A cruel hoax – on many levels
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.
~~~ Groucho Marx
[Update: 7/20/08 – “Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address?”
Al Gore 7/18/08
http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/304/
“The regulatory relief provisions of the bill are totally unrelated to the causes of the economic problems the bill purports to address.”
Bill Wolfe 6/30/08
It’s no secret that thousands of NJ working families are struggling just to make ends meet. The recent housing finance crisis – caused by Wall Street fraud and greed – is forcing thousands of families into mortgage foreclosure and lost hopes and dreams. Thousands of small business – particularly the small home builders – are being driven towards bankruptcy. Credit crunch and high debt levels are causing record rates of bankruptcy filings.
Lou Greenwald (D/Camden) prime sponsor and champion of the “Permit Extension Act”.So what do our political leaders in Trenton do to respond?
They grandstand and cynically blame environmental protections and enact a meaningless “solution”, the “Permit Extension Act”.
That law, while rolling back environmental protections, does absolutely nothing to address the underlying causes of serious economic problems.
Worse, few realize (because the issue has not been reported in the press coverage) that the Permit Extension bill treats urban NJ residents like second class citizens and will severely hamper NJ’s ability to achieve Governor Corzine’s highly touted global warming emission reduction goals.
Below is my “Dear Jon” letter to Corzine asking for a VETO of this fraud – reach out to the Governor and let him know how you feel – 609-292-6000.
June 30, 2008
The Honorable Jon S. Corzine
State House
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Via hand carry
Re: request to Veto the “Permit Extension Act” A2867[2R]/S1919[2R]
Dear Governor Corzine:
On behalf of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), I am writing to request that you issue a Veto of “The Permit Extension Act” which passed both houses on June 23, 2008. PEER is a national support group for professionals in environmental agencies that seek enforcement of environmental laws and ethics.
The premises and provisions of the bill are fatally flawed. These flaws cannot be corrected by the series of narrowing amendments negotiated by Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson, or the issuance of a Conditional Veto on your part.
The bill provides no economic stimulus whatsoever, or other valid economic relief for the national economic recession and collapse of the housing market, the purported justifications for the legislation. As such, the bill represents a cruel hoax upon New Jersey residents suffering real economic hardship.
The regulatory relief provisions of the bill are totally unrelated to the causes of the economic problems the bill purports to address. The bill would apply to an unknown universe of thousands of DEP permits and municipal approvals. It is simply reckless to enact legislation whose impacts have not been even crudely analyzed.
Implementation of the bill would undermine environmental protection by exempting prior approvals from changes in environmental standards and community preferences reflected in municipal land use planning and zoning. This is a fatal blow to core principles of environmental and land use law. Principles known as “time of decision” and “technology forcing” seek to assure that technology and markets adapt to meet changing environmental laws and standards that have evolved to meet changing conditions and new scientific knowledge, and that economic activities reflect those changes.
The bill would frustrate the ability of NJ to implement and meet the emission reduction goals of your signal accomplishment, The Global Warming Response Act. For example, thousands of projects would be exempt from any new energy conservation, energy efficiency, building codes, or other requirements to install renewable energy. This alone is sufficient policy grounds to kill this bill.
The amendments that carve out the Highlands, Pinelands, and “environmentally sensitive areas” under the State Plan would sacrifice urban areas and result in de jure and de facto differential and unequal protection of urban New Jersey. This would violate fundamental principles of environmental justice. As succinctly stated by South Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance Co-Chair Roy Jones:
“Separate and unequal … dates back to slavery” (Asbury Park Press, June 26, 2008).
We strongly urge you to Veto this bill and uphold your Constitutional obligation as Governor of all people of New Jersey, urban, suburban and rural, and not provide favors to special interests.
Sincerely,
Bill Wolfe, Director
NJ PEER
“and not provide favors to special interests.”
LOL.
Have you read the new budget?
There is nothing BUT special interests in it.
