Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:02:26 PM EDT
|
Leonard Lance is on a tear: Senate Republican Budget Officer Leonard Lance issued the following statement regarding the new COAH law that was rushed through the Legislature at the end of the session:
"It is clear that the new COAH law will encourage urban sprawl leading to more pollution and congestion in the environmentally sensitive Highlands and Pinelands regions. This poorly conceived and drafted legislation did not reconcile two important policy considerations: the need to provide affordable housing and the need to protect our water supply.
"It is clear that the new COAH law must be scrapped. The State needs to start over with a development plan that provides for both affordable housing and ensures the safety of our water supply.
"Any attempt to amend the new law should not favor the politically connected Northern New Jersey power brokers. This is already happening with the proposal to exempt the huge Xanadu entertainment complex in the Meadowlands, while reports published in last week's Hunterdon Democrat indicate local dairy farmers are moving across the river because the State would apply an additional 2.5 percent tax on the construction of new barns.
"The new COAH law is arbitrary, unfair, anti-business and ultimately unworkable. We need to start over."
Let's unspin this and see what falls out, shall we? |
| Thurman Hart :: The Unspin Zone: Take 1 |
"It is clear that the new COAH law will encourage urban sprawl leading to more pollution and congestion in the environmentally sensitive Highlands and Pinelands regions.
One of the chief factors in urban sprawl is low density housing. An acre of land can, just to make up an example, serve as affordable housing for maybe fifty senior citizens or one McMansion. It may seem as if the McMansion causes less congestion, but it actually just displaces it. Unless one actually kills off the senior citizens, then they must live somewhere. Using a particular acre of land for a McMansion rather than high-density senior housing simply means that those seniors must live elsewhere - but they generally don't relocate out of the region entirely.
And pollution? One bus - or even three buses - servicing a senior housing project uses less gasoline than a family of four with with an SUV and a mini-van.
This poorly conceived and drafted legislation did not reconcile two important policy considerations: the need to provide affordable housing and the need to protect our water supply.
High density housing can actually help protect our water supplies. If it is landscaped properly, it is no worse than low density housing. Quite to the contrary, in fact. A McMansion that has a lovely yard which must be maintained with applications of pesticide and herbicides can be incredibly damaging to our rivers and groundwater system. Besides, any problems with the groundwater can be addressed through further restrictive legislation.
"Any attempt to amend the new law should not favor the politically connected Northern New Jersey power brokers. This is already happening with the proposal to exempt the huge Xanadu entertainment complex in the Meadowlands, while reports published in last week's Hunterdon Democrat indicate local dairy farmers are moving across the river because the State would apply an additional 2.5 percent tax on the construction of new barns.
Xanadu is not an affordable housing project, but a monstrous shopping megplex. So it is unclear why it would serve as an example of what would happen in South Jersey when local municipalities decide which contractors will get affordable housing contracts. Lance appears to be saying that North Jersey contractors will somehow strongarm local municipalities with whom they have no pull.
As for barns being taxed and that causing farmers to leave - well, that kind of offsets the tax breaks they get for agricultural purposes. Farmers might be moving, but it is unclear that they will be that much better off for doing so. It seems to me that a lot more than a 2.5% tax would be involved in that decision since land would have to be bought and sold (and if there is a mass exodus, it would be at a great discount) and cattle would have to be moved, not to mention personal disruption.
If barns are chasing that many farmers out of state, perhaps Mr. Lance could propose exempting barns for a period of years?
There are grains of truth here, but they are twisted badly. I"m going to give it a cumulative three warning signs for spin:
   |
|
Featured Stories  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|