New Jersey Senate Bill S1861

New Jersey 2024-2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/24
• Refer: 1/9/24

Caption

Bans foreign ownership of agricultural or horticultural land and agricultural woodlands in State.

Impact

The implications of S1861 on state laws include an expansion of property regulations concerning foreign ownership. This bill addresses increasing concerns over national security and local agricultural sustainability. By restricting foreign ownership, it aims to preserve local control over agricultural resources and maintain the agricultural identity of the state. However, the bill also includes provisions that allow for certain exceptions, such as acquiring land through specific legal processes related to debt collection, which may permit limited foreign involvement under controlled circumstances.

Summary

Senate Bill 1861 aims to prohibit foreign ownership of agricultural or horticultural land and agricultural woodlands in the State of New Jersey. The bill asserts that no foreign government or foreign person shall acquire, purchase, or obtain any ownership interest in such land after the bill's effective date. Foreign entities that currently own land are permitted to retain their interests for a limited time but must divest their holdings within five years, ensuring that ownership transitions to entities that are not foreign governments or persons. A deed of easement will be attached to ensure that the land remains used for agricultural purposes.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding the bill may arise from concerns about restricting foreign investment and its potential economic consequences. Critics may argue that such measures could deter foreign capital, which is often integral to agriculture and land preservation efforts. Additionally, the bill's restrictions on land ownership could raise concerns regarding property rights and could conflict with international treaties, given its stipulation that any provision inconsistent with treaties shall not apply. This could lead to legal challenges from affected parties who may question the constitutionality of such sweeping prohibitions.