County Open Space Tax Should Include Recreation
By Albert B. Kelly
Recently, there have been questions
among officials and various stakeholders regarding our County’s Open Space and
Farmland Preservation tax dollars and whether these monies could or should be
used to fund actual improvements for public recreation in addition to what we
do now, which is acquire and preserve land.
The first question
involves process; meaning if changes are to be made, would it need to go before
voters via referendum as was originally done when the whole thing started or
could things be changed by an amending resolution.
This question goes to form
and I’m for following whatever the language of the law dictates. If the
original referendum and resolution make no room for changes apart from another
referendum, then let’s bring it back before the voters.
The second question-
should these Open Space and Farmland Preservation tax dollars be used
exclusively to acquire land or should we expand the use of monies to include recreation
improvements- goes directly to substance and that’s where I want to focus.
I support Open Space and
Farmland Preservation; it protects one of our finite resources which is are our
agricultural lands and it encourages strategic development. However, I don’t
think acquisition is the only thing Open Space and Farmland Preservation funds should
be used for.
For one thing, there’s
only so much land that should be acquired (and retired) from development in our
county. It’s about smart growth and that means finding the balance between
active development and preservation, and knowing where development should take
place.
While we want to continue
to develop our portfolio of open-preserved land, there will come a point where
we need to do less acquiring of new land and more developing of existing
recreational land; both for the recreational value it has for our residents but
also as part of economic development.
Beyond that, there’s the
pivot toward fairness. Whether we are aware of it or not- or even if we’re
willing to acknowledge it, our townships (where most of the preserving happens)
and our cities (where most of the recreation happens) function as a complex and
interdependent organism.
For example, the
agriculture industry in our townships benefit from a decent sized labor pool
working the farms and facilities while the cities provide the daily living “framework”;
housing, schools, police, EMS, fire, and public recreation that individuals and
families require.
Allowing some of the Open
Space and Farmland Preservation funds to be used for improvements to existing public
recreation would mean that our cities, (where a fair number of this labor force
resides) could better provide for the needs of this labor pool of residents.
To prevent funds from
being used for recreational investments would result in limited opportunities
for our cities (Bridgeton, Vineland, and Millville) to get much in the way of
further benefit from the program as the greater need here is shifting from preservation
to improving existing venues.
Finally, investing in
public recreation seems like the logical next step. The initial years of Open
Space and Farmland Preservation were about identifying land to be acquired and
preserved. While that can and will continue, I think we need to begin to add development
of recreational facilities which is consistent with the open space-preservation
ethos.
With increasing frequency,
studies are finding that natural space in urbanized communities via parks and
nature tracts is not so much a luxury as necessity. In the big picture, we are
doing battle on many fronts including childhood obesity and community health and
wellness. This can be a weapon in the battle.
Some of these health
issues are physical and some are of the mind and spirit. Recreation and natural
space in urban communities speaks to our quality of life. This includes trails
for walking and biking, trail-connectivity with other communities where
appropriate, waterways, playing fields, gardens and similar components.
Proper investment in these
might likely include elements such as lighting, signage, landscaping
maintenance, and even marketing. With such “upside” to be had, a commitment to
a smart balanced approach for allocating Open Space and Farmland Preservation
funds could only be a beneficial thing for all involved.
With that in mind, I
believe that the Open Space and Farmland Preservation mandate approved by
County voters should be expanded to include recreation improvements and it
should come directly before voters themselves via referendum so that they can
be heard on the issue.