Just when you think that New Jersey can’t become a bigger disaster than it already is…surprise! The state has come in and screwed up once again. Only this time, not only does their mistake hit critically close to home, it actually contradicts previous decisions by state agencies and (most importantly) promises to destroy the open area that so many of us fight so hard to preserve.

Some of you may be familiar with the acronym COAH. In New Jersey, this means Council on Affordable Housing. This state is in so many crunches at once that it’s hard to keep a handle on all of the problems that are going on, but we are in serious need of affordable housing. For those of you that aren’t up to speed on what “affordable housing” means in New Jersey - this isn’t government housing, it’s not “the projects,” it’s not the place where the drug addicts live, etc. In New Jersey, a new term has come to take the place of affordable housing: workforce housing.

Believe it or not America, New Jersey’s workers cannot afford to live in this state. Nurses, young doctors, police officers, government employees, cashiers, retail managers, salesmen, waiters - no one can afford to buy a new home in New Jersey unless they come from a two income household that is making at least or above our state’s median income (roughly $67,000 depending on whose numbers you believe). New Jersey is not affordable for ANYONE.

The latest smack in the face comes as a one-two punch from Governor Money Bags and COAH and is directed at most non-urban areas in the state. Just last week Governor Money Bags told many of the smaller municipalities that they were having their state aid drastically reduced. As if that wasn’t bad enough, COAH has announced what they call “Round Three” requirements for New Jersey’s municipalities. Round Three will tell the state’s towns, boroughs, and cities how many units of affordable housing they need to produce.

Aside from Money Bags diverting even MORE money away from the suburbs, it would seem that being told what your affordable housing obligations are isn’t the worst thing in the world, right?

Wrong.

In Round Three many suburbs are facing an obligation that is QUADRUPLE what they were previously held accountable for. Take the case in my hometown of Roxbury Township. Not only does their COAH obligation jump from some 245 units to 837 units, but Roxbury was told by ANOTHER state agency that they can no longer build in the green areas of the township! What does COAH want to have happen here? Would they like it if the existing housing - which has stood for decades, even centuries - was knocked down so higher density homes can be put in their place? Completely outrageous!

Taken from the Roxbury Register article:

Councilman Richard Zoschak said this latest COAH proposal just causes more confusion and presents more contradictions.

“How do we deal with the Highlands legislation and this? The Highlands legislation says no building here. COAH says we have to build here,” Zoschak said.

Sustainable growth in New Jersey? Not a chance. Continued destruction of the non-urban areas so more money can be pumped into Newark and Camden? Absolutely! More from the article…

Smith faulted the state for having what he called “no coherence, no coordination and no central planning mechanism.”

“We are all being told what to do by different parties, all with power, and they all conflict with one another,” he said.

For those of you who do not live in New Jersey, let me explain how this state’s government “works.” COAH says that Township A needs to create 50 units of affordable housing. The Highlands Council says that Township A only has enough space to put up 5 single family homes. The State Planning Commission approves Township A’s master plan that cites no buildings may be built over 3 stories high. The Governor’s Office tells Township A to meet its COAH obligation or it gets no more state money.

What is the Township to do? They only have room for 5 more single family homes, but - assuming that these open lots are all next to each other (which is near impossible) - are they to build an extremely high density 3-story apartment building (in an area likely not zoned for apartment buildings) with extremely small, 600 square foot (if that) rental units so they meet all of the above obligations? Oh, and this would be built in a generic neighborhood setting where there are no apartment buildings and only single family homes. Oh, and for each apartment you need to provide one and a half parking spaces (in a residential neighborhood, mind you). Oh, and these are affordable units, which means they have to be income restricted and not just any citizen can apply to rent a unit. Oh, and with such a high density unit police, fire, sanitation, and civil services need to be increased (spending more taxpayer money). Oh, and Township A may need to create a housing authority (spend more taxpayer money) to oversee this complex.

Listen. I’