| Salem County's big political news for the last month has been Governor Corzine's proposed budget, which hits our county in two special ways: The elimination of the Department of Agriculture and the municipal aid cuts to towns below 10,000 people. Since I believe the state is in a terrible mess, and am an opponent of the toll road privatization scheme, I'm not going to rant and rave; I wouldn't want to argue that aid to my little town that helps my property taxes is more important than countless state government functions, and I sure wouldn't want to be governor. But since I write these round-ups for Salem County, I will describe why these particular policies are tough on the county.
I do think eliminating the Department of Agriculture would be a huge mistake. As Freeholder David Lindenmuth observed yesterday, "by some estimates, closing the Department of Agriculture would save as little as $341,000, since the essential functions of the Department would still need to continue." This figure alone should bring us pause. Setting aside the economic value of farming and the well-known benefits of food to humans, in a state where the population has supported otherwise unpopular taxes and borrowing to support Farmland and Open Space Preservation, it seems extremely misguided to undermine these efforts by eliminating the strongest support for working farmers. The old expression was "Penny-wise and Pound-foolish." It's easy to find online that preservation efforts are measured in hundreds of millions of dollars. The saying "Million-Dollar-Wise and Hundred-Million-Dollar Foolish" isn't as catchy, but it's a similar ratio. |
| As for the municipal aid, the statistics from the Census Bureau will immediately tell you the municipal aid and town size problem. There's an estimated population of 66,595 -- note that this implies that Corzine has decided the county should have at most six towns. Here's the actual Salem County map at wikipedia:
You can see 15 towns or boroughs, so you'd need to merge all of them in groups of THREE to get to Corzine's figure. It might make some sense, but three-way mergers would obviously be politically complex, so much so that I can't recall a single mention of one. I don't see how anyone expects this to happen right away. On the other hand, you can certainly see a place like Woodstown (#2) is completely surrounded by Pilesgrove (#7) -- even sharing the same zip code -- so a merger would sense and has been discussed many times. Not having grown up here, it doesn't make any difference to me in terms of history or personal identity, and I can't help but notice that many Pilesgrove businesses use the Woodstown name. However, the school district is already merged, and the fire department, and the court, etc., so there's probably less savings there than the map suggests or Corzine imagines. The weird thing is that a Greater Woodstown would still be less than 10,000 [unless all the farms get turned into houses tomorrow], so it seems to me that Corzine's arbitrary number is not helping encourage a merger that would be practical. Another benefit of widespread mergers, it occurs to me, is that it would help in boundary issues for ratables like this one: Pennsville (#9) has somehow managed to get the "ratable" businesses (like Wal-Mart) rather than Carneys Point (#6), and if the (locally) controversial new state Smart Growth plan I've written goes through, almost all of Carneys Point will be "protected" from ever being businesses. Similarly, most of Pilegrove's stores seem to be a located within a few hundreds yards of the Woodstown boundary line.
In any case, regardless of the virtues of mergers, the immediate effect of Corzine's cut will be seen in large increases in local property taxes, as Today's Sunbeam documented in Pennsville, Salem, Oldsmans Township, Elmer, and more, but I got tired of reading and linking to the articles.
It seems Corzine's approach is overly heavy-handed and does not recognize the real efforts at cost savings and shared services that have been going on in the county. Indeed, it would be probably be fair to say that Corzine is trying to grab the cost savings of mergers for his state budget rather than have them go to reducing propety taxes.
The other problem is that because the cuts are made on the basis of population (total cuts to those under 5,000, merely huge cuts to those under 10,000), they have no relationship to actual efforts to share services. Here's one of my Republican Woodstown Councilmen on the budget cuts:
Councilman Mark Robbins said he believes a wide disparity was shown to municipalities based on their population.
"I don't see the equality here," said Robbins. "Pittsgrove only lost $200,000, and we're doing (shared services) with Pilesgrove and Mannington. I mean they have their problems too, but I don't think it's fair to us."
