WolfeNotes.com

Public Comment Period Closes Tomorrow

Many thanks to Fred Akers for the heads up on this and my bad for not getting word out and preparing comments.

For those interested, here is the Army Corps public notice.

Here is my letter requesting a 60 day extension of the public comment period and a public hearing.

It might be interesting to see how the Corps responds to the issues I raise about compliance with the Obama Executive Order on climate change adaptation.

[*Apologies for failure to mention that Sierra Club (& I think Delaware Riverkeeper) have filed a lawsuit on DEP’s Clean Water Act Section 305(b)permit for failure to require installation of cooling towers.]

January 13, 2015

Dear Mr. Deems:

Please accept my comments below on USACE public notice CNAP-OP-R-2014-1110-83 for a draft 404 permit for the B.L. England power plant in Beesley’s Point NJ, see:

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PublicNotices.aspx

I request that the USACE hold a public hearing on this draft permit and extend the comment period by 60 days.

A public hearing and comment period extension are warranted for the following reasons:

1) There is enormous local, regional, statewide, and national public interest in the operation of this plant and its adverse impacts on natural resources, the Great Egg ecosystem, local air quality, climate change, and the nearby Pinelands National Reserve. Thousands of people have participated directly in the debate over the continued operation of this plant.

Most recently, the continued operation of the plant was brought into doubt when the NJ Pinelands Commission rejected a proposed Memorandum of Agreement with the NJ Board of Public Utilities to allow a 22 mile South Jersey Gas natural gas pipeline through the Pinelands. The pipeline was designed to serve as the fuel source for a planned re-powering of the plant.

The plant has been under a NJ Department of Environmental Protection enforcement Order to either shut down operations or re-power and install new pollution controls to comply with applicable emissions standards. We understand that the NJ DEP recently extended the shut down or re-powering deadlines of this Order for 2 years.

The rejection by the Pinelands Commission of that proposed pipeline means the BL England plant lacks a long term source of fuel.

There is a distinct possibility that the plant may shut down or be unable to obtain financing to re-power, or other necessary regulatory approvals to re-power.

During the consideration of the pipeline by the Pinelands Commission, hundreds of citizens attended public hearings, signed petitions, and/or filed oral or written comments in opposition to the pipeline and the continued operation of the plant.

This enormous public interest in the continued operation of the BL England plant and its impacts on the environment alone justifies a public hearing on this draft permit, particularly as the draft permit is intended to allow continued operation of the plant

2) the plant has adverse local, regional, and global impacts. Some of these impacts include slaughter of aquatic life in Great Egg Bay; emissions of criteria air pollutants which harm public health and nearby Pinelands forests and vegetation; and emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

3) the plant is located in a coastal hazard zone and is vulnerable to climate change driven sea level rise and storm surge. The issue of coastal vulnerability and all forms of energy and critical infrastructure is a hugely controversial and significant issue to the people of NJ.

On November 1, 2013, President Obama issued an Executive Order on climate change adaption that calls for enhanced public involvement. See:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/11/01/executive-order-preparing-united-states-impacts-climate-change

Section 1. Policy. The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation. These impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures. Managing these risks requires deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the Federal Government, as well as by stakeholders, to facilitate Federal, State, local, tribal, private-sector, and nonprofit-sector efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience; help safeguard our economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources; and provide for the continuity of executive department and agency (agency) operations, services, and programs.

A foundation for coordinated action on climate change preparedness and resilience across the Federal Government was established by Executive Order 13514 of October 5, 2009 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance), and the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force led by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In addition, through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), established by section 103 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2933), and agency programs and activities, the Federal Government will continue to support scientific research, observational capabilities, and assessments necessary to improve our understanding of and response to climate change and its impacts on the Nation.

