Board should not discuss landowner equity

Over the past 2.5 years, the Upper Freehold Planning Board has been wrestling with the land use component of the master plan. Many ideas have been floated, not the least of which were hamlets and village centers. I might add that these ideas weren't the brain children of the Planning Board members themselves, but of the township planner, Mark Remsa.

Having been present at many of the larger Planning Board meetings held at the school auditoriums, it became more and more obvious that certain members of the Planning Board were very much pro-hamlet or village center as development options than just straight uniform zoning at the 3- or 5-acre rate. During the discussions, limited to the members and the planner, there were multiple times when the words "maintaining landowner equity" came out. Much of that has its basis in what I believe to be irrational fears that different zoning scenarios might devalue lands that the larger landowners hold.

When talk of farmland preservation comes up, there is apparently a perception that some people have what amounts to this - "Once I sell my land's development rights to the state, that's it. That's all the compensation I will receive." That couldn't be further from the truth. All that really happens is that a deed restriction is placed on the land that prohibits its use in the future for anything other than farming activities. The land has not been sold; the development rights have been sold. The landowner, thus, gets a wad of cash from that deed-restriction transaction; he can still live on and farm the land until he dies or decides to sell it. When that decision point comes, a buyer is sought and the landowner and the buyer must form a contract that is attractive to both. Assuming the terms are agreeable, the buyer takes possession of the deed-restricted property to operate it as a farm and the previous landowner walks away with yet another wad of cash in hand. Now, between these two payments, it is hard to see how the landowner has lost anything in the process.

The situation that New Jersey finds itself in is that the landowners who seek the farmland preservation status are being compensated for the sale of the development rights at a rate (appraisal) that is more along the lines of values expected from developers, and this has caused the funds availability from the Garden State Preservation Trust fund to diminish to near zero. Greed for the moment is paramount; conservancy for posterity takes a back seat, if it was even in the vehicle in the first place.

When talk of downzoning comes up, there is a perception that such zoning strategy will diminish the value of an entire parcel. I question that thinking as well. If I have 100 acres of land, all of which could be used for development without avoiding wetlands and other obstacles, and I were to subdivide according to 3-acre zoning, I could expect to get 33 building lots from that acreage. If my 100 acres in the aggregate were appraised at $1 million, then each acre would be worth $10,000. Therefore, a 3-acre lot would be worth $30,000. Suppose, however, that the zoning is for 10-acre lots. The value of the land is still $1 million. However, I can only get 10 lots from the acreage. The land value is still $10,000 per acre. Now, the 10-acre lot would be worth $100,000. So, where have I lost any equity? The zoning at 3-acre or at 10-acre would appear to make little if any difference in the $1 million aggregate value. Nobody is leaving the table shortchanged.

The master plan and the zoning as described in the land use element of that plan does not, by law, have to yield any guaranteed value to anyone; indeed, that's not the purpose of the plan. The purpose of the plan is to set forth how the ultimate appearance and development of the township will proceed. Things such as landowner equity are governed by market forces and by private contractual agreements between sellers and buyers. The master plan should not involve itself in any way with those matters, directly or indirectly. And by logical extension, the enabling ordinances for implementing the master plan should not involve themselves in any way with those matters, either.

In conclusion, there is no good, justifiable reason why the discussion of landowner equity should be pursued by the Planning Board. If it continues to be discussed, then it is evident there are conflicts of interest with those Planning Board members who promulgate the discussion, and the immediate removal of those members should be very seriously considered.

Walter Helfrecht

Upper Freehold Township