Trump administration pushes back on NJ town moving to seize 175-year-old family farm via eminent domain
A longtime family farm in Cranbury, New Jersey, is at risk of being seized by the town through eminent domain.
The situation with the farm owned by brothers Christopher and Andy Henry, which has been in their family for 175 years, recently drew notice from US Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.
Rollins said on X last week that she was 'looking into this situation immediately,' adding, 'We must protect family farms at all costs.
'Whether the Maudes, the Henrys or others whom we will soon announce, the Biden-style government takeover of our family farms is over,' she wrote in a subsequent June 17 post. 'While this particular case is a city eminent domain issue, we @usda are exploring every legal option to help.'
Rollins also said she had been 'on the phone' with Andy Henry.
The farm is under threat of seizure by Cranbury Township after a town committee signed off on a measure that would pave the way for eminent domain seizure, NJ.com reported.
Cranbury Township is looking at possibly building state-mandated affordable housing on a large portion of the farm's land, according to the outlet.
The Henry brothers have reportedly been fighting to prevent the seizure of the farm for months.
5 Christopher and Andy Henry's family has owned the farm for 175 years.
Henry family
The family farm, which is now leased out for cattle farming, has belonged to Christopher and Andy Henry for over a dozen years.
They have poured $200,000 into the property and declined offers of up to $30 million made by developers in that time, NJ.com reported.
While advocating to keep their farm, the Henry brothers have said its proximity to warehouses would not make it a good spot to construct affordable housing and that there are better sites elsewhere.
5 Cranbury is a small town located in Middlesex County.
Google Earth
5 The farm is currently leased out for cattle farming.
Fox News
Their attorney, Timothy Dugan, has also argued the move contradicts the town's work to preserve agricultural land in the area.
FOX Business reached out to Cranbury Mayor Lisa Knierim and Dugan for comment.
Andy Henry told FOX Business correspondent Jeff Flock that the town's move 'totally shocked us.'
Officials have indicated a fair market price would be offered to the Henry family in the event of eminent domain, per NJ.com.
5 Andy Henry told Fox Business that the town's move 'totally shocked us.'
Fox News
Asked about that, Andy Henry told Flock his family 'don't even want to sell it' but said the town 'would offer us a lot less than a warehouse developer would.'
Knierim is seeking an eminent domain takeover of the farm because it would stave off developers pursuing expensive 'builder's remedy lawsuits,' according NJ.com.
She has also said no one 'is in favor of eminent domain' or 'wants to see a farm disappear' in the past, NJ.com reported.
5 US Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pushed back on the town trying to take the farm.
@SecRollins/X
Andy Henry told Flock that Rollins 'said she'd make a few calls' when she spoke with him.
'She did acknowledge that this is not a federal issue, but she's trying to help in any way she could,' he said.
Cranbury Township is located in north-central New Jersey.
The town itself is home to several thousand people, with Middlesex County, the county it falls within, having a larger population of over 890,000.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
26 minutes ago
- Associated Press
California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday over alleged defamation, saying the network knowingly aired false information about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump around the time the National Guard was sent Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges Fox News anchor Jesse Watters edited out key information from a clip of Trump talking about calling Newsom, then used the edited video to assert that Newsom had lied about the two talking. Newsom is asking for $787 million in punitive damages in his lawsuit filed in Delaware court where Fox is incorporated. That's the same amount Fox agreed to pay in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. The company said Fox had repeatedly aired false allegations that its equipment had switched votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden during the 2020 election, and the discovery process of the lawsuit revealed Fox's efforts not to alienate conservatives in the network's audience in the wake of Biden's victory. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences -- just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom said in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet.' He asked a judge to order Fox News to stop broadcasting 'the false, deceptive, and fraudulent video and accompanying statements' that Newsom said falsely say he lied about when he had spoken to Trump regarding the situation in Los Angeles, where protests erupted on June 6 over Trump's immigration crackdown. Fox News called the lawsuit 'frivolous.' 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' the company said in a statement. The law makes it difficult to prove defamation, but some cases result in settlements and, no matter the disposition, can tie up news outlets in expensive legal fights. Particularly since taking office a second time, Trump has been aggressive in going after news organizations he feels has wronged him. He's involved in settlement talks over his lawsuit against CBS News about a '60 Minutes' interview last fall with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. This week, Trump's lawyers threatened a lawsuit against CNN and The New York Times over their reporting of an initial assessment of damage to Iran's nuclear program from a U.S. bombing. Newsom's lawsuit centers on the details of a phone call with the president. Both Newsom and the White House have said the two spoke late at night on June 6 in California, which was already June 7 on the East Coast. Though the content of the call is not part of the lawsuit, Newsom has said the two never discussed Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard, which he announced the next day. Trump said the deployment was necessary to protect federal buildings from people protesting increased immigration arrests. Trump later announced he would also deploy Marines to the area. On June 10, when 700 Marines arrived in the Los Angeles area, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' about his decision to send troops. That day, Newsom posted on X that there had been no call. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote. On the evening of June 10, the Watters Primetime show played a clip of Trump's statement about his call with Newsom but removed Trump's comment that the call was 'a day ago,' the lawsuit said. Watters also referred to call logs another Fox News reporter had posted online showing the phone call the two had on June 6. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' Watters asked on air, according to the lawsuit. The segment included text across the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' Newsom's suit argues that by editing the material, Fox 'maliciously lied as a means to sabotage informed national discussion.' Precise details about when the call happened are important because the days when Trump deployed the Guard to Los Angeles despite Newsom's opposition 'represented an unprecedented moment,' Newsom's lawyers wrote in a letter to Fox demanding a retraction and on-air apology. 'History was occurring in real time. It is precisely why reporters asked President Trump the very question that prompted this matter: when did he last speak with Governor Newsom,' the letter said. ___ Associated Press journalist David Bauder contributed to this report.
