Author	Message
Guest	Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 8:16 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Ballot question The last poster raises an interesting question, and one I will look into. The Garden State Preservation Trust, which was voter approved in 1998 (with funds allocated in 1999) established by constitutional amendment a dedication of sales tax revenues to support land preservation. It was viewed as a "stable source" for financing land preservation after a series of bond issues dating back to the early 1960s. The problem with bond issues was that the monies approved only allowed for a relatively short planning horizon. The GSPT was supposed to allocate funds for acquisitions over a period of 10 years. High demand from landowners and high land values reduced this to roughly 9 years. Voters approved a bond referendum in 2007 to continue preservation efforts with bridge funding. The 2009 question does essentially the same - buys time to perhaps establish another more stable mechanism for funding land preservation when the economic climate improves. I'm happy to share my personal perspective on the costs and benefits of land preservation with anyone who's interested in such a discussion. It is, in my opinion, a matter of evaluating short term costs and long term benefits. It is made more challenging by the fact that passing on decisions to preserve certain lands today may preclude future oppurtunities to do so (eg, due to land value appreciation or development). Also, an interruption of existing farmland preservation and Green Acres programs could result in the loss of considerable expertise and cost efficiencies at the state and county levels. Re-establishing programs that are temporarily halted or put on hiatusdue to lack of funding will (again in my opinion) result in cost issues and other difficulties. Regards to all, Brian S.
guest-who	Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 6:57 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Ballot question We should push to make open space funding part of the $30 billion state budget, instead of continually voting to borrow money. NJ gave $400 million to Newark last year in "special municipal aid". Why isn't that money on the ballot instead?
Guest	Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 6:01 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Ballot question Guest wrote: I disagree. We can't afford this ballot initiative. We can't even pay off what we've already purchased. What do you think we'd be paying if we would have allowed residential development on those tracts? What would we pay if toll brothers decided to build 370 low income housing units on one of those tracts with the accompaning 1200 units of market rate housing? Don't be penny wise and pound foolish.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 2:07 pm EST    Post subject: Re: Ballot question I disagree. We can't afford this ballot initiative. We can't even pay off what we've already purchased.
Guest	Posted: Wed, Nov 4 2009, 10:39 am EST    Post subject: Re: Ballot question Glad to see the question passed.
Guest	Posted: Tue, Nov 3 2009, 11:03 am EST    Post subject: Ballot question I am surprised no one has commented on the ballot question. Though I am not usually in favor of increasing the state debt, this is the lone state program that has been of great benefit to Cranbury. Without the Green Acres funds Cranbury could never have preserved the amount of farmland that is has. Without preservation Cranbury would have had a great deal of additional residential development, which would have resulted in enormous costs and strains on the school system. Perhaps the greatest benefit going forward is that the preserve land cannot be used for the builders remedy should COAH deem us non-compliant. We still have a number of tracts that could be used in a builders remedy situation. If you like Cranbury the way it is, vote yes on the ballot question.