The Federal Government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the Nation’s preparedness and resilience. In doing so, agencies should promote: (1) engaged and strong partnerships and information sharing at all levels of government; (2) risk-informed decisionmaking and the tools to facilitate it; (3) adaptive learning, in which experiences serve as opportunities to inform and adjust future actions; and (4) preparedness planning. (emphasis mine)

The State Board of Public Utilities and the NJ DEP are involved in major policy initiatives on energy resilience and coastal and infrastructure adaptation policy.

A public hearing would provide an opportunity for the public to learn about and participate in coastal hazard and climate vulnerability/adatpation issues.

4) Because I just recently learned of this draft permit and the comment deadline expires tomorrow, a public hearing and an extension of the comment period would provide necessary time to prepare adequate written technical comments.

5) There are significant cumulative impacts from this plant that require public  scrutiny. The plant impacts fish, wildlife, water resources, natural resources, air quality, Pinelands forests and vegetation, and global climate.

As I was, it is highly likely that the interested public is not aware of the issuance of this draft permit and will not be able to meaningfully participate in the permit process if the comment period is not extended and a public hearing opportunity provided.

To deny the public meaningful opportunity to participate in this significant set of issues would contradict President Obama’s Executive Order on adaptation to climate change and sound agency decision-making.

6) We believe that the public interest would be best served by a shutdown of the plant.

As such, we believe that the USACE should deny the permit as a means of promoting and protecting the public interest.

I appreciate your timely and favorable request to extend the comment period by 60 days and hold a public hearing,

Respectfully,

Another Grant Funded Ruse

Band-Aids and Magical Thinking

“Experts” at these conferences would never suggest that the real solutions lie in things like regulatory mandates by DEP, increased impact fees on developers, storm water fees on existing development, higher user fees, and tax increases.  That might get their corporate boards and Trenton politicians upset~~~ Bill Wolfe

Today Jim O’Neill of the Bergen Record did a followup story to the CSO story I blasted yesterday for presenting “very basic misconceptions” about the DEP’s CSO permits, see: DEP CSO Permits Lack Teeth.

In today’s story, O’Neill walks his flawed and over the top story way back, but he does so implicitly.

Of course, like Clark Kent, mild mannered reporters for major metropolitan newspapers never make mistakes, and when they do, certainly never admit them.

Yesterday, O’Neill was quoting environmental cheerleaders about how wonderful and enforceable the DEP CSO permits were and how they would drive multi-billion dollar infrastructure upgrades in NJ’s cities.

As I noted, that was a false and exaggerated crock of shit.

So today, he abandons the billion dollar major capital investments in infrastructure and dials the actual reality of the DEP CSO permits way back.

In today’s story, O’Neill is talking about CSO planning (not construction) and far less costly and effective “green infrastructure” solutions: rain barrels, rain gardens, and planting trees.

Officials from the affected cities joined with state and federal environmental officials and experts at a forum Thursday in Newark to share ideas about how the cities can reduce raw sewage overflows without breaking the bank. Many who spoke said the cities should take advantage of green infrastructure to reduce the load on their sewer systems.

Some cities have already launched green infrastructure projects, gaining traction in New Jersey and across the nation as a way to deal with storm water runoff. These projects – everything from roof gardens and rain barrels to roadside swales – absorb rainwater before it reaches storm drains.

Don’t get me wrong, I have a rain barrel and I broke up about 75 square feet of sidewalk to plant a small “rain garden” in front of my own house. [*Update 1/24/15 – I just came across a similar view].

But I realize that these are really aesthetic measures – just band-aids on gaping wounds, not real solutions to crumbling water infrastructure and declining water quality.

Real solutions require government mandates and massive investments, which are nowhere on the horizon.

But, I can’t let O’Neill off the hook for completely walking back his mistakes.

Today’s story repeats the misleading line of crap by the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust that I criticized this summer when NJEIT presented the plan to the Legislature.

NJEIT is creating the false impression that the solutions will not cost anything – a free lunch. Check this quote out:

Through the trust, Camden has secured $460 million in loans to make vital upgrades to the city’s sewage treatment system. Because the borrowing involved interest rates lower than the market rate, the program has saved Camden $221 million in borrowing costs, said David Zimmer, the trust’s director.

