Vote 'no' on open-space question

By Daryn Iwicki

Trenton isn't serious about confronting the state's enormous fiscal challenges. New Jersey is $40 billion in debt, with $90 billion in unfunded pension and health benefit liabilities, and its Transportation Trust Fund is broke. Property taxes remain the nation's worst. Most New Jerseyans would agree that our tax dollars should be steered toward these critical priorities. Instead, on Tuesday, voters will be asked to allow Trenton to spend billions - not to help get our fiscal house in order - but to buy thousands of acres of land for years to come.

Past ballot questions on land acquisition were short-term in nature. However, this year's referendum, Question 2, would amend the state Constitution and provide Trenton with an open-ended spigot to buy land. Only another referendum approved by voters could overturn it. Originally, the measure was to sunset after 30 fiscal years, but that provision was stricken as lawmakers scrambled to put the issue on the ballot.

Claims that Question 2 is "revenue neutral" because the money for land would come from an existing income source, the corporate business tax, are deceptive. Currently, 4 percent of that tax is used for environmental purposes. Voters are being asked to allow that the majority of that money be used for open-space acquisition, preservation, and maintenance starting in 2016, and to increase that dedication to 6 percent in 2019, a projected $121 million a year.

Consider that the state has spent just over $3 billion in the 63-year history of the Green Acres program. If passed, Question 2 would dwarf this amount in record time.

Year after year, politicians tell us there's no money for property tax relief. Yet these same politicians have somehow found billions of dollars for land purchases.

Consider that a Rutgers University study shows that as the amount of preserved land increases, so do property taxes. So homeowners who vote for Question 2 will, in effect, be voting themselves a property tax hike.

Politicians talk about raising the gas tax or putting tolls on Interstates 78 and 80 to raise money to fix our roads and bridges. Why couldn't the dedication revenues from the corporate business tax be used to help replenish the transportation fund and finance critical infrastructure needs. Likewise, lawmakers could have proposed applying this revenue to help address the massive $90 billion liability in unfunded pension and health benefits. Of course, even dedicating 6 percent of the corporate business tax would not fully solve this problem, but it would be a far more prudent fiscal action.

The Garden State already has millions of acres of land preserved. A Reason Foundation study published this year said New Jersey has just as much preserved land (30 percent) as developed land (32 percent). New Jersey has already preserved 1.5 million acres, an area bigger than the state of Delaware. Does New Jersey really need 43 percent of its land area off limits?

I hope other New Jerseyans share the same disbelief I have when they hear politicians say we can't afford to fix our roads, make a pension payment, or provide property tax relief - especially after seeing how they are proposing spending billions of dollars for the rest of our lives on taking land away.

On Tuesday, voters will have an opportunity to send an unmistakable message to Trenton to get its fiscal priorities in order. They can do that by voting NO on Question 2.