It seems to me that everything the governor does (and the legistlature) is being driven by and for special interests .
Wolfe – as usual, you are spot-on with your thinking. Except for one important thing – you’ve been sold out by your “friends” in Trenton.
Star-Ledger, June 24, 2008 – Both houses clear compromise that grants extensions for permits
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1214283320179390.xml&coll=1
“The votes in the Senate and Assembly send the bill to Gov. Jon Corzine, who is expected to support it after his environmental protection commissioner helped shape a compromise between developers and environmentalists last week.”
Playing “let’s make a deal” with the Gov, and somebody ends up a loser.
Well worth reading, as it sums up part of the problem here, is an OpEd piece from the LA Times in January of this year entitled “Environmentalists out on a limb: For a seat at the negotiating table, they are jeopardizing their true role.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rosenberg24jan24,1,1457111.story
Stay vigilant, my friend!
SO
Again, you appear so off base, you must be the master of spin.
Approvals and Permits previously issued have already been through a legal appoval and permitting process. No one is bypassing anything if they are able to use an approval they have already received. These permits and approvals cost thousands or millions of dollars to receive. Invalidating them with no evidence of wrong-doing, and no calculation of this hidden tax is simply unreasonable.
Can you tell us how much private investment would be lost? Nah. Thought not.
Your attitude of “the sky is falling – all this is FATAL FATAL FATAL” fails under the slightest scrutiny.
While some of your articles raise interesting questions and new areas of concern, the
Betternj – Laws and regulations change, so what you say is misleading.
“Approvals and Permits previously issued have already been through a legal appoval and permitting process. ”
One example: The site plan for an 800,000 square foot office park expansion in Hopewell, BPG Inc., would not be “legal” as designed if forced to comply with the new DEP 300 foot category one stream buffers.
Private investment in a market economy is always at risk – you Wall Street free market boys ironically want a government guarantee. Sorry, but that investment is speculation.
The prior permits were sought knowing of regulatory risk – i.e. the developers KNEW that those DEP permits had legally binding 5 year expiration dates. If they expire, that is a risk the developer or investor knowingly and voluntarily took
Again, you support law breaking and breach of contract.
byramaniac – thank you for your comment.
My posts here are intended to open doors for exactly this kind of dialogue to emerge.
People need to know what’s going on – including within the environmental community. That way they can change and improve it.
Talk about moving the goalposts!
New projects should comply with new rules. Existing projects should comply with the rules in effect at the time they were proposed. Such common sense logic is missing from much of the arguments posed by environmental activists. Zoning and environment regulations are the ultimate Ex Post Facto laws.
overtaxed15 – the concept of changes in laws and regulations is built into the US legal system and a foundational element of investor expectations.
This “moving the goal post argument” is hogwash and nothing more than an excuse for maintaining privilege and the status quo.
Would you want to freeze the advance of science and technology? Didn’t think so.
Last, the BPG site got General Development Plan (GDP) approval in 1999 – the land was purchased with this GDP approval in mind. Part of the value of property was that GDP. The land was purchased with a knowing understanding of its sxpirtation date and DEP regulatory risk.
You are just wrong here.
The folks at the Cato Institute would disagree with you on the legality of changing rules and regulations.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-4.html
Five years is far too short a time in this state to get anything passed through all the environmental rigmarole. The deck is stacked against the developers. Court challenges can drag on for years and the ecowarriors are experts at tying people up in litigation.
I suspect that the opposition to the BPG project didn’t dry up in 1999 once the GDP was approved. Curveballs kept coming at them while the clock was ticking on their five year deadline.
“Freeze the advance of science and technology”? Moi? That’s something the environmental movement has been trying to do since the 70s. They ignore any advances in nuclear engineering and live in a world where The China Syndrome was a documentary.
