Summary: ACR 171 — Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Eminent Domain for Active Farmland
Overview
- Bill: ACR 171 (Concurrent Resolution)
- Title: Proposes constitutional amendment to prohibit use of eminent domain to take active farmland in certain circumstances
- Status: Introduced in the New Jersey General Assembly on July 24, 2025; referred to Assembly Commerce, Economic Development and Agriculture Committee
- Companion: SCR 136 (Senate companion)
Purpose and Intent
- The measure would amend Article VIII, Section III of the New Jersey Constitution to strengthen protections for land actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use.
- Core aim: prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take farmland for non-farming purposes, with a limited exception intended to preserve farming uses.
Key Provisions
1) Amendments to Article VIII, Section III, paragraph 1
- (a) Retains existing authority related to clearance, replanning, development, or redevelopment of blighted areas as a public purpose, including the ability for public, municipal, or private entities to undertake these activities and to receive tax exemptions for limited periods.
- (b) Adds a new prohibition on eminent domain for land actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use. Specifically:
- The State, counties, municipalities, school districts, and other public entities, as well as private entities to whom they delegate powers, may not take or acquire by eminent domain land actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use.
- An exception applies only if the property is restricted in perpetuity to continued agricultural or horticultural use (i.e., the land may be taken only if, after taking, it is permanently limited to farming uses).
2) Election and submission process
- After final agreement, the amendment would be submitted to voters at the next general election occurring more than three months after final agreement.
- Publication requirements: at least three months prior to the general election in newspapers designated by Senate President, Assembly Speaker, and Secretary of State.
3) Ballot text and interpretive statements
- Ballot language would present a Yes/No question: “Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Use of Eminent Domain for the Acquisition of Active Farmland” with an accompanying explanatory statement.
- YES interpretation: explains the proposal to prohibit eminent domain for acquiring property actively devoted to farming.
- NO interpretation (interpretive statement): explains that the amendment would ban taking farmland for non-farming uses, while allowing a taking only if permanently restricting the land to farming afterward.
- General statement: clarifies that the amendment would apply to the State and local governments (and related public entities), and would limit eminent domain power for active farmland with the perpetual-use restriction exception.
Who/What Would Be Affected
- Governmental and public bodies: State, counties, municipalities, school districts, and local public entities would be restricted from using eminent domain to acquire land actively used for agriculture/horticulture (except when the land is permanently restricted to farming).
- Private entities: Private corporations acting on behalf of these public bodies could not exercise eminent domain to take active farmland, except under the perpetual farming-use restriction scenario.
- Private farmland owners: The measure provides stronger protection against non-farming takings but would still permit a government acquisition if the resulting use is permanently limited to farming.
Procedural and Timeline Considerations
- Requires voter approval via a general election, scheduled at least three months after final agreement.
- The ballot will include specific Yes/No language and interpretive statements to aid voters in understanding the amendment.
- This is a concurrent resolution; it would not take effect unless voters approve the constitutional amendment.
Impact and Context
- Policy effect: Strengthens protections against the use of eminent domain to convert active farmland to non-farming uses, aligning with farmland preservation objectives.
- Potential implications: Could limit government ability to assemble land for development projects that require taking farmland, unless perpetual farming restrictions are applied. Advocates view it as a safeguard for agricultural land; opponents may raise concerns about development flexibility and eminent domain используется for broader public purposes. The companion Senate measure (SCR 136) indicates cross-chamber consideration.
