Assembly – Hank Kalet

Green v. Green

The Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee has approved legislation that would extend the permits of stalled building projects for up to six years, a bill at odds with environmental stewardship.

Called the Permit Extension Act, the proposal would extend for six years all permits and approvals given to developers by the state and local governments — even those that have expired. It would enable projects permitted in past years but stalled for financial reasons to avoid having to comply with subsequent changes in environmental law, public health standards, building codes or local zoning.

Supporters — which include builders and labor — are calling this necessary to protect builders during the downturn, with one of its sponsors, Assemblyman Louis Greenwald, D-Camden, having described it in May as “part of an economic stimulus package.”

“We want to be more competitive with neighboring states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, where business is going to. This is no different than other permit extensions in the past when we faced similar recessions. It is designed to help stimulate the economy and vital to the financial recovery from the doldrums we are currently in.”

Assemblyman Joe Cryan, D-Union, said earlier today,

“The expiration of permits can have a devastating impact on our building and construction industries and the thousands of jobs they support,” said Cryan (D-Union). “Without this relief, it could cost business tens of millions of dollars for re-permitting. Allowing already approved projects to go ahead once the economy turns around will send a strong message to businesses that we want them to stay in New Jersey.”

I’m not convinced. Builders, who bet on the economy when they set out to develop a property are protected by their permits and board approvals for the life of those approvals. The idea is that they should be able to secure funding and get their projects going. If they can’t get funding or if the economy sours, they shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules.

Here is what the Sierra Club New Jersey Chapter has to say about it:

The Permit Extension Act would extend all permits and approvals for developers at the state and local levels for six years, allowing projects that were permitted many years ago to avoid changes in environmental law, public health standards, building codes, or local zoning. This bill is one of the biggest giveaways to developers in the history of New Jersey. It will result in more flooding, more people living on toxic sites, more sprawl, and more pollution.

The act would allow projects whose permits or approvals have expired within the past two years to be brought back to life, even if those projects would cause environmental harm or damage to public health.

It would undermine the state’s Pollution Discharge Rules, Flood Hazard Rules, Site Remediation Rules, Category 1 Rules, and others, preventing their appropriate implementation in violation of the laws that brought these rules into existence. In fact, the bill’s language specifies that the permit extension would be in effect from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2012, due to the current economic situation. Disguised as a fix to a short-term problem, the Permit Extension Act is a long-term giveaway to New Jersey’s development lobby.

The act would also arbitrarily extend permits affecting federally-designated programs, such as the Wetlands Act and Clean Water Act, violating Memoranda of Agreement between the state of New Jersey and the federal government. In essence, this would mean that the Bush Administration, with its atrocious environmental record, would be more protective of the environment than the New Jersey legislature.

Do builders need help? Given the wild speculation and construction that has transformed the state — and this region in particular — over the last two decades, it would appear that builders should be providing the state’s citizens with aid in the form of money for school construction, mass transit and affordable housing, problems they helped create.

They certainly do not need a state bailout in the form of arbitrary extensions. If they bet wrong, so be it. And if, between the approval and expiration of a permit, the rules change, they should have to abide by the new rules — as all of us little people out here at home must do.

Monetization: Not so popular with voters

This is really not very surprising.

When it comes to increasing state revenue, Governor Corzine appears to have put nearly all his eggs in the asset monetization basket. Media reports say that he is preparing to mount a high-profile public information campaign to win over the state. Results from the latest Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll indicate that he has a lot of work ahead of him.

In general, most New Jerseyans think the idea of “state asset monetization” – or more specifically, leasing toll roads or the lottery, allowing developers to build on train stations, and selling naming rights to state owned property like parks – is a bad one. Fully 55% say this concept is a bad idea compared to 33% who say it is a good one. The remainder have mixed feelings or no opinion. About 6-in-10 Republicans (58%) and independents (61%) give asset monetization a thumbs down, and even the governor’s fellow Democrats are more negative (46%) than positive (37%) on the idea.

The governor has not released specific plans on how he proposes to leverage state assets for revenue, but much of the public discussion focuses on operation of the state’s toll roads. The poll found that 59% of state residents specifically oppose leasing operation of the New Jersey Turnpike or Garden State Parkway even if the money were used for a specific purpose. Just 30% support the idea.

However, the public are just as opposed to other revenue-raising efforts that involve state assets. They oppose allowing developers to build over train stations 58% to 33%. They also oppose leasing operation of the state lottery 53% to 34%. And they even oppose selling the naming rights to state parks 54% to 37%. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike oppose all these monetization ideas.

