One highlight of the night was that the open space question passed. Governors come and go, but the preserved land will be there forever. Interestingly, it appears that only 75% of the people who voted for Governor voted on this question. Do people not read the bottom of the ballot? Or did they not care?
The new Monmouth/Gannett poll of 1,041 New Jersey likely voters from October 28 to 30, 2009 is out:
Just days before selecting their next governor, New Jersey voters are clearly divided. The only sure bet from the latest Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll is that the winner will be either a Republican or a Democrat. As of Friday night, challenger Chris Christie held an insignificant one point lead over incumbent Jon Corzine among likely voters, 43% to 42%. Two weeks ago, the race was tied at 39% each. Independent Chris Daggett has faded to 8%, after reaching 14% in the previous poll.
Republican voters give 86% support to their party's nominee, compared to 6% for Corzine and 5% for Daggett. Democratic voters give 77% support to their party's nominee, compared to 11% for Christie and 9% for Daggett.
The Open Space bond leads 51-28.
Other details including approval rating, breakdowns by party, and analysis are in the full report (PDF).
The new Fairleigh Dickinson PublicMind poll of 694 New Jersey likely voters is now released and the headline result is Corzine 44, Christie 43. It's worth discussing what exactly this is. This is a poll where a human asks "In November there will be an election for governor. I know it's early but if the election were held today who would you vote for Jon Corzine or Chris Christie?" (rotating the two names), but Chris Daggett still gets 6%:
According to the most recent poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind™, Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine and Republican challenger Chris Christie continue in a close contest in the race for New Jersey governor, with Corzine holding a lead among likely voters by a statistically insignificant thread of 44% to 43%. Another 6% volunteer they will vote for independent Chris Daggett and 4% are undecided. "At this point, anyone who says their vote doesn't count is mistaken," said Peter Woolley, a political scientist and director of the poll. "And no one knows that better than the campaigns."
Now, after that question they ask "Now let me ask that question in a slightly different way... if the election were held today, who would you vote for in a race between Jon Corzine and Chris Christie and Chris Daggett?" (again with the names rotated.) For half, they ask about Gary Steele instead of Daggett.
That gives two results: Corzine 39, Christie 41, Daggett 14 and Corzine 46, Christie 41, Steele 3. It's fun to think about, but as the sample sizes are cut in half and are the same people who answered the previous result I'm not sure if it tells us much, except that Daggett does better when mentioned.
It's a little amusing that 19% of people correctly identify Daggett as the candidate endorsed by the Star-Ledger, but 17% name Corzine. Daggett supporters tend to know about the endorsement, but which way does the causal connection run? In any case, only 18% haven't heard of Daggett, way down from 50% in FDU's October 6 poll.
The other indicators are in line with what we've seen before: Corzine is at 39-54 favorable-unfavorable. Christie is 41-44 favorable-unfavorable. Daggett is at 28-23. Corzine is at 37-52 job approval. Barack Obama is at 52-37 job approval.
Public Question 1 on open space bonds is at 52% yes, 33% no. The question uses the word "bonds" not "borrow." Every pollster that uses that wording finds the bonds being approved.
There's an interesting new release (PDF) from Eagleton-Rutgers. This is the same poll that had Corzine ahead by three. Eagleton reports:
New Jersey's $400 million dollar open space bond issue is at risk of failing according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released today. Among likely voters in the November 3 election, 43 percent oppose borrowing for open space while 41 percent support borrowing, a statistical dead heat. Another 16 percent are undecided.
The Rutgers-Eagleton poll results vary dramatically from another recent poll which found 55 percent of likely voters in favor, and only 32 percent opposed. The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll of 583 likely voters has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent.
"It is rare to see such significant differences in two polls taken at nearly the same time," said David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Poll and professor of political science at Rutgers. "In this case, however, the difference is in the way the question was asked. When voters are cued to the idea that a bond issue means borrowing money they are far less supportive than when simply told that bonds will be issued."
The Rutgers-Eagleton Poll asked the question: "Voters will decide whether New Jersey should borrow $400 million to preserve open space, farmland, and historic areas. Do you plan to vote for or against borrowing this money?" In comparison other polls have simply asked voters whether they support "bonding" for open space without specifying that bonding means borrowing money.
I was initially surprised that the question was doing so well, because I guessed voters were sick of borrowing, and I remember a Salem County measure actually failing recently. Lonegan has a chance to have an impact here, I think, but I don't pretend to know what will happen. If you're wondering, the Public Question and its interpretative statement have "bond" but not "borrowing."
Steve Lonegan's group has put together an ad urging people to vote no on 1, the open space public question. He decided the best way to convey his message, was to use a park and water as a backdrop with children as props:This is what he recently said about his effort:
Conservative activist Steve Lonegan said Tuesday he hopes to raise $200,000 and run radio and television ads opposing a statewide referendum to borrow $400 million for open space.