Camden used the loans for new, more efficient treatment equipment that cut energy costs and reduced the solids that the facility dumped into the Delaware River by 5,000 tons each year, said Andy Kricun, executive director of the Camden County Municipal Utility Authority. He said the agency focused on infrastructure projects that generated savings greater than the debt service of the loans. The agency will follow the same approach to deal with its 23 combined sewer outfall pipes that dump into the Delaware and its tributaries.

Two simple examples can expose this BS: First, if you’re broke and can’t afford it, it doesn’t matter if NJEIT can give you a loan with a lower interest rate that would reduce your loan payments.

Second, the idea about “generat[ing] savings greater than the debt service of the loans” makes NO SENSE for CSO’s.

That argument make sense for situations where borrowing to replace a piece of equipment that you are paying for with a more efficient and lower cost unit, like replacing a motor, can save you operating costs. Another example would be to buy a more efficient heating unit for your home to lower your energy bill or investing in a solar system. They would lower your monthly energy bill. The payback period is short and you save money.

But no one is paying anything to operate CSO’s! They are free! That’s the whole problem. It’s like having a huge hole in your roof or a blown car engine. The solution requires money. You don’t generate the money by reducing the operating cost. The NJ EIT analogy is totally wrong and misleading. (and it fails to mention the fact that the Camden improvements were driven by DEP and EPA regulatory mandates, which is not the case with respect to CSO’s, as I’ve already noted.)

So, after walking back his story yesterday, O’Neill also hints at the real dynamic that explains the cheerleading and what I’ve called “magical thinking” – it’s all about grants:

The conference also featured experts who explained how partnerships among academic institutions, private property owners, non-profits and local governments can leverage money for green infrastructure projects that benefit communities.

Leveraging funding, but that funding goes to academics and non-profits.

And of course, those “experts” at the conference would never suggest that the real solutions lie in things like regulatory mandates by DEP, increased impact fees on developers, storm water fees on existing development, and tax increases.

Those kind of solutions are controversial and the Foundations who provide the grants to these kind of conferences prefer to steer clear of all that.

It might get their corporate boards and Trenton politicians upset.

It’s the Full Monte: Wall Street Finance Meets Privatization and Deregulation

(Almost Makes Us Nostalgic: Where Have You Gone Bob Moses?)

Forget the fact that it was released on a Saturday night after the Christmas holidays, triggering a venomous editorial response.

Forget the fact that it spawned vapid news coverage about “payback” and  “conspiracy theories” and equally vapid editorial denunciations (and memo to Star Ledger editorial board, it is not possible to slime Christie, he’s already is covered in it, see: Chris Christie’s Entire Career Reeks – it’s not just the bridge).

We thought readers would actually like to read the Report and gain some understanding of what it says ( you can read Report here).

So, here’s our initial take – a Cliff Notes version:

The vultures are circling over the Hudson – no not the birds, the Wall Street variety, Vulture Capitalists.

So are the real estate developers and lobbyists and assorted shakedown men, all poised to make a killing by plucking the asset meat off the carcass of the Port Authority.

The Report – I hesitate to call it a Plan – is devoid of any regional or transportation vision other than financial and political.

At least our notorious Powerbroker and master builder Bob Moses used finance, institutional power, and economic interests to drive a larger vision of the region.

The modern day Moses’ regional vision is driven by the economic development oriented private Regional Plan Association – they just released the Fourth Regional Plan. The mainstream regional transportation advocates, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign have a more sensible vision. 

Other visionaries and planners ask questions like: could we bring back trolleys, streetcar suburbs, and inter-city light rail, fueled by renewable wind and solar power, and all of that driving a regional manufacturing renaissance and thousands of new sustainable jobs in decentralized worker owned co-operatives?

