Reckless Debt Accumulation & Misleading Environmental Policy: Vote No On Ballot Question #1

Bookmark and Share    On November 3rd, those voters in New Jersey who realize that there is an election is going on will be deciding who NJenvironmenttheir assemblymen and state senators will be. They will also be choosing who the Governor of the state for the next four years will be. The choices for governor are dismal. Essentially it is a decision between bad, really bad and not as bad as the other two. Three weeks before the election and it looks like the candidate not as bad as the other two is Chris Daggett. But no matter who it winds up being, New Jerseyans are screwed. None of the candidates have a clear plan for placing the state on a path to prosperity and none of them bring new innovative approaches and solutions to old, debilitating issues and problems.

The person in charge for the next four years is not likely to lower the costs of living in New Jersey anything else, including the mounting debt that we are accumulating. That is why it is important for us New Jersey voters to look out for ourselves and to vote correctly on a little known ballot question that will be before us on Election Day. It is Ballot Question Number One, the “Green Acres, Water Supply and Floodplain Protection, and Farmland and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2009.”

The language used in it is not short and snappy. At length, it broadly explains that if passed, the measure will increase the state debt by $400 million through bonds. With this borrowed money, New Jersey bureaucrats will determine how to protect state waters, what lands to preserve and how to attain and create land for recreation use. The increased debt spending is also suppose to be used for bureaucrats to purchase land for agricultural and horticultural preservation and to purchase property that has been damaged by storms and floods for state conservation or recreational purposes. Lastly , question number one is intended to  provide money for preservation projects and to pay off the interest on the debt it all creates.

Now the green lobby would have you take that all as necessities crucial to clean drinking water, keeping farms up and running, preserving a clean environment, saving wildlife and insuring that New Jersey does not lose all of it’s natural beauty and bounty.

As positive and noble as that sounds, what you must remember here is that many of those who are promoting question number one in such a positive way, are also making money from the passage of question number one. You must also remember that it is the state government which makes the determinations that determine which, how, and why lands are to be used with this bond debt program. You have to understand that there is a translation problem between English and government talk. This is the same government that defined the property that former State Senator Ellen Karcher owned as “farmland” because she sold three tress that grew on her property as Christmas trees . That “farmland” designation entitled her to special tax breaks and other benefits.

Do you really think that the state and state bureaucrats will not stretch and abuse the meaning of such terms as “preservation”, “storm damage”, and “conservation”?

You must also understand that the most dangerous aspect of any legislation or proposition is what is not mentioned in it. In this case what is not mentioned are the countless other entities that will be profiting from the increased debt that question number one would have us  approve.   Attorneys, consultants, developers, accountants, soil analysts, surveyors, resource management advisors and others involved in the lucrative field of conservation and New Jersey political patronage will all be sharing in the $400 million of debt we are being asked to approve.

What is also not mentioned in the ballot question is that through the advice, consent and determination of all those people and Trenton’s bureaucratic legislature, many projects financed by the debt will include the creation of parking lots, bathrooms, Astroturf covered ball fields, and even the purchase of condemned inner city buildings. To one degree or another all of these projects could be considered some kind of “open space”, but is it really the type of open space that we thought they meant? And who will benefit from such projects? The developers hired to pave the way for parking lots, roll the asphalt, paint the parking space lines and ultimately charge people to park there, will be the beneficiaries, that’s who.

Let’s face it, who doesn’t like mountains or lakes? Who doesn’t like clean water or a nice park to run in or picnic in? The answer to those rhetorical questions need not be answered. We all appreciate a sound environment and as such, responsible local action should be in order. Local municipal and county governments should choose wisely how to use their land and how to preserve and protect it. Does anyone think that Governor Corzine, who, in all likelihood has never even been to a town like New Jersey’s Sunberry Village in Pemberton township,  know what the people of the village need as far as land use better than the people of Sunberry Village do?

Does anyone assume for one single minute that state government will spend money that they don’t even have, responsibly?

On November 3rd, things will be bad enough. We will be stuck with a state legislature that is deaf to our needs, local officials dumb enough to believe them, and one of the three blind mice governing us. So unless all of your senses are dead, don’t go out of your way to make things any worse than they already are or will be. Don’t help finance a bureaucratic boondoggle that will help fund corruption, patronage and false promises.

Vote “NO” on ballot question number one “Green Acres, Water Supply and Floodplain Protection, and Farmland and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2009”

To familiarize yourself with the ballot question below is the exact language that will appear on the ballot. Read it. Understand it. And REJECT IT!!!

  • Shall the “Green Acres, Water Supply and Floodplain Protection, and Farmland and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2009,” which authorizes the State to issue bonds in the amount of $400 million to provide moneys for (1) the acquisition and development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, including lands that protect water supplies, (2) the preservation of farmland for agricultural or horticultural use and production, (3) the acquisition, for recreation and conservation purposes, of properties that are prone to or have incurred flood or storm damage, and (4) funding historic preservation projects; and providing the ways and means to pay the interest on the debt and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof, with full public disclosure of all spending, be approved?
  • Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under politics

3 responses to “Reckless Debt Accumulation & Misleading Environmental Policy: Vote No On Ballot Question #1

  1. Nope it is not possible. The state budgets money for infrastructure. The federal government just tripled our national debt to create stimulus packages that are meant to provide temporary jobs by investing hundreds of millions of dollars into states for use specifically concerning infrastructure. With all the state appropriations and federal funding of “infrastructure”, what makes you think that the money from an additional $400 million state debt will also go to infrastructure.

    Also, this impression intentional given is that this money is not suppose to go to “infrastructure”. It is intentionally designed to dupe people into thinking the bond is for the preservation of open space.

    I do not promote the government’s misappropriation of state funds more than they already do.

    You have failed to convince that any of this money will not simply be a boondoggle for bureaucrats to squander on any of the many avenues that the loosely phrased legal longo outlined in this measure will permit.

    I do not support debt. I do not support throwing more water onto a sinking ship and whether you realize it or not, New Jersey is drowning in debt.

    I am pretty sure question number 1 will pass. That’s because the average New Jersey voter is more concerned with watching “American Idol” than they are with listening to a legislative debate on the environment or the budget. The average New Jersey voter gave us Jon Corzine and President Obama. The average New Jersey voter voted to create a Lieutenant Governors office and then four years later forgot they did that and suddenly are against. So I am almost positive that question one will pass.

    It is also why this state is dying. But hey, I guess suicide is cheaper than living under the never under cycyle and weight of debt and taxes in a state that loves pain.

    I’ll do something that will have a greater impact on the environment that the pack of legislative lies that you are fooled by. I will vote “NO” on lie number one and then plant a tree. Kid yourself if you want but you will not fool me.

  2. Mercedes Bradley

    I’m voting “yes”. You have failed to convince me.

    Isn’t it possible that this money could end up going towards infrastruture that will make things run more effeciently in the long run and start saving us money? I like this bill specifically because it is not all about the environment, it is also about utalizing land that is of now, going to waste.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s