WolfeNotes.com

Christie Betrayal On Open Space Goes Unchallenged By Conservation Groups

Will Obama Administration Allow Christie To Continue To Abuse Federal Gravy Train?

Once again, facts show that Gov. Christie is a hypocrite and a liar who breaks his promises.

Once again, Christie submits documents required to receive federal money that are contradicted by his actual in state policies.

Christie has done this repeatedly to HUD, FEMA, DOT, and EPA. Here is the latest abuse – the National Parks Service.

This is Gov. Christie’s most recent statement on open space, harshly denouncing the proposed November ballot question and urging voters to kill the measure:

SEA BRIGHT, N.J. (AP) — Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday railed against a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would earmark millions of dollars for open space preservation in New Jersey.

Speaking to reporters during a press conference on the Jersey Shore, Christie slammed the measure as “irresponsible” ”ridiculous” and a “perversion of the constitutional process.”

“I think it’s wrong, I think it was a bad move by the legislature,” said the Republican governor, who said he would be voting no on the ballot question and urged others to do the same. ~~~ AP –  “Christie rails against open space measure (8/28/14)

Here is Gov. Christie’s DEP on exactly the same question, in a plan required for federal open space funding:

“New Jerseyans have continually expressed their support…to carry out a comprehensive open space preservation and recreation program. There is no stronger testament of this support than residents consistently voting for open space and recreation referendums not only at the State level, but at the local level as well. In 2013, 257 New Jersey local governments, all 21 counties and 236 municipalities, assessed a tax for land preservation and recreation purposes. New Jersey is clearly a national leader in open space preservation and funding park and recreation facilities. ~~~ New Jersey’s 2013-2017 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

It is hard to find a greater contradiction or example of Christie hypocrisy. Or flat out lies and betrayals.

In 2009, Gubernatorial Candidate Chris Christie promised to enact a dedicated permanent source of funds for open space preservation, e.g. Green Acres, Farmland, Historic, and Blue Acres funding.

That promise was one of the reasons he was endorsed by the NJ Environmental Federation, who amazingly wrote during the campaign to explain their endorsement: (this is a verbatim quote – curiously, none of the NJEF links are working, something I anticipated when I saved this text):

Contrary to Corzine, Christie has committed to the following as you already know: 

• Increasing protections for our most vulnerable and important waterways through the state’s Category 1 program;
• replenishing the state’s bankrupt open space program;
• requiring the state’s nuclear plants to stop their destruction in and around Barnegat Bay and the Delaware River;
• Opposing the proposed coal plant in Linden; and
• Issuing an executive order to reduce killer diesel soot pollution

Five years later, everyone now knows that all of this was a pack of lies by Christie. (I knew at the time, and wrote about that here – to warn folks who may have been duped, I cross posted that at Blue Jersey as “Don’t be fooled: Christie’s Environmental Agenda A Disaster For NJ”.

So, after betraying those commitments to NJEF, pursuing an across the board assault on environmental policy, and then piling on with his harsh public denunciation of the November open space Ballot question, after asking specifically for a response to Christie’s comments, all I could get out of Dave Pringle of NJEF was this lame and incomprehensible response (printed in full, boldface is mine):

On the ballot question we’re officially neutral, while we’ve opposed and supported past gspt bills depending on the details and politics of the time. We’re not spending much time on this one given that and so much else going on where we think we can make more Of a difference for the better. Want open space funding but concerned about source and amount here, … Not as fiscally irresponsible as some recent past efforts we opposed, not environmentally or fiscally responsible enough to warrant our support. Most, but not all, pols and enviros supporting it doing for right reasons but they’ve been led astray

Christie’s critique is mixed and where right it’s mostly for the wrong reasons and/or he’s the primary responsible party for nj’s poor envl and political climate we’re in.

Remarkably, Pringle’s lame response is more critical of Christie than the “Keep It Green” (KIG) Coalition, champion of the open space ballot question.

KIG refused to even respond to my questions  and has done and said nothing publicly that I am aware of to criticize or otherwise respond to the Gov.’s attack on their initiative that they worked so hard to get through the legislature.

Yet, in strong contrast, during the course of an extended legislative debate on the matter, KIG managed to repeatedly denounce Democrats for failing to move the initiative – particularly the Assembly leadership.

