Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
47 user(s) are online (24 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 47

more...



Tags: ''  

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users






Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/7 7:24
Last Login :
2016/1/29 4:06
Group:
Banned
Posts: 589
Offline
Quote:


Au contraire! I'm also in Ward 14E and at 1PM at my table, I was #37. The table across Grace Church Gym had a similar count, so hope we at least broke a hundred here.


Would you happen to know what Herbert Shaw, the "Politicians are crooks" candidate believes?

I voted for him just as a protest vote. I hope he's just a crank and not a Nazi.

Anyhow: it seems to me that simply coming out to vote sends a message that the people in a ward care about the city and can't be blown off. I think Fulop gets treated the way he does partly because other people in City Hall don't think they have to take downtown JC residents seriously.

I don't have any strong opinions about the Korean war memorial road/park controversy, but I think the editorial the Jersey Journal ran about that a few months ago also showed that the Jersey Journal people feel complete and utter contempt for us people who happen to live downtown.

Posted on: 2007/11/8 17:41
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#17
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined :
2007/11/8 15:56
Last Login :
2012/2/15 12:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 18
Offline
By Voting No On All Thee Ballots, you will lose Necessary Jobs that will bring people to the state of New Jersey, as is the case with Stem Cell Research. More Jobs means more working people which means a better economy for everyone.

Posted on: 2007/11/8 16:20
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/7 17:04
Last Login :
2015/2/24 18:16
From "Pay for Play"
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1517
Offline
Quote:

alb wrote:
[...]

Given that I was probably the only voter who voted in Ward 14E today, I probably did a lot of damage. :(


Au contraire! I'm also in Ward 14E and at 1PM at my table, I was #37. The table across Grace Church Gym had a similar count, so hope we at least broke a hundred here.

Posted on: 2007/11/7 0:39
Resized Image
Help US Sue Spectra! Join OR Donate!
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/8/24 15:08
Last Login :
2013/12/15 2:25
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 471
Offline
Voted NO on all funding polls. The NJ state deficit is currently at 35 Billion dollars.

This is not the time to be spending more money, we need a fiscally responsible government. Voting for more tax increases sends the wrong message.

Posted on: 2007/11/6 23:53
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/5/11 3:17
Last Login :
2018/4/25 16:16
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 354
Offline
This site seemed helpful http://www.jcvote.org/questions/index.php

Ballot Questions Summary

Public Question #1 dedicates annual revenue of an amount equal to a tax rate of 1% of the state sales tax (the amount of the state sales tax increase in July 2006) for property tax reform. ½ % already is dedicated, this proposal would dedicate and additional ½%.

Citizens vote Yes or No.

Yes: dedication of tax revenue prevents the funds from being used for any other purpose. A constitutional dedication resulting from this vote can only be changed by future votes. The dedication is a step toward providing relief to property taxpayers. Property taxes in New Jersey are high compared to other forms of tax.

No: the July 2006 sales tax increase was proposed to help balance the budget. Redirecting funds will force budget cuts or borrowing to cover general spending. Redirecting funds reduces the state’s flexibility to meet changing priorities.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Question #2 allows the state of New Jersey to borrow $450 million in general obligation bonds to fund stem cell research projects.

Citizens vote Yes or No.

Yes: New Jersey stem cell research is needed to respond to medically devastating diseases and injuries, and the investment helps New Jersey maintain a competitive position in the field. Grant distribution will be based on scientific merit judged by independent review, and the Treasurer must annually certify the availability of funds to cover the interest. Profits will be used to reduce the principal of the bonds.

No: With $33.7 billion in debt costing $3 billion annually in interest, this is not the time to add more debt. Finding ways to pay for individual projects without taking on debt and the accompanying interest would be more fiscally responsible. Public policy in New Jersey allows for embryonic stem cell research, which is opposed on moral grounds by some citizens. Such research should be conducted and funded by private firms if at all, not with taxpayer dollars.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Question #3 allows the state of New Jersey to borrow $200 million to buy Green Acres park space, preserve farmland, buy Blue Acres land for flood management, and fund matching grants for historic preservation projects.