And speaking of advancing technology, whatever happened to that grandiose plan you were going to put out for Wolfe’s Windfarm Wonderland? Wasn’t it supposed to be the answer to our growing appetite for electricity? Did Ted Kennedy complain that it might block his view?
Re overtaxed–Any reader who is interested in going to the link overtaxed posted, please know that the Cato Institute believes that “no climate scientist can ever blame an individual weather event, heat wave or drought, on global warming,” which first is wrong, but second, large weather patterns are much more significant than single events.
Their writers also believe “Every climate scientist knows there’s been no — zero — net change in surface temperatures in the last ten years, as shown in the climate history of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Hmmm. Why is the permafrost thawing in the Arctic, releasing methane gas into the atmosphere?
If people are really concerned about the IPCC’s latest findings, go to its most recent “Assessment Report,” at http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/presentations.htm.
Overtaxed, you may be in for a surprise. Or you may not want to cite the IPCC for your arguments in the future. Too easy to dispute.
When it comes to public schools, the Cato institute would rather turn the entire system over to the private sector–and even has arguments as to how that would help the poor in Africa.
The works of the Cato crowd make for very interesting reading. But mostly, no matter how well-documented their material seems to be, they are way off the mark.
Re what Byramanic said: I’m not exactly sure what he meant by the “friends in Trenton” comment, but if he is suggesting that some of the large, well-funded enviros in Trenton made backroom deals that enabled this bill to go through, we have a serious problem in this state.
Unfortunately this tit for tat exists not just w/developers, corporations, and special interests including, possibly, the big, well-funded enviros here, it exists in every community and every cause in which I’ve been active over the last 30 years.
People are way too willing to compromise using the thinking that getting something is better than getting nothing at all–or, conversely, that losing only a few things is better than risking losing all, or gaining all.
Do you really want “partially” clean water? Or “somewhat” toxic school sites? Or “sort of safe jobs” (for instance at pharmaceutical and chemical companies that don’t abide by the current laws and are let slide by the powers that be)? Or “conditionally breathable” air?
Someone’s gotta push the truth–and fight for everything, or we will get nothing.
The compromises aren’t good enough. Let’s push to veto this bill–and if our “friends in Trenton” aren’t with us, so what.
isbjorn1 – thanks a lot for exposing who Cato Institute is.
Cato’s work reflects far right wing free market fundamentalist ideologies.
Some try to all this libertarian, but it is more corporatist than anything else.
Thank you for making my point.
And exactly how much investment will be lost by sunsetting these permits?
Millions of dollars? Hundreds of millions? Perhaps billions?
But you have no idea.
This is more “Main Street” than “Wall Street”.
What you are suggesting is the govenment forcing the loss of millions of dollars, and thousands of jobs during a recession.
Like I said, “Nice Spin Bill, but no sale”.
betternj – look, whose fault is it that a project could not get financing?
Does that have anything to do with government or DEP?
The private sector FAILED.
In a free market, FAILURE comes with a COST.
Why should government prop up the investors behind these FAILED projects?
And still no one has explained to me why we should give support to anyone to build more buildings when there are vacant office buildings and unsold homes already? Homeowners should be outraged that we are helping to add more “supply” for a lower demand. How does that make economic sense. And what jobs will they create? Some construction jobs? Again, you can build houses and commercial space from now until the recession is over and it isn’t going to help anyone in the end. The construction workers will still be out of work when the housing glut worsens. Right now, I have NJN on my TV and I’m listening to how much extra commercial and housing space there is in Camden resulting in the shelving of the Cramer Hill redevelopment. I suppose they are going to blame that on the environmental regs too.
Unprovincial your questions are the exact reason why the permit extension act Needs to be passed. Despite what you and Bill tout if the economy was different these projects would have been built. Instead, this bill allows developers to hold off on building these office buildings and new homes so you don’t have thousands of more empty homes and empty commercial buildings. You allow demand to catch up with supply as opposed to your logic of requiring every project to be built immediately.