Throughout the legislative process, while Tom Gilmore of KIG blasted Democrats in press remarks, they remained silent about Gov. Christie’s failure to honor his promises on open space funding.

Remarkably, KIG even looked the other way when Christie twisted fellow republican arms in the Senate to sandbag the initiative.

No wonder the newspapers got the story all wrong (see this for an example).

No wonder Christie is walking all over environmental groups and the public knows so little about Christie’s terrible environmental record.

But surely the Obama Administration is fully aware of this. Why do they allow it to continue?

Get the full story from our friends at PEER:

For Immediate Release:  Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Contact:  Bill Wolfe (609) 397-4861; Kirsten Stade (202) 265-7337

CHRISTIE’S TWO-FACES ON OPEN SPACES

Bashes Open Space Commitment He Touts to Win Federal Grants

Trenton — As Governor Chris Christie lashes out against a November ballot measure to invest millions of dollars for open space preservation, his administration submitted a federal grant application proposing to grow New Jersey’s open space inventory by nearly half, according to documents posted by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  In contrast to Gov. Christie last week calling a greater commitment to open space “crazy stuff” his grant application fulsomely declares –

“New Jerseyans have continually expressed their support…to carry out a comprehensive open space preservation and recreation program. There is no stronger testament of this support than residents consistently voting for open space and recreation referendums not only at the State level, but at the local level as well. In 2013, 257  New Jersey local governments, all 21 counties and 236 municipalities, assessed a tax for land preservation and recreation purposes. New Jersey is clearly a national leader in open space preservation and funding park and recreation facilities.

New Jersey’s 2013-2017 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan was submitted to maintain the state’s eligibility to receive federal funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, administered by the National Park Service.  The Plan states that its purpose is to “preserve a sufficient amount of open space for current and future public recreational use and for the conservation of natural resources important to protecting New Jersey’s biodiversity and quality of life.”  To that end, it concludes that “There is a need to preserve an additional 650,000 acres of open space statewide” – roughly a 50% increase in the state’s current total amount of open space.  Submitted in 2013, the plan remains in “draft” status, however.

“Apparently the only time the Christie crowd will admit the importance of open space to protect water supplies, stem coastal pollution or increase public safety is when they think it will secure another federal grant,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, noting that the state grant pitch calls open space “one of the cornerstones of New Jersey’s quality of life.”  “The only constant in the Christie administration is that consistency is always trumped by opportunism.”

In fact, the Christie administration has compiled an abysmal open space record by racking up a pattern of actions designed to weaken land use planning, roll back anti-sprawl rules and issue large-scale waivers for a wide variety of land use protections.  A sample of the Christie development-above-all posture includes:

• The thousand- page plan this June rewriting 40 years of coastal management rules to promote development in shellfish habitat, allow marinas, restaurants and housing in floodplains and aggravate expected damage from climate-induced sea level rise;
• Gutting safeguards and independence of both the Pinelands and Highlands Commissions; and
• Neutering the State Planning Commission, which has not met in months and only sporadically over the last four years, while tossing out the state’s land use plan and replacing it with an economic development strategy.

“It is hard to think of an instance where the Christie administration has opposed any development on the basis of inappropriate land use impacts or has enforced a rule restricting development,” added Wolfe, noting that Christie post-Sandy reconstruction plans epitomize an approach embracing rebuilding in-place even where it puts people and property at greater risk.  “Instead, they have systematically scaled back state planning and regulatory policies to stem sprawl.”

###

Look at New Jersey’s draft Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 

Compare new Coastal Zone Management and permit proposal

See how anti-“Red Tape” powers used to promote development

Examine state post-Sandy rebuild-in-place approach 

New Jersey PEER is a state chapter of a national alliance of state and federal agency resource professionals working to ensure environmental ethics and government accountability

The man with the pickled fish

One of the highlights of my California tour was a visit to the National Steinbeck Center in Salinas.

Initially disturbed by confronting the ghastly modernist architecture totally out of place with the region and the author’s writing, I was pleased to enter into the exhibits and immerse in Steinbeck’s works.

After spending the morning, I toured the Valley, then drove out to Monterey.

Since returning, I’ve gone back and started re-reading, beginning with Cannery Row (1945).

