logo
The town wanted his farm for affordable housing. Then came the MAGA storm

The town wanted his farm for affordable housing. Then came the MAGA storm

CNN24-07-2025
Just steps off a busy road, tucked at the end of a gravel driveway within eyeshot of the New Jersey turnpike, a small herd of cows and goats grazes freely in a grassy, open field. It's an unexpected location for a farm, bordered by warehouses and the ever-present roar of cars and trucks, but this property has been in the hands of Andy Henry's family since before the Civil War — his grandfather and mother were born in the white wooden farmhouse next to the pasture.
Now, Henry is locked in a fight to preserve the farm in Cranbury, central New Jersey. The township reached out to buy the site for affordable housing and says it's willing to invoke its eminent domain power to seize what it needs if Henry and his brother refuse to make a deal.
It's a small property in a small town, but the issue has turned into a lightning rod for MAGA supporters around the country and even attracted the attention of the Trump administration.
Fox News and the New York Post picked up the story. Strangers have raised $135,000 online for Henry's legal defense, left a barrage of comments on social media and flooded the town's administrator with calls.
'Our town clerk has forwarded all of us on the township committee dozens and dozens of hateful voicemails,' said Matt Scott, one of the town's five elected representatives. 'You f**king commie, libtards, you know, the f**k do you think you're doing? You're not American, you're just stealing from the taxpayer, you need to give that f**king farm back,' he recounted some of the messages.
He said he understood why they are attracting so much attention. 'People are pissed, generally, in the country. They feel like the governing structures are not listening to what they're doing, and something like this comes up. All they hear is that this five Democrat member committee in this town is seizing this hard-working farmer's family legacy. … I think it's an easy target for people.'
For Henry, the saga began in April, which he says was the first time he heard Cranbury was interested in the farm. He and his wife received a letter stating the town had identified the property as 'suitable for redevelopment' for affordable housing.
'Certainly, it is always the Township's preference to acquire property by mutual agreement with the property owner,' a lawyer for the town wrote at the time.
'However, when the Township is unable to reach a negotiated agreement with a property owner, the Township is authorized by law to initiate an action with the Court to formally acquire title,' it continued, noting the town would pay 'just compensation' for the land.
'It was a shock,' Henry said. 'Ever since then, we've been pushing back in whatever way we could.'
Henry no longer lives on the farm — he hasn't since the '90s. He and his brother, Chris, inherited the property in 2017 when their father died, but both had settled in New Mexico. They now lease out the farmland — those animals out in the pasture, affectionately dubbed 'New Jersey cows' for their love of pizza and bagels, belong to a local farmer.
After receiving the letter, Henry returned to Cranbury, where he went before a meeting of the Township Committee later in April — pleading with them to consider alternative sites.
Scott, who has served on the committee since 2018, was moved.
'It was a complete mic drop moment,' he said. 'I felt terrible. I was like, wow, I didn't know we were doing this. There has to be another option.'
The Henry farm had come to the attention of the township as a deadline approached for Cranbury to lay out its plans for fulfilling its constitutional obligation for affordable housing. It's something every community in the state has to do in accordance with what's called the Mount Laurel doctrine — a series of state supreme court decisions dating back to 1975 that mandates each municipality provide its 'fair share.' Cranbury, with its population of fewer than 4,000 living in about 1,400 households, had to say by June 30 where it would add 265 affordable housing units, to be built over the next 10 years.
One plot of land, whose owner was willing to sell, was identified as a site to develop several dozen units. Finding space for the rest, however, proved near impossible. Scott said about 50 properties were evaluated against strict state-mandated criteria, such as sewer, water, proximity to mass transportation, and distance from warehouses. Aside from the Henry farm, one after the other was found unsuitable.
Missing the deadline to file the plan would have opened up the community to what is known as 'builder's remedy' — effectively free rein for developers to bypass planning and zoning rules, which could lead to big developments, population increases, and higher taxes — straining town resources and costing residents.
'I feel like I was elected to do the greater good,' Scott said. 'I completely understand how this could be seen as the workings of a heartless, powerful government. But my primary responsibility is to the taxpayers of Cranbury, to the parents of the school kids in Cranbury, and I feel like the greater good is served by making sure that we get this affordable housing built, that we do it without a builder's remedy, and we do it without bankrupting the town.'