He said he wants to tap into the outrage he said was shown in tea party protests against federal healthcare and cap-and-trade legislation.
The paper looked into how the committee is run and had questions:
While Lonegan told reporters the committee was "all me," state documents filed Sept. 22 say the committee's top members are top officials with Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian-leaning group based in Washington, D.C.
Lonegan is AFP's New Jersey director. His name does not appear on any committee filings.
In filings with the state Election Law Enforcement Commission, the "Committee to Defeat Question One" lists the Bogota, Bergen County, address and phone number used by AFP's state branch. Its chairman is AFP's Executive Vice President and General Counsel John Flynn and its treasurer is AFP's Chief Financial Officer Steve Mullins. It also names Jonathan Martin, AFP's senior finance manager.
Lonegan said later "I run the operation." Asked about the out-of-state connections, he said, "That's just the way we set it up."
The event is being organized by the NJ Keep it Green Coalition, made up of 135 organizations from across the state that are working to renew the Garden State Preservation Trust and to provide for clean water, open spaces, farmland preservation and historic preservation. They are supported by a bipartisan group of legislators and local officials.
Governor Corzine supports the Open Space question, while his opponents Chris Christie and Chris Daggett oppose the measure. Polls thus far have shown support for the Open Space measure.
A majority of likely voters (56%) say they approve of this year's public question: issuing $400 million in bonds to make land purchases to conserve open space. Just 31% say they disapprove of the bond issue and 13% say they are not sure. The bond issue gains approval by a similar margin (57-32) among just those who say they always vote on bond issues.
The open space question has had a pretty low profile this year, but I've been wondering if voters would reject any borrowing in these tough times. I'm glad to see it's looking good for now.
The release also has info about plans to "Vote By Mail" -- I dropped my application in the mail yesterday -- but it seems to me we can just see how the statistics work out afterwards. They say "just 8% of voters say they're somewhat or very likely to vote by mail" and another 10% say it's possible but not very likely.
Increasingly, subdivisions, usually master-planned developments at which buyers buy home sites or raw land, have been treating farms as an amenity. "There are currently at least 200 projects that include agriculture as a key community component," said Ed McMahon, a senior fellow with the Urban Land Institute.
I've seen developments where people paid extra to have homes next to a golf course. Even though the developer devotes some land to the course, the remaining space makes more money since the houses are more desirable. The idea here is the same, except you get a farm (preferably organic!) The article mentions projects in Vermont, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, and Virginia. Here's one:
At the 220-home Serenbe project near Atlanta's airport, the cachet of local produce has been added to retiree-friendly businesses, including galleries, a bed-and-breakfast and three restaurants. Steve Nygren, an Atlanta restaurant impresario, started the project on his 900-acre farm.
"We preserved forest and pasture, and there were 20 acres left for an organic farm, and we also have a large wildflower meadow," Mr. Nygren said. "We've set up the design so 90 percent of the houses back up to one of those natural amenities. We are selling our lots at a premium that's probably three times what the raw lot is."
For me, the farms are an attractive part of living in Salem County, and I've heard from many people in the Mid-Atlantic region that their communities were much nicer before all the open space was developed. The recession will slow the suburbs for a while, but New Jersey may be completely built out in the next half century.
New Jersey voters have consistently backed spending money on preserving open space, but if NJ developers catch on to this trend, the private sector may reinforce our governments' efforts. I hope it does.
Today, an environmental coalition group called Keep It Green released (PDF) their new poll (PDF) that shows voters support the proposed ballot initiative to borrow $600 million to fund Open Space:
After hearing the draft ballot language, the ballot was supported 59%-33% with 8% undecided.
Asked whether their state legislator should put the measure on the ballot, 80% said "yes" or "probably yes," and 17% were against.
Asked about their level of concern for the economy, 89% said it was an "extremely" or "very" serious problem.
The favorable-unfavorable for the Green Acres Program is 59%-7%, Farmland Preservation Program is 49%-5%, and the New Jersey Historic Trust is 39%-5%.
Told the cost impact of the ballot is (on average) $16/household, support rises to 67%.
Obviously these are great numbers, much better than the Governor's, so it's no wonder the group released their poll. I hope the program passes. Still, I don't think passage of this ballot measure is by any means assured. Internal polls should always be viewed with a little skepticism, and the sample is just 600 likely voters. Even here at Blue Jersey, many are concerned about debt, and while there was a question about the economy, there wasn't one on debt.
A Rutgers-Eagleton poll finds that by a 56%-37% margin, likely voters would support a $450 million bond referendum question to fund stem cell research.