Citizens vote Yes or No.

Yes: the purchases are needed to support quality of life, tourism, and the economy of the state. With the state projected to reach full development in the next 30 years, we must continue to preserve open space.

No: With $33.7 billion in debt costing $3 billion annually in interest, this is not the time to add more debt. Preserving more land will inflate housing costs, disproportionately burdening middle and modest income families.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Question #4 revises the state constitution in the section concerning the denial of voting rights, to change the phrase “idiot or insane person” to “person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting”.

Citizens vote Yes or No.

Yes: replaces strong, needlessly stigmatizing language. The amendment allows for challenges to deny suffrage of persons cognitively and emotionally impaired to be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.

No: the proposed language is subjective, and will be interpreted differently by different judges. Any new language should give specific criteria to determine “capacity to understand the act of voting”.

Posted on: 2007/11/6 17:17
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#13
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/8/14 2:29
Last Login :
2010/9/17 12:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 92
Offline

Posted on: 2007/11/6 16:55
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/7 7:24
Last Login :
2016/1/29 4:06
Group:
Banned
Posts: 589
Offline
Quote:

JohnGalt wrote:

Fiscal crisis

The source of that support is – ta-da! – Jon Corzine, liberal Democrat and ardent supporter of those proposals. He has looked at the numbers and has concluded, to his credit, that there is no fudging the facts, that the state faces a major financial crisis. H


I wish I'd read this before I voted.

I think the Jersey Journal does a decent job of covering Hudson County horse race stuff, but it didn't give me even a vague idea of what these ballot measures were about.

Given that I was probably the only voter who voted in Ward 14E today, I probably did a lot of damage. :(

Posted on: 2007/11/6 16:30
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#11
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/1 19:22
Last Login :
2009/12/23 3:57
From Who is John Galt?
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 23
Offline
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?q ... pcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk5

Ahearn: Vote 'No' on ballot questions
e-mail print The Record

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

By JAMES AHEARN



THREE OR FOUR WEEKS ago I noticed a row of political signs planted along a Route 17 exit ramp. They didn't advertise a candidate or a party, but they did have a message, and, in big type, it was blunt: "Stop Higher Taxes. Vote 'No' on all ballot questions."

Last week the signs had disappeared. Someone had them removed, someone who didn't like the message, perhaps someone with enough pull to have a state highway crew take them away.

This morning, Tuesday, I spotted a lone survivor and stopped for a close look. In teensy-weensy lettering at the bottom was this acknowledgement: "Paid for by Americans For Prosperity, Mayor Steve Lonegan, executive director." Aha.

That would be the Steve Lonegan who is mayor of Bogota, the Lonegan newly accused of hypocrisy for hiring illegal immigrants even as he was campaigning to chase all illegals out of the country.

Hold on a minute, though. Turns out he has some surprising support for his basic contention that the top three statewide spending proposals are financially insupportable.

New Jersey's bonds used to be rated triple-A. Tax revenues were sufficient to meet operating expenses. The Legislature and whoever was governor would seek public approval to borrow money only for tangible, long-term capital improvements like buildings and roads and preservation of open space.

That consensus eroded. Money was borrowed even for operating expenses, and without public input. Last year the state's finances set off a crisis that shut down the government for a week.

The new governor, Jon Corzine, won passage of a 1 percent increase in the sales tax, but the Assembly speaker, Joseph Roberts, also a Democrat, got half of it dedicated to property tax relief, through an amendment to the state Constitution approved by voters last fall. Roberts then proposed a second amendment, dedicating the remainder of the sales tax increase to that same purpose. The Legislature acquiesced.

The referendum on the first amendment passed easily, by a 2 to 1 margin, and the second one, which you will find on the ballot two weeks hence, is expected to do so, too. Which brings us to the surprising source of support for the contention by Republican Lonegan that the statewide financial referendums look unfeasible without new sources of revenue, such as taxes.