Despite Henry's pleas, Scott said the committee — which had spent 13 months reviewing sites — had determined 'there was no other option.' In May, the township government voted unanimously to pass an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of the Henry farm 'through voluntary negotiations or through the power of eminent domain' — on the grounds that satisfying the affordable housing obligations is 'in the public interest.'
Cranbury might feel like a small town caught up in the rules of the state, but Andy Henry feels he's David fighting the Goliath of government. Neighbors and friends helped him launch a campaign to save the farm, which attracted local and then national attention. Once the story reached a fever pitch, town meetings became tense. Public comment was filled with Henry supporters, who lambasted committee members for their decision.
'It appears jumping to conclusions and villainizing those serving in public offices has become a norm in the US,' Mayor Lisa Knierim said at a town meeting in May. 'Doesn't mean it has to in Cranbury.'
The Trump administration also stepped in. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins posted about the farm on X, saying: '(T)he Biden-style government takeover of our family farms is over. While this particular case is a city eminent domain issue, we @usda are exploring every legal option to help.' Henry said he's spoken to her directly, and someone from her team now has a check-in with his lawyer weekly.
When Henry, 72, and his brother grew up here in the 1950s, the land was used to farm wheat and soybeans. Back then, the property was surrounded by farmland as far as the eye could see. Now, Cranbury has two distinct parts: next to I-95, much of the area has been rezoned as 'light industrial,' attracting massive warehouse development. There's still local farmland, most of which is across another major road, spreading west from the center of the community founded in the 19th century. The Henry farm is in the more industrial area while most of the agricultural land on the other side is designated 'preserved farmland' that cannot be developed.
An affordable housing consultant, speaking on background due to the sensitivity of the situation in Cranbury, told CNN the Henry farm would get a strong score on the state rubric grading how suitable a site is for development into homes. He said a property must come close to perfect to qualify for state funding.
One question not being debated here is the need for affordable housing. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition found that New Jersey is over 200,000 units short on affordable housing, and Matthew Desmond, a sociology professor at Princeton University, has noted that when the nearby township of Cherry Hill unveiled 29 affordable apartments in 2021, 9,309 people applied.
Mark Berkowsky of Cranbury Housing Associates, a local firm that has been involved in previous affordable housing projects but was not consulted on this plan, told CNN the need in Cranbury specifically is clear, though he disagrees with building on the farm.
'We have a waiting list that is usually about two years for people to get into affordable housing,' he said.
Even Andy Henry understands and is sympathetic to the need for housing, though he doesn't think his property should be the location. 'They have to build affordable housing, and we're not opposed to that,' he said. 'It's how much and where.'
The plans formally filed with the state show that Cranbury is seeking to buy a little over 11 acres of the 21-acre property. The farmhouse where generations of Henry's forebears grew up would be untouched.
Even with that concession, Henry is not interested. 'It would just kind of take away the soul of the farm,' he said, adding no amount of money could get him to sell, though there have been 'countless' offers over the years from developers.
'They just keep going up and up and I'm not trying to negotiate with them, I just say no, there's no plans to sell in the foreseeable future,' Henry said. 'Right away they'll come back, 'So how about if we give you a few million more dollars?' And it's like, 'I'm not trying to negotiate with you, I mean what I said.''
The great hope for both sides seems to be that an as-yet unknown landowner will step up and be interested in having the township buy their property for development, sparing the farm.
But for now, the next stages of the battle are taking shape, watched both locally and nationally.
Last week, Henry got a letter from the town noting that it would like to schedule an appraisal — the first step in an eminent domain proceeding, to determine the fair market price to be paid if the town forces the sale.
For his part, Henry is awaiting a judge's ruling on whether he can add his farm to a preservation order, protecting it from development.
Asked why that's not something he'd done before, Henry said: 'We didn't see the threat coming from the town. We knew developers were interested in it; most of them will ask politely and we'll politely say no. We didn't see the town coming.'
CNN's Linh Tran contributed to this story.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Miss United States Lindsey Langston accuses Rep. Cory Mills of threatening to publish her nude pics, sex videos
Miss United States Lindsey Langston accuses Rep. Cory Mills of threatening to publish her nude pics, sex videos