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
The ‘revenge tax' is dead before it even started
The Treasury Department and Congress on Thursday moved to kill a so-called revenge tax that was set to raise taxes on foreign investment and had spooked Wall Street and global business leaders. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday announced a deal with G7 partners that will exclude US companies from some global taxes in exchange for the US dropping Section 899 from Republican's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act.' Bessent said in a post on X that he would ask Congress to remove Section 899 from the budget bill. Senator Mike Crapo and Rep. Jason Smith, who co-chair the joint committee on taxation, said in a statement Thursday that following Bessent's request, they would remove Section 899 from the bill. Section 899 was a tax code tucked in to President Donald Trump's budget bill that would have raised taxes on the income earned from US assets held by individuals or businesses in other countries with taxes the US perceived as unfair for American businesses. The provision would 'facilitate penalty taxes on foreign companies operating in the US if their home country is deemed to have a 'discriminatory' tax system,' analysts at Citi said in a note. The tax code was considered a 'revenge' tax because it was designed to retaliate against a global tax framework agreed upon in 2021 by the Biden administration and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, according to Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst at Wolters Kluwer. Former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had negotiated a tax agreement with other OECD countries that included setting a global minimum tax rate of 15%. Republicans had opposed the agreement and thought it was unfair, arguing it ceded authority on taxation, Luscombe said. The 'revenge tax' also was set to retaliate against digital services taxes, or taxes on US tech companies that provide services to users in other countries. Digital services taxes were perceived as 'discriminatory' by the Trump administration, said James Knightley, chief international economist at ING. Trump had previously signed an executive order on his first day in office announcing that tax deals agreed upon between the Biden administration and the OECD were null. Bessent's announcement leaves room for how the United States and other countries might negotiate on taxes. 'The Trump Administration remains vigilant against all discriminatory and extraterritorial foreign taxes applied against Americans,' Bessent said in his post on X. 'We will defend our tax sovereignty and resist efforts to create an unlevel playing field for our citizens and companies.' The so-called revenge tax, which had stirred debates on Wall Street and law firms across the Atlantic, is moot before it even went into effect. There had been back-and-forth debates in recent weeks about the implications of Section 899 and whether it would push global investors away from the United States. The provision had sent shivers up Wall Street's spine as it appeared to be another protectionist policy that would penalize global investors who put their money in the United States. 'Great concern had been expressed by Wall Street and affected stakeholders about the enactment of Section 899 and its impact on foreign investment in the United States, particularly in view of its complexity, potential scope of application and compliance obligations,' attorneys at law firm Holland & Knight said in a note. 'Those concerns have been alleviated for now.' International business groups were in Wasington in recent weeks negotiating with lawmakers. Jonathan Samford, CEO of the Global Business Alliance, which opposed Section 899, told CNN the provision would have 'squandered opportunity and more investment' and contributed to 'further isolation.' 'We're very pleased that President Trump and the administration have pursued this negotiation, and as a result, called for withdrawal of this punitive and discriminatory provision,' he said. 'I commend Chairman Smith and Chairman Crapo for focusing on making the United States the most competitive it can be.' Republicans this week had begun hinting that Section 899 might be negotiable. Director of the National Economic Council Kevin Hassett said in an interview with Fox Business on Wednesday that Section 899 might not be included in the final budget bill. 'You can try to retaliate, but it's probably better to work out an agreement than just have a tax fight, just like we're having tariff fights,' Luscombe said.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
A mystery Microsoft mogul has been quietly assembling the priciest Palm Beach estate near Mar-a-Lago
