In Praise of “The Holdovers”

Will Christie Canned Canal Commissioners Go Out With A Bang or a Whimper?

What's around the bend at the D&R Canal Commission?

• In making the nominations, the governor did not give any reasons for the changes. The current commissioners are “serving in a hold-over capacity until Governor Christie named commissioners,” said Sean Conner, a spokesman. Hunterdon County Democrat 9/26/12)

• The different roles of the canal – as a water supply system, a recreational site, historic site, natural area, and means of enhancing urban areas – are not to be ranked in importance so that compromises can be made. Compromises do not have to be made at all; accommodation of equal importance of each use is the guide. (D&R Canal State Park Master Plan)

The rain began shortly before the end of yesterday morning’s monthly meeting of the D&R Canal Commission, a dreary ending to the impending “creative destruction” of the current Commission.

After seeking to abolish the Commission early in his tenure – a move blocked by strong public opposition and the Legislature –  Governor Christie instead now seeks to sack and replace the 4 current Commissioners and fill 4 vacancies, for a clean sweep (see:  Gov. Christie’s Retaliatory Massacre at the D&R Canal Commission).

The Governor’s folly was severely criticized by long time Canal advocates and Commission observers, who passionately described the Governor’s move as a loss of irreplaceable institutional memory and deep knowledge and experience of the Canal.

Members of Commissions and governing bodies typically have staggered terms to avoid exactly this problem.

Wholesale replacement of the entire Commission was opposed by three Commissioners themselves, who urged the public to contact their Senators and urge that the Governor’s slate of nominees be revised so that some current members could remain to provide continuity and experience in Commission affairs.

I urged the Commissioners not to “go gentle into that good night“, – to “rage against the dying of the light” – poetry worthy of the moment:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, 
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

In other matters, the substantive agenda item of most importance was whether the outgoing Commission members would initiate a planning process to update the Master Plan and whether that update would be a comprehensive one or limited to and focused on Bull’s Island.

At the outset of this discussion, the Commissioners received highly misleading legal advice from DAG Jablonksi (who is leaving also) regarding the Commission’s planning powers.

Jablonski created the mis-impression that a Master Plan update had to be a comprehensive effort. This lead the Commissioners to reject  that as infeasible due to a staff deficit to do the planning work and their impending departure and replacement.

Acting Chairman Loos concluded “we are not capable of this [work] and extensive outreach” and recommended that the Update be revisited in 2013 by the new Commissioners.

I then rose to object and advise that the DAG failed to mention important planning powers to amend the Master Plan (“or portion thereof“) in lieu of a comprehensive update. This would enable a targeted planning effort on the future of Bull’s Island. Here the applicable satutory language, in boldface:

13:13A-13. Master plan for physical development of park; review of State projects, permits.

13. a. The commission shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and, after a public hearing, or public hearings, and pursuant to the provisions provided for in subsection 13 b. of this act, adopt a master plan or portion thereof for the physical development of the park, which plan may include proposals for various stages in the future development of the park, or amend the master plan.

As I wrote:

The current D&R Canal State Park Master Plan is 23 years old, last updated and adopted in May 1989.

The Master Plan provides an excellent historical overview, assessment of current conditions, and a vision for the Park’s future. The Plan explains the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies with involvement in the Park, and provides a resource inventory of the Park.

The Vision, principles, and objective adopted by the Plan (p. 31) are particularly important and relevant. The Plan emphasizes the unique nature of a linear park.

The Plan recognizes that despite the multi-uses of the Park, there is a special need for “serenity and separation from the man-made world”. To assure that serenity,  the Plan explicitly rejects compromising the protection of designated uses by competing uses.

The principle and strong sense of separation from man-made activities in the rural portions of the Park are core values.

Of particular relevance to Bull’s Island debate is this principle:

To the extent that it is practical, the Canal Park is an area that should be maintained in its natural state. […]

We welcome a planning process that focuses on maintaining Bull’s Island in its natural state.

I urged the Commissioners to engage a planning process for Bull’s Island BEFORE departing “into that good night”. The policy issue could be framed and planning methods defined for the next Commission.

The policy issue would be whether to designate the northern tip as a Natural Area, as the southern portion of the Island currently is designated.

The planning methods would focus on forest ecology and natural characteristics, including the tip of the Island’s importance in maintaining the structural integrity of the Canal as a water supply source.

I praised the current Master Plan, particularly the enlightened principle that “the park must retain a degree of serenity and separation from the man-made world” and the overall approach of the plan to advancing the various principles and objectives.

Typically, planners must weigh and balance competing or conflicting objectives.

The Canal Master Plan is unusual in how it explicitly rejects this balancing framework in principle.

Principle:

As a multi-use resource, each of the Canal Park’s primary roles must be given equal weight. 

The different roles of the canal – as a water supply system, a recreational site, history site, natural area, and means of enhancing urban areas – are not to be ranked in importance so that compromises can be made. Compromises do not have to be made at all; accommodation of equal importance of each use is the guide. (@ p.32 – emphases mine)

I advised the Commisioners that DEP’s proposed plan to cut trees to protect recreational users would compromise other critical Master Plan objectives and uses, including maintaining the Island as a natural area and protecting water supply, a clear violation of a core principle of the Plan which is to reject the notion of ranking and balancing and compromising objectives!

If the Commisioners would initiate a planning process, that would do damage control on the ultimate DEP plan for cutting trees and send a clear expectation and message to the new Commissioners: Don’t Mess With Bull’s Island!

Of course, this was all lost on Commissioner Knights, a corporate developer by trade who touted his approach to seeking “balance” – a concept the Master Plan rejects in Principle!