The Asbury Park Press calls on the new DEP task force, which is being asked to review environmental rules, to focus on clarifying the rules and process and not on relaxing them. But the language used in the editorial is the same language used by the building community to privilege economic interests over the environment.
Builders have had to clear many hurdles to move ahead with their projects over the years. Too many businesses have looked to locate elsewhere after confronting the state’s slow and cumbersome approval process.
The business community wants environmental policies relaxed to ease the way. So does the state Department of Community Affairs in calling for more affordable housing. But the 19 members on the DEP’s Permit Efficiency Task Force, which has been given four months to complete its work, should resist any temptation to loosen environmental standards.
The builders complain about inconsistent demands to pass the tests for environmental permits. The state must streamline that process. Delays and red tape cost builders money, and those costs are passed on to consumers. Builders need clear, precise expectations and consistent deadlines from the DEP so they can meet their obligations and manage their resources efficiently. Before deciding to proceed, they need to know what environmental remedies will be necessary so they can plan accordingly.
Hmmm. Let’s catalogue the language: “clear many hurdles,” “slow and cumbersome approval process,” “inconsistent demands,” “delays and red tape.” This is not neutral language. Rather, it is language designed to back the business community while seeming to endorse strong environmental regulation.
I am all for making the regulations work better. But balance should not be the goal. The state needs to decide what its primary goal is: boosting the business community or protecting the environment. There are times when both can be done simultaneously but, more often than not, we have to choose.
Consider the local industrial zones in Cranbury, Monroe and South Brunswick. They generally allow only light uses — meaning distributon centers, warehouses and only light manufacturing. Nothing dirty or toxic.
So, yes, clarity is a good thing. But clarity should not be used as a buzzword to gut tough rules.
As I wrote in this week’s Dipsatches, quoting Bill Wolfe of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,
“Permit efficiency is not consistent with environmental protection. The task force should not emphasize streamlining. It should promote environmental protection.”
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 