What are you gonna vote for on the $400 million for open space???

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by LINative

Especially since there are some older areas that can fixed up before we waste any new land.

Back in December 2006 (if I remember correctly) I was involved in an epic fight on this forum in which I countered the "NJ has no decent housing under $500,000" arguments with MLS listings of what I considered to be perfectly fine houses in places like Netcong (or even slightly closer in). Sure, some needed some cosmetic work, but I was blasted by people with their "nobody would want to live in a dump like Netcong", "that's too far to commute", "that house is ugly", yada, yada, yada. When it came down to it people in NJ just seem to prefer a subdivision in Sparta or Apline over an older home in need of minor work in a place with potential, such as Netcong. As long as NJ residents buy the mantra of "new suburban house = superior", you're always going to have high demand for new housing developments that will cause the erosion of even more open space in an already heavily-suburbanized state while existing urban centers continue to decline.

Even with my recent keen interest in Phillipsburg I've found many great homes for under $150,000 that would be only an hour's commute to major white-collar employment centers. While people could very easily buy a $150,000 home here instead I noticed a flood of new housing developments with homes priced well over twice as much just outside the town boundaries (yet still within the city's questionable school district, which I still don't understand since families aren't obviously then fleeing due to a "bad" school district). I can guarantee many wouldn't even consider the $129,000 dream home I posted in that thread for a wide array of reasons.

Why isn't NJ investing in existing brownfields and grayfields like these before bulldozing forests for more McMansions? It just doesn't make sense to me at as to how this is "good" long-range urban planning.

[JERSEY MAN]

My usual vote of no never goes anywhere because people love to spend money on different projects. So I'm going to vote a no again because we are mortgaged to the hilt(sp). So this translates into this issue passing because I haven't picked a winner in years. Might as well throw in a couple of billion for the stem cell research that Corzine tried to ram down our throat a couple of years ago. Maybe if the candidates didn't spend a 100 million for elections THEY could donate the money for these projects.

[9mm Mike]

I'll have to vote NO on this one. I heard the money is wasted on parking lots and skate parks. I think we have a lot of parks and skate parks already. Remember our taxes will be going up because of the Obamathon spending. Think about that before you vote.

[Obrero]

GREEN ACRES, WATER SUPPLY AND FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION, AND FARMLAND
AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOND ACT OF 2009

Background:
If approved, this public question will allow the State of New Jersey to borrow up to $400 million by issuing
general obligation bonds of the State. These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the State with
principal and interest paid from the State budget.
The Bond Act allocates the $400 million as follows: (1) $218 million will be used for the Green Acres program,
which acquires land or rights in land that protects water supplies and preserves open space, including parks, fish
and wildlife habitat, and flood prone or affected areas, and also funds park improvements and facilities; (2) $146
million will be used for farmland preservation purposes; (3) $24 million will be used for the “Blue Acres”
program, by which the State may purchase from willing sellers, for open space preservation purposes, properties
that are prone to or have incurred flood or storm damage; and (4) $12 million will be used for historic
preservation purposes. A portion of the funds is allocated to provide loans and grants to local governments and
to provide matching grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations for the purposes of the act.
The Act provides a process for recommending the projects to be funded with the bond proceeds, and requires the
Legislature to adopt legislation to fund such projects. The Act provides that not more than 5% of the authorized
bond amount can be used for salaries, equipment, materials and similar costs necessary to administer the
programs
Funds made available for similar purposes from previous bond acts and dedications are near depletion, and
additional funding is required to continue such programs.

Reasons to vote “yes”:• Open space and historic preservation provide numerous benefits, such as support for tourism, protection of
our water supply, and maintenance of wildlife diversity. Farmland preservation supports an economically
viable agricultural industry.
• Land costs are relatively low at present due to the national economic recession.
• Use of a bond issue allows the state to purchase additional open space without increasing taxes (although tax
revenues may be needed to cover payments in the future).

Reasons to vote “no”:• The State already has a large debt burden, which must be paid off. The state's finances are in poor shape at
this time, which raises concerns about new expenditures or debt.
• If certain purchases are seen as critical, alternative funding mechanisms could be chosen for them that do
not involve additional borrowing.
• New bond issues every few years do not provide a stable, sustainable source of funding for open space
preservation.