But our modern day political opportunists in the Governor’s Offices of New York and New Jersey could summon no vision – or even echo an historical vision or parrot the main stream vision.

So, let’s start by a quick inventory of what the Report says nothing about:

• Vision Gaps and Omissions

The opportunity to reshape an institution as massive as the Port Authority and influence the entire region doesn’t come around often, maybe once in a century. So, the reforms must be bold and reflect 21st Century challenges, not petty political squabbles and greedy financiers.

While noting the historic failure to establish a clearly defined mission for the Port Authority, which has contributed to mission creep into real estate and other non-transportation projects, the Report is devoid of any vision or policy for the future transportation needs of the region, particularly in a carbon constrained future.

The Report also ignores climate change, energy, or any environmental vision, values, policy, or objectives – trip reduction, reduction in VMT, telecommute, shift from airports and roads to rail and public transit, planning for a low carbon future, climate adaptation – all ignored.

That is a stunning failure of leadership and imagination.

• A Questionable Consultant Wrote Report

Next, consider the powerful consulting firm that wrote the Report – the Promontory Group (WaPo):

The dramatic change in the landscape since the financial crisis unraveled global markets has at once propelled Promontory’s business and threatened the reputation it’s built since rehabilitating that of the Irish bank. It’s been thrust into a firestorm over financial consultants, calling into question the influence it yields in the regulatory world, in which billions of dollars are at stake for its clients.

A glaring example emerged last fall, when ProPublica reported that Promontory and other consulting firms were paid nearly $2 billion by banks to examine shoddy mortgage files. The banks were supposed to pay out millions of dollars to borrowers for flawed foreclosure practices. Despite the consultants’ substantial payday, not a single dime of relief reached the homeowners.

So now, let’s turn to the content of the Report – brief excerpts:

• Sending the signal – “Public Private Partnerships” (PPP)

Like Bob Barker from that old TV show The Price is Right shouting “Come on Down”,  the Report is an invitation to Wall Street finance, vulture capitalists, and related privateers and profiteers. The signals begin at the outset:

To fulfill this mandate, the Authority must avail itself of the most advanced engineering, financial and managerial approaches available, from innovative public-private partnerships to state-of-the-art financing techniques, while never losing sight of its daily obligation to keep people and goods moving safely and dependably through the region.  (p.1)

• Real Estate Feeding frenzy: asset firesale

After  sending the invitation, the Report gets a little more specific, announcing upcoming fire sale:

The Panel further recommends that real estate holdings that are no longer central to the Port Authority’s transportation mission, including commercial real estate at the World Trade Center, should be divested in an orderly way that recognizes their monetary value, as well as the national significance of the World Trade Center site. The Panel acknowledges the important role played by the Port Authority in spurring economic growth in Lower Manhattan with the original World Trade Center development, and applauds the leadership shown by the Authority in rebuilding the site in the years since the September 11 attacks. As that rebuilding nears completion, however, the Port Authority must refocus and recommit its efforts to the transportation needs of the region. (p.2)

• Governance

The next section of the Report deals with Governance issues.

I think many people would agree that one of the key governance issues is the loss of professionalism and the proliferation and abuse of patronage appointments.

But there is nothing in the Governance recommendations about patronage appointments and the need for new objective qualification/civil service type reforms to prevent abuse and professionalize the Authority

Other governance issues involve a lack of transparency, openness, and community involvement and public participation in PA decisions.

But there is nothing in the recommendations about a range of needed reforms, from sunshine, to community involvement, transparency, and the need for more open and participatory meetings, deliberations, and planning.

• Bureaucratic and Technocratic Planning vision – no community engagement – status quo fail

We thought we were past this planning model 30 years ago: calling Jane Jacobs!

• Asset Management – or Giveaways?