Frankly, this is an excellent point that voters are not going to forget: small towns that do share services get bigger cuts than only slightly larger towns that might not. More disturbing perhaps is the fate of Penns Grove, an already poor town that is losing most of state aid for the lack of a few dozen estimated residents. [If you read the last linked article our Republican Mayor unfortunately complains the Borough won't be able to contribute $500 to 4th of July fireworks, which obviously is not going to elicit a lot of sympathy. I know what he means, but from the people I talk to, it seems to be universally considered the dumbest thing to happen here politically since the Democrats sent a flier trying to scare voters by saying we have gang problems, when government statistics say there has not been a single gang-related incident in Woodstown.]
Well, times are tough for New Jersey budgets, and no doubt your regions have their own problems. I've included some quotes from local politicians below for the record.
What the politicians say
Freeholder Statement on State Aid (PDF):
"Governor Corzine's goal to reduce the property tax burden on residents and eliminate the state debt is admirable but his proposed methods are too strong too soon," said Director Ware. "Salem County will be dramatically hit by these cuts since they target small towns which are what we have in our county. Our municipalities still have essential operating functions that will need to be funded. The Governor's proposal merely shifts the burden from the state to our already hard-pressed municipalities. We need true reform and this is not it."
"Salem County and its municipalities are already embracing shared services as we are applying for grant funding to conduct feasibility studies for merging municipal courts, creating a county-wide police force, and now centralizing animal control," said Deputy Director Lindenmuth, who has spearheaded the county's efforts for shared services. "The Governor is right in that we must consolidate services, but these dramatic cuts are a coldturkey solution to a complicated problem. We have to make sure that the consolidation efforts are grounded in common-sense principles in that they maintain or improve services and cut costs. In order to properly enact shared services for the tax payer, it takes time."
"This country is going through tough financial times and Salem County is no exception," said Freeholder Bruce Bobbitt. "Our residents are facing rising costs for everything from gas to produce and it is already tough for them to put food on the table. The Governor's proposal will pass the buck from the state budget to the municipal budget which would not result in any immediate savings. Additionally, it unfairly targets smaller towns with the largest cuts, which means it hits the heart of our County. We need true property tax reform and this is not it."
Freeholder Statement on Agriculture (PDF):
"The Board of Chosen Freeholders stands firmly against the elimination of the Department of Agriculture. We applaud Governor Corzine's aggressive efforts to reduce the State budget deficit and put New Jersey back on track toward fiscal responsibility. However, New Jersey is the Garden State and if we are to maintain this designation then we must have and support the efforts of the Department of Agriculture. The Department is an effective advocate and resource for our farming community and Salem County, the Garden Spot of the Garden State, would certainly suffer from its loss. "We will be voting next week on a resolution urging the legislature and Governor, as well as other counties, to reject this idea and pursue other areas for reductions. Additionally, when this issue goes before the Senate and Assembly we will be visiting the State House to formally testify our opposition to the plan. We urge all Salem County residents to reach out to the Governor and Third District legislators and voice your opposition to the plan. Their contact information is located on our webpage: www.salemcountynj.gov."
The freeholders did in fact testify on Wednesday, and you can read the testimony in the 27 March 2008 'dead tree' edition of Today's Sunbeam.
Our State Senator [and Democratic Majority Leader, and Gloucester County Freeholder] Steve Sweeney on the budget:
"This budget season is going to be difficult - I'd be lying if I said it wasn't. My goal as we make these tough, but necessary, budget cuts is to ensure that the decisions are as fair as possible. However, we need residents to know that we are working to make cuts that will still allow them to receive as much aid as possible. Residents don't want their services cut, and we don't want to cut them, but it's something we'll have to do to make ends meet.
"I've been a long-time supporter of the consolidation of services within counties. This is one way that towns can save money, while still ensuing that residents get the services they need. In fact, the Governor's proposed budget offers incentives for towns that opt to share services.
"When Governor Corzine outlined his proposed budget, we were all taken aback. Some residents are going to be disappointed by this budget, but what everyone has to understand is, if we want to improve our financial standing, we have to make some changes in the way New Jersey appropriates funds."
|