Fiscal crisis

The source of that support is – ta-da! – Jon Corzine, liberal Democrat and ardent supporter of those proposals. He has looked at the numbers and has concluded, to his credit, that there is no fudging the facts, that the state faces a major financial crisis. He has directed his department heads to prepare for deep cuts in the budget for the fiscal year that starts next July.

Deep, as in $3 billion, equal to almost 10 percent of the present budget. Deep, as in cuts in state aid for cities and towns and a second round of cuts for colleges and universities. Deep, as in possible elimination of whole state departments and in further staff reductions, in addition to 2,000 positions already eliminated. Nothing on that scale seems politically feasible. Which would seem to leave new taxes, or more esoteric revenue raisers.

The governor's new view of state finances is not all that different from Lonegan's. The conclusion I draw is that the state should not be preparing to lock up hundreds of millions of dollars in sales tax revenue for property tax rebates when it cannot balance its own budget. So the responsible vote on Question No. 1 is "No."

As for Question No. 2, it would authorize a $450 million bond issue for stem-cell research. This would be in addition to $270 million in borrowed funds approved last year for construction of stem-cell facilities in no fewer than five politically favored locations: New Brunswick, Camden, Newark, Allendale and Belleville, of which only the New Brunswick center, uniting Rutgers and the state medical university, really makes sense.

No urgent need

The new bond issue would finance the actual research, the hiring and continued support of scientists to do the work. This would be a novel undertaking by the state. There is no telling which lines of research will pay off. That won't be clear for quite a while, if ever. There is no urgent need for the state government to get involved, certainly not to the extent of a combined total of nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars. Better to defeat this proposal and let the State House come back with a more reasonable plan.

Question No. 3 would authorize a stop-gap, one-year, $200 million bond issue to extend the depleted Garden State Preservation Trust, which finances purchase of open space, farmland and flood-prone properties, as well as historic preservation. It is the 12th Green Acres proposal to be submitted to the voters, who approved all 11 predecessors, in a line stretching back to the early Sixties. The need is real. But so is the state deficit. The unpalatable, regrettable conclusion: We should wait for a comprehensive budget solution. Vote "No."

James Ahearn is former managing editor of The Record. Send comments about this column to The Record at letterstotheeditor@northjersey.com.

Resized Image

Posted on: 2007/11/6 5:35
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#10
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/8/14 2:29
Last Login :
2010/9/17 12:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 92
Offline
This year, your vote on statewide public question #3 will decide the future of New Jersey's preservation efforts. Vote yes on #3 to preserve New Jersey's parks, natural areas, clean water, wildlife habitat, farmland and historic treasures and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

On November 6th, New Jersey voters will be asked to approve the Green Acres, Farmland, Blue Acres and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2007. By authorizing the state to issue $200 million in bonds, the Act would provide much-needed funds to keep the state's open space, farmland and historic preservation programs afloat for one more year and to support the Blue Acres program to purchase flood prone properties from willing sellers.

The Garden State Preservation Trust has funded New Jersey's preservation programs since 1998 when voters approved a ballot question by a 2 to 1 margin dedicating nearly 10 years of funds for the Trust. However, the Trust is now running out of money and passage of this question is necessary to keep the state's preservation and park improvement efforts going until a long-term funding source is secured.

Even with current preservation efforts, New Jersey loses more than 40 acres of open space to development everyday. At this rate, our state is projected reach full build out within 30 years. Your yes vote on #3 is needed to ensure that New Jersey can continue to preserve open space, farmland and historic treasures across the state before it is too late.

This November 6th, invest in the future of New Jersey by voting yes on this ballot question and encouraging friends and family to do the same. To find your polling place, visit https://voter.njsvrs.com/PublicAccess/ ... Place/PollPlaceSearch.jsp.

For more information, please visit www.NJKeepItGreen.org or read the frequently asked questions and answers below.

