|
Post by admin on Dec 31, 2009 6:46:48 GMT -5
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/1230/front_page/014.htmlFreeholders approve open space grants The Monmouth County Board of Freeholders has approved grants totaling $2,357,000 from the 2009 Monmouth County Open Space Trust Fund to acquire, create or improve park facilities in 13 municipalities. "This program is a valuable tool to help municipalities maintain and improve the quality of life in their communities," said Freeholder Lillian G. Burry. All of the county's 53 municipalities were eligible to apply for land acquisition and park facility funding awards. Twenty-one towns submitted complete applications with requests totaling $3.8 million. This is the seventh year of the program. Four grants for open space or park acquisition projects were awarded: • Manalapan, $250,000 for the acquisition of 36 acres of hardwood forest in an environmentally sensitive area that supports passive recreation, preservation of the town's character and is adjacent to existing municipal open space. • Millstone Township, $250,000 for the acquisition of 21.6 acres that will expand Millstone Park and improve public access, expand use and provide a more diverse park environment. • Asbury Park, $86,000 toward the purchase of 18 contiguous lots to expand park opportunities for west side residents. The 1.35-acre project is part of a redevelopment plan. • Fair Haven, $250,000 for the acquisition and preservation of a 0.69-acre waterfront property that will provide public access to the Navesink River. Nine other municipalities were granted funding awards for park development or improvement projects. Those projects are in Little Silver, Red Bank, Belmar, Eatontown, Brielle, Spring Lake, Neptune City, Keyport and Middletown, according to the county. Land acquisition and development for park recreation and open space purposes are made possible by the Monmouth County municipal open space grant program, a competitive matching funds program for municipalities sponsored by the Monmouth County Board of Freeholders and administered by the Monmouth County Park System. The maximummatching amount awarded to a particular project is $250,000, according to a press release from the county. Since the inception of the county's municipal open space grant program in 1993, 43 towns have successfully applied and received funding for 90 individual projects. A total of $12,658,000 has been awarded to date.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 31, 2009 6:48:16 GMT -5
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/1230/front_page/014.htmlFreeholders approve open space grants The Monmouth County Board of Freeholders has approved grants totaling $2,357,000 from the 2009 Monmouth County Open Space Trust Fund to acquire, create or improve park facilities in 13 municipalities. "This program is a valuable tool to help municipalities maintain and improve the quality of life in their communities," said Freeholder Lillian G. Burry. All of the county's 53 municipalities were eligible to apply for land acquisition and park facility funding awards. Twenty-one towns submitted complete applications with requests totaling $3.8 million. This is the seventh year of the program. Four grants for open space or park acquisition projects were awarded: • Manalapan, $250,000 for the acquisition of 36 acres of hardwood forest in an environmentally sensitive area that supports passive recreation, preservation of the town's character and is adjacent to existing municipal open space. • Millstone Township, $250,000 for the acquisition of 21.6 acres that will expand Millstone Park and improve public access, expand use and provide a more diverse park environment. • Asbury Park, $86,000 toward the purchase of 18 contiguous lots to expand park opportunities for west side residents. The 1.35-acre project is part of a redevelopment plan. • Fair Haven, $250,000 for the acquisition and preservation of a 0.69-acre waterfront property that will provide public access to the Navesink River. Nine other municipalities were granted funding awards for park development or improvement projects. Those projects are in Little Silver, Red Bank, Belmar, Eatontown, Brielle, Spring Lake, Neptune City, Keyport and Middletown, according to the county. Land acquisition and development for park recreation and open space purposes are made possible by the Monmouth County municipal open space grant program, a competitive matching funds program for municipalities sponsored by the Monmouth County Board of Freeholders and administered by the Monmouth County Park System. The maximummatching amount awarded to a particular project is $250,000, according to a press release from the county. Since the inception of the county's municipal open space grant program in 1993, 43 towns have successfully applied and received funding for 90 individual projects. A total of $12,658,000 has been awarded to date. WHo is missing? Freehold Borough is! It makes no sense that the county seat, which is in need of assistance with recreation, has never received the grant from the county.
|
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Dec 31, 2009 9:56:32 GMT -5
Not that I'm against our town receiving grants, but what land do we have in Freehold Borough that is currently unoccupied that would qualify for land acquisition to justify this grant? Additionally, the parks that we do have aren't in bad enough condition to warrant state aid.