This vote was a warning shot from the voters, and perhaps a sign of things to come. They weren't ready this time to abandon the Democrats, but they know something is very wrong with the budget and they're tired of gimmicks and further debt.
The public will be divided between their desire to protect the environment and their worry that the government is mismanaged. The Keep It Green folks had better just be starting their campaign.
Both the Senate and Assembly Environmental Committees passed legislation for an open space referendum on the November ballot in the last few days and Tom Hester makes this note about how long the process took:
In the past five days, two legislative committees have approved in a total of seven minutes without public comment a proposal that would ask voters to approve a $600 million open space preservation bond referendum on the Nov. 3 ballot.
Environmental groups have been split with some support and others voicing concern that the increased price tag may not get the support of the voters given the current economic climate and voter sentiment. Jeff Tittel of the Sierra Club doesn't like what's going on at all:
"They don't want a public hearing because they don't want the public to raise concerns about the bond act. In my 20 years in Trenton I have never seen anything like this. They are pushing this legislation through like they were approving Succotash Week.''
I'm sure he's seen plenty of things in his twenty years, but this amendment is moving rather quickly. Many of the groups supporting the legislation would benefit from it's approval:
On the other hand, a number of members of the New Jersey Keep it Green Campaign, a coalition of 115 organizations supporting the rene wal of GSPT, who were present at the committee hearing, applaud the proposal. Many of the coalition's non-profit members receive state aid for open space preservation.
"Without this funding, many of the historic places that give our communities character are at risk of being lost forever, said John Hatch, Preservation New Jersey president. "We need to create more opportunities for community revitalization and renewal as well as provide jobs for our citizens by saving these historic treasures."
"We applaud the legislators' support for sustaining the Trust,'' said Tom Wells, lobbyist for the Nature Conservancy of New Jersey. "Our efforts to preserve New Jersey's natural lands depend it. Without the Garden State Preservation Trust, our ability to preserve land for the benefit of our state will slow to a trickle, precisely at the time when real estate prices are in our favor."
"A replenished Garden State Preservation Trust would invest significantly in urban parks, farmland and historic preservation projects that will keep our children active, our food more locally-grown, and our rich heritage alive," said Anthony Cucchi, director of the Trust for Public Land. "It will also enable us to continue investing in natural areas that maintain our clean water, clean air, and the healthy environment for our families."
Apparently the Legislative committees didn't share those concerns, or didn't take the time to discuss them this time around. Assembly Democrats said they held a public hearing in April, but the amendment to $600 million was just introduced last week. Do you think voters will get sticker shock when they walk into the ballot box and see the $600 million question?
Senator Bob Smith yesterday amended previous legislation that would have put a ballot question to the voters in November to provide for $300 million in bonding. The amended bill will now total $600 million to be split over 3 years. His Senate Environment committee took up the bill yesterday and passed it by a 4-1 vote:
"We're broke. And you have a historic opportunity. Land prices in New Jersey are at historic lows," Smith said. "Of course, at the same time you have an economic tsunami that is very difficult for our citizens in this state."
Smith said the borrowing would permit the state to spend $200 million a year for three years buying open space and preserving farms and historic sites. There isn't a dedicated stream of revenue identified to repay the bonds.
Governor Corzine has said there will be an open space ballot quesiton, but has not committed to a funding amount as of yet. The original version of the bill was bi-partisan with two members of each party sponsoring. Senator Bateman tried to reduce the amount back to $300 million, but still supported the amended version. Senator Phil Haines pulled his support:
Sen. Phil Haines, R-Burlington, withdrew as a prime sponsor of the bill, which he said ignores taxpayers' unease and would be the second-largest borrowing plan ever put before New Jersey voters.
"A bond issuance of this size, in these perilous economic times, will almost certainly fail at the ballot box. Failure will cause irreparable harm to the cause of preserving open space and farmland," Haines said.
And there were many others voicing concern and opposition as well:
That prospect of rejection in November was cited by the advocacy groups - Environment New Jersey, New Jersey Environmental Federation, New Jersey Environmental Lobby and the Sierra Club - now opposing the bill.
"Given the economic climate and state's reckless borrow-and-spend history, we're not confident a majority will support this question despite the popularity of open space, and a failed question would do more damage to the state's open space program than no question," said Mike Pisauro of the Environmental Lobby.
The last question on the ballot regarding open space funding passed in 2007, but by a smaller margin than past questions. Some environmental supporters would prefer to see a dedicated revenue source rather than a ballot question because they worry the public won't continue to the funding at necessary levels. This concern is enhanced when you look at our long term devt issues. But many of the programs with dedicated funding are now worried about facing the budget ax however. Assemblyman McKeon says the Assembly environmental committee will consider the legislation this monday. How would you prefer to see us fund Open Space and do you think the voters can stomach the $600 million number?