Thank you! Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Joanna Wolaver, New Jersey Audubon Society

609-392-1181

Learn More about Question #3 Below

How will New Jersey residents benefit from the passage of the bond act?

Protecting our state's natural areas, farmlands, parks, and historic sites enhances the beauty and quality of life for all New Jersey residents. Even with current preservation efforts, New Jersey loses more than 40 acres of open space to development everyday. At this rate, our state is projected to reach full development within 30 years. We must preserve these lands before it is too late in order to protect our clean drinking water supplies, provide parks for our children, reduce the impact of floods and storms, and keep our communities attractive and safe. Parks and natural areas provide places for hiking, jogging and other physical activity, which increases fitness and reduces obesity. These areas also reduce air and water pollution impacts on public health and associated costs for health care and drinking water treatment. Finally, urban parks have been linked to community revitalization through job creation and neighborhood crime reduction.

How will the money from the bond act be used?

Passage of public question #3 will provide funds to continue the existing Green Acres, Farmland Preservation and New Jersey Historic Trust programs. These valuable state programs preserve open space, working farms and historic sites in communities across the state, protect our drinking water and provide parks and recreational opportunities for New Jersey residents. The bond act will also provide funds for the Blue Acres program to purchase flood-prone lands from willing sellers for open space preservation purposes. Eligible lands are either prone to or have already incurred flood or storm damage and are located in the Delaware, Passaic and Raritan river basin floodways.

Will the passage of public question #3 increase my taxes?

Passage of question #3 will not impose any new taxes, and the funds made available can be paid for with existing revenue. The act allows the State Treasurer to issue bonds, which must be paid back within the next 30 years. Bonding, a common method for funding land acquisition and capital improvements, is the most logical and successful way to fund preservation because it takes advantage of current market values by purchasing land now instead of waiting until it is too expensive or already lost to development. New Jersey voters have approved 11 bond measures since 1961 dedicating funds for preservation efforts.

A yes vote will also help stabilize property taxes. The loss of open space and farmland to development results in increased property taxes as municipalities fund new schools, roads and public infrastructure to support this development. According to a recent report by the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, studies show that for every $1.00 collected in taxes, residential development costs between $1.04 and $1.67 in services. These costs are ongoing and generally increase over time. The acquisition of open space, on the other hand, requires fewer services and costs taxpayers far less over the long term. These areas quickly pay for themselves, providing ongoing savings and substantial environmental and economic benefits to the community, such drinking water protection, public recreation opportunities, critical wildlife habitat and job creation through ecotourism.

How will passage of question #3 support my town's local preservation efforts?

Passing the act will significantly strengthen local and regional preservation efforts by providing matching funds for the local dollars collected by over 225 municipalities and all 21 counties for open space and farmland preservation projects. The funds will also be used for statewide preservation efforts that do not involve local money.

Where can I get more information and how can I help spread the word?

Visit the Keep It Green Campaign website at www.NJKeepItGreen.org for more information. You can help by voting yes on question #3 and by spreading the word about the ballot question. Please distribute a copy of the vote yes flier available in English and Spanish on the resources page of the website or contact Volunteer Coordinator Liz Silvernail at 215-630-2832 for other opportunities.

The New Jersey - Keep it Green Campaign focuses on ensuring voter approval of this bond act in November as well as securing a long-term funding source for the Garden State Preservation Trust in the future. Members include over 90 statewide, local and regional organizations ranging from sportsmen's groups and environmental organizations to affordable housing and urban park advocates working together to secure a long-term stable source of funding for the acquisition, capital improvement, operation, maintenance, and stewardship of state and local natural areas, parks and historic sites in New Jersey.

Posted on: 2007/11/5 19:44
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#9
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/1 19:22
Last Login :
2009/12/23 3:57
From Who is John Galt?
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 23
Offline
Quote:

historyrules wrote:


I am all for protecting historic buildings, but funding of this sort should be done with private donations not public tax dollars.

