09:36 AM)banker Wrote:  The SC screwed up when they ruled ED could be used by govt to facilitate private development. Can’t remember if that was when Bush or Obama was in office, but it was a hotly debated issue. Our bank made the decision we would not finance projects where the govt did that. Before that decision, ED could only be used for govt projects like roads and such.