Also not surprising is this:

when faced with a forced choice between leasing state assets and raising taxes, New Jerseyans would give away the state assets by a 62% to 21% margin. Opinion is more divided if the choice is between leasing state assets (43%) and making significant cuts in education and other government services (44%).

Monmouth Polling Director Patrick Murray says this raises some questions.

“As a general concept, asset monetization, to use the governor’s parlance, just doesn’t sit well with New Jerseyans. While most residents would choose leasing state assets over raising taxes, it is really not clear that the public believes that the state has only these two options available.”

The question will probably come down to the specific choices placed on the table — meaning the specific cuts, the specific taxes and the impact all of this will have on the longterm fiscal health of the state and the state’s ability to reform its overall tax and government structures.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Another special session?

Republican Assemblym members Alex DeCroce and Bill Baroni are calling on the governor to call a special session of the state Legislature to force it to enact ethics reform.

According to an Associated Press story, the announcement that state Sen. Wayne Bryant (D-Camden) was indicted on charges of federal corruption, fraud and pension padding spurred the call.

Republicans say reforms should include limiting campaign contributions from government contractors, making it illegal for officials to hold more than one elected office, and outlawing pension-boosting by public officials. Other proposed measures include suspending indicted public officials without pay, requiring jail time for convicted public officials, and turning over control of the Legislature’s ethics committee to private citizens.

The demand is obviously as much about politics as it is about reform, but there is no doubt that a problem exists and that much of the reform package makes sense. A special session, however, may not be the right path, given the ineffectiveness of last summer’s tax session.

The reality is that nothing is going to get done with a major citizen push — especially in an election year when the motivations of elected officials are incredibly suspect.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Flux in the 14th

An interesting take from Politics NJ calculations and turmoil that followed the announcement yesterday that Sen. Peter Inverso is not seeking re-election. The upshot is that the Democrats could go for an older candidate from Hamilton — Gil Lugossy or Skip Cimino — though that seems an absurd approach when dealing with someone like Bill Baroni.

(S)ome Democrats insist Baroni is beatable in a toss-up district, pointing specifically to his strong connections with the upper echelons of a national Republican Party in trouble.

There is some thought that a Hamiltonian with experience in elected office and deep community roots — ideally going back to the Chambersburg migration from Trenton to Hamilton — a (former Sheriff) Gilbert Lugossy, for example, or a (former Assemblyman) Anthony Cimino — would provide exactly the kind of gravitas transfusion at the top of the ticket that could propel the Dems to victory in November.

Anything is possible, I guess. But Baroni has built deep connections not only to Hamilton, but to Democratic South Brunswick — the district’s second largest town. He has carried the township in both of his runs, making him the only Republican aside from Inverso to carry South Brunswick in about a decade. (Even retired Police Chief Michael Paquette couldn’t carry his home town, losing it to Greenstein by 40 votes and Baroni by about 60.) The chances of an old lion having real success in South Brunswick at the expense of Baroni appear slim, though I suspect that the overwhelmingly Democratic voters of Monroe and Plainsboro would be there for the taking (Monroe and Plainsboro were the only towns in the district to back Dan Bensen, Greenstein’s running mate).

And all the talk about Hamilton, though, ignores this fact: Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein lost Hamilton in 2003 by about 2,000 votes and in 2005 by about 700 votes, yet she’s still standing, primarily because she has a huge base in Monroe and Plainsboro.

As for tying Baroni to the national party — this is a real stretch. Yes, he is close to John McCain, but he also vocally endorsed the civil union legislation, is a proponent of clean elections law and ethics reform and has already won endorsement from CWA. Not exactly the profile of a Bush acolyte.

Plus — and this is key — no one knows how the botched tax reform effort will play out electorally. Will the Democrats’ failure to deliver on anything other than a tax credit cost them votes in high-tax towns like Hamilton and West Windsor? I wouldn’t bet against it.

The only thing we know for sure is that Sen. Inverso’s retirement has altered the dynamic in the district.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Toll sale would take its toll

The debate on selling off the state’s toll roads has begun.

The Assembly Transportation Committee began hearings today to discuss the misbegotten proposal — with many of the members rightly pointing out how it is less likely to fix our debt problems than exacerbate them.

Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex, the committee chairman, warned that any “monetization” plan would be similar to past borrowing schemes that have led to the state’s crushing debts. Selling or leasing state assets is now being promoted as a way to ease those burdens.

Wisniewski said a long-term privatization plan would still leave the public on the hook for billions of dollars of debt through higher tolls.

And this does not take into account the potential maintenance issues associated with a privatization plan.

As I’ve said before, end this debate now before we talk ourself into doing something dopey.

South Brunswick Post , The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick