According to the listing there are three bedrooms and a couple baths. If you could live above it that would make owning the store a much more viable proposition.
Buzby's is up for sale.....
- Thread starter 46er
- Start date
Judging from the pictures the living space looks real nice. She did a nice job restoring the building.
It would be awesome to own a place with history like Buzby's!
Chris
I wonder if the contents of the house and store are included in the price. Taxes are $5500+/- per year and assesed at $350,000 for the past 4 years.
Yep, and that's based on the $350K assesment, who knows what it would become at some point if it sells for near the asking price.
It could sell for anything and be assessed for whatever. Can't believe Chatsworth is so expensive!
guess it isn't the only place for sale in the neighborhood
http://www.trulia.com/property/1042653932-4265-Route-563-Chatsworth-NJ-08019
http://www.trulia.com/property/1042653932-4265-Route-563-Chatsworth-NJ-08019
Nice bit of local history, but sadly no way you can make enough money to pay a mortgage even if you lived upstairs. The only way the place will be saved is by somebody with money that can pay cash. Just not enough people going past through the year. Rembember it's in the Pine Barrens and listed historic. The DEP would never allow a gas station to be put there again and it already has an issue with the old tanks from Buzby's. Then to top it off with the economy and the owner is probably going to be greeting people for years to come.
I think he makes a good point. It'd be hard to be profitable in that store with a half million dollar mortgage payment over your head. Property prices in Chatsworth are ridiculously out of control.
Are places like Buzby's to be preserved for locals, or will their potential be packaged up by politicians and handed over to outside developers? We need to have frank discussion on the economic fate of Pinelands Villages. This issue is upon us, and decisions are being made that may forever change the character of 47 valued villages on 26,000 acres. I'd like to see plans that help local interests, not corporate interests; plans where historical and cultural attributes will be preserved and protected as envisioned by the Comprehensive Management Plan.
Redevelopment, new “town-in-town” projects, are spurred on by burgeoning water and sewer requirements. This is the current push. Redevelopment can be controversial, since it often “forcibly displaces poor and lower middle class populations and turns over their land to wealthy redevelopers for free or for a below-market-value price” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redevelopment). It is gentrification. Additionally, eminent domain is included within Pinelands redevelopment plans, which, at least to me, is disturbing.
(Above). Diagram used by the municipality when quietly purchasing project parcels with public funds.
According to the Atlantic City Press (6/16/05), in their quest for Richland Village land, “[Township] officials cannot provide any details of the possible land acquisition until negotiations are completed,” so few in town were aware of what was going on.
S-M
Redevelopment, new “town-in-town” projects, are spurred on by burgeoning water and sewer requirements. This is the current push. Redevelopment can be controversial, since it often “forcibly displaces poor and lower middle class populations and turns over their land to wealthy redevelopers for free or for a below-market-value price” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redevelopment). It is gentrification. Additionally, eminent domain is included within Pinelands redevelopment plans, which, at least to me, is disturbing.
(Above). Diagram used by the municipality when quietly purchasing project parcels with public funds.
According to the Atlantic City Press (6/16/05), in their quest for Richland Village land, “[Township] officials cannot provide any details of the possible land acquisition until negotiations are completed,” so few in town were aware of what was going on.
S-M
Spung-Man and all, wouldn't Executive Order 13406 have some impact on eminent domain and shady backdoor deals associated with Pineland redevelopment? Is there a grey area with public/private development of the Pinelands that can get around current laws in place that are suppose to prevent dealings of a lesser nature? The Fifth Amendment and the just compensation clause limits eminent domain and the private property that is taken just for "public use". Wouldn't land grabs be illegal if a private party develops them?
Gibby,
The Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), affirmed eminent domain's legitimacy. Its use continues today. If it isn't needed, why then does it continue to be included in new plans? For example the Township Solicitor insisted on its inclusion at both Richland Village and Comar Place, when I knew perfectly well that wasn't necessary.
