From the Times Trenton:
Restrictive Highlands Act
A Letter From Constance Bartel
“The Highlands Act confiscates the value of my property, and I strenuously object. The sanctity of private property is a cherished American principle. It is at the heart of the famous American Dream — the house, the home unquestionably owned and controlled by the family who earned it, paid for it and protected it. The words “No Trespassing” make the point.”
“But it is the Highlands Act itself that is trespassing. Its restrictions on what a land-owner can do on his property, its rules, fees, penalities and labyrinthine procedures are so extreme — so cut-and-slash — that many New Jerseyans simply don’t take it seriously. The reaction is automatic: “That can’t be constitutional, can it?” ” What is this — Russia? China?,” etc.”
Dear Ms. Bartel:
I read your letter with interest. In fact, you left out half the story. You see, you own not one but 2 properties. You’ve talked about the property whose value, you say, has been diminished by the Highlands Protection Act. You object, and you want compensation.
Ms. Bartel, what about your OTHER property? You know, the one in the middle of nowhere, worth nothing until my tax dollars helped build the interstate nearby, and now has a market value in the millions? Ms. Bartel, I vigorously object to subsidizing your windfall. I want compensaton!
Funny, isn’t it, how people like Ms. Bartel only mention one side of the coin, isn’t it? Now, I’d be willing to pay Ms. Bartel her compensation — out of a fund generated by undeserved taxpayer subsidized windfalls on the second type of property.
Over to you, Ms. Bartel…
[sound of crickets chirping]
Who are you anon? You’ve got some interesting background on this piece. I’d like to hear more.
grim
“That can’t be constitutional, can it?”
No simple answer. The constitution does prevent takings without just compensation, but this isn’t a physical taking; it’s a regulatory taking. In essence, the government is taking away some of the value of the land. As long as the land still has reasonable economic worth, you are not entitled to compensation. The government isn’t obligated to let you use your land for it’s highest economic potential. After all, we have zoning laws that prevent you from doing all kinds of things with your property. If the government goes too far in taking the value from your land, you might have a claim under the takings clause of the US constitution. Look for many court cases on the issue.
grim, I have no information that Ms. Bartel actually owns a second property such as I describe above at 7:55. I was pointing out, using a hypothetical second property, that “property rights” activists take a position that is, imho, totally hypocritical, since I have never once heard them object to private windfalls subsidized by taxpayer improvements to infrastructure.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Hey Grim. How about barring any anonymous comments. So many people with opinions, yet they hide behind “anonymous.”
A credible as their writings sound, it is hard to take them seriously.
Just my $.02.
Off Topic:
Recent article in either the Bergen Record or Herald News from May 16.
http://tinyurl.com/qmtn2
Most of Pohatcong was originally out of the Highlands. The municipality asked to be included because they were afraid of becoming Greenwich. She only has her town council to blame.
As for the taking, I agree with rentinginnj up to a point. If you read the regs, they are draconian. Even if you are exempt you are expected to sign an easement that explicitly allows monitoring of the property as well as limits your use of the parts outside of your home.
Nice ad hominem attack, um, er, “Mr. Oliver.”
Care to say something of substance about the issue?
Over in New York City, landlords have tried for decades to eliminate rent protection laws for exactly the same reasons Ms. Bartel complains of in her letter. (I know this because my former landlord took his case all the way to the US Supreme Court.) And here’s the response: you don’t like being regulated? Then sell to someone who doesn’t mind.
Oh, but you can’t make a hundred times what you bought the property for now? Well, that’s too bad, isn’t it. Perhaps you’d be happier if the regulations allowed you to sell and then took a portion of your profits to ensure that the rest of the citizens of NJ have some clean drinking water and a few old-growth trees, rather than a detention basin and a spindly maple in front of a McMansion.
JustBeachy said…
“Perhaps you’d be happier if the regulations allowed you to sell and then took a portion of your profits to ensure that the rest of the citizens of NJ have some clean drinking water and a few old-growth trees, rather than a detention basin and a spindly maple in front of a McMansion”
There are very few stands of old growth trees. The trees in NW Jersey which are large and plentiful are only 65 years old. Somerset County has the oldest stand in the state and it is only several acres.
I think I like Mr. Oliver’s idea. Even though I am still “anonymous”, it does take out the confusion.
Also, when reading the comments it would make it rather easy to decide if you would rather skip a certain person’s comments! I don’t know if you noticed but some people say the same thing over and over and over.
Mandatory? I don’t know.
Recommended? Yea, I think that would work.
If it ever gets out of hand then Grim could always pull the trigger.
My comment was not intended as an attack at all. As I said, many of the opinions sound credible.
My point was that, as “RichInNorthNJ” pointed out, it is hard to keep all anonymous people straight, to figure out who is talking.
Again, no attack intended. As someone that is trying to get into his first home, in Essex county, this blog is a wealth of info and opinion.
Keep it up, Grim!
I am not aware of all that caused Highlands act, but I think there was not enough debate when the law was passed. I am not sure why there was so strong majority support.
I do believe, the prices in NJ have gone at much higher rate then lets say PA, is due to restrictive supply. Here are some observations from NJBA. I know most will say they will always like more housing as it benefits them. But you can not argue with data.
http://www.njba.org/lpps/Comments04.04.06.pdf
when homeseekers have asked “where will we live?” public policy has replied “elsewhere!”
In the past five years, New Jersey’s housing prices – new and
existing homes – are up 86%. Over that same period, household incomes have risen by
less than 15%.
The interplay of those numbers is expressed in the “housing affordability index” – a
comparison of household incomes to housing prices. New Jersey’s housing affordability
index is 20 points below the national level – and dropping!
Last year (2005), New Jersey’s starts were 48% below the all-time record (set in 1950).
They were 31% below the most recent peak (reached in the mid-80s).
Interestingly looking at Countywise Housing permit data, Somerset has 50% less in 2005 then 1997, while in Morris county, suddenly you have significant percentage jump in 2005.
SOMERSET County
2,146 1997
2,508 1998
2,146 1999
2,282 2000
1,439 2001
1,530 2002
1,260 2003
1,362 2004
1,105 2005
MORRIS county
1,622 1997
1,881 1998
1,853 1999
2,684 2000
1,577 2001
1,914 2002
1,555 2003
1,427 2004
2,521 2005
These county permits have been increasing as well.
ESSEX
1,171 1997
844 1998
1,343 1999
1,491 2000
1,548 2001
1,588 2002
2,235 2003
2,343 2004
3,117 2005
HUDSON
702 1997
1,788 1998
1,921 1999
1,338 2000
1,116 2001
1,534 2002
2,116 2003
3,808 2004
4,699 2005
For all other counties, the numbers have been very similar, no significant change.
Shailesh,
Regarding the numbers that you stated: are they ALL permits (including the renovations on the existing houses) or only NEW construction permits?
The first “anonymous” makes an interesting (and I think good) point.
I don’t really understand how a law like the highlands act is really going to strip the value away from someone’s land. Sure, you probably won’t be able to sell it to an investor for development purposes. But what about someone who values peace & quiet, clear open space; fresh air and a community free of McMansion-itus?
As I posted on another thread, I’ve been doing a great deal of bike riding in western NJ (what a beautiful state this is from the seat of a bicycle!) But what makes it beautiful I think, in no small part, are those tiny little signs I see that say “Preserved Open Space”—which I think has to do with the Highlands Act–right?
We can’t develop and pave over every inch of the state.