New York Post

time14 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Miss United States Lindsey Langston accuses Rep. Cory Mills of threatening to publish her nude pics, sex videos

WASHINGTON — The reigning Miss United States is accusing Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) of threatening to make public sex videos and nude pictures of her — and 'harm any men' she went out with in the future — after she ended their relationship earlier this year upon finding out he was seeing another woman. Lindsey Langston, who was crowned in October, reported the shocking sextortion attempt by Mills, 45, to the Columbia (Fla.) County Sheriff's Office July 14, according to a document obtained by The Post. 'Since February 20th of 2025, Cory has contacted Lindsey numerous times on numerous different accounts threatening to release nude images and videos of her, to include recorded videos of her and Cory engaging in sexual acts,' the report stated. 4 Miss United States pageant winner Lindsey Langston alleged the shocking sextortion attempt by Mills, 45, to the Columbia County Sheriff's Office in Florida on July 14. Lindsey Langston / X 'The threats were made when Cory believed Lindsey to have other romantic partners in her life after the breakup.' Langston, 25, provided screenshots of text and Instagram messages from Mills that were later entered into evidence and 'forwarded to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for further review,' according to a spokesman for the sheriff's office. Anthony Sabatini, an attorney who represented Langston briefly and challenged Mills in a 2022 GOP primary, published at least three of the purported messages on X Wednesday, saying they were 'a criminal violation of Florida's sexual extortion statute 836.05—a 2nd degree felony.' 4 'The threats were made when Cory believed Lindsey to have other romantic partners in her life after the breakup,' the police report stated. Columbia County SO 'I can send him a few videos of you as well,' Mills allegedly taunted his ex in one exchange. 'Oh, I still have them.' Mills and Langston, a GOP state committeewoman, had been dating since November 2021 and sharing a house in New Smyrna Beach, Fla., since May 2024 after the congressman claimed he finalized his divorce from estranged wife Rana Al Saadi. But in February 2025, Sarah Raviani, an Iranian-American Republican activist, revealed her 'significant other for over a year' had 'grabbed her, shoved her, and pushed her out of the door' at the same location as Mills' Washington, DC, penthouse apartment, according to a police incident report reviewed by NBC Washington. Raviani — who was left with 'bruises on her arm which appeared fresh,' according to the report filed with the Metropolitan Police Department — declined to press charges and later issued a statement calling the incident 'a personal matter' and added that she was 'severely jet-lagged,' 'had been drinking' and the bruising was 'the result of medical conditions like eczema and activities from my recent trip to Dubai.' 'While the personal matter in question was emotionally charged, there was no physical altercation,' Raviani said. The incident report seen by NBC showed Raviani allowed cops to listen to a recorded phone call in which Mills 'instruct[ed] her to lie about the origin of her bruises' and that he had himself 'admitted [to officers] that the situation escalated from verbal to physical.' 4 Mills and Langston, a GOP state committeewoman, had been dating since November 2021 and sharing a house in New Smyrna Beach, Fla., since May 2024 after the congressman claimed he finalized divorce from his estranged wife. Getty Images Langston confronted Mills after seeing news reports about the dispute with Raviani, but the congressman stressed he 'was not in a romantic relationship' with another woman and argued that 'the press fabricated the story,' according to the sheriff's office report filed last month. 'Lindsey then found a social media account for the other woman and saw photos of her with Cory,' the latest police report noted. Raviani still has a picture of her and Mills posing together from mid-March posted on her Instagram account. Mills was dinged by his landlord last month at the luxury Washington, DC, apartment where the alleged February assault occurred for evading $85,000 in rent — but claimed it was the result of a faulty web payment portal. 4 The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which didn't immediately respond to requests for further records of the incident, is now taking over the investigation into Mills' threatening texts to Langston. Lindsey Langston / X The pad, which enjoys a scenic view of the Potomac River and sits just a short walk from the National Mall, has a hefty $20,833 per month price tag, The Post was unable to locate any divorce filings for Mills or Al Saadi, who cofounded a weapons company in the 2010s that is still based in northern Virginia. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement didn't immediately respond to requests for further records of the incident or investigation. Reps for Mills' office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA
Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA

