Open Space Debate Finally Emerges

Environmentalists split on open space referendum

Bob Jordan of the Asbury Park Press has written the first serious story about the real debate on the November Open Space Ballot question, see:

• Environmentalists split on open space referendum

That debate – which should have occurred during the legislative process – has been blocked by the well financed spin and flat out lies of supporters of the initiative, as I’ve written about several times now e.g.most recently see:

• JERSEY OPEN SPACE MEASURE CANNIBALIZES PARKS & ECO-PROGRAMS
• An Open Letter to Members of the NJ Conservation Community

So I am pleased and it is encouraging that facts and real debate are starting to emerge.

It is highly significant that prominent and well respected public figures like former NJ Senator Gordon MacInness, head of NJ Policy Perspective, and former public advocate and well known lawyer Bill Potter have written eloquent Op-eds recently urging voters to oppose the measure.

I must admit, before this recent round of honest debate, I was beginning to feel like the last man standing.

So, given all that, I am going to take an unusual step and print the entire Bob Jordan story  here, and let readers decide who is credible and who is spinning:

TRENTON – Opposition to a statewide open space referendum in November is coming from an unlikely source – environmentalists.

New Jersey voters in less than a month will be asked to approve dedicating up to $4 billion of corporate taxes over the next 30 years to the preservation of open space.

Critics say the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot diverts money from corporate taxes away from other environmental initiatives, such as clean water programs and hazardous waste cleanups.

But environmentalists on both sides of the issue agree that defeat of the public question could doom future funding of the open space program.

“My advice to the voters of New Jersey is to vote no, but I realize we’re in a lose-lose situation, because nobody will ever put together another bond question in the future,’’ Bill Wolfe, director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said Wednesday.

Wolfe said the measure will “devastate existing bread and butter environmental programs’’ but Jeff Tittel, state director of the Sierra Club, said Wolfe and other critics are overstating the impact.

Tittel said his group will push for the state to replace any money that’s diverted from “essential environmental programs.’’

“People are criticizing this dedication but you didn’t hear from them until after the fact. This is the ballot question we have. It is up to all of us to work together and pass it whether you like it or not, because losing will cause bigger harm to the environment,’’ Tittel said.

There is also opposition from the conservative group Americans For Prosperity, which in a statement after the Legislature approved putting the question on the ballot called the move “out of touch with the realities of our current fiscal crisis and unfunded liabilities.’’

Gordon MacInnes, a former lawmaker who is head of the liberal New Jersey Policy Perspective group, in an op-ed in the Asbury Park Press this week said the ballot proposal is among New Jersey’s “financing gimmicks’’ and should be defeated.

MacInnes in an interview said defeat wouldn’t necessarily mean an end to future funding of preservation programs. He pointed to similar ballot questions since they were first offered in 1961 — all 13 questions were approved.

“I think people understand the need for open space preservation in the most densely populated state and I believe there is no reason to believe that view would be changed if this one didn’t pass,’’ MacInnes said. “The bigger issue is that the Legislature should have asked voters to approve borrowing through a bond issue rather than diverting money, a tactic we are seeing too often and is politically easy for lawmakers.’’

Bob Jordan 609-984-4343, bjordan@app.com