WolfeNotes.com

Rare Summer Recess Legislative Session Generates Heat

Land Use Policy Working At Cross Purposes 

Amidst the third heat wave this year, the Senate Environment Committee met today in a rare summer recess session (move along, no need to mention climate change, an allusion is sufficient).

The Committee’s agenda included:

• a bill  to define standards for and mandate bio-diesel content for home heating oil.
• a legally required public hearing on a proposed Concurrent Resolution to authorize a ballot question to amend the Constitution to dedicate $200 million to open space preservation (Green Acres/Garden State Preservation Trust).

I hardly know where to begin in sharing the day’s contradictions with you, so I’ll just lay out a short list off the top of my head, starting with the morning news clips:

1. Audit of DEP reveals that Mr. Management Metrics – DEP Commissioner Bob Martin – can’t collect and keep track of permit and enforcement fines

NJ Spotlight reports that the most recent Office of Legislative Services (OLS) audit of DEP found:

Not collecting fines for violations of land-use regulations. Issuing permits without checking whether the applicants have paid their fees. Taking no further action when polluters fail to pay penalties assessed by the agency.

Those were among the recurring problems that the State Auditor in the Office of Legislative Services uncovered in the state Department of Environmental Protection’s Land Use Management and other programs.

Wow.

So much for Commissioner Martin’s private sector financial and management “expertise”.

What’s the status of prior OLS audits that found fault with DEP’s collection of revenues by the Office of Leases and Concessions?

What is the status of collection of the millions of dollars expected under the 120 Natural Resource Damage (NRD) lawsuits filed by DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson?

Lots of money to be shaken from those trees.

2. Bio-Diesel bill would expand investments and commitment to a fossil fuel

The bill (S 2268) would establish a market for bio-diesel by mandating minimum content requirements (from 3-5%) in home heating oil. Industry representatives said this would increase investment in bio-diesel processing capacity in the northeast, and perhaps NJ.

Hearing a fossil fuel bill in the midst of another heat wave does raise a certain sense of whistling past the graveyard, no?

Instead of searching for incremental ways to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuels, a sane policy would be looking to reduce reliance on and ultimately phase out the use of oil as a home heating fuel.

But, even in the midst of another extreme heat wave – consistent with predictions of global warming models – a transition away from or phase out of fossil fuels was not remotely on the policy horizon and there was no sense of urgency. Just a narrow focus on perpetuating the existing carbon based home heating oil market.

Aside from ignoring the big picture on climate and the need to phase out fossil fuels, there are:

a) conflicting studies on environmental, land use, agricultural impacts and life cycle assessment studies regarding whether bio-diesel from soybeans creates net energy or reduces greenhouse gas emissions;

b) bio-diesel can not meet projected increases in demand for diesel, which undermines the energy independence myth; and

c) concerns about impacts on food prices, as soybean crops for fuel displace and compete with crops for food markets.

Chairman Smith concluded that there were net energy, environment, and GHG emission benefits and took strong exception to claims that the bill would drive up food prices, rejecting testimony that the bill would increase food prices for poor children.

The Committee voted to release the bill.

3.  Open Space Funding – Sales Tax Option

Chairman Smith began the hearing by noting that the Green Acres fund is out of money.

But no one mentioned the fact that the Gov. – during the 2009 campaign – promised to create a sustainable source of funding and that he failed to honor this commitment for almost 4 years, while letting the fund go broke.

This failure of leadership is what has brought us to these last minute emergency legislative maneuvers to meet deadlines to get the question of the fall ballot (which is highly unlikely).

No one mentioned that Gov. Christie set the terms of debate at the outset by rejecting any new taxes or debt, leaving the only option the unacceptable raid on existing revenues.

Smith then noted that the public hearing was a legal formality, requiring no Committee quorum or vote.

So, from my perspective, the hearing was not a time to persuade the Committee but to put arguments on the table and – frankly – shame the KIG coalition.

Chairman Smith began by summarizing what went wrong with the prior approach to dedicate a specific fraction of the sales tax.

Smith explained that with the sales tax projected to increase at 4% annually, revenues also would grow over the 30 year period (compound interest, for the math challenged). Based on this growth rate, the the OLS generated a $17 billion fiscal impact that “shocked the fiscal conscience” on the Assembly (OLS did not do a NPV analysis, but lets not get technical here.)

To remedy that problem, the new Resolution caps the revenue amount at $200 million per year.

Concurrent Resolutions are now before the Senate and Assembly, who both must meet and approve them before August 1 in oder to meet deadlines to be on the November

That is unlikely to happen, but supporters all agreed to redouble their efforts to generate public pressure on legislatures to meet.