[lwnj]

Originally Posted by Obrero

GREEN ACRES, WATER SUPPLY AND FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION, AND FARMLAND
AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOND ACT OF 2009

Background:
The Bond Act allocates the $400 million as follows: (1) $218 million will be used for the Green Acres program, which acquires land or rights in land that protects water supplies and preserves open space, including parks, fish and wildlife habitat, and flood prone or affected areas, and also funds park improvements and facilities;

(2) $146 million will be used for farmland preservation purposes;

(3) $24 million will be used for the “Blue Acres”
program, by which the State may purchase from willing sellers, for open space preservation purposes, properties
that are prone to or have incurred flood or storm damage;

and (4) $12 million will be used for historic
preservation purposes.

Thanks Obrero for the info.

I have mixed feelings about this. I want to vote for (1), since watersheds and water supplies are worth protecting.

But I don't want to vote for (2) and (3). I heard news report several years ago that the Open Space program benefited those long time township officials, who are also the land owners in the town. Usually when they want to cash in their farmland, some developer would buy the land surrounding their old existing house and put a development on it, making the original house look like a lone awkward house on the main road. With the Open Space fund, those township officials shamefully used it for their own advantage and sold the land to the government instead of developers (at the expense of taxpayers of course). (Unless it's the Rutgers researchers get to strategically decide what land to buy, then I'd vote for it.)

As for flooded homes in (3) - It's noble to help out those folks whose house were flooded. But how many newer developments have been deliberately built in 50-year flood zone, flood buffer zone, and near wet lands in recent years? Too many I have seen, and those buyers know it since the bank required flood search. In case they really get flooded, why should the taxpayers be paying for it? Shouldn't they get the flood insurance if their house is in high-risk area? What if something like Trenton flood and Bound Brook flood happen again? Are we buying half of the town? $24 million could be depleted quickly.

I would vote for it if it's (1) alone. But with all these...it's a tough call.

[doc1]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

but also force people to reinvest in existing urbanized areas that are undervalued, hence making NJ's long-troubled cities (Newark, Camden, Trenton, Phillipsburg, East Orange, etc., etc.) more desirable in the long-run.

It's not the govt's job to force people where to live, send their children to school and so on regardless of one's ideas of a social utopia.

The idea a forcing people to live in a city appeals most to those who like the aspects of urban life. Many, many of those with children have absoutely no interest in that. Hence the suburbs.

It's not my charge in life to make "Newark, Camden, Trenton, Phillipsburg, East Orange, etc., etc. more desirable in the long-run."

Having some bureaucrat in Trenton making those decisions for me is unthinkable.

Those cities have enough citizens to make that happen provided they really want to.

[doc1]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Perhaps I'm just a masochist, but I've never had a problem voting for additional taxes if it meant that my children could have a better future. I voted in support of an additional tax measure back in PA and was surprised it was voted down. :

Get a real taste (i.e experience first hand) of NJ's tax burden on it's citizens, why it exists, why we're skeptical of the motives behind of more taxes and why we're a US Att'y General's wet dream regarding corruption before you start try to sell NJ'ians on the virutes of even more taxes.

Find a place that's right for you and let us do the same. I know my wife and I are capable of deciding that for our family.

Without the "help" of our govt.

[Gerania]

Originally Posted by lwnj

Thanks Obrero for the info.

I have mixed feelings about this. I want to vote for (1), since watersheds and water supplies are worth protecting.

But I don't want to vote for (2) and (3). I heard news report several years ago that the Open Space program benefited those long time township officials, who are also the land owners in the town. Usually when they want to cash in their farmland, some developer would buy the land surrounding their old existing house and put a development on it, making the original house look like a lone awkward house on the main road. With the Open Space fund, those township officials shamefully used it for their own advantage and sold the land to the government instead of developers (at the expense of taxpayers of course). (Unless it's the Rutgers researchers get to strategically decide what land to buy, then I'd vote for it.)

As for flooded homes in (3) - It's noble to help out those folks whose house were flooded. But how many newer developments have been deliberately built in 50-year flood zone, flood buffer zone, and near wet lands in recent years? Too many I have seen, and those buyers know it since the bank required flood search. In case they really get flooded, why should the taxpayers be paying for it? Shouldn't they get the flood insurance if their house is in high-risk area? What if something like Trenton flood and Bound Brook flood happen again? Are we buying half of the town? $24 million could be depleted quickly.

I would vote for it if it's (1) alone. But with all these...it's a tough call.

I'm quite concerned about the farms. I do see a few Preserved Farmland signs in the area, but more often it's a fresh crop of houses.

"New Jersey is a national leader in farmland preservation; however, despite our best preservation efforts, we still have lost an average of 14,000 acres of farmland annually in recent years."

Farmland preservation saves more than just land - NJ.com