Jump to content
IGNORED

Sussex county residents- vote question


Recommended Posts

Conservation organizations along with preservation organizations have done an excellent job in NJ preserving lands, but there is no dedicated funding mechanism to steward those lands they have preserved.  This will change that if approved and allow management of invasive species, plantings, etc. which is critical to maintaining or restoring the lands preserved.  What good is preservation if the land is full of foreign, invasive plants?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservation organizations along with preservation organizations have done an excellent job in NJ preserving lands, but there is no dedicated funding mechanism to steward those lands they have preserved.  This will change that if approved and allow management of invasive species, plantings, etc. which is critical to maintaining or restoring the lands preserved.  What good is preservation if the land is full of foreign, invasive plants?  

If this is true, that's pretty awesome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservation organizations along with preservation organizations have done an excellent job in NJ preserving lands, but there is no dedicated funding mechanism to steward those lands they have preserved.  This will change that if approved and allow management of invasive species, plantings, etc. which is critical to maintaining or restoring the lands preserved.  What good is preservation if the land is full of foreign, invasive plants?

 

By steward you mean manage. And by manage you mean create rules and regulations.

 

With a state full of antis, what could go wrong with this plan?

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true, that's pretty awesome

That interpretative statement says absolutely nothing about invasive species. It does say "stewardship projects and for development and maintenance of permanently preserved open space" it also says '"grants".  I wonder where the money comes from for the "grants" and I wonder who the "eligible applicants" are.   Find out who is behind this question and that will tell you a lot. 

 

As a result of the highlands act you are so restricted by the DEP already as to what you can and can't do with land you already own and the county is restricted as well.   The whole region covered under the HA is basically open space.  And I don't need a lecture about what the Highlands Act did or was supposed to do as I read the whole damn thing multiple times so please spare me the BS.   If you think that there is already way to much restriction on the land use up there then it is an easy "no" vote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By steward you mean manage. And by manage you mean create rules and regulations.

 

With a state full of antis, what could go wrong with this plan?

 

Precisely.  There is no way in HELL I would vote for that.

 

Also, not that a yes vote also allows for "development", with no definition attached to the word development.

"I wish we could sell them another hill at the same price." - Brigadier General Nathanael Greene, June 28, 1775

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, you should almost always vote "no" on these ballot questions, or, when in doubt, certainly vote "no".

 

They're almost always a craftily worded paragraph designed to trick the voter into voting "yes" for something that they otherwise would certainly have voted no on (tax hikes, new laws, etc...).

"I wish we could sell them another hill at the same price." - Brigadier General Nathanael Greene, June 28, 1775

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, you should almost always vote "no" on these ballot questions, or, when in doubt, certainly vote "no".

 

They're almost always a craftily worded paragraph designed to trick the voter into voting "yes" for something that they otherwise would certainly have voted no on (tax hikes, new laws, etc...).

 

Agreed.

 

From what Jay posted this is what I read:  "...additional bureaucracy..."

 

So a "yes" vote means you agree with and support additional bureaucracy in the management of preserved farmland.

 

Sorry, but it needs to be very, very narrow in its definition, otherwise this is going to be just another special interest power grab.

Sapere aude.

Audeamus.

When you cannot measure, your knowledge is meager and unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word that scares me there is "development"....what kind of development is allowed on these lands? is most of the money going for more ball parks, sports fields, solar fields and not stewardship projects? 

 

And Brian, while I certainly applaud the efforts of the conservation organizations in preserving lands(its a thankless and low paying job), I do hate the fact that a good number of properties where public funding is used to purchase them, end up being managed by these organizations....where they come up with their own rules for management...though this is often better than handing these lands over to the local township govt. 

Edited by MS22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smells just like the NJ Natural Trust where the NJ state legislature created this agency "to preserve land in its natural state for enjoyment by the public and to protect natural diversity through the acquisition of open space" but of course this "enjoyment by the public" doesn't including hunting anything other than deer  :whatever:

 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/njnlt/publicuse.htm

 

"The following activities are PROHIBITED on Trust Preserves:

  * Hunting for bear, turkey, small game or waterfowl"

 

So be careful - giving money to the government for acquisition and management of public lands does not necessarily mean hunters will get to enjoy it. This is NJ, don't forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By steward you mean manage. And by manage you mean create rules and regulations.

 

With a state full of antis, what could go wrong with this plan?

 

Conservation organizations don't make rules or regulations.  This allows groups like land trusts, NJ Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, etc, to have funding to steward the lands that Green Acres or other funding mechanisms preserved.  There is nothing insidious here; it's just that here in NJ, we are all skeptics and should be.  So when something good come along like Sussex County wanting to dedicate some of its Open Space funding for stewardship instead of 100% for acquisition, we are immediately skeptical of what that means.  I don't live in Sussex, but if I did, I would vote for it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservation organizations don't make rules or regulations.

 

Are you saying that these organizations don't make rules that limit certain access and usage of the properties they manage?...much of which was acquired through public funding. Because I would certainly have to disagree with that. I believe the state/public entity supplies the funding with certain conditions but outside of that, these organizations control the property under their rules. Edited by MS22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...