In the thin sliver of a county that is Camden County, with over 500,000 residents bunched into 222 square miles, remaining open space is few and far between. Unmitigated growth of this Philadelphia suburban county, with very little foresight, has resulted in one of the most developed counties in the state. The problems and financial constraints involved in open space preservation, though, coupled with the high cost of land in places like Cherry Hill, Haddon Heights, and Haddonfield, make preserving open space a difficult endeavor. My sense is that any progressive agenda must include environmental preservation and long-term sustainability as part of its platform, and this includes work to preserve open space on a local level.
The Sierra Club reports that 14 of 22 open-space questions on the ballots around New Jersey passed this year - a 64 percent passage rate, up from 55 percent last year. It says the ones that were defeated would mostly have increased existing open-space taxes.
The basic question is this: Is a Constitution meant to hold a special place in society and in law; or is it just another scrap of paper to be blown here and there by the winds of public opinion?
If it is the former; then the amending of that document should be approached with some amount of gravity. It should not be that, when some mundane problem rears its head, the cry of "Amend the Constitution!" is the first resort of our lawmakers. In fact, I would say that it has been the first resort of scoundrels and scalawags of all stripes - to ban flag desecration, to define marriage, to force public school children to participate in prayers... When unable to impose their will through the normal political process, the reactionary forces have tried to game the political system to cut short debate. In such efforts, an amendment is simply an attempt to run an end-around the usual political procedures.
A Constitution's "nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves." Such was the view of Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case of McCullough v. Maryland, and only a few lines before he reminded the Court and the people before it that "it is a Constitution we are expounding." Constitutions work best when they spell out rights and responsibilities in broad terms and leave the details to the realm of normal law (and, of course, the Court must stand ready to hold the meaning of the Constitution in such an arrangement).
Why all of this Constitution 101 discussion? Because, yet again, a member of the New Jersey legislature wants to amend the Constitution to fund his pet project. I'll discuss after the jump.
(A thoughtful look at the future of New Jersey's farms. -promoted by SJBrian - promoted by SJBrian)
A thoughtful look at the future of New Jersey's farms. -promoted by SJBrian
As a non-native New Jerseyan, I was astonished to find that, contrary to my preconception of the state, just a few miles from Philadelphia in Gloucester, Burlington and Camden (western) counties, there are dozens of working farms and agriculturally-centered areas. It is a treasure in the state and needs to be preserved; but New Jersey farms are facing some rather difficult odds of survival, from market forces outside of their control to federal policies that favor crops and farms from other parts of the nation. I view farms and farming issues as having import to progressives not just because of a general ethos of environmentalism in progressive thinking but also because of long-term sustainability of humanity that is connected with the preservation of land and farms.
Tom Moran chides New Jersey's legislators for turning good ideas - investing in stem cell research and preserving open space - into fiscally irresponsible choices which will plunge our state further into debt:
Which means that the poor, abused New Jersey voter will again face a rotten choice on Election Day.
You can oppose these good causes, allowing the bulldozers to have their way next year, and crippling a promising effort to fight disease. Or you can vote for them, and make yourself a minor accomplice in the state's financial ruin.
There is a plan to ask voters to dedicate a portion of the state sales tax for open space preservation. If this seems familiar to you, it's bacause the same thing was done in 1998, but that money has now run out. Assemblyman Doug Fisher (LD3) is a sponsor:
"By many accounts, this is a program that is well-run and has a lot of stewardship,"
The governor, however, seems to be moving away from supporting this proposal to funding open space preservation with monetization of state assets.
The Quinnipiac University poll gives Corzine a 50% approval rating. The public supports the property tax plan but also thinks not much has changed.
Senator Frank Lautenberg has been holding hearings on Amtrak funding. He expects to get $19 billion for it, plus another $400 million for safety/security for the New Jersey/New York tunnels.
This is a short news roundup, so I must have missed something. Let everyone know in this open thread.
The AC Press says that this year, the governor signed laws to allow civil unions for gay couples, provide millions for stem-cell research centers and approve the state's first pilot needle-exchange program, but that Property Taxes keep Corzine from success in his first year. Do you agree?
Have a good safe night tonight and we'll see you next year. It's a big year in New Jersey and we will need your help to keep making the changes we all desire. Let me be the 1st to wish you a Happy New Year.
Salem County may have the fewest persons per square mile in New Jersey, but it still has very interesting politics: Both the Penns Grove primary and the Carneys Point general election featured alleged criminal cheating. In both cases, the voters rejected the bad guys on November 7. I note that the Carneys Point (John Lake) case was not used as an 'October Surprise' and was kept under wraps until after the election -- a remarkable contrast with the supposed Menendez rental investigation. Today's Sunbeam has a long article about the Carneys Point case. Attorney General Stuart Rabner said:
