Legislation versus Regulation
By Albert B. Kelly
I’ve often said that you
don’t get many good days in government. Back in November, Election Day to be
exact, I think we had a good day; but I’m not speaking about my being
re-elected for a second term.
I am however, speaking
about the ballot initiative (Question #2); a referendum requiring changes to
the State Constitution that would see 6% of corporate tax revenues in the state
earmarked for open space and historic preservation.
It was a good day because
voters around New Jersey got to speak and they determined to pass the measure, which
they ultimately did by a wide margin. It was a good day because 2 worthy
things, open space and historic preservation, will have a dedicated revenue
stream not easily eliminated or so one would assume.
Many communities around
New Jersey depend upon preservation funding from the State Historic Trust to
carry out restoration on historic
structures and sites and but for that funding,
the work doesn’t get done.
Bridgeton is a community
with many fiscal challenges to be sure, but we’re also a community with a large
historic Victorian housing stock, and many key contributing structures
throughout our district. In terms of inventory, we are the largest district in
the state.
Over the years, we’ve been
able to carry out significant and appropriate renovations to these structures
under the supervision of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), largely
through funding that comes from the State Historic Trust. This is likely true for
many municipalities throughout New Jersey.
That’s why the current debate
as to whether these funds will be controlled through legislation or through regulation
is a significant one. If handled via regulation, perhaps through the DEP as is
currently being considered, would there be funding at all for historic
preservation or would it all go toward State parks and open space?
I don’t know the answer to
this, but there is a danger in handling these funds through regulation because regulations
can easily be altered or changed in the bureaucracy at the administrative level
without a vote, without public input, and without much in the way of
accountability.
Even with the best of
intentions, individual agencies administering funds via regulation have their
agendas and they tend to promote those agendas to the exclusion of other
agencies and their respective priorities. When a single revenue source funds
multiple programs, legislation is the way to ensure fairness.
I would find it ironic if
the referendum, having been voted on- the will of the people having been
expressed- it can all be nullified with the stroke of the regulatory pen.
While it is the intent of
voters around the state to earmark funds for parks and open space, it was also
their intent to fund historic preservation and both need to be given their due.
A one-sided regulatory approach,
regardless of the agency involved, would basically side-step the intent of
voters so that one initiative is funded over the needs of the other; such a
structure simply marginalizes the intent of the voters and the process of
referendum.
That’s why disbursal of
these funds for both historic preservation and open space needs should be
codified through legislation that gets a hearing and a vote by our elected reps
in Trenton. This respects what the voters intended and it comes with the weight
of law, not the whim of regulation.
For older communities
around the state, historic preservation is a critical part of community
revitalization. While funding is limited, it should not be an “either-or”
proposition; when it comes to funding, it should be both open space and
historic preservation. For our state to succeed we need to make investments to
enhance and maximize both assets.
The system for disbursing
these funds should be set up so that everyone from local governments to
non-profits and the Department of Parks and Forestry could apply for grants and
receive funding for their projects; we should insist that everyone has an equal
shot.
I recognize that there are
more needs than there is funding to meet those needs. But a system that fairly
distributes available funding to worthy projects across the spectrum, codified
through legislation, should be the goal here and it’s what the voters intended
when they voted “yes” last November.