We have noticed an interesting trend of types of supporters for Green Path?s push to mandate commercial farming on not just the Green Villagers, but on all of Chatham. This article will showcase the types of supporters we have seen come and go to their cause. It will also highlight a disturbing trend: the emergence of the real estate business developers.
Initially, their supporters were compromised of Green Path?s client base and their friends from the Green Village Fire Company. Two of the company owners became volunteer fireman and appear to have successfully used that relationship to gain some very vocal and quite annoying. Some of the Firefighters made it a point to find reasons to blare their sirens, honk their horns, and yell profanities at our homes at 2 a.m. in the morning. Actions by the neighbors put an end to that pretty quickly.
The next group of supporters is a group we have termed the Greentards. After it became apparent that Green Path?s activities were in fact illegal under a towns zoning. Their political supporters completed a brilliant rebranding of their story. They were no longer the poor landscaper/farmers pursuiing their constitutional freedoms to use their property as they saw fit. They just needed a warm, fuzzy story to tug at the heart strings. That was when we noticed the emergence of the environmentalists. If you opposed this Ordinance, you were now branded a hater of Mother Earth. After all opposing a Green company is like stabbing Mother Earth in the womb and bringing about the death of all humanity! Yeah right!?
Currently most of these supporters have fallen off the radar screen. However, the new brand of supporters are the business interests. Anyone that can make money off this Ordinance seems to be coming out of the wood work. We have seen it before with the local Green Villages businesses. Clearly, Green Village Garage makes no secret that Green Path pays them good money to operate out of their parking lot. Lets face it that is small change compared with what the real estate developers can do with this Ordinance.
So far, we have noticed two companies actively pushing this Ordinance that are in the business of land development.
The first rather benign example we saw of this interest was from a person claiming himself to be Brian Rutter who posted this comment on the local Chatham Patch online newspaper.
?In watching this issue, I have seen a tremendous amount of emotionalism without any basis to support it. We see a web site called Save Green Village, and we are told that this is a ?big risk?. Okay, fine. Just what is the threat that is so dire that it actually threatens Green Village? That some guy with 8 acres of land on two parcels wants to grow fruit and vegetables and sell them? Seriously? What is the ?big risk?? That this might encourage someone else to do the same down the road? What is the big deal here? We are not talking about ConAgra or Tyson coming in and plopping down some corporate farm on a thousand acres.
Let?s look at this from the other side. Why should the anti-farming folks have the right to tell this person ?you cannot do with your land what you want to do with it, because we don?t like it?? We all give up a degree of freedom for the benefits of living in society, but this is ridiculous. There is simply no compelling public interest to justify denying this person the use of his land.
There is a principle that the Supreme Court has developed in free speech cases, called the Clear and Present Danger test. This principle holds that the state may only place prior restraint on speech when it can demonstrate a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the state has a legitimate interest in preventing. I think we need to consider a test of this nature any time the government proposes to restrict the actions of the citizens.?
We in Green Village have learned when they describe us as ?anti-farming? than something bad is coming next about us. However, in this case the guy tries to make pseudo intellectual argument for why property rights trump everyone?s civil liberties. Since discussing that will lead to us falling asleep, we will just move on.
The next appearance of Brian Rutter on the farm issue was oddly enough in a story about sidewalks in Chatham. Here in response to an unamed poster comments:
I hope her intentions are good, because this is a very good thing. However, the last ordinance pushed by Abbott was so her personal landscaper (Green Path Landcare) could move their business into a residential area. Perhaps, we should ask the question whether any of her friends are concrete contractors?
Brian Rutter?s rather passionate retort was as follows:
To Anonymous:
If you are going to accuse a committee member of ethical violations such as these, you should at least have the courage to sign your name.
In addition to being a cowardly ad-hominem attack, you have not gotten your facts straight. While this is not the place to debate the farm ordinance, Green Path had already purchased the Green Village Property, and the question was not whether they could operate their landscaping business from that property, but whether they could, with an adjoining property owner, raise produce there to sell at farm markets elsewhere.
