How will this affect Howell?

[Curtis_Vislocky]

[size=12]Gov. Corzine recently told municaplities not to expect any additional funding from the state. It appears that this will put quite a strain on some municipalites that will either have to cut services or raise taxes. Here's the APP article: N.J.'s imbalance sheet

It appears that anyone running for public office locally will have some difficult decisions ahead. There appears to be no easy solution. Any ideas?

God Bless[/size]

[Joe Parente]

Yes, now is the time to stabilize populations across the state. Since we all know that increased population causes increased spending on services and increased tax rates, it's obvious that the most densely populated state must finally start to talk about freezing construction.

Of course, if you think that's impossible, taxes will continue to rise and services will continue to be cut. Get used to it.   [smiley=BangHead.gif]

[Vincent_Mattera]

Curtis,
you are right. First off, union contracts need to be negoitated with co - pays for medical, prescriptions, dental, etc.
Just like everyone else in the private sector. We need to start picking off the low hanging fruit. This will not solve the problem, but it's a start.
I'm not picking on any one group, but the answer is that or maybe you face the prospect of being layed off?

[Vincent_Mattera]

Joe,
Good points. Corzine has been a proponent of a build up and affordable housing, etc.
He should put a moratorium on any build out and required COAH until towns can assess the damge

[Eric_Hoffman]

[size=12]Gov. Corzine recently told municaplities not to expect any additional funding from the state. It appears that this will put quite a strain on some municipalites that will either have to cut services or raise taxes. Here's the APP article: N.J.'s imbalance sheet

It appears that anyone running for public office locally will have some difficult decisions ahead. There appears to be no easy solution. Any ideas?

God Bless[/size]

State:

reducing the expenditures at the state level so that our revenues equal our expenses.  For starters why not listen to the residents and have a constitutional convention.  Maybe,  stop filling up our jails with people for minor drug offenses, since it is easier for people addicted those drugs to get them in jail and it costs quite a bit to jail them.  Flat, or simpler taxes, that could seriously reduce the costs associated with collecting them.  Fixing the pension system.  Give the people who work for the government raises based on whether they actually deserve it.  Stop using so much paper, and do more things electronically.  Do we have workfare in this state, maybe something to look into?  Have prisoners do more to repay society for their crimes by having them actually do some of the tasks that we pay others for.  Stop the ongoing gigantic waste of money spent on replenishing the beaches with sand, ok I can see what they are doing but they ruined almost all of the great surf spots around.

Locally:

Reduce expenses at the local level by having a top to bottom review of everything that is done and spent on.

Schools:

Implement cost saving measures that have worked in other states.  Get rid of tenure?  Consolidate all of the duplicated services from one school to the next, ie administrative, janitorial etc..  Implement some type of school voucher or school choice program.

Just throwing some things out there, not sure if I agree with all of them but they are worth looking at.

[Eric_Hoffman]

Yes, now is the time to stabilize populations across the state. Since we all know that increased population causes increased spending on services and increased tax rates, it's obvious that the most densely populated state must finally start to talk about freezing construction.

Of course, if you think that's impossible, taxes will continue to rise and services will continue to be cut. Get used to it.   [smiley=BangHead.gif]

Even if you could stop development entirely, our taxes would still go up year after year.

[Joe Parente]

Even if you could stop development entirely, our taxes would still go up year after year.

But not by near as much, Eric. For instance, it's much cheaper to have to maintain 5 police cars for X population than have to maintain 12 police cars for 2X population. Note that the police cars more than doubled, because increased population density also increases crime rates.
 [smiley=BangHead.gif]

[Eric_Hoffman]

Even if you could stop development entirely, our taxes would still go up year after year.

But not by near as much, Eric. For instance, it's much cheaper to have to maintain 5 police cars for X population than have to maintain 12 police cars for 2X population. Note that the police cars more than doubled, because increased population density also increases crime rates.
 [smiley=BangHead.gif]

Theoretically speaking, in a no growth environment, the tax rate would increase close to the CPI model.  It's a moot point since you can't stop people from developing their property.

[Eric_Hoffman]

it's obvious that the most densely populated state must finally start to talk about freezing construction.
[smiley=BangHead.gif]

What makes you think that the state, or any government, can just freeze construction?  Is there case law that supports your belief?

[Joe Parente]

What makes you think that the state, or any government, can just freeze construction?  Is there case law that supports your belief?

Well, a township can take a developer's land by eminent domain to maintain it as open space.

The Appellate Division agreed with the municipality and concluded “that a municipality has statutory authority to condemn property for open space; that a municipality may exercise its authority even though it does not presently have a plan to devote the property to active recreational uses; that the selection of properties for open space acquisition on which residential development is planned does not constitute an improper exercise of the eminent domain power; and that [the developer] did not present evidence that could support a finding that [the municipality’s] decision to condemn its property constituted an abuse of the eminent domain power.”
(link)

Also, any entity in the state can place a moritorium on new construction if there is a sufficeient threat to the public health and welfare. It's all over the municipal land use law.  

[Eric_Hoffman]

What makes you think that the state, or any government, can just freeze construction?  Is there case law that supports your belief?

Well, a township can take a developer's land by eminent domain to maintain it as open space.

