[1967 R50/2]

I already did that. Didn't flinch, no balls. My observations from the article:

1. The article is supposed to be about eminent domain, but...
2. ...it get's sidetracked with all sorts of Mafia illegalities, and....
3. ...never really says why Piscataway condemned the land. "To prevent it's development." Hardly seems like a reason. I suspect there is more because....
4. ...the article says that Piscataway took ownership of the farm in 2004. But the supreme court didn't rule on the New London case until 2005.

So while I don't agree with the new style eminent domain seizures, this doesn't seem like it is one. It's legal history precedes it. It seems very fishy.