"Highlands Act confiscates the value of my property"`
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."
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."
11 Comments:
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
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.
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!
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home