Posted on: 2007/11/5 18:21
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#8
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/1 19:22
Last Login :
2009/12/23 3:57
From Who is John Galt?
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 23
Offline
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Posted on: 2007/11/5 18:19
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#7
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/8/14 2:29
Last Login :
2010/9/17 12:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 92
Offline

Posted on: 2007/11/5 17:54
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#6
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/6/1 19:22
Last Login :
2009/12/23 3:57
From Who is John Galt?
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 23
Offline
NJ does not need any more tax increases. People are leaving this state in droves because of how overtaxed we are. Don't let the politicians fool you with their clever rouse to increase our taxes. Vote NO on all the questions!

Posted on: 2007/11/5 17:30
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#5
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/8/14 2:29
Last Login :
2010/9/17 12:03
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 92
Offline

Posted on: 2007/11/5 16:19
Top


Re: Vote Yes on #3 For Open Space, Parks
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/3/21 20:01
Last Login :
Today 16:39
From Exchange Place
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1305
Offline
What about the rest of the election? I didn't know there was an election until I got the sample ballot in the mail.

Posted on: 2007/11/5 13:10
Top


Vote Yes on #3 For Open Space, Parks
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/7 17:04
Last Login :
2015/2/24 18:16
From "Pay for Play"
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1517
Offline
Subject: Vote Yes on #3 For Open Space, Parks

It's that time of the year again! The leaves are falling and Election Day is right around corner, this Tuesday, November 6th.

This year, your vote on statewide public question #3 will decide the future of New Jersey's preservation efforts. Vote yes on #3 to preserve New Jersey's parks, natural areas, clean water, wildlife habitat, farmland and historic treasures and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

On November 6th, New Jersey voters will be asked to approve the Green Acres, Farmland, Blue Acres and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2007. By authorizing the state to issue $200 million in bonds, the Act would provide much-needed funds to keep the state's open space, farmland and historic preservation programs afloat for one more year and to support the Blue Acres program to purchase flood prone properties from willing sellers.

The Garden State Preservation Trust has funded New Jersey's preservation programs since 1998 when voters approved a ballot question by a 2 to 1 margin dedicating nearly 10 years of funds for the Trust. However, the Trust is now running out of money and passage of this question is necessary to keep the state's preservation and park improvement efforts going until a long-term funding source is secured.

Even with current preservation efforts, New Jersey loses more than 40 acres of open space to development everyday. At this rate, our state is projected reach full build out within 30 years. Your yes vote on #3 is needed to ensure that New Jersey can continue to preserve open space, farmland and historic treasures across the state before it is too late.

This November 6th, invest in the future of New Jersey by voting yes on this ballot question and encouraging friends and family to do the same. To find your polling place, visit https://voter.njsvrs.com/PublicAccess/ ... Place/PollPlaceSearch.jsp

For more information, please visit www.NJKeepItGreen.org or read the frequently asked questions and answers below.

Thank you! Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Joanna Wolaver, New Jersey Audubon Society

609-392-1181

Learn More about Question #3 Below

How will New Jersey residents benefit from the passage of the bond act?

Protecting our state's natural areas, farmlands, parks, and historic sites enhances the beauty and quality of life for all New Jersey residents. Even with current preservation efforts, New Jersey loses more than 40 acres of open space to development everyday. At this rate, our state is projected to reach full development within 30 years. We must preserve these lands before it is too late in order to protect our clean drinking water supplies, provide parks for our children, reduce the impact of floods and storms, and keep our communities attractive and safe. Parks and natural areas provide places for hiking, jogging and other physical activity, which increases fitness and reduces obesity. These areas also reduce air and water pollution impacts on public health and associated costs for health care and drinking water treatment. Finally, urban parks have been linked to community revitalization through job creation and neighborhood crime reduction.

How will the money from the bond act be used?

