| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
news
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Jun 22 2007, 8:50 pm EDT Post subject: Barclay property sold at auction |
 |
|
Apple and Oranges Inc. paid $2.1 million
The township auctioned the Barclay North and South properties for $2.1 million on June 15.
Apple and Oranges Inc. was the highest bidder at the auction.
According to Max Spann, president of Max Spann Auctioneers, Apples and Oranges Inc. is owned by a private individual who invests in agricultural properties. The individual did not want to be identified.
"Their plan is to — at least initially — lease it out to local farmers," Mr. Spann said.
The Township Committee will vote Monday to accept or reject the bid. The money made from selling the property will go toward paying down debt from the township's $3.5 million purchase of the land in June 2000 from the Barclay family. The land is deed restricted for agricultural use.
Committeeman Richard Stannard said Monday that the township is looking forward to putting the matter to rest. The township's previous attempt to auction the property in October 2004 was derailed by a lawsuit.
...
(more) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
farmer gal
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jun 24 2007, 9:50 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold to land speculator |
|
|
| So that's it?? After public tax dollars are dumped into this property to preserve it, then to litigate over it, the Twp. may wind up selling it to a land speculator?? Apples and Oranges? Just seems like the pits to me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jun 25 2007, 8:34 am EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold to land speculator |
|
|
| farmer gal wrote: | | So that's it?? After public tax dollars are dumped into this property to preserve it, then to litigate over it, the Twp. may wind up selling it to a land speculator?? Apples and Oranges? Just seems like the pits to me! |
The land is deed restricted for agricultural use, so are you implying that the land can be used for other purpose (say to build houses) in the future?
BTW, the town paid $3.5 million for the land in 2000. Why paid such a high price then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jun 25 2007, 7:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold to land speculator |
|
|
| farmer gal wrote: | | So that's it?? After public tax dollars are dumped into this property to preserve it, then to litigate over it, the Twp. may wind up selling it to a land speculator?? Apples and Oranges? Just seems like the pits to me! |
I don't understand your point. In the end, the Township got exactly the result it always planned. It bought the land to avoid it being used for purposes other than farming (like home or commercial development), then used this sale to get much of its money back, but after having permanently deeding it for agricultural use. The company that bought it buys farm land for farming, not home or commerical development.
Seems like a great job by the city with a great result -- preserved farm land and open space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jun 25 2007, 7:10 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold to land speculator |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | farmer gal wrote: | | So that's it?? After public tax dollars are dumped into this property to preserve it, then to litigate over it, the Twp. may wind up selling it to a land speculator?? Apples and Oranges? Just seems like the pits to me! |
The land is deed restricted for agricultural use, so are you implying that the land can be used for other purpose (say to build houses) in the future?
BTW, the town paid $3.5 million for the land in 2000. Why paid such a high price then? |
Because at the time the land could have been used for other development, which made it more valuable. They had to pay a fair market value for the land. By making to protected farmland they reduced its value, but preserved open space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
farmer gal
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 11 2007, 6:46 am EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| Guest Joe: I think you have a few facts wrong. First of all, preserved farmland is not "open space" - the public is not allowed to access it. Second, what do you know about "Apples and Oranges" being a company that specializes in retaining farmland? So is Bryce Thompson, the first successful bidder on this farm years ago (who could be the principal in "Apples and Oranges, for all we know). He purchases tax subsidized preserved farmland, holds onto it for a while, intending to flip it at a fabulous profit at some point in the future. That's what's called land speculation, and why should the public help finance private profit? Better that the Township hold onto preserved farms and create community farms on them. Instead you'll just have the same GMO field corn or sybeans growing on this farm year after year -- where's the public benenfit in that? OK, so you get some wildlife habitiat, some groundwater recharge, yada, yada, yada. Other than that, you won't even get a Jersey tomato out of the deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jul 11 2007, 9:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| farmer gal wrote: | | Guest Joe: I think you have a few facts wrong. First of all, preserved farmland is not "open space" - the public is not allowed to access it. Second, what do you know about "Apples and Oranges" being a company that specializes in retaining farmland? So is Bryce Thompson, the first successful bidder on this farm years ago (who could be the principal in "Apples and Oranges, for all we know). He purchases tax subsidized preserved farmland, holds onto it for a while, intending to flip it at a fabulous profit at some point in the future. That's what's called land speculation, and why should the public help finance private profit? Better that the Township hold onto preserved farms and create community farms on them. Instead you'll just have the same GMO field corn or sybeans growing on this farm year after year -- where's the public benenfit in that? OK, so you get some wildlife habitiat, some groundwater recharge, yada, yada, yada. Other than that, you won't even get a Jersey tomato out of the deal. |
