Some residents say they want the township to retain ownership of Wright South.
By: Sarah Winkelman
Residents are urging officials to consider maintaining ownership of the 25-acre Wright South property, saying the number of variables associated with selling it are too risky.
At Monday’s Township Committee meeting, John Ritter of Plainsboro Road suggested the committee investigate a co-op program with Rutgers University that would explore farming in the area instead of selling the farm.
"They could farm produce for white tablecloth restaurants instead of farming sod or garden stuff," he said. "That kind of program could lead to a continuation of food being produced in this state."
He said the Garden State is losing its meaning in this area.
"People aren’t farming in the traditional sense anymore," he said. "Nurseries, tree farms and greenhouses are more popular these days. No one grows crops. We need to do our part to encourage that kind of farming."
The Township Committee is considering selling the Wright South property along with the Wright North and Barclay properties. Township Attorney Trishka Waterbury is working on bid specifications associated with the sale, expected to be held at a public auction Oct. 7. The minimum required bid for the Barclay property has been set at $1.1 million and $500,000 for Wright North. Tours of the farms will be held Sept. 2 and 23.
However, the township is considering not selling Wright South, and instead possibly leasing the property. Committee members will continue to seek input from residents and other farmland preservation officials to determine what is best for the township.
Part of the bid specifications for the Barclay property will include a historic easement on the farmhouse. The easement will prohibit future owners from changing the exterior of the house, except for necessary improvements and maintenance. The specifications will ensure that farm buildings be built behind the farmhouse, with the exception of a farm stand, to preserve the view of the house from the street.
Mr. Ritter and Richard Kallan of Wynnewood Drive said they are both worried about what kind of agricultural use would end up on Wright South if it was sold.
"Wouldn’t it be funny if someone put up a greenhouse (on Wright South) after we spend all that money to take one down on the portion we’re keeping for the ball field," Mr. Kallan said.
Committeeman Michael Mayes said farmers would not cover up attractive farmland with a structure.
"It is inconsistent with buying farmland in Cranbury," he said. "We have some of the most attractive soil in the country. Someone is not going to put a greenhouse on soil that is so attractive and productive. It would be counterproductive to do so. We can all conjure up horrible uses, but it is unlikely that it would actually happen."
Rob Baumley, assistant director for the state Agriculture Development Committee, attended Monday’s meeting to answer questions from the committee and residents about the sale of the Wright South property. Mr. Baumley will be auctioneer for the sale.
Mr. Baumley told the committee that because the Wright South property is in Farmland Preservation and must be used for agriculture, maintaining ownership of the land would allow the township to control the types of farming done on the property.
However, the township would be responsible for maintaining the property and could lose money by leasing instead of selling the land.
"No one likes to see farmland not being used for agricultural purposes so the question is, is retaining the land just a short-term fix because you aren’t ready to put it on the market or is one of your long-term goals to lease the land," Mr. Baumley asked.
He also said leasing the land might make it more affordable for a local farmer.
"But if you lease, you want a long-term lease, not someone coming in for a year to drain the land and move on," he said.
When asked if the township should sell the Wright and Barclay parcels together, Mr. Baumley said there were pros and cons to every decision.
"You have a market either way," he said. "There are always going to be people looking for larger lots for field crops or multiple uses, but a larger tract is more costly. Lumping the properties together doesn’t mean you’re going to get more money for the land. A smaller piece might be good for someone who can’t afford a larger parcel. Either way there aren’t really any disadvantages."