Last night I opened The Log From The Sea Of Cortez (1941) and, after the homage to Ed Ricketts, was just blown away by the superb Introduction, one of the finest summaries on the scientific method and ways of seeing the world, thinking, travel, and living I’ve come across. Here’s an extended excerpt of that:

The Design of a book is the pattern of a reality controlled and shaped by the mind of the writer. This is completely understood about poetry or fiction, but it is too seldom realized about books of fact. And yet the impulse which drives a man to poetry will send another man into the tide pools and force him to try to report what he finds there. Why is an expedition to Tibet undertaken, or a sea bottom dredged? […]

We have a book to write about the Gulf of California. We could do one of several things about its design. But we have decided to let it form itself: its boundaries a boat and the sea; its duration a six weeks’ charter time; its subject everything we could see and think and even imagine; its limits – our own without reservation.

We made a trip into the Gulf; sometimes we dignified it by calling it an expedition. Once it was called the Sea of Cortez, and that’s a better sounding and more exciting name. We stopped in many little harbors and near barren coasts to collect and preserve the marine invertebrates of the littoral. One of the reasons we gave ourselves for this trip – and when we used this reason, we called the trip an expedition – was to observe the distribution of invertebrates, to see and record their kinds and numbers, how they lived together, what they ate, and how they reproduced. That plan was simple, straightforward, and only a part of the truth. But we did tell the truth to ourselves. We were curious. Our curiosity was not limited, but was as wide and horizonless as that of Darwin or Agassiz or Linnaeus or Pliny. We wanted to see everything our eyes would accommodate, to think what we could, and, out of our seeing and thinking, to build some kind of structure in modeled imitation of the observed reality. We knew that what we would see and record and construct would be warped, as all knowledge patterns are warped, first, by the collective pressure and stream of our time and race, second by the thrust of our individual personalities. But knowing this, we might not fall into too many holes – we might maintain some balance between our warp and the separate thing, the external reality.The oneness of these two might take its contribution from both. For example, the Mexican sierra has “XVII – 15 – IX” spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted. But if the sierra strikes hard on the line so that our hands are burned, if the fish sounds and nearly escapes and finally comes in over the rail, his colors pulsing and his tail beating the air, a whole new relational externality has come into being – an entity which is more than the sum of the fish plus the fisherman. The only way to count the spines of the sierra unaffected this second relational reality is to sit in the laboratory, open an evil smelling jar, remove a stiff colorless fish from formalin solution, count the spines, and write the truth “D. XVII – 15-IX.” There you have recorded a reality which cannot be assailed – probably the least important reality concerning either the fish or yourself.

It is good to know what you are doing. The man with the pickled fish has set down one truth and has recorded in his experience many lies. The fish is not that color, that texture, that dead, nor does he smell that way.

Such things we had considered in the months of planning our expedition and we were determined not to let a passion for unassailable little truths draw in the horizons and crowd the sky down on us. We knew that what seemed to us true could be only relatively true anyway. There is no other kind of observation. The man with his pickled fish has sacrificed a great observation about himself, the fish, and the focal point, which is his thoughts on both the sierra and himself.

We suppose this was the mental provisioning of our expedition. We said, “Let’s go wide open. Let’s see what we see, record what we find, and not fool ourselves with conventional scientific strictures. We could not observe a completely objective Sea of Cortex anyway, for in that lonely and uninhabited Gulf our boat and ourselves would change the moment we entered. By going there, we would bring a new factor to the Gulf. Let us consider that factor and not be betrayed by this myth of permanent objective reality. If it exists at all, it is only available in pickled tatters or in distorted flashes. “Let us go” we said “into the Sea of Cortez, realizing that we become forever a part of it; that our rubber boots slogging through a flat of eel grass, that the rocks we turn over in a tide pool, make us truly and permanently a factor in the ecology of the region. We shall take something away from it, but we shall leave something too.” […]

We determined to go doubly open so that in the end we could, if we wished, describe the sierra thus: “D. XVII-15-IX.” but also we could see the fish alive and swimming, feel it plunge against the lines, drag it threshing over the rail, and finally eat it. And there is no reason why either approach should be inaccurate. Spine-count description need not suffer because another approach is also used. Perhaps out of the two approaches, we thought, there might emerge a picture more complete and even more accurate than either alone could produce. And so we went.