New York Post

time14 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Back in your lane, bureaucrats: ‘Endangerment' rollback restores sense to EPA

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, climate change wasn't on anyone's mind. Yet under an Obama-era decision known as the 'Endangerment Finding,' the Environmental Protection Agency has claimed authority under the act to micromanage large parts of the American economy in the name of combating global warming. President Donald Trump's proposal to reverse the finding returns the Clean Air Act to its original purpose, marking the end of a failed effort to control the climate through executive fiat. The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to determine whether carbon dioxide qualified as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts warned that the decision 'ignores the complexities' of addressing global warming through the statute — but suggested its effects 'may be more symbolic than anything else.' He couldn't have been more wrong. In his first year in office, President Barack Obama sought to push a bipartisan climate bill through Congress — but when lawmakers failed to act on his terms, he turned to executive authority. In 2009, Obama's EPA responded to the high court's decision and declared that six greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare — and therefore required regulation. Unfortunately, the structure of the Clean Air Act is not conducive to regulating CO2, because it's designed to regulate industry. Yet CO2 is not just emitted by factories and cars but by every human, frog, parakeet and muskrat, among other animals. The act required federal permits for any source that emitted more than 100 tons per year of an air pollutant. By this measure, some families would need permits just to maintain their households under the Endangerment Finding. Realizing that the law could sweep up hundreds of thousands of stores, apartments, hotels and other small establishments, the agency said it would regulate only sites emitting more than 100,000 tons of CO2 — a number it picked out of thin air. The EPA's attempts to use the act to regulate emissions unleashed endless litigation. In 2014, the Supreme Court overturned the 100,000-ton permit standard, which two justices called 'patently unreasonable.' In 2022, the Supreme Court said that the EPA's mandate to shut down a substantial part of the nation's coal-fired power plants and substitute them with gas and renewables also couldn't be squared with the act. One sticking point was that the Clean Air Act focused on regulating emissions through technological additions to cars and factories, such as smokestack scrubbers. But unlike other pollutants, there's no easy way to capture greenhouse gases: If you burn fossil fuels, the CO2 must go somewhere, and that generally means into the atmosphere. The only way to control most greenhouse gases is to mandate less use of fossil-fuel-derived energy. Such mandates were never the purpose or intention of the Clean Air Act. Absurd actions resulted. Cars and trucks are some of the main emitters of CO2, and they were the focus of the EPA's original finding. But no technologies exist to eliminate CO2 from gas-powered vehicles, so the EPA simply imposed stricter gas-mileage standards — even though Congress had already established a separate Transportation Department program to regulate fuel economy. The Biden administration went further, issuing rules under the finding that would require about two-thirds of new cars and trucks to be electric by 2032, an attempt to overhaul the entire American automobile fleet. The estimated costs surpassed $1 trillion, making them among the most expensive regulatory actions in history. And because the government also offered separate subsidies for electric vehicle purchases, the regulations stood to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit — again, without any congressional approval. These regulatory contortions reveal the folly of using questionable statutory language, rather than clear congressional action, to make major decisions that reshape American society. Those who view climate change as an existential threat have a duty to persuade the public of that claim. If addressing climate change truly requires making sweeping changes to how we live, then advocates must build a broad-based coalition to pass laws mandating those changes — not bypass the democratic process through executive fiat. Trump's proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding, detailed in over 300 pages by the EPA last week, will put a stop to regulations that swelled the deficit, raised prices and hurt consumers. It will also restore Congress' original understanding of the Clean Air Act, stop a flood of ineffective executive mandates — and make overreaching bureaucrats get back in their lane. Judge Glock is the director of research and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Adapted from City Journal.

