Author	Message
Guest	Posted: Fri, Aug 31 2007, 3:48 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: Barclay property sold at auction The Township Committee adopted a resolution Aug. 23 assigning the contract of sale to West Orange Baby, LLC. The $2.1 million sale of the Barclay North and South properties is final. The Township Committee adopted a resolution Aug. 23 assigning the contract of sale to West Orange Baby, LLC. Township Administrator Christine Smeltzer said Tuesday that the sale officially closed Aug. 24 and the township received a check for $2.1 million. West Orange Baby has changed its name from Apples & Oranges Inc. since beating out 15 other bidders, including the next highest bid of $2.05 million, for the property at a June 15 auction. The company is owned by agricultural investor Leslie L. Alexander. Max Spann, president of Max Spann Auctioneers, conducted the June auction and said at the time that he believed Mr. Alexander planned to lease the land to local farmers. Committee member Pari Stave said Thursday she was pleased that the sale had been finalized. "It's a great relief," she said. "The sale has been held up in litigation for far too long. We've wanted to use the proceeds to pay down some of our debt." read more
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.
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.
dinsdale	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!
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.
dinsdale	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!
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.
fred thomsen	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!
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.
farmer gal	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?
Joe	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...
farmer gal	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.
Joe	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.
Joe	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.
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?
farmer gal	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!