Prieto’s Straw Man On Liberty State Park Does Not Pass The Straight Face Test

DEP’s support for a new Meadowlands Commission role is the threat to Liberty State Park

Any bill to repair the damage must exclude Meadowlands Commission from any role at LSP

[Update below]

I just read the Jersey Journal story on Speaker Prieto’s Liberty State Park “repair bill” that we criticized yesterday, see

• New bill gives DEP Commissioner final say on Liberty State Park development plans

That’s exactly the misleading headline Prieto wanted, because most people think DEP is out to do the right thing and protect the park from development.

But that assumption is false with respect to the Christie DEP, who is actively promoting parks development.

According to Speaker Prieto, his “repair bill”  (A4196 [1R]) is supposed to fix the alleged inadvertent error in the law that established a new Meadowlands Regional Commission.

Prieto’s Office is quoted thusly:

“Speaker Prieto has consistently said that the DEP should have final say on any plans involving Liberty State Park,” said Philip Swibinski, a spokesman for Prieto. “He has worked with environmental advocacy groups and other stakeholders to ensure that this always remains the case by sponsoring this legislation and he will continue to support it.”

The issue is not and never was whether DEP had “final say”. That is a straw man.

The Bergen Record already exposed this “DEP final say” as a straw man argument.

On January 5, 2015, the Bergen Record reported that multiple sources confirmed that the DEP requested the amendments to involve the Meadowlands Commission, see:

• DEP requested change in Liberty park oversight

On February 12, 2015, NJTV quoted Prieto, who confirmed that DEP requested the amendments:

“The DEP requested the language giving it the ability to use the Meadowlands Regional Commission as a tool to evaluate and implement plans and the commission can only become involved at the request of the DEP commissioner,” said Prieto in a statement today.

Prieto’s explanation of why DEP asked for the amendments makes absolutely no sense – no sense at all and is a straw man.

Just asking very basic questions shows that Prieto’s straw man doesn’t pass the straight face test – questions like this:

1. Why would DEP want the Meadowlands Commission involved at the Park?

DEP already owns, manages, controls, and regulates Liberty State Park. They have no need for the Meadowlands Commission’s help to continue those park services.

Besides, have you ever seen a bureaucracy that wanted to share and dilute its power, control and legal authority?

2. Why would DEP want or need the Meadowlands Commission to “evaluate and implement plans” at the Park?

DEP already has professional parks planners and mangers on staff, and an ability to retain specialized contract consultants for planning, design, architectural, engineering, etc work they can not do.

DEP has no need for Meadowlands Commission involvement in “evaluating and implementing plans” at the park – unless the work “implement” is a mask for FINANCING DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK.

3. Why would DEP request changes in law to involve the Meadowlands Commission at Liberty State Park?

4. At a time when its very difficult for both Chairs of Environmental Committees to get DEP to testify or to even provide information regarding legislation, why was DEP so eager to get involved and seek amendments to this Meadowlands bill ?

5. Why would DEP request these amendments in a stealth fashion?

6. What does the Meadowlands Commission have to contribute to  park planning or management?

• What we know answers those questions

To ask the question is to answer it.

So, let’s look  at Prieto’s straw man in light of what we know.

• We know that Gov. Christie has an aggressive privatization policy
• We know that Gov. Christie is desperately seeking revenues to close budget deficits he has created via billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts
• We know that Gov. Christie is willing to cut dirty deals that sacrifice the environment to get those revenues
• We know that Gov. Christie will use executive power to divert revenues that are not Constitutionally dedicated
• We know that Gov. Christie’s “Sustainable Parks Strategy” seeks to maximize revenue generating potential of State parks
• We know that DEP has development plans for LSP
• We know that DEP provided a $120,000 grant to NJ Future to study development of the Park
• We know that neither DEP nor NJ Future will release that development study
• We know that DEP is broke and can not issue bonds
• We know that any lease or concession revenue generated at the Park is constitutionally dedicated to the Open Space Fund as a result of the November ballot question, so therefore those revenues could NOT be used for some kind of public private partnership or contract/lease revenue based financing scheme.

The obvious answer is that DEP needs the Meadowlands Commission to finance park development schemes.

That is why any “cleanup” or “repair” legislation must completely remove the Meadowlands Commission from Liberty State Park and restore the status quo.

That is why Prieto’s spin does not pass the straight face test.

And that is why NY/NJ Baykeeper and FLSP compromise with and support of Prieto’s “repair bill” is a really bad move.

[Update: NJ Future, while raising much broader regional planning issues, also opposes the LSP provisions of Prieto’s bill.

NJ Future’s testimony argues that the issue is based on development rights:

4. It transfers to the Sports and Exposition Authority the development rights to Liberty State Park, putting the state’s largest urban park at risk of unbridled development. The Liberty State Park development issue is not resolved adequately in this bill. While the bill makes it clear that DEP still maintains “ownership” of the park, the Sports and Exposition Authority in effect has the development rights, which means that they can make all decisions about what gets developed in the park. Development rights can be separated from ownership. There is no additional authority, review or approval required by the Sports and Exposition Authority to develop anything and everything within the park. These development rights should remain with DEP. We recommend eliminating this section in its entirety. It is our understanding that the DEP and the Sports and Exposition Authority already have the legal means to create inter-agency agreements to do all the things that DEP says it wants done, which is a much more transparent and reasonable approach.

A much more transparent approach! That’s rich, coming from the group that did a secret development study.

Now, if NJ Future would disclose just what it is that “DEP says it wants done” and post the $120,000 study they managed covertly for DEP