Hey, experts — admit what you got so wrong on Trump's tariffs
Hey, experts — admit what you got so wrong on Trump's tariffs

New York Post

time14 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Hey, experts — admit what you got so wrong on Trump's tariffs

Economists across the political spectrum predicted that President Donald Trump's trade negotiations would end in disaster. Now that his Aug. 1 deadline has passed without the sky falling — and with multiple advantageous deals completed — it's time to seriously reevaluate the flawed arguments the experts made against his strategy. Many, it turns out, made basic errors in economic reasoning. Advertisement On the left, Nobel laureate and Columbia professor Joseph Stiglitz declared in January that Trump's policy was 'very bad for America and for the world,' while University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers called it 'impressively destructive.' On the right, prominent free-market advocates like George Mason's Donald Boudreaux also voiced strong opposition. Advertisement Yet their arguments against tariffs revealed a fundamental misunderstanding: They decried tariffs as uniquely harmful, while ignoring that the same logic applies to all taxes. Take the common critique that tariffs, as a tax on trade, reduce trade overall. Phil Gramm and Larry Summers — one conservative, one liberal — jointly argued that tariffs 'distort domestic production' by pushing resources toward less efficient uses. They warned tariffs would slow economic growth. Advertisement That's true. But every tax, including sales taxes and income taxes, discourages trade, distorts production and reduces growth. Sales taxes lower consumption. Income taxes discourage work. Corporate taxes deter investment. All taxes distort the economy — tariffs are no exception. Advertisement Another frequent claim is that tariffs hurt consumers. Again, true — just as all taxes do. Logically, opposing tariffs simply because they raise prices and reduce growth means we should oppose all taxes. But unless we abolish government spending — which stands at $7 trillion this year — we need taxes of some kind. That's why economists usually argue for minimizing the total economic damage that all taxes cause across the board. Distortions increase as tax rates do. Before Trump's policies, the average US tariff rate stood at just 2.5% — tiny compared to the 43.4% average top personal income tax rate (including federal and state taxes) or the 27.5% average total corporate tax rate. If we understand a tariff as a tax like any other, higher tariffs could in fact reduce the overall economic burden on American individuals and companies — an outcome that Trump has often touted as his ultimate goal. Advertisement It's unclear whether a 15% tariff is optimal, but it seems apparent now that a 2.5% rate was too low. Economists also missed how negotiation tactics work. Trump began with aggressive tariff threats, horrifying many economists — but the results speak for themselves. The United States has secured deals that dramatically opened foreign markets representing 55% of global GDP. Advertisement Even critics have had to acknowledge the shift. 'To avoid worst of Trump tariffs, [the European Union] accepted a lopsided deal,' The Washington Post conceded, while the London-based Financial Times described how the EU 'succumbed to Trump's tariff steamroller.' 'Under the new deal, US goods into Vietnam will not be taxed while Vietnamese exports will face a 20% US tariff,' the South China Morning Post explained — in coverage that described Hanoi's 'optimism' regarding the agreement. So while the United States is imposing higher tariffs on many imports, other countries lowered or removed their tariffs on American goods, and dropped many of their non-tariff barriers as well. Advertisement These are significant wins that economists failed to anticipate, and that few thought remotely possible even six months ago. Experts also ignored yet another of Trump's reasons for increasing tariffs: as a means of providing for national defense and global freedom of the seas, costs that Americans have borne for a century. Ideally, other countries would help pay for these efforts — how about they just send us a check for the share of benefits they are receiving? Advertisement But since that's not about to happen, tariffs may be the only viable alternative. Trump's trade policies defied economists' dire predictions, delivering substantial gains in opening foreign markets to American exports without tanking the US economy. If tariffs can help lower more damaging taxes while advancing strategic national interests, they deserve a more honest and nuanced evaluation. At the very least, economists should have the guts to admit they were wrong — and take a hard look at their conventional wisdom. John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, is an economist who has held research or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Wharton Business School, Stanford, Yale and UCLA.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store