Cowardly attacks which anonymously impugn the motives of those with whom you disagree, and which offer no supporting evidence for the attack, do nothing but poison the atmosphere for debate.
Brian Rutter
Clearly this level of anxiety is nothing new to us in Green Village, but it honestly seemed a little misplaced in Chatham as a whole. It is also one thing to call out an Anonymous poster, but to argue details of the Green Path stance seemed odd. A little internet search brought a lot of interesting news to light on this Brian Rutter.
His Linkedin profile describes him as follows: Accomplished Real Estate Executive with proven track record of success in acquisitions, dispositions, and asset/portfolio management. Results oriented leader combining strategic, operational, and project management skills to achieve superior risk adjusted returns for investors. Hands-on experience with foreclosures, workouts, and redevelopment/repositioning of underperforming assets across all property types. Expertise in market analysis and selection, as well as development of acquisition and portfolio strategy. Proven ability to create and develop teams, and inspire them to superior performance. Licensed New York Broker.
There he is listed as a Chief Executive Officer at Chatham Realty Advisors LLC and you can follow that link here. Nothing in his public foot print gives any indication of support for farming or organic farming in particular.
In response, one of our members, Rich Templin, posted this retort to Brian Rutter.
Brian,
Something didn?t seem right about this post. So I looked up the real Brian Rutter and I don?t you are him. See this link: http://chathamrealtyadvisors.com/principals.html
Brian Rutter is a real estate developer and former real estate agent. He is also apparently a father and former Boy Scout Scoutmaster.
I don?t you are him for a number of reasons. First, I don?t think Brian is going to put his name behind a scheme that could be used by real estate developers to make money. Second, as a former real estate agent, I don?t think Brian is going to put his name behind a classic ?break a neighborhood? scheme. Finally, Brian Rutter is a former Boy Scout Scoutmaster. As an Eagle Scout, I can tell you without even knowing the man that he would not point out a ?conflict of interest? while implicating himself in one.
Whoever, you are?stop the impersonations! This guy seems like a good man, with a good business, and doesn?t need you ruining his name. And a note to Team Brower/Sullivan get your people under control! This behavior is not fitting of people in Chatham.
Now we have seen the Green Path members and supporters using fake aliases before, so it is very reasonable to suspect this isn?t the real Brian Rutter. However, if it is, why does a real estate developer with no apparent enjoyment of farming seem so passionate about this issue?
The next public appearance of a real estate developer was at the final adoption. A individual identifying himself as Ronal Gunn who owned property adjacent to the Green Path property on Green Village Road. Much like the Green Path property, the property cannot be developed due to the presence of wetlands, location adjacent to a public park, and the fact that it is on a restricted, protected waterway. Mr. Gunn passionate speech was recorded on the Chatham Patch and can be linked from here.
A review of public records revealed that Ron Gunn is in fact an owner of a real estate development company. He is a resident of Madison and has multiple projects going on in Chatham. He also shows no footprint of supporting farming in any capacity other than the Market Garden Ordinance. Here are a couple stories he was featured in:
Twp. Developer Promises No Road Closures
Township Developer Promises Responsibility for Maintenance
Now if we are right at Save Green Village, under the Right to Farm these real estate developers could make a lot of money using provisions of the law. For instance, the owners would receive tax benefits which improves the saleabililty of existing homes and would support premium pricing on the market. Additionally, the Township has allowed Green Path to make substantial changes to their property which includes the filling in of wetlands and terraforming of the property without the need for DEP or Township approvals. Finally, the Right to Farm ironically provides incentives for owners to actually subdivide farmlands to be created as housing developments.
Whether these individuals intend on profiting from this Ordinance is yet to be seen. It is definitely interesting to not their level of support and watch for their future actions related to this Ordinance.
dandelion wine cough matt groening brandon phillips summerfest summerfest fidel castro
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.