Other troubling signals about privatization are sent via the recommendations on asset management:

The Port Authority’s mandate has expanded considerably since its founding. As it nears its centennial, however, the Port Authority must refocus and return to its core mission of investing in the region’s airports, port facilities and the Trans-Hudson transportation network. This must be accomplished even as the Authority recognizes that its traditional revenue sources, bridge and tunnel tolls and airport landing fees, will not by themselves support the transportation investments the region requires. The Authority must therefore modernize its approach to the financing, design, and construction of new transportation infrastructure, while managing its existing assets more effectively and efficiently, in order to meet the region’s needs for the 21st century. (p.4)

On a minor technical note, the Report lists ongoing efforts to sell off non essential assets. One that caught my eye was the Newark incinerator. I was involved in the finance of that project, and note that the State of NJ contributed a $48 million no interest loan – that makes taxpayers an equity investor, yet those funds are not mentioned, leading me to question the Report’s rigor.

• Anti-regulatory ideology 

Seemingly out of nowhere and with little or no support, the Report slams regulation – what does this mean?

Coordinate with New York, New Jersey and federal officials to address regulatory constraints that stunt growth, stifle competition and harm the regional economy. (p.5)

• Asset sales to finance transportation investments 

The approach seems to be that the PA will sell of non-core mission assets to finance future necessary investments in transportation. But there doesn’t seem to be any guarantee that the investments would happen, possibly leading to bargain basement fire sales to provide operating revenues to keep tolls and fares down:

Pursue construction of a new Port Authority Bus Terminal, utilizing the embedded value of the Port Authority’s real estate holdings at that location and other sources of funding, to meet the increasing requirements of this vital element of the Trans-Hudson transportation network. (p.6)

• Privatization of PATH

The Report uses deceptive euphemism to recommends privatization of PATH – that issue has already drawn NJ media attention:

d)  Seek an improved operating model for the PATH rail system, including partnering with a third-party operator, to enhance the PATH’s operational performance and reduce its financial deficit.

• The Full Monte – Wall Street financialization meets Privatization and Deregulation

Here’s where the Report’s author’s just let it all hang out – including a recommendation to feather their own nest with millions in future consulting fees et al:

Mission Recommendation #3:
Phase out real estate ownership and development as an element of the Port Authority’s mission.a)  Prudently divest existing real estate holdings and restrict future real estate investments to those integral to the Authority’s core transportation mission.

• Divest and monetize the Port Authority’s commercial real estate holdings at the World Trade Centerpursuant to a plan taking into account both the value of these assets and the site’s national significance.
• Divest and monetize other commercial real estate holdings not necessary to the Authority’s core mission in a manner that maximizes proceeds available to support transportation infrastructure.
• Assess future real estate opportunities using standardized metrics to ensure consistency with the Port Authority’s core mission.

b)  Repurpose, redevelop, or sell underperforming assets, including obsolete facilities suchas the Red Hook Container Terminal. (p.6)

To Our Friends in the Keep It Green Coalition & The Farm Bureau

Bill Wolfe (left), then-policy director of the Sierra Club’s New Jersey chapter, and Jeff Tittel, the director of the environmental advocacy group, discuss farmland in Hopewell, Mercer County, that they hoped to preserve in 2000.
(text to the caption and Photo: Courier-News file)

The Courier News dredged up this oldie but goodie to accompany a smear by a nuclear industry shill, a hit piece with this incredibly Orwellian title:

• RABBLE ROUSER: We can’t afford to reject fossil fuels

I wouldn’t waste my time reading the smear, but I couldn’t resist sharing the photo.

I’ll let Tittel respond to the Sierra smear, but I must expose the huge lie at the core of  Mr Gutherman, the “rabble rouser’s” arguments, i.e. the cost issue. Gutherman claims

 [Sierra Club] wholeheartedly supports the Environmental Protection Agency’s economy-killing, unscientific reductions in fossil power plant emissions that have repeatedly failed any realistic cost-benefit analysis.

That is a flat out lie – the cost benefit analysis on EPA’s proposed existing power plant rule demonstrated huge net economic benefits, at least $50 billion per year.

