Pigs in (Open) Space

Hizonor advises the Legislature that he will not support a proposal to extend the Garden State Preservation Trust in the absence of legislative enactment of some form of "monetization" proposal for State assets, such as the lottery or toll roads. The Governor explains his opposition on the grounds that supporting the proposal in its present form would put the State further into debt.

At once, he’s absolutely correct and horribly wrong.

The amount of money being sought for open space preservation is, in the context of a bloated State budget, very small. But instead of simply spending current tax receipts to effect open space purchases, the proposal – yet again – calls for the State to issue bonds, underwritten by the sales tax revenue. As I read the proposal, we’d get 10 years of open space purchases and 30 years of debt repayment.

Unless one believes that all desirable open space will disappear in 10 years, the inevitable consequence of such a proposal will be that, ten years hence, when the fund runs out of money, "environmentalists" will be back, asking for more money – and, probably, more borrowing.

This is precisely the sort of nonsense that got the Transportation Trust Fund in trouble. Instead of pay-as-you-go projects, politicians front-load the benefits and rear-load the costs. They design the programs to go bankrupt, such that the entirety of the dedicated tax collections end up paying off the bonds. And, just as transportation projects don’t magically end after a specified period, neither will open space/historic preservation projects.

Hence, the Governor hits the mark precisely when he avers that more State debt is not the answer. A straight dedication of $175 million per year from sales tax revenue makes sense. Permitting additional borrowing does not.

But, inexplicably, the Governor then offers his support for open space preservation projects with backhanded borrowing, aka "monetization".

There exists no substantive difference between selling off the Turnpike, thereby foregoing future revenues (assuming one forgets about the promises to abolish tolls along some of these roads), and simply issuing bonds against the anticipated revenue. The result is precisely the same: put large amounts of money in the hands of today’s politicians while sticking future generations with the bill.

Assuming that consensus exists that farmland/open space/historic preservation projects make the State a better, less congested place in which to live, preserve quality of life, etc., we, the people, should be willing to attend to the costs of that undertaking NOW. As with transportation projects, set aside, each and every budget year, a certain amount to be used for such projects.

And, just as important, it’s vital that such programs not form yet another pot of money out of which to fund urban pork.

State open space funding should be spent on projects of State interest. Unfortunately, each year, tens of millions of scarce dollars find their way into making improvements in urban parks: building ball fields, adding walkways, etc. All of which may be very nice indeed, but none of which are really State interests and none of which contribute in the least to open space preservation. Indeed, just last year, millions of dollars was siphoned off from one open space fund to balance the municipal budget in Newark.

If a locality wishes to improve a local park, such is a matter meriting the attention of local taxpayers, not the State. At a time when environmentalists claim we’re losing thousands of pristine acres of land per year, which might have been preserved with adequate state funding, employing a single nickel for pork is inexcusable.

Reference to A-3675 demonstrates the colossal misallocation of funds we endorse every year; almost $40 million of scarce dollars spent of local pork ... er, park improvements. Every single one of those projects probably makes sense. Locally. Not one of the projects has the slightest statewide importance. If Bloomfield wants to improve a skate park for local residents, God bless. But it’s simply not a project that merits ANY state funds. If Ventnor wishes to renovate its fishing pier, great. But as between that purely local benefit, and preserving fast disappearing farmland – which benefits every State resident – the choice should be clear.

Of course, many representatives of urban areas see things parochially and would, given their druthers, make things exponentially worse. Consider A-1351, sponsored by Assemblywoman Watson-Coleman, which would, if enacted, divert even more money from crucial open space preservation into urban pork projects. Apparently, representatives of urban areas simply fail to understand that preserving land in Warren County benefits the entire State, not just that County. And that if the cost of preserving a farm in Hunterdon means that the local taxpayers in Trenton need to attend to the costs of their own ballfields, that’s a price we, as a State, should be willing to make them pay.

Much of the populace apparently supports the proposal at hand out of the misinformed view that it exclusively preserves open space. They fail to realize that a huge amount of borrowing and spending, peddled to the people under the guise of preserving open space, finds its way into projects which preserve not one square inch of open space.

We could certainly use some gubernatorial leadership on this subject, so as to fundamentally reform the way the state doles out open space dollars. Sure, dedicate $175 million per annum, but borrow not one thin dime. And ensure that EVERY scarce dollar finds its way to worthy, substantive projects of statewide importance, and that not one penny is used for local pork.