Also Bill, while you may have worked at the DEP previously you obviously forgot that there are only a few permits last for 5 years. You claiming that All permits last for 5 years is entirely misleading. A TWA permit is for 2 years with the potential of a 3 year extension. A water main extension permit is for 3 years with no provision for extension other than “a request before it expires” with no guarantee of an extension. Preliminary approval only lasts for 3 years and final approval only lasts for 2 years with the ability for limited extensions but that’s ONLY at the graciousness of the planning board and they are only statutorily allowed to extend it for up to two years. Instead of scare tactics and sensationalizing you should read into the stuff you talk about.
As for requiring all projects to comply with new rules, where does it end? Where do you draw the line? If a home was built next to a C-1 stream 100 years ago should the homeowners be evicted and the home knocked down? You scare people into thinking that new projects cause flooding when in actuality new projects have to Reduce runoff from their sites post-development meaning water is flowing into the waterways at a slower rate meaning a less likelihood of flooding. The real problem is the cities were built hundreds of years ago with minimal stormwater management. Are you saying that these towns need to spend billions to comply with new stormwater rules? Logic would dictate that once you get an approval you don’t need to get it re-approved.
As for the private sector Failing in a free market – The reason why there was a failure in the free market is because of government regulation. If there was no expiration for these permits the developments would be built as a time in which the free market dictated. Government regulation is causing these projects to fail, NOT the free market. The free market says these developments should be built 5 years from now, government regulation says they need to be built in 2 when their permits expire. How is that free market?
enviroman320 – thank you for your well informed comments. I will try to respond:
1. you are correct, I was insufficiently precise on which permits I was referring to with 5 year expiration cycles. But your clarification is simialrly misleading, because you fail to note that many of these permits have essentially automaticl renewals adn are rarely revoked upon expiration.
Worse, wetlands permits have a “reliance” policy, such that even if they are incorrect, the permit stands. The more one knows about DEP permit requirements, the LESS confidence one has in DEP.
2. The C1 buffer rules clearly exempt existing development adn clearly only apply to new “major development” – so that argument is a red herring and I won’t even respond. YOu know better than to try to mislead people, please!
3. You are correct that existing development causes MORE problems thn new development. That’s why I urge retrofit requirements. But neither DEP nor the big environmental groups support that. Nor do the builders as far as I know.
4. Financing is what is causing these projects to fail – that is a free market function – development follows typical market dynamics, which always lead to gluts and crashes. Boom and Bust – creative destruction. That the cycles of capitalism. THose traditional problems are compounded by a massive speculative bubble.
As for your comment of “Would you want to freeze the advance of science and technology? Didn’t think so.” If the DEP rules and regulations were actually built into science and technology there wouldn’t be much argument. Restricting development within a 300 foot channel at an elevation 30 feet above the watercourse in the name of “flooding” is ludicrous. That channel will never flood because water immediately shoots downhill. As for causing flooding downstream read my last post about new developments having to reduce runoff. And, by the way, floodways can be determined through engineering on an application-by-application basis to determine where there is a 100-year flood plain, not a speculatory 300 foot buffer around any watercourse without regard for location or elevation.
Also, the army corp of engineers performed the ONLY study into water quality and wetlands buffers. They concluded that if you allowed 75 feet around a wetlands area to grow naturally that by the time water made its way through the buffer it would be 100% clean. That means any buffer beyond 75 feet in the interest of water quality is excessive. That’s the actual science. So why is there a 300 foot buffer around C-1 streams for water quality?
And finally, with respect to your asinine letter to the governor, any new development that pulls permits MUST comply with the current building code in effect. If the first home in a 500 home subdivision was constructed under one code the last building may not be built under the same code, it all depends on when the permits are pulled. That means that IF new energy conservation rules come out requiring, for example, all new homes to be built with solar panels the new permits that are pulled Must build homes with solar panels irregardless of whether or not the first home was built with them.
enviroman320 – you know better than t misrepresent the flood hazard (stream encriachment ) rules.