That economic analysis shows that it is fossil fuels that are killing the planet and costing the economy trillions of dollars (and how do you even quantify the risk of loss of ecological function of the ocean? or of inability to conduct agriculture? or inundation of coastal cities? or deadly heat waves? Economists are just beginning to get a handle on estimating the costs of extreme weather, droughts, and floods, which are the most obvious current climate impacts. Sandy, one climate related storm, cost over $60 billion.)

So, getting back to the topic of this post, for all our friends over at the Keep It Green Coalition and the Farm Bureau, don’t say I don’t support preserving farmland.

Every picture tells a story, so for some of our readers who may not be familiar with the context for that 14+ year old photo, note that it was taken in Hopewell in 2000. So, that gives me a chance to repost the story I shared recently in a post on Ballot Question #2.

It talks about the relative roles of voluntary willing seller based open space preservation versus what  is smeared as “socialistic planning” and  “command and control regulation”.

It is an argument I stand by that that remains important given the debate on restoring Ballot Question #2 diversions and open space implementation legislation – and it too responds to lies:

Hopewell Is A Poster Child for Why Open Space Diversion is Fatally Flawed

…  Hopewell lands were protected from sprawl development by the very watershed planning and water quality management programs that the open space ballot initiative would severely cut.

Hopewell, in the mid 1990′s, became the battleground and statewide focal point for what was then called the war on “suburban sprawl”. I was a resident of Hopewell at the time and was proud to be engaged in this fight.

These battles publicly revolved around massive development plans that involved extensions of sewer lines into Hopewell to support intensive development.

Millions of square feet of new commercial development and thousands of new residential units would have been served by the proposed massive increase in sewer infrastructure and capacity, including along Scotch Road/Merrill Lynch, the BMS campus in Pennington, and north along Rt. 31. These debates included expansion and upgrade of the Pennington treatment plant.

[and if those sewer lines were built, land values would have increase 10 times or more, making an acquisition strategy cost prohibitive.]

A few years later, there was another major development battle at the Berwind site – this one involved expanding an old package wastewater treatment plant and various regulatory restrictions imposed by a DEP Category 1 stream designation.

The common denominator and decisive factor in all these debates was the science and regulatory requirements of DEP’s watershed planning and the water quality management programs.

Those are exactly the same DEP programs that would be slashed by the Open Space ballot diversion.

It is incredibly disingenuous – and just flat out wrong –  for Waltman to ignore this history and regulatory reality in his arguments in favor of Question #2.

On top of all that, following these major battles that local environmentalists won, Hopewell built on that success by adopting perhaps NJ’s most innovative and science based Master Plan and zoning scheme, which is based on water resource capacity – both water quality and water quantity.

Again, it is exactly that science, watershed and water resource capacity based planning, and regulatory programs that preserved so much land in Hopewell that would be slashed under the Open Space diversion.

No town in NJ provides a more compelling example than Hopewell  of the value of watershed planning, water quality management, and DEP science and technical support programs.

It is extremely shortsighted and totally counterproductive to sacrifice those very effective programs on the mantle of a half baked, rob Peter to pay Paul, open space funding scheme.

Trio of Terrible Bills Now On Governor Christie’s Desk

No Daylight Between Dems and Gov. Christie 

When Senate President Sweeney posted the water privatization bill for a floor vote on December 18 – the bill that would eliminate the current requirement that local voters approve any sale of their public water systems – I tweeted a question: Would Sweeney pay a political price for this?

The bill was an outrageous dual attack on fundamental democratic rights and the public sphere, on behalf of corporate interests.

The bill was vehemently opposed by virtually the entire Democratic base: labor, environmentalists, consumer, good government, and progressives who oppose stripping away of democratic rights to favor more corporate power and profits.

The bill split the Democrats – 9 D’s voted NO – and squeaked through the Senate by a 21-16 vote.

So, did Sweeney pay a political price?