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the townships goal was to prevent development on the land and preserve open space -- not PUBLIC space, open space -- space that retains fields rather than development. They accomplished that by buying it at the fair market development when it was land that could be developed, then selling it at fair market value when it had been re-zoned to prevent development, which naturally reduced its market value. Adam Smith at work. Your suggestion sounds more like Karl Marx at work. While it sounds like a noble idea -- a community farm -- and I would have no objection to someone donating it, I for one agree with the townships decision not to tie up over $3M in debt to this idea. They paid a NET price after the sale that was necessary to avoid development, but not more than they had to. Holding onto it to avoid the possibility of someone private later profiting from it makes the township and all its tax payers the land speculators instead. The township doesn't need to be in that business... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
farmer gal
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 17 2007, 7:11 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| So rumor has it that Apples and Oranges is owned by the owner or one of the owners of the Houston Astros. Still can't wrap my head around how it's good for NJ state tax payers that someone who probably lives out of state should be enriched by the state/county/municipal farmland preservation program? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Aug 19 2007, 12:52 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| farmer gal wrote: | | So rumor has it that Apples and Oranges is owned by the owner or one of the owners of the Houston Astros. Still can't wrap my head around how it's good for NJ state tax payers that someone who probably lives out of state should be enriched by the state/county/municipal farmland preservation program? |
Well, this is a free country that loves capitalism. If it is not illegal, then I assume they don't mind making profits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fred thomsen
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 21 2007, 9:04 am EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
Wait a tick!
Town buys land for 3.5 million.
Town sells land for 2.0 million.
Thats not Adam Smith nor Karl Marx.
Sounds like a another gop republican scam that we Americans have been bamboozled by again.
Public money exists ONLY to serve Private interests is their mantra! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 21 2007, 10:34 am EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| fred thomsen wrote: | Wait a tick!
Town buys land for 3.5 million.
Town sells land for 2.0 million.
Thats not Adam Smith nor Karl Marx.
Sounds like a another gop republican scam that we Americans have been bamboozled by again.
Public money exists ONLY to serve Private interests is their mantra! |
Wait another tick!
As I understand it, the land was a residential/commercial property before the town bought it. The town made it a farm land and auctioned it off to the highest bidder.
As you know, a residential/commercial property worths more than a farm land property. The town incurred a loss, but preserved a land for farming. I think that's a smart move.
Of cause, I hope the current owner cannot make the land a residential/commercial property again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dinsdale
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 21 2007, 8:17 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| Yes. But, perhaps the town should've kept the land and just leased it out. Maybe with some kinda farm subsidy thing, they might have made out better. Farms are good tax write-offs! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 21 2007, 8:59 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| We looked seriously at buying a house in Cranbury that had farm land attached that was leased. It was a pretty trivial fee that basically broke even with the additional farm taxes for the land. I can't imagine leasing it would generate remotely the same value for the City as the up-front sale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dinsdale
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 21 2007, 10:09 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| Yeah.........but the town could at least sit on it until the value went up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Aug 21 2007, 10:27 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| dinsdale wrote: | | Yeah.........but the town could at least sit on it until the value went up! |
The town has to pay the interests for the 3.5 million loan and property tax while sitting on it. And, it's tough to time the market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Aug 23 2007, 7:53 am EDT Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction |
|
|
| It looks like the Barclay Farm will be sold to West Orange Baby, LLC and/or Leslie L. Alexander. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