The Appellate Division agreed with the municipality and concluded “that a municipality has statutory authority to condemn property for open space; that a municipality may exercise its authority even though it does not presently have a plan to devote the property to active recreational uses; that the selection of properties for open space acquisition on which residential development is planned does not constitute an improper exercise of the eminent domain power; and that [the developer] did not present evidence that could support a finding that [the municipality’s] decision to condemn its property constituted an abuse of the eminent domain power.”
(link)

Also, any entity in the state can place a moritorium on new construction if there is a sufficeient threat to the public health and welfare. It's all over the municipal land use law.  

Joe,

You can pass laws that stop all development, but by doing so the government has to justly compensate the property owner pursuant to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.  To zone land so that you can’t build on it is in fact considered a “taking” and thus triggers the 5th Amendment’s “just compensation laws.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
The case centered around a property that had been purchased with the intention of building houses.  The state passed a law designed to eliminate the environmental impact that construction was having on the coastal environment after the property had been purchased.  The effect of which made building on that property impossible.  In a 6-2 ruling the Supreme Court ruled that:

“Regulations that deny the property owner all "economically viable use of his land" constitute one of the discrete categories of regulatory deprivations that require compensation without the usual case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint. Total deprivation of beneficial use is the equivalent of a physical appropriation. Regulations that leave the owner of land without economically beneficial or productive options for its use-- typically by requiring land to be left substantially in its natural state--carry with them a heightened risk that private property is being pressed into some form of public service under the guise of mitigating serious public harm. When the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking.” Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U S 1003 [1992]

While the reasons behind Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council are different than the reasons Joe Parente wants to stop all development, the underlying ideas behind the 2 are the same.  That is the government can use their power to stop landowners from enjoying all economic uses of the land they own.  In the SC case the deprival of the rights of the landowner were done because of a real and immediate environmental impact of the development of the land the facts that Joe Parente uses to justify his idea of “taking” are in dispute and are not widely accepted as fact further hurts his case.  While you can pass the laws to do so, the economic impact of justifiable compensation would bankrupt the government in so doing.

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County the Supreme Court ruled that even temporary laws that deprive the use of land trigger the 5th Ammendment, and the “just compensation” clause.

John Locke said "It cannot be supposed that [the hypothetical contractors] they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates”.  Care to guess what he means by estates?

If you want to stop all development in town, or anywhere, you absolutely can.  However, if you want to save a lot of time and money in doing so why not just use eminant domain laws to “take” all of the unused land available for development.  That way all you have to pay is the market value of the property, and not the legal costs which in this case would be enormous.  The other question is who is going to pay for taking the land?

[Joe Parente]

Joe,

You can pass laws that stop all development, but by doing so the government has to justly compensate the property owner pursuant to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.  To zone land so that you can’t build on it is in fact considered a “taking” and thus triggers the 5th Amendment’s “just compensation laws.

Why do you think I didn't know that? Just for your information, in most cases it would be cheaper for the taxpayers to buy the land outright than allow it to be developed. Almost no development pays for itself in taxes, that's the point of pointing out that increased population density increases tax rates.

[Eric_Hoffman]

Joe,

You can pass laws that stop all development, but by doing so the government has to justly compensate the property owner pursuant to the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.  To zone land so that you can’t build on it is in fact considered a “taking” and thus triggers the 5th Amendment’s “just compensation laws.

Why do you think I didn't know that? Just for your information, in most cases it would be cheaper for the taxpayers to buy the land outright than allow it to be developed. Almost no development pays for itself in taxes, that's the point of pointing out that increased population density increases tax rates.

So what you are saying is that we as taxpayers should buy up all the land?  Are you serious.  How much money do you think it is going to take to accomplish your task of zero growth?  I think it can be said with absolute certainty that neither Howell or the State of New Jersey has nearly enough money to accomplish that.  I think the enormous taxes that would result from that policy would be enough so that everyone would leave the state, and your problems would be solved.  

[Eric_Hoffman]

On second thought Joe why don't you do this, put it on the ballot.  To accomplish your task residents would have to vote on whether or not they would want to raise millions, perhaps billions of dollars,  to the open space fund.  Do you really think that people are going to be willing to double their taxes in order to save all the open space?  Is double even going to be enough because you are talking about saving all the open land that we have now.  If you wait too long than much of that land you want to "take" will be developed.  The number is easy to come up with, have you calculated it?  

[Joe Parente]

On second thought Joe why don't you do this, put it on the ballot.  To accomplish your task residents would have to vote on whether or not they would want to raise millions, perhaps billions of dollars,  to the open space fund.  Do you really think that people are going to be willing to double their taxes in order to save all the open space?  Is double even going to be enough because you are talking about saving all the open land that we have now.  If you wait too long than much of that land you want to "take" will be developed.  The number is easy to come up with, have you calculated it?  

Well, I might try to get an open space tax initiative on the ballot this year. Also, you don't need all that money up front, that's what municipal bonds are for, the open space tax just needs to pay the bond service. And what part of "it would be cheaper to buy the land than let it be developed" don't you understand? Development brings higher taxes, not lower. Development costs the taxpayer money, not saves him money.

I'd just like to ask, why are you so gung-ho about increasing traffic, pollution, crowding and taxes by allowing more development?