Not from labor –

Sweeney made sure to post – on the same December day – a (failed) over-ride vote on restrictions of Gov. Christie’s privatization deals, and Charlie Wowkanech wrote an Op-Ed to go right along and provide cover – with no criticism from labor on an outrageous privatization scheme. CWA was similarly on the sidelines.

So, labor settles for a symbolic gesture, while privatization of public assets expands. Heckofajob!

Not from environmental groups –

The dust had not yet settled and yet Environment NJ rushed to hold a press conference with Sweeney on wind – a big wet kiss – again, providing political cover and getting absolutely nothing in return.

As I’ve written – the barrier to wind is the cost test in law. If Dems say they are pro-wind, then pass a bill to correct or eliminate the cost test.

And what ever happened to the 80% renewable energy bill?

Why do labor and environmentalists constantly get so easily played?

And not from self proclaimed “progressive” outlets like BlueJersey – they do Dem cheerleading only – or even NJ Spotlight, the only outlet that covers Trenton policy.

So, here’s the quick rundown on the status of the horrible bill’s Sweeney rammed through on December 18 – surely, a December to remember:

• Water Privatization (S2412)

We’ve written extensively about how bad this bill is (see this and this and this) so we’ll just leave you today with a quote from Senator Smith’s floor debate:

“This is such a bad deal for the citizens of NJ. This is crazy… just giving away our water supply.”   ~~~ Water privatization bill removing public vote requirement moves to Christie’s desk

The bill is on Christie’s desk.

• Permit Extension Act (S2551)

I wrote about that here.

Governor Christie already signed the bill, see: Christie signs controversial bill to extend N.J. building permits

• Sweetheart deals for Highlands Landowners while State Parks are starved (S1050)

I wonder how Senator Sweeney felt about this headline?

• N.J. Senate seeks more relief for Highlands landowners

The bill is a sweetheart deal for wealthy individuals and corporate speculators that own large land parcels in the Highlands. They will get an extension of an “incentive” that set the appraised value of their land PRIOR to passage of the Highlands Act’s development restrictions. Land values are based largely on the ability to develop them.

The bill will increase the appraised value of Highlands  land – and therefore public costs of acquisition – by 10 times or more.

This huge giveaway to the Highlands comes at a time when the State Parks capital budget and operating funds have been diverted to the new “Open Space” fund, which is less that 1/3 of its historic level. The scarcity of funds has set off nasty competition between State parks, open space, farmland, historic preservation, and urban advocates.

In this fiscal context, it is literally crazy to extend “incentives” to wealthy Highlands landowners and corporate speculators.

The Highlands is the only place in NJ where landowners are “protected” by law from diminution in their speculative land value resulting from environmental restrictions on development.

The provision was part of the political deal to secure votes for passage of the Highlands Act in 2004. The intent was to encourage willing sellers to offer their property for State acquisition.

Expecting landowners to voluntarily come forward, the Highlands Council refused to invoke their power under the Act to designate lands for “preservation”, where all development was prohibited.

But landowners were only granted this “incentive” for 5 years – a period later extended to 10 years.

But instead of coming forward to sell their land or development rights, landowners fought the act tooth and nail – first in losing lawsuits and then politically, seeking legislative repeal or Governor Christie’s rollback.

Now, those landowners are rewarded for their intransigence and political attacks on the Highlands – and the reward was provided by Democrats.

• Commercialization of Liberty State Park (S2647)

This was a stealth move – see yesterday’s Bergen Record story of the ugly details:

Advocates see hidden threat to Liberty State Park; bill could spark development

A paragraph added at the last minute to a bill awaiting Governor Christie’s signature puts a new state commission in charge of development of Liberty State Park, a move some believe will make it easier for the park’s coveted Hudson River waterfront to be sold or leased to private developers.

I’ve written the setup story and the backstory.

The bill is on the Governor’s desk.

So there it is, a Democratic  December to remember.