In a string of blockbuster deals unfolding just north of Mar-a-Lago, a mystery buyer linked to Microsoft has quietly assembled what could become one of the most valuable private estates in the U.S. — a sprawling oceanfront compound in Palm Beach with an estimated price tag between $250 million and $350 million, according to reporting from The Wall Street Journal and The Real Deal. The buyer — whose identity remains unconfirmed but is widely rumored to be Microsoft billionaire Charles Simonyi — has spent the past several months scooping up prime properties on North Ocean Boulevard. According to the Journal, the buyer paid roughly $250 million across four separate deals, while The Real Deal pegs the total value closer to $350 million. Advertisement 8 In Palm Beach, a mystery buyer is quietly assembling one of the most valuable private estates in the country, spending around $250 million so far on a series of high-priced acquisitions near Mar-a-Lago. Getty Images The core of the assemblage comprises two rare oceanfront lots at 1063 and 1071 N. Ocean Blvd., previously owned by cosmetics heir William Lauder. Together, the 2.3-acre parcels offer 360 feet of beach frontage. Lauder, who initially intended to keep the land for personal use, had listed the properties for a combined $177.8 million. Advertisement Sources told TRD the sale went through in February via a transfer of LLCs, rather than a deed, for more than $160 million. 8 The buyer has snapped up four parcels, including two oceanfront lots formerly owned by cosmetics heir William Lauder, a Mediterranean-style home across the street, and a neighboring inland property — all at prices well above market value. Google Maps In June, the same buyer picked up two non-oceanfront homes across the street in separate off-market transactions. A Delaware entity called Creekshore LLC acquired a 3,600-square-foot home at 1066 N. Ocean Blvd. from former Hearst executive Cathie Black and her husband, attorney Thomas Harvey, for $18 million. Advertisement The couple had bought the property for $4.2 million in 2018. 8 The roughly 3-acre assemblage boasts 360 feet of beachfront on North Ocean Boulevard and rivals recent megadeals by Ken Griffin and Jeff Bezos. MEGA 8 Charles Simonyi REUTERS In an email to the Journal, Harvey said he did not know the 'true identity of the buyer,' adding that the offer was unsolicited. Advertisement Next door, another Delaware LLC named Mango Leaf paid $30 million for a 5,800-square-foot home at 1072 N. Ocean Blvd., which last sold for $5.3 million in 2017. Both sale prices far exceeded market value, local brokers told the Journal. Altogether, the assemblage now spans nearly 4.2 acres. If completed as rumored, it would rival Palm Beach's most legendary compounds. 8 One remaining holdout is rock legend Jon Bon Jovi, who reportedly rebuffed overtures to sell his adjacent $43 million estate. Drew Gurian/Invision/AP Billionaire Ken Griffin holds the current record with a 19.3-acre estate assembled for $350 million and expected to be worth over $1 billion upon completion, The Post previously reported. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, meanwhile, has spent about $234 million on Indian Creek Village properties in nearby Miami. While the buyer remains publicly unidentified, incorporation records reviewed by the Journal show ties to Greyson Blue, a Seattle-based attorney with K&L Gates who previously worked for the Gates Foundation. Blue's name appears in the registration of the Delaware entities used in the deals. He did not respond to requests for comment. A person close to the Gates Foundation told the Journal that Bill Gates is not behind the purchases. 8 Though the true buyer remains unidentified, incorporation records link the inland purchases to Seattle-based attorney Greyson Blue, who has ties to the Gates family through his past work at the Gates Foundation. Meghan McCarthy / The Palm Beach Daily News / IMAGN 8 While some speculate Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer or Charles Simonyi could be involved, none have confirmed, and the Gates Foundation denies involvement. Advertisement Simonyi — credited with creating Microsoft Word and Excel — has an estimated net worth of $8.2 billion, according to Forbes. Sources told TRD he is likely the buyer. Other names floated include former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, whose net worth exceeds $140 billion, and Gates himself, whose daughter Jennifer Gates has owned a $33 million equestrian compound in nearby Wellington. Despite the buyer's aggressive push, not every property on the block has been secured. Rock legend Jon Bon Jovi, who owns the mansion at 1075 N. Ocean Blvd., has so far rebuffed offers. 'We just don't have these kinds of large properties available for sale,' said Dana Koch of the Corcoran Group, speaking to the Journal. 'After buying all of these properties at a mind-boggling number, [the buyer] is protecting his investment and affording himself even more privacy.' Advertisement 8 149 E. Inlet Drive. Google Maps Bon Jovi paid $43 million for his 0.7-acre estate in 2020. Records show the 10,000-square-foot home includes six bedrooms, a wine cellar and a gym. Sources told TRD that the buyer is also eyeing the neighboring property at 1055 N. Ocean Blvd., owned by real estate investor William Rickman Jr., who purchased the 1930s-era home for $13.1 million in 2016.