Oddly, there is a hole in redevelopment law as it pertains to the Pine Barrens. By 1989 memorandum of agreement, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) ceded its redevelopment jurisdiction to the Pinelands Commission (PC), yet the PC has little authority over redevelopment since the mechanism is not addressed in the CMP. The State Development and Redevelopment Plan apparently does not apply to the Pinelands (see p. 4 in link below).
For three years I have tried to figure out who has oversight of Pinelands redevelopment. No one could or can tell me where to go, including councils for the PC, the DCA, and the Local Finance Board. Even the State's Office of the Attorney General was unable to direct me. Apparently State redevelopment statutes can be cited but then ignored with impunity within the PNR. Civil protection provided in the name of redevelopment law is simply an illusion in the region.
Buzby's, while iconic, is but one of a number of threatened cultural treasures. I'm sure we can come to some agreement on how to save Pinelands heritage. It must not be squandered for short-term gain by a few.
S-M
The Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), affirmed eminent domain's legitimacy. Its use continues today. If it isn't needed, why then does it continue to be included in new plans? For example the Township Solicitor insisted on its inclusion at both Richland Village and Comar Place, when I knew perfectly well that wasn't necessary.
Oddly, there is a hole in redevelopment law as it pertains to the Pine Barrens. By 1989 memorandum of agreement, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) ceded its redevelopment jurisdiction to the Pinelands Commission (PC), yet the PC has little authority over redevelopment since the mechanism is not addressed in the CMP. The State Development and Redevelopment Plan apparently does not apply to the Pinelands (see p. 4 in link below).
For three years I have tried to figure out who has oversight of Pinelands redevelopment. No one could or can tell me where to go, including councils for the PC, the DCA, and the Local Finance Board. Even the State's Office of the Attorney General was unable to direct me. Apparently State redevelopment statutes can be cited but then ignored with impunity within the PNR. Civil protection provided in the name of redevelopment law is simply an illusion in the region.
Buzby's, while iconic, is but one of a number of threatened cultural treasures. I'm sure we can come to some agreement on how to save Pinelands heritage. It must not be squandered for short-term gain by a few.
S-M
Gosh Gibby, I'm not a lawyer, so these are simply musings of a Piney. In current Pinelands use, it is the government who has redevelopment authority. Even if eminent domain were strictly within government's balliwick, that land will eventually be turned over to a private entity - with a publicly-subsidized sewer plant and ten-year tax abatement. Pretty convenient, eh?
Spung-man, it is just good discussion. I still have an anti-government streak in me and issues that you brought up, make me want to rise up in opposition.
It would be nice to know who makes the final decisions?
I think Buzby's is pretty safe from being razed by a developer. It being on the National Register of Historic Places offers some protection to that fate. I'll be visiting Marilyn this week to do some Christmas shopping.
Woodland Township
Buzby's General Store (ID#4239)
3959 Couty route 563
SR: 1/16/2004
NR: 3/25/2004 (NR Reference #: 04000222)
Hopefully somebody will buy and operate it out of love. From a business point of view, I have to believe that you would basically be "buying a job" at best.
46er:
The only protection offered through being listed on the National Register of Historic Places is against a government entity taking the building and demolishing it without due process. For a private owner, the National Register is simply a source of pride and a new owner could purchase the building tomorrow and tear it down without any consequences, unless the local municipality has a local historic preservation ordinance within its code. On the other hand, if Burlington County decided to turn Route 563 (Main Street) into a four-lane road using federal funds, which would necessarily require the demolition of Buzby’s, given its location relative to the side of the road, the county would have to enter into consultation with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and the New Jersey Historic Sites Council. If the county demonstrated no viable alternatives existed for taking the building, the county would then have to enter into negotiations for mitigating the loss of a NR-listed resource. Such mitigation measures could include HABS recordation; publication of a brochure on the history of Buzby’s and Chatsworth; restoration of another building in town using Secretary of Interior standards, etc. But in the end, the building would still be lost.
Best regards,
Jerseyman