Editorials in the state’s major papers over the last few days are asking that voters and legislators keep an open mind on the governor’s “asset monetization” proposal, asking that critics hold their fire until the governor puts a plan on the table.
The Record, for instance, calls legislators’ attempts to block the plan — essentially a privatization of state assets — premature and “flat-out wrong.”
They have decided they are dead set against the sale or lease of a major highway or other asset before they even know what the Corzine administration will come up with.
Their premature opposition is a disservice to the public. It threatens to kill the proposal for an asset sale before it has even been made.
Of course, that’s the game plan. The idea of selling off the Turnpike is dangerous at the very least, raising the specter of some unregulated business raising tolls and shirking on maintenance, leaving the state’s drivers holding the bag for years.
The Record admits that
there are serious, legitimate concerns about the notion of giving a private company control of any major highway or other state asset. Would tolls rise unreasonably high? Would the highway be properly maintained?
Most important, would an asset sale benefit the state over the long run, or would it bring only temporary relief that would lead the state into a deeper fiscal hole in the future?
These concerns need to be fully debated. But it is impossible to debate a proposal that doesn’t yet exist.
The Asbury Park Press also remains skeptical, but is open to some options,
such as the sale of naming rights and air rights — developing the empty space above state properties — and the use of financial techniques to generate regular income from state assets. None of the alternatives should involve ceding control over the assets, such as the roadways, which would hurt commuters most with nonstop toll increases.
And it wants voters to have the final say — which only seems reasonable, given what may end up being proposed.
Let’s be fair here. “Asset monetization” is a dangerous gamble, as I said. Handing off public assets, even if safeguards are built into the contract, means handing off control. You can’t have it both ways.
I wouldn’t take the proposal off the table, necessarily, but before anyone can take this discussion seriously, the governor has to show the state that there are no other options. The governor says that voters will not stand for an income tax hike. My answer is: Let’s ask them. He says they won’t stand for service cuts: Explain the potential cuts and then ask them whether they can live with them.
If, in the end, “asset monetarization” is the only way to stave off financial ruin, then we can talk about it.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 