Passage of public question #3 will provide funds to continue the existing Green Acres, Farmland Preservation and New Jersey Historic Trust programs. These valuable state programs preserve open space, working farms and historic sites in communities across the state, protect our drinking water and provide parks and recreational opportunities for New Jersey residents. The bond act will also provide funds for the Blue Acres program to purchase flood-prone lands from willing sellers for open space preservation purposes. Eligible lands are either prone to or have already incurred flood or storm damage and are located in the Delaware, Passaic and Raritan river basin floodways.

Will the passage of public question #3 increase my taxes?

Passage of question #3 will not impose any new taxes, and the funds made available can be paid for with existing revenue. The act allows the State Treasurer to issue bonds, which must be paid back within the next 30 years. Bonding, a common method for funding land acquisition and capital improvements, is the most logical and successful way to fund preservation because it takes advantage of current market values by purchasing land now instead of waiting until it is too expensive or already lost to development. New Jersey voters have approved 11 bond measures since 1961 dedicating funds for preservation efforts.

A yes vote will also help stabilize property taxes. The loss of open space and farmland to development results in increased property taxes as municipalities fund new schools, roads and public infrastructure to support this development. According to a recent report by the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, studies show that for every $1.00 collected in taxes, residential development costs between $1.04 and $1.67 in services. These costs are ongoing and generally increase over time. The acquisition of open space, on the other hand, requires fewer services and costs taxpayers far less over the long term. These areas quickly pay for themselves, providing ongoing savings and substantial environmental and economic benefits to the community, such drinking water protection, public recreation opportunities, critical wildlife habitat and job creation through ecotourism.

How will passage of question #3 support my town's local preservation efforts?

Passing the act will significantly strengthen local and regional preservation efforts by providing matching funds for the local dollars collected by over 225 municipalities and all 21 counties for open space and farmland preservation projects. The funds will also be used for statewide preservation efforts that do not involve local money.

Where can I get more information and how can I help spread the word?

Visit the Keep It Green Campaign website at www.NJKeepItGreen.org for more information. You can help by voting yes on question #3 and by spreading the word about the ballot question. Please distribute a copy of the vote yes flier available in English and Spanish on the resources page of the website or contact Volunteer Coordinator Liz Silvernail at 215-630-2832 for other opportunities.

The New Jersey - Keep it Green Campaign focuses on ensuring voter approval of this bond act in November as well as securing a long-term funding source for the Garden State Preservation Trust in the future. Members include over 90 statewide, local and regional organizations ranging from sportsmen's groups and environmental organizations to affordable housing and urban park advocates working together to secure a long-term stable source of funding for the acquisition, capital improvement, operation, maintenance, and stewardship of state and local natural areas, parks and historic sites in New Jersey.

________________________________


If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for New Jersey Audubon Society http://ga1.org/njaudubon/join.html?r=c1e3kCE1CfOhE

________________________________

Posted on: 2007/11/5 8:43
Resized Image
Help US Sue Spectra! Join OR Donate!
Top


Re: Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/2/6 23:13
Last Login :
2019/7/9 15:56
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1202
Offline
vote yes, by dedicating funds it reduces "some" of the politics to get the money where it is needed.

next up - we need a muncipal open space/historic dedicated funding mechanism.

Posted on: 2007/11/4 2:33
Top


Question #3: yes or no - Hudson Reporter
#1
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined :
2005/10/23 4:08
Last Login :
2011/1/16 3:14
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 45
Offline
11/03/2007

Question #3: yes or no

Voters to consider approving funds for open space on Election Day

Ricardo Kaulessar
Reporter staff writer

This Election Day, citizens of Hudson County and across the state will be faced with four statewide ballot questions at the polls.

One of those is Question No. 3, which asks voters to approve the Green Acres, Farmland, Blue Acres and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2007.

If passed, it would authorize the state to issue $200 million in general obligation bonds to provide funds to continue New Jersey's open space, farmland and historic preservation programs for a year or more, and to support the state's Blue Acres program to purchase flood-prone properties.