You know that the “riparian zones” are not established exclusively to address flood hazard, but are based on far broader water quality and environmental rationales.
You also know that the Builders legally challenged the science supporting the 300 foot buffers and LOST. Courts agreed with DEP that the buffers were scientifically and legally based and fully justified.
Tell the truth, enviroman320.
Suppose the solar or energy efficiency requirement is not a local building code, but established by DEP as a land use permit requirement. That destroys your argument, no?
Bill, I appreciate your comments back, however there are a few things I wanted to address:
While the new C-1 rules apply to new developments I was addressing your stance that current projects need to comply with new rules. An excerpt from your June 5, 2008 post: “One gaping loophole buried in the C1 adoption document would grandfather hundreds of projects that had previously obtained DEP permits or local land use approvals. As a result, thousands of acres of environmentally sensitive streams and buffers would be destroyed by projects with old permits that now trump the new C1 stream protections..” My point was simple; where do you stop? If you don’t grandfather projects that already gained DEP approval and require them to reapply why don’t you then require existing homes in a development which is in the process of being built to comply? And while you’re at it why don’t you require existing homes that were completed within the last 10 years to comply? Or require homes that are 100 years old to comply?
These projects also haven’t failed – if the finanes were available they would have all been built but for the economic recession these projects, which take up to and some more than a decade to obtain approval, would have started or would be further along in its completion. Most permits only require a project to begin before it expires to be in compliance so most of these projects will start to vest their interests but what is environmentally sound for a project to disturb soil, move dirt around and subsequently sit on the exposed project for a better economic time just to preserve an investment when the status quo would be better for the environment (since most would be built anyway). I’m sure you can find a handful of projects that have been “revived” but even those projects stalled because of this economic downturn.
I also know that the “ripparian zones” are far broader – the “water quality” and “environmental” rationales you speak of are quite simple. “Any development destroys water quality and the environment.” That’s the overly broad basis of the ripparian zones. The rules are the Flood Hazard Area Control Act. Under the gambit of flood hazard the DEP surreptitiously stuck in “ripparian zones” which, to your admission, do not address actual flood hazards. If Commissioner Jackson’s logic for these stricter rules was to prevent “Building affordable housing there [in flood zones]” becuse it “would be morally wrong” then your ripparian zones have no right to be in those rules. They should be addressed elsewhere. They are in the flood hazard rules because the more buffers you have the less likelihood of development. By this I mean you can have a wetlands area that requires a 150 foot buffer under the Fresh Water Wetlands Act but the new Flood Hazard rules now require a 300 foot buffer. If it’s in the interest of water quality the Fresh Water Wetlands Act should be changed.
As for your comment about the DEP establishing a land use permit for an energy efficiency requirement I didn’t realize the DEP is supposed to be involved in land use. While they certainly are involved these days (with the WQMP Rules requiring larger zoning for non-sewer service areas which, amazingly enough, is exactly what creates sprawl) it is an overarching grasp of its powers.
I appreciate the intellectual conversation (at least I think it is) and look forward to your response.
enviroman320 – before I get to your most recent comments, I want to go back to your prior slam about science.
A lot depends on what science. The science of ecology? global warming science? There is strong science supporting policies that go far beyond what DEP is now doing. So I agree with you on the science issue – and the best sceicne says DEP should be doing far more – and not just with buffers.
1. Where do you stop? – Isn’t it obvious that an existing home (your choice of example) is far different that a proposed or approved development site plan? Isn’t it obvious that a 2,000 square foot disturbance or impervious cover from a single home is far differnt that a 25 acre parking lot and commercial rooftop, or a 200 acre 100 home subdivision? It is easy to “draw the line” – just establish rational impact thresholds, location policies, and project development milestones aroud which to craft a policy. We just disagree on what they should be. No need to take an absurd worst case to justify and divert attention away from the lousy policy DEP has crated in response tp political pressure from the development industry. Again, the single family deck or swimming pool expansion is outrageously misleading.
