The Devils in the Details

                                The Devils in the Details

By Albert B. Kelly

A few weeks back, I commented in this space about the November, 2014, ballot initiative that NJ voters approved changing the state constitution to provide a stable source of funding for open space and historic preservation by allocating funds from the Corporate Business Tax.

But as with most things, the devils in the details and in this case, the shape of those details can be glimpsed in Assembly Bill 4197 which was introduced on February 12^th.  If this bill is passed as it is currently written, slightly over $2 million (out of $71 million) would be allocated to historic preservation for the coming fiscal year and out of this, no more than about $106,000 or 5% could be used for salaries and admin costs.

The bottom line is that this would basically mean an end to serious preservation in New Jersey. I say that because $2 million doesn’t get much done whether you’re talking about developing full preservation plans or doing brick and mortar projects. And the $106k does not let you run even a small department to oversee disbursing grants or monitoring projects.

As we speak, the NJ Historic Trust currently has about a half dozen individuals tracking over 130 active projects around the state. With the new formula allowing $106k for salaries and operations, there will not be enough staff to handle allocating the funds let alone monitoring projects in the field.

The only logical conclusion to draw from this legislation is that some want to effectively starve historic preservation in favor of open space and farmland preservation. As I argued previously, I do not believe it was the voter’s intent to set up an “either-or” situation, but a situation where all priorities receive ample funding.

The current funding allocations in this proposed bill are out of balance; favoring farmland and open space at the expense of urban areas where historic preservation and adaptive reuse is the priority.

If I am reading the numbers correctly in the proposed bill, out of the funding available, 47% would go to Green Acres and Blue Acres, 50% would go to Farmland Preservation, and the remaining 3% would go to historic preservation.

I am not suggesting that farmland preservation or open space be shortchanged, but neither should historic preservation. There can be more be balance as there is at present for environmental priorities (as an example) where allocations fund water quality (15%), Brownfields and UST’s (25%), site clean-up (27%), air quality (18%), open space and parks (15%).

The NJ Historic Trust has put over $15 million out on the street to date and Bridgeton, like many other urban communities, has benefitted from these funds which have enabled not just preservation for its own sake, but adaptive reuse of buildings that would otherwise have remained vacant and blighted. This will become more important with the passing of time.

As I had previously expressed, my hope is that the funds being allocated will be done in a fair and balanced way. As it now stands, the lack of funding for historic preservation is such that the program will be for all intents and purposes a thing of the past.

I’m hopeful that all the various individuals and communities around the state who want and need a robust historic preservation program will get engaged and ask that Assembly Bill 4197 be revised so that it takes a more balanced approach to putting money on all the needed priorities. This same appeal should be made to our senators as well.

Aside from the impact on urban communities and their ability to put old historic structures back into productive use; the loss of a properly funded Historic Trust will mean less historic tourism and the dollars and cents that come with that industry.

Beyond that, less funding for the Historic Trust means the loss of our history in one form or another. I get that we’re the Garden State with all that this implies, but we’re really more than that and to know this and experience it is something that gets done through our architecture and sense of place which is what historic preservation ensures.

The voters who supported the ballot initiative instinctively know this and it’s why they approved the measure last year. We made our voice heard then, it’s time to make our voices heard again and the message is to do the right thing for historic preservation in our state through a properly funded Historic Trust.