(People can't complain about state taxes and the misappropriation of funds and then try to apply for dollars that we truly don't need - that's what led the state into this financial mess in the first place.)
dfx
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Dec 31, 2009 11:11:20 GMT -5
Our parks are in good shape, please take a minute and ride to Veterans park and look at the shape its in. We have a few nice parks but come on, lets get real here!
|
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Dec 31, 2009 11:19:47 GMT -5
Mike -
Are you saying "get real" in terms of we need money for improvements or "get real" in terms of we don't need money for improvements? Your posting isn't clear. (I'm assuming you think Freehold should take the money as you are diametrically opposed to anything I post.)
In either case, I personally don't think we need the money considering the current financial shape of the state. Refusing funds is never easy, but as so eloquently stated by Spock in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
dan xavier
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 31, 2009 11:34:31 GMT -5
To Mike and Dan,
In no way shape or form, is anything I am writing here intended as a knock on our parks or especially, our recreation commission. Quite the contrary, I am very supportive of the recreation commission and when it comes to increasing quality recreation in the borough overall, I am a very strong advocate for that.
I have written before, our recreation commission deserves applause because they do a lot with very little. I said that to the rec commission last year when I visited a few of their meetings. Their budget is only about 20 thousand dollars a year, which is very easy to eat up.
Recreation is such a broad topic and there are many activities and aspects that are covered. That money need not be used for open space, that term is non existent here in the borough. It can go to building new facilities or helping programs fro example. In the end, it is a vital quality of life issue that brings people together for the right reasons. Good recreations increases property values, bonds communities, and allows people nourish their body and soul.
To seek out the county grant is only going to help us out. It actually has nothing to do with the state. That grant money comes from your county property taxes. To save the money would require cutting those taxes or diverting those funds elsewhere.
For now, those grants exist and someone is going to get that money. Why not us? There are plenty of things that could be done with it. there is no loss to us, no insult to what we have and only enhancements to look forward to. I bet our recreation commission could do good things with a grant.
|
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Dec 31, 2009 11:59:37 GMT -5
Admin -
I stand corrected about state vs. county taxes, but in the end we all still pay for it anyway. And while I can appreciate the temptation that goes along with "everyone else is doing it, why not us?", I can only say this: I can/will never condone an action based on this rational. And please don't misunderstand my stand on this issue - I certainly want the money. However in today's current economic climate I don't necessarily think we need the money.
(I just wish some of the leaders in these other towns that DID apply for these funds would have rejected them as well. I may be on the wrong side of this, but I don’t think lowering our property taxes – even by such an insignificant amount – is a bad thing…)
dan xavier
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Dec 31, 2009 12:02:03 GMT -5
Once again dan, i was saying no way to the money, i agreed with you! Your alittle quick to make it seem like im attacking you when im actually in agreement! Sorry if i was unclear, i was saying all our parks but one are great, we are lucky!
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 31, 2009 13:19:45 GMT -5
Admin - I stand corrected about state vs. county taxes, but in the end we all still pay for it anyway. And while I can appreciate the temptation that goes along with "everyone else is doing it, why not us?", I can only say this: I can/will never condone an action based on this rational. And please don't misunderstand my stand on this issue - I certainly want the money. However in today's current economic climate I don't necessarily think we need the money. (I just wish some of the leaders in these other towns that DID apply for these funds would have rejected them as well. I may be on the wrong side of this, but I don’t think lowering our property taxes – even by such an insignificant amount – is a bad thing…) dan xavier I almost missed this post. You do bring up good points and provide a valid view point in looking to cut taxes. I could be wrong, but I think to cut the county open space and recreation tax would require a voter referendum. Again, I could be wrong. I do know that over the years there have been three referendums put to the voters in order to approve the raising and setting aside money for recreation and land preservation. I believe that county wide tax now raises about 16 million a year. In context, these grants have become as much a part of that tax as building a new playground in a county park, or buying more park land to preserve for future generations, before the land is built out. In a sense, the grant is an extension to the municipalities that empowers them to meet their own needs. That was the topic that brought me to our recreation commission. I had asked them if they had a master plan and assessment of recreation in the borough. By identifying needs, resources etc, they could plan for the future a bit better, and certainly justify the need for the grants. Getting back to what you said about tax cuts, even minimal, in this economy, that is a very fair question. With declining revenues, the county is certainly in some trouble as we saw by the lay offs of over 100 employees last year. Oddly enough, I have advocated for a recreation tax referendum for the borough. Now is certainly a bad time for that, though. One last factoid- in a rotten economy, demands for local recreation increase tremendously. Bit of a catch 22. We, as a society, want more for our tax dollars that are being stretched real thin.
|
|