What are you gonna vote for on the $400 million for open space??? (Newark: 2009, house)

[GiantRutgersfan]

I am undecided. I would like to see exactly what is planned with that money.

If it would be going to good use, I am all for it. But I cant find info on what specifically they want to do with the money anywhere.

Does anyone have more info on the specifics of this? And are you gonna vote for or against this when you vote?

[captne76]

Actually, we all need open space to live and it shouldn't cost us anything for it, but life wouldn't be worth much without it. Vote YES no matter what I say. That money doesn't matter.

[joe moving]

Does anyone know what it is for exactly? Is it to keep existing space. Buy more land for open space?

Is it to give to towns as grants to buy open space in their own community?

[luckyshoes]

Originally Posted by joe moving

Does anyone know what it is for exactly? Is it to keep existing space. Buy more land for open space?

Is it to give to towns as grants to buy open space in their own community?

Yes on the grants. Open Space is a good thing in this state, a very good thing. I'm voting Yes.

[prezsid]

It would be a good use of funds if there were not going to borrow the money for it. Anyone who complains about the taxes in NJ should vote NO.

[Kracer]

NJ needs to set aside land in a strategic way to not only ensure open space but to maintain and improve the diversity of plant and animal species that should go hand in hand with America's open space.

One of the biggest differences between here and some of the EU countries is the lack of diversity in terms of plant and animal species. Look toward EU to see out future if we don't honor nature. Politics and business aside, our country has a proud legacy of diversity of nature that has disappeared from so many countries. The difference is as striking visiting a fully furnished house vs a beautifully designed house with empty rooms and a no near chance of ever furnishing them.

There are many good parts to the GA program's strategy but some of the intent is a far cry from the image of preserving open space that the title implies and its marketing portrays.

The green acres program also includes athletic fields, golf courses etc., in other words the type of effort that is not in danger of disappearing forever. Efforts that take money away from purchasing large tracts of land in strategic alignment to maintain plant and animal life systems should be the priority.
When was the last time you saw a 150 year old oak tree? You and your children will never see one even if you plant it today. From conception today, you could be playing on a ball field next spring.

As an example see 2009.pdf / Recommended - Turtleback zoo cougar exhibit? - Turtleback Zoo Gibbon exhibit? see pp14/15

The Green Acres program has been a very positive program for our state but the direction of the program appears out of alignment with our limited hard earned dollars.

Perhaps a NO vote will bring it back into alignment.

http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/pdf/approval_list_2009.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/challenge.htm

[ScranBarre]

Why vote against something that will improve your state's quality-of-life? Spreading people out further and further from urban centers so they can live in housing developments just puts a greater strain on infrastructure (heavier traffic), police/fire departments (with a broader coverage area), natural resources (i.e. wildlife and water runoff issues from vegetation being cleared for new housing), etc., etc. If NJ were to follow the lead of Portland, Oregon and Lexington, Kentucky with their revolutionary "urban growth boundaries" you'd not only be able to preserve the natural beauty of New Jersey for future generations 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.

[blondebelle]

The reason groups like, Americans for Prosperity, want you to vote against this, for this particular year is that NJ does not have the money to fund the program and would have to raise taxes [most likely your property taxes] to fund the program. It is a good program, we just don't have the money right now to pay for it. So voting "YES" is a vote to raise your property taxes [or perhaps tolls etc]

[LINative]

Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan

I am undecided. I would like to see exactly what is planned with that money.

If it would be going to good use, I am all for it. But I cant find info on what specifically they want to do with the money anywhere.

Does anyone have more info on the specifics of this? And are you gonna vote for or against this when you vote?

Sometimes well meaning people are against these open space bond issues because they think it will lead to higher taxes.

In fact it is just the opposite! The best way to keep taxes is down is to stop more development on rural land in the first place. Stop wasting taxpayers money on endlessly building new roads, schools, sewers, transit, hiring new government workers, etc.

Residential developments are probably the worst for taxes, probably because of all the services needed (especially schools) outstrips the amount of tax money they bring in. This might be why so many suburbs are building office parks instead. Senior developments are also popular (no schools).

I am not saying we should not build new housing but here in the NY area it is totally overdeveloped and out of balance. Especially since there are some older areas that can fixed up before we waste any new land.

Lastly, we all like parks and natural areas but strictly from a tax perspective, probably farmland is the best to protect. This is because they ask for little services but still pay (unlike parks) some taxes.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by blondebelle

The reason groups like, Americans for Prosperity, want you to vote against this, for this particular year is that NJ does not have the money to fund the program and would have to raise taxes [most likely your property taxes] to fund the program. It is a good program, we just don't have the money right now to pay for it. So voting "YES" is a vote to raise your property taxes [or perhaps tolls etc]

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. Do you want your grandchildren in NJ to enjoy apple-picking in Clinton and deer hunting in Montague like you enjoyed while you were all growing up, or would you rather tell them "Honey, the reason why my old apple orchard is now a Wal-Mart Supercenter and the reason why our old hunting grounds is now home to a housing development is because your grandfather and I voted 50 years ago to NOT tax ourselves to make life better for you."

I suppose some people just have different priorities. If cutting back on one Starbuck's latte per week is all it would take to finance a new tax aimed to help preserve open space, then is that really begging THAT much of a sacrifice? I'm not trying to be judgmental, but where I live now in Fairfax County we have a mess of problems related to poor land-use policy from the past two prior generations that have left my current generation with a horrible mess to dig our way out of. We are now being forced to spend billions to redesign an armpit called "Tyson's Corner" into a more sustainable area, we're spending billions to acquire land to build a new Metrorail line that should have been planned before the suburbs grew as rapidly as they did, we're sitting in traffic for 45 minutes to go 7 miles (and you can never get that lost TIME back in your life), etc., etc. The prior generations didn't give a damn about the future here in Fairfax County, and now the current generation has a poorer quality-of-life to contend with as a result. If anything it would be SELFISH of the current generation to not vote to preserve open space for future generations because they can't bear the thought of having to sacrifice even just a little to make things better. Do you really want NJ to become the next Fairfax County?