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.”

Link

Marxism in action at the local level.

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 general welfare, not just Dem voters.

It promotes welfare for Democrat voters. Gives them free housing so they can spend their time as activists for their Marxist handlers in groups like BLM, Antifa and others

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

Oh my sweet summer child.

(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.

ain' no bout adout it, eh?!

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.

Eminent domain for nearly anything is just plain fuckery.

(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.

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

(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.

That's a sucker bet.

(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.

Kelo v. City of New London.

I helped on an amicus brief that was filed in that one.

Ha!
I wrote a term paper on it in GS.

Rather pissed me off, actually.

Nothing more than legalized gubment theft. I haven’t thought of that in forever, why would I, but I don’t think they ever followed through with building the development they stole the property for.

Here’s one for the Louisville folks. Back in the late 60s the city of Louisville invoke eminent domain to take a farm that abutted the Louisville Zoo property to have it for expansion of the zoo. They ended up going in other directions and never used the property. In the 1990s the city was offloading excess properties and sold the land to a developer that subdivided the land sold off lots. The subdivision was $400,000 houses back then, and the subdivision was part of the annual “Homearama” which featured certain neighborhoods.

Anyway, after the development was nearly built out and many of the homes were sold, the heirs of the original farm came back and sued the city over the initial use of ED. They won the case which means they got the property back along with everything that had been constructed on that property. So you can imagine the issues, there were dozens of families that had bought $400,000+ houses and gotten mortgages. The banks were covered because they require title insurance and this was definitely a miss by the title companies. The problem is that most people get mortgage title insurance, but they don’t get an owner’s policy. So if they had paid cash or put down a substantial Down payment that money was just gone. That meant all those folks also sued the city and the title companies plus the banks.

In the end the city and title companies ended up just paying a large settlement with the heirs to make it all go away. That’s how it should work.

(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.

I think that was in New Jersey as well.

And I think it was just an "economic development" project. Not a road. Not "affordable housing."

Never been a fan of eminent domain.

Nobody besides the government is.

It has a place. For example, Louisville had to use it in some cases for their airport expansion. Most people sold willingly because they were offering generous prices for homes in no so great neighborhoods, but there’s always the few that hold out.

Looking at the map of that township the local government had other options west of that farm.