Here are the highlights of the testimony:

a) former NJ Senator Gordon MacInnes, now head of NJ Policy Perspective, opposed the dedication of the sales tax. He urged that the historical debt funding approach was preferable, and had been approved by the voters 13 times over 40 years. His concerns focused on State fiscal issues. He talked about impacts on the budget, given structural budget deficits, austerity policy, cuts to existing programs, and inability to raise new revenues to meet important unmet needs.

I strongly urge people to listen to his testimony (here).

b) I’ve ranted here previously in opposition to the sales tax option.

I ranted again in testimony today, on the following grounds:

• Policy is working at cross purposes

Gov. Christie is promoting growth and infrastructure enveywhere. Open space acquisitions are like putting expensive band aids on huge self inflicted wounds. THis is crazy from a and use planning perspective and a financial perspective (i.e. land targeted for growth is dramatically more expensive).

Land acquisition is just one part of land use management.  It is supposed to complement State and regional Planning and land use Regulation. But planning and regulatory tools are  are being dismantled – and even worse – now being used to promote economic development, not preserve environmentally sensitive land.

Examples:

1) The Gov. is promoting shore rebuild in hazardous locations. Yet the opens space funding is justified on the need for Blue Acres buyouts of flood prone properties. It makes no sense to promote rebuild unconditionally which increases risks, while buying out property to reduce risks.

2) The Gov. dismantled the State Plan (as a land use plan) and is using it instead to promote economic development, not manage growth and preserve land. That policy includes infrastructure and development everywhere  – and it works at cross purposes with a strategic and planning based open space policy , while it also perpetuates the current flawed ad hoc “shotgun” approach to buying land. This is tremendously expensive and not a cost effective way to conduct business.

3) The Gov. has stacked and used the regional planning bodies – the Highlands and Pinelands – also to dismantle regional planning and growth management and promote growth instead of preserve land. Again, this absence of planning policy undercuts and conflicts with the open space policy. Why should taxpayers be paying top dollar for lands that could or are regulated and should not be developed?

4) DEP is using its regulatory land use and enforcement tools to promote development of environmentally sensate lands, not protection of them. Examples abound: DEP added 40,000 acres of environmentally sensitive lands to sewer service areas. Land outside a sewer service are has much lower development potential than land in a sewer service area.

This sets up not only land use conflicts between sewering and open space acquisition, , but the inclusion of land in a sewer service area dramatically increases the development potential and thus the appraised value of land (e.g.  from 10,000/acre to $50,000/acre).

Why should taxpayers pay top dollar for environmentally sensitive land DEP foolishly mapped in a sewer service area to promote development?

• Fairness: Sales tax is regressive – benefits of open space are regressive

In addition to the state budget concerns Senator McGuiness raised (e.g.  dedication of $200 million would force cuts to other important social programs, including DEP’s budget), there are distributional and equity concerns of who pays for open apse and who benefits from open space.

The sales tax is regressive, e.g. those with low and middle income pay a disproportionate share of their income, compared to the wealthy.

At the same time, the benefits of open space are regressive in several ways: e.g. 1) higher socio-economic rural/suburban allocations consume about 80%, while higher population and  poorer urban areas get about 20% for much more pressing urban open space and parks needs; 2) the owners of land purchased tend to be corporations or wealthy people; 3) the external benefits of open space accrue to land owners who live near the acquired open space.

At a time of growing wealth and income disparities, this is just wrong.

• Stewardship is a vague objective that invites abuse

For the first time, open space money would be used for “stewardship” –

The word is not defined, and there is a huge debate right now about “stewardship” of state forests, with some defining that to include commercial logging.

NJ Audubon testified in support and recommended allocation of 20% of the Fund to stewardship.

This is way over the top – and I called it out.

It’s selfish enough to be stealing sales tax revenues from the general fund when there is a climate of austerity and a structural budget deficit.

But, calling for 20% of the stolen money to go to support your own organization’s “stewardship” programs is just beyond the pale.

So, that about the end of my head exploding day of contradictions.

Oh, but wait, before I go I must share the Hopewell Chutzpah.

Hopewell is one of the wealthiest towns in the State.

They seem oblivious to that, and to the equity principle that the most privileged and wealthy in society owe a larger obligation to those less fortunate (the makers versus the takers, and all that jive).

I know. I built a home there and sent my kids through their outstanding K-12 school district.

The sent a contingent, including the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and the Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association.

Seemingly oblivious to equity arguments and the perception that open space advocates are a bunch of selfish wealthy elitists, the Mayor said she understood the negative impacts on the state budget and other programs, but hey, she needed to look out for her property taxpayers – who benefit from Statre open space money.

The Deputy Mayor – get this – spoke in support of open space from his experience as a black man who grew up in Camden. As if Hopewell and Camden were even in the same universe these radical days of gross disparities in income, wealth, and political power.

Other than that, just another day in paradise.