May 20, 1999
Testimony on the Implementing Legislation
for the Garden State Preservation Trust: A-1,000,000
Before the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee
New Jersey Audubon Society, with over 17,000 members and a threefold mission in conservation, education and wildlife research is pleased to have the chance to testify on this important implementing legislation which carries out the decisively expressed will of the voters from November, 1998. Our President, Thomas Gilmore, takes an especially keen interest in this legislation, since he served as Vice-Chairman of the Governor's Council on New Jersey Outdoors. We think that it is best if the Legislation can stay as close as possible to the contents of the Council's report, the Legislative debate from the spring and summer of 1998, and what was placed before the voters. We will proceed with our major concerns first, and then address two additional issues if there is time.
First, we believe that the Legislation should indicate, in Section 4(b), that the five public members need to be drawn from citizens who have a background in open space preservation, efforts/and or organizations, as well as comparable farmland and historic preservation experience. If and when, and we hope it will be the case, the legislation is amended to include recognition of urban needs, then an urban representative with relevant experience should be included.
Second, we believe that the Trust should be structured to have the minimal powers necessary to carry out its duties, remaining as close as possible to the existing interaction between the Green Acres, Farmland and Historic Trust procedures and the Legislature. Therefore, we oppose the ability of the Preservation Trust, as indicated in Section 23, to have the power to delete recommendations from the three nominating entities, since that power already exists in the Legislature, and the Legislature plays a strong role in appointments to the Trust. The only possible effect of this redundant power would be to create a delay loop in the process - against the wishes of citizens who testified before the Governor's Council and repeatedly stressed the time driven urgency of protecting more land. The Trust also needs to make sure it operates in fully public meetings, properly noticed.
Third, we strongly oppose the language in Sections 26(c) and 38(e), which addresses the issue of purchase of Pinelands Development Credits (PDC's). The intent looks to us to like an effort to raise the price of the credits well over their current "market price" in the mid-$12,000 range. We don't believe that either the Legislature or the voters intended money from this legislation to be interjected to solve landowner unhappiness due to the protective regulations of the Comprehensive Management Plan. If the current price of the PDC's is too low, the reasons need to be aired and fully addressed in front of the Pinelands Commission, which we understand has already embarked on a review of the problem. NJAS believes there are ways to solve this problem that will keep the Pinelands zoning protections intact while making the market mechanism, which ought to set the price for the PDC's, function as it should to make this Transfer of Development Rights system work. Then, and even if Pinelands were never specifically addressed in this bill, which is appropriate, there would be nothing to prevent the PDC's from being retired and the connected land saved by the traditional state-wide system continued by this legislation. Pinelands landowners are not the only ones who have had their values affected by appropriate and necessary environmental land-use regulations, and we don't believe that bailouts could be limited, over time, to just their situation.
Fourth, we are adamantly opposed to the language in Section 26(d) which limits appraisals for lands to be purchased with these "constitutionally dedicated moneys" to the zoning in effect on November 3, 1998. The Legislature apparently fears the possibility of "downzoning" in some municipalities and a possible lowering of land prices. We note the willingness to intervene for this cause, but never to contemplate intervening to protect those lands in Planning Areas 4 and 5 that the State Plan urges everyone to protect, but which municipalities rarely do. The courts of this state have dealt swiftly and decisively to parties of any persuasion who have attempted spot zoning, either to reduce or increase densities for capricious reasons. So we don't see any reason for a date to link zoning and appraisals.
Fifth, we support an urban aid allocation of $10 million dollars per year for acquisition and development, cumulatively for $100 million, to honor the pledge we heard given by Assemblyman Lance on the day of the bill's passage, as well as by the Governor during the fall campaign. Revitalizing our urban areas should be at the top of our state priorities; it is connected to the issue of suburban sprawl and the loss of New Jersey's rural lands.
Sixth, the Legislature needs to add language in Section 37 to allow non-profit organizations to participate in the Farmland Preservation Program.
New Jersey Audubon would like to raise two additional issues. The first concerns the term "beaches" in Section 3, under the definition for "Recreation and conservation purposes," as well as in Section 24(b)3(a), where it occurs in a list of the factors that may be used in establishing application procedures, especially criteria and policies for the evaluation and priority ranking for project eligibility. Now our fear as we read through the legislation which authorized the bond act, the ballot language and now this legislation, is that we don't think that any of the existing language rules out the possibility that funding could be diverted by this legislation and its funds to replace or supplement all or part of the state/local share of the massive sand-pumping operations along the Atlantic and Delaware Bay coastline of New Jersey. We understand, as was approved under the last Green Acres bond act, that some money could be used to buy ocean front or bay front property which included a beach, which is fine and appropriate; but the interlocking definitions for "cost," "development," "project," and "recreation and conservation purposes," do still seem to hold open the possibility that public money from these constitutionally dedicated sources could be used to keep sand in front of private oceanfront property which was open to the public for recreation purposes, as is so much of the Atlantic coastal shoreline of our state. We don't think the public voted for that and it should be excluded. We would be happy to help OLS with the language.
And finally, we think the time is ripe for the Legislature to revisit the Ogden-Rooney reforms of 1993 (Chapter 38 ) on the conveyances of public lands. Over the past year, citizens have seen a number of alarming proposals for the improper use of surplus state land, and we are about to dramatically increase our inventory of state conservation and recreation lands. We believe New Jersey citizens deserve a thorough accounting of the inventory of all state lands and their status, and a thorough airing out of existing leases and their terms and rationales. A-1,000,000 has a good feature in Section 25(f) where it calls for a list of any "surplus real property owned by the State ...that may be utilizable (sic) for recreation and conservation purposes or farmland purposes..., " but we would have to know that it was starting from a complete inventory and also who would make the determination about what land could be utilized - before saying it was fully adequate. We think reforms are in order when State Fish and Game lands can be leased out for commercial electronic towers at terms of 24 years so as to avoid the existing conveyance thresholds for review (25 years), as in the Weldon Brook State Wildlife Management Area, in Sparta Township. We don't want this legislation held up to work out all the details of such a review and reform program, but perhaps it could initiate the process by calling for public hearings to air the issue.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
William R. Neil
Director of Conservation
|
