Scott Olson photo
By Scott Olson
November 2, 2014
On Tuesday, I’m voting to protect our parks, historic sites and open space. I’m voting to maintain protections of our drinking water and precious natural resources. I’m voting ‘NO’ on New Jersey’s Open Space Preservation Funding Amendment, Public Question Number 2, and I’m urging you to do the same.
This has not been an easy decision. Open space preservation has always been an important objective to me. As a Byram council member, I sit on the Township’s Open Space Committee, and have advocated for the Garden State Preservation Trust since well before I was elected. I even hosted a press conference in Byram with members of ‘Keep It Green’ (KIG) prior to the 2007 election. But on the 2014 ballot question, I must part ways with the position they are taking.
The ‘Yes’ proponents say that Question 2 will “dedicate a small portion of existing tax revenues to open space, farmland, historic preservation, and other critical environmental programs.” It is a small portion of the Corporation Business Tax (CBT) – just 4%, or about $100 million in 2013 – that is currently dedicated to programs monitoring water quality, removing underground storage tanks, and providing for capital improvements to our parks and historic sites.
A ‘Yes’ vote will divert a major portion – approximately 70% – of current CBT revenues from these and other important environmental programs to the sole use of financing preservation of open space.
What does this mean? According to a press release titled Jersey Open Space Measure Cannibalizes Parks & Eco-Programs from New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), it would:
- Adversely impact State Parks and Historic Sites by severely limiting their ability to fund capital projects, such as building or repairing restrooms, roads, bridges and other projects. Dedicated funding would fall from $32 million per year to zero. There is currently a $400 million backlog of repairs, new construction and improvements to existing facilities in state parks and historic sites;
- Cut funding for state water resources programs and projects by two thirds, from $15 million a year currently down to $5 million; and
- Slash hazardous waste cleanup programs by more than half, from the current $53 million a year to $25 million.
PEER’s New Jersey Director, Bill Wolfe, details this further in an entry entitled Flying Blind on Open Space – And Lying About It on his WolfeNotes blog:
As outlined in the FY’15 budget, here is how the current CBT funds are allocated among DEP programs (all of these will be cut under the Open Space Ballot diversion):
- $16 million goes to science and technical programs (water supply, science support, & land use regulation)
- $53 million goes to site remediation and waste management
- $18.1 million to environmental regulation
- $16 million to natural resource management (development and conservation of recreational lands)
KIG is giving the impression that when dedication from the CBT increases to 6% in 2020 it will make up for the loss of funding for environmental programs, and increase overall revenues.
Not completely true.
At the 6% level of contribution from the CBT, the fund will receive an approximate $50 million increase, based on optimistic projections and increases in future revenue. According to the Bergen Record in an article titled New debate over protecting New Jersey’s open space on October 26, 2014, over $117 million will still be diverted to financing preservation of open space, while funding for these important DEP environmental programs will still fall far short of current levels. As I told Record reporter Scott Fallon while being interviewed for that article, this is just robbing Peter to pay Paul because you’re going to end up with fewer people to do inspections, fewer enforcers and important programs that are now watered down.
Byram is a ‘fringe-suburban/rural community’ where many of our residents rely on private drinking water wells, and oil heating using underground storage tanks. Nearly the entire town is on septic systems for waste disposal. Every member of our community is at a potential risk due to the DEP program cuts that will be required if Question 2 passes. And there is no guarantee if or even when funding would return to these important public health and safety programs. That’s too great a risk for me to accept.
With regard to potential losses at State Parks and Historic Sites, I am deeply concerned about a place near and dear to me, as well as others in Byram: Waterloo Village. With the passage of Question 2, all current DEP Office of Resource Development (ORD) funding for stabilization, restoration and preservation of the valuable historic structures at Waterloo Village will be lost, as allocation will go from $32 million to zero. Yes, zero.
Instead, that money will be funneled into the newly created fund that allocates roughly $72 million to open space in 2015, and rises to $117 million in 2020. State Parks and Historic Sites lose control of previously dedicated money and will have to compete for these new funds with Green Acres and Blue Acres purchases, Farmland Preservation purchases, County and local requests, and non-profits ‘stewardship’ funding requests. They can’t get the money they’ve had in the past when they want it. And they will not get all of what they’ve had in the past back. They’ll have to get in line and ask for it, and what they do get will be nowhere near enough to even make a dent in the current $400 million backlog for repairs and capital improvements.
If you like even more information regarding the impacts of a ‘Yes’ vote on our State Parks and Historic Sites, you can read – in great detail – a letter from a DEP parks employee.
Opinion polls have consistently indicated that over 60% of New Jersey residents are favorable to open space preservation. This is not the ‘last chance’ to act, as some would have you believe. Voting ‘No’ will not make you a bad person. Public Question Number 2 is wrong for the environment…it’s that simple. Let’s not compromise. Let’s do this right, and not at the expense of our existing parks, historic sites and natural resource protection.
On Tuesday, vote ‘No’ on Public Question Number 2.
– –
Scott Olson is serving in his eighth year on the Byram Township Council, and was a driving force in Byram being the first municipality in the Highlands to commit to Regional Master Plan Conformance. He has been the council representative on the Township Open Space Committee since July 2009, and was the council liaison to the Environmental Commission from 2007 to 2014. He was also a founding trustee of the New Jersey Highlands Coalition in 2006.