State Open Space Question

[admin]

I meant to save the article and post it here, but I lost it. There is going to be another open space question on the November ballot, this time coming from the state.

As I understand it, this one is different than the county one, which has been posted on this site. The state parks, being typical of the state, have planned very poorly in recent years. The reason for their referendum is to raise money for quite a bit of much needed repair on buildings and maintenance. The state has bought plenty of land, which is good for preservation. The problem is, the state, unlike Monmouth County, had not planned on the upkeep of it's charge. State parks are paying for that now, which is why they are looking to receive voter approval.

I know that the state parks have incredible parks, and especially historic preservation sites, most of which need help. I do have to question the wisdom and timing of putting this question on the ballot. We all know the state is in big trouble, and a voter backlash is predictable.

[Marc LeVine]

Brian:

You are absolutely right. Our taxpayer dollars are asked to cover an awful lot of ground. When times are good, we don't mind paying a little more toward "feel good" initiatives like adding a few parks from Open Space. But, given the state's current fiscal status - AND OUR OWN - things like this can sit on the back-burner for awhile, if it means putting more of our dollars back into our own hands for family needs.

John Rosseel used a great analogy that fits this sort of thinking. "Its like taking a little old lady with terminal cancer out to buy a new dress and get her hair done. She may look nice, but inside she is really sick and dying." The state doesn't need to invest our dollars in Open Space, at a time when most of us are just fighting to make ends meet. This is pure window dressing at a time when we are trying to "resuscitate the patient" - the New Jersey taxpayer!

Open Space is an oxymoron. When you ride into the woods of Jackson, THAT is open space. It is beautiful. It is unspoiled. And, it costs of nothing to maintain. At one time, prior to Jamestown, the whole country was Open Space. Now, the politicians have found a way to cost us money - protecting Open Space. Isn't this the code name for keeping this land out of the hands of developers? Heck, some rezoning should be able to do that, shouldn't it? YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING HERE! Should be simple, enough.

Why must every piece of Open Space have Soccer fields and lights? We don't have to inhabit every square inch of land in our towns. We don't have to engage in eminent domain battles with birds and deer. Trees are nice enough to look at and - left alone - can give us some cost free pleasure.

Our legislators have bigger fist to fry, right now.

Marc L.

[admin]

Marc,

We just finished up with some back and forth on the history section. Do not forget that both the county and state have been good in historical preservation, the state especially.

You are right, open space is a race against development. Much more so that many people realize. Once the land is gone, it is gone. Keep in mind that most development is for the upper class. We will not see parks using eminent domain to acquire their land, only that of the working class.

Also, so not forget, open space covers many categories of use. More than just conservation, there is active recreation. historical preservation, and farmland preservation, to name a few.

For the record, I like to be consistent. I will vote no for any open space question.

[Marc LeVine]

Historical Preservation - absolutely should be a priority. When you deal with preserving old buildings you are running against the clock. You can reclaim land, but you can't reclaim historic buildings lost to neglect.

Farmland Preservation - I love farms and we need them, but I am not sure how you can preserve a farm without interested farmers. Until this COUNTRY finds a way for farmers to make a decent living it is an uphill battle for our farms. I'm also torn between the issue of trying to keep a farm a farm (ormaking it a park) versus letting a struggling old couple make a nice profit on THEIR LAND for have a nice retirement. These people have slaved on the farm from sunup to sundown for years and their kids aren't interested in doing the same. It's their property to do with what they wish. Farming isn't very lucrative, so finding farmer replacements isn't too easy. What good is a farm without a farmer? We REALLY need more farms, so the answer lies in interesting more farmers to take over and create situations to allow them to make a good living. I suppose some farms do make good parks, but that isn't really farmland preservation, in my opinion.

Active Recreation - Great for the community when you have enough and not too much. There are parks and fields throughout America that are underutilized and even overdeveloped. In NJ, when times are tough, new park "development" can wait awhile. Just got to be able to freeze frame the land (we agree) so that developers don't get hold of it first. So, buying is one thing, developing parks during tough times can wait.

I, too will vote NO on this question in 2006, though I might vote YES for similar questions in the future. This year, it has to be about better fiscal control in Trenton.

Marc L.

The issue of development is all about greed. There are more politicians and developes in bed with one another than there are trees needing to be cut down in our towns. Keene, New Hampshire where my son goes to school is a nice community with a downtown like Freehold. They successfully fought off a mall developer outside of town. They have one area Walmart, a single Home Depot and a couple of supe markets. It's a college town with a decent size permanent residential population. What they have now seems to be enough. Plenty of forests, hills and lakes exist for a nice Sunday drive. It remains unspoiled, because that's the way the people want it. They feel that what they have is plenty enough. Our NY transplants can't get enough and the developers and politicians know this.

Marc L.