WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 4682

Prohibits condemnation of farmland actively supporting agricultural or horticultural production for purpose other than agricultural or horticultural production.

2024-2025 Regular Session Introduced by Parker Space and 2 co-sponsors

New Jersey bill prohibits government seizure of active farmland except for agricultural purposes, restricting development-driven eminent domain use on productive farm properties.

Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Economic Growth Committee
#farmland
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 4682

Legislative bill overview

S 4682 would prohibit the use of eminent domain to seize farmland that is actively producing agricultural or horticultural crops, unless the land is being taken for agricultural or horticultural purposes. This effectively restricts a government's ability to condemn productive farmland for non-farm development projects like residential, commercial, or industrial uses.

Why is this important

Farmland preservation is a critical issue in New Jersey, which has experienced significant agricultural land loss due to suburban sprawl and development. This bill directly addresses concerns about protecting New Jersey's remaining productive agricultural land from being converted to non-agricultural uses through government seizure, which has occurred in various development scenarios.

Potential points of contention

  • Infrastructure and development conflicts: The bill could complicate legitimate public projects (highways, utilities, schools, emergency services) that might intersect with productive farmland, potentially forcing costlier reroutes or alternative sites
  • Definition and enforcement challenges: "Actively supporting production" needs clear definition—what minimum output qualifies? How would disputes be resolved, and would litigation increase?
  • Economic impact on municipalities: Local governments relying on tax revenue from converting agricultural land to higher-value development may face reduced economic options for growth and revenue generation
  • Takings law implications: Could create novel constitutional questions about whether restricting eminent domain scope violates broader property rights or governmental authority

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.