2. If I propose a policy that is not economically feasible, it fails. Developers have proposed developments that are not economically feasible base on market tests – as I said, they have failed.
3. Are you arguing that development is better than the natural condition (forested lands)? Ceteris paribus, less development is better for the environment.
4. The stream encroachment rules’ riparian zones were based on other law, including Endangered species law to protect habitat and water quality, not just Flood Hazard. Similarly, wetlands Act was not involved. So you seem confused on this point..
5. There is no “admission” on my part, as that connotes some form of guilt or error. I am stating facts.
6. The 300 foot buffers apply only to C1 designated high quality streams and are codified under the stormwater management regulations as a BMP, not the Wetlands Act, so you are mixing apples and oranges. Further, the wetlands act is not limited to water quality as you imply, but includes protection of habitat and flood reduction and other environmental objectives.
I think we’ve exhausted this topic.
Bill, regrettably when it comes to the environment and the DEP rules (which you speak quick frequently on) the topic is never exhausted. My question about science is quite specific. It was about water quality and buffers.
1- My point is to say that in all of my scenarios it dealt with an Approved item. You say a permit (despite the fact that it’s an approval) should be revoked because of new regulations. I ask at what approval process do you stop at? Do you stop at the time a building permit is issued? At the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued? At the time of road dedication? My point is once you open the door and begin to require builders to comply with new regulations despite gaining permits at what point do you stop? The rationale you’re objecting to seems a lot more rational. Once you get an approval you are grandfathered from new rules. Gosh, that sounds illogical.
2- Most of these developments were proposed in the late 90s early 2000s. Because of over-regulation it takes almost a decade for a project to get all of its approvals. Can you tell me where the market will be in 10 years? That argument would make sense if these developments were applied for and approved after Jan 1, 2007.
3- I’m not saying that but there’s more to this world than the environment. You have a population that continues to grow and you’d have everyone cram into an urban area because it’s developed. In that case you’ll have overpopulation in urban areas and that would cause potential health problems. And, engineered properties are better for the environment in certain cases than farmland. They are better for flooding and, under new stormwater rules better for groundwater recharge. It depends on the balance. At least I’m open for a balance.
4- Trust me, I’m not confused. The confusion illuminates my point. The DEP took defined acts (like the Flood Hazard Act) and extended it beyond its legislative decree.
5- I don’t even need to respond to this. Again it’s used to prove a point.
6- Thanks for again making my point. According to you the Flood Hazard Rules are meant to prevent flooding, protect habitat and water quality. The Wetlands Act is for water quality, protection of habitat, flood reduction and other environmental objectives. The C-1 rules are for protection of habitat and water quality plus other environmental objectives. They all are different acts that evidently have the same goals, however, all three of those rules apply differently to streams, creeks, brooks, ditches, channels, tributaries and anything else you can define as a watercourse (or potential watercourse). All three of those rules can take a creek and have vastly different buffers. A single channel could have no buffer under the C-1 rules, a 150 foot buffer under the wetlands act and a 300 foot buffer under the flood hazard act. They all require different buffers for one channel and yet all three acts are supposed to have the same objectives. If the objectives are the same shouldn’t the buffers be the same? (That’s a rhetorical one Bill).
Welcome to New Jersey – where TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION has been raised to an art form.
Every single incumbent politician, whether Republican or Democrat should have to prove their worth to the voters or face rejection by the voters of NJ in the 2009 election for misappropriation of funds, dereliction of duty, and misrepresenting the citizens of NJ.
So far Senator Jennifer Beck still gets to keep her job – she fought back and fought back hard at Corzine’s attempt to yet again mortgage the future of NJ to get his cronies rich with the toll hike plan….