Funds provided over the past ten years from the Garden State Preservation Trust (GSPT), a financing authority that manages funds for the highly-successful Green Acres and the farmland and historic preservation programs, dried up after Governor Jon Corzine and the N.J. Legislature were unable to agree on funding for the trust.

And it was only apropos that a press conference last Monday was held at Jersey City's Reservoir No. 3 to tout the benefits of Question No. 3, and to encourage the public to answer "yes" to the question.

Speakers for the event included Mayor Jerramiah Healy, City Council President Mariano Vega (in his role as the head of the Hudson County Department Of Parks, Engineering & Planning), State Assemblyman Louis Manzo (N.J.-31), Hackensack Riverkeeper Captain Bill Sheehan, NY/NJ Baykeeper Greg Remaud, Gary Rice of the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, Steve Latham of the Jersey City Reservoir Preservation Alliance (responsible for the upkeep of Reservoir No.3) and Kevin Moore of Newark's Weequahic Park Association.

Also in attendance were members of various open space preservation groups both on a local and state level.

Among them was Eric Stile of the N.J. Audubon Society, one of the spokespersons of the N.J. Keep It Green Campaign, a consortium of over 90 environmental groups working to promote Question No. 3.

"It's fair to say the gas tank is empty," Stile said. "A vision without funding is a hallucination...bottom line is we're out of money."

Why Question No. 3?

The "question" of Question No. 3 is - why is it on the ballot?

In June, Governor Jon Corzine and the N.J. Legislature agreed to leave it up to voters to decide whether or not they want to continue funding the GSPT for another year.

Ballot Question No. 3, if approved by voters, would allow the State Legislature to issue bonds that would be paid back in the next 30 years from existing revenue sources, such as the state's income tax and sales tax. Thus, it will require a tax increase.

The $200 million gained from the sales of the bonds would be allocated as follows: $109 million for open space and park development, $73 million to preserve farmland, $6 million for historic preservation and $12 million to acquire flood-prone properties along the Passaic, Raritan and Delaware rivers and their tributaries.

Local municipalities usually apply for grants from the state's Green Acres program in order to use the grants for the acquisition of open space for new parkland or preservation of existing land from any pending development.

According to Gary Rice of the DEP, who cited the data on grants issued by the Green Acres Program in 2004, the last year when data was collected on the amount of money municipalities were given, Jersey City received $1.5 million. The monies have gone to the development of such parks as Bayside Park, located off Garfield Avenue, currently undergoing renovation.

But Question No. 3 is facing opposition from various groups such as Americans for Prosperity, led by Bogota Mayor and longtime Republican activist Steven Lonegan. Lonegan claims that there should be no bonding by the state government when it is currently over $33 billion in debt. He also said that the state will increase taxes in the future to pay off the debt incurred from paying off the bonds.

Their answers to the question

With the backdrop of Reservoir No. 3, its lake and the birds that occupy the reservoir, speakers touted the importance of answering Question No. 3.

Healy said the funds that would be generated from bonding if Public Question No. 3 passes is money "well-spent" to develop open space.

Jersey City has plans to develop the reservoir in future years as a passive recreation site, and will depend on Green Acres funding for that endeavor. The city also completed a recreation master plan for the renovation and development of all the city's parks.

"Those funds can be used to maintain [Reservoir No. 3], make it more accessible so it can be used by more people and make it safer," Healy said.

Manzo said voters should "feel good" about voting for the ballot issue on Election Day.

"It's something that will pay back dividends for Jersey City and for the residents living in the urban areas in one of the state's most densely populated areas," Manzo said.

Latham said the funding will not only benefit the development of Reservoir No. 3, but also other open space in years to come.

"Future generations are going to look back and wonder why we didn't save things," Latham said. "To say we didn't have enough money is a ridiculous thing to say."

Comments on this story can be sent to: Ricardo Kaulessar at rkaulessar@hudsonreporter.com

Posted on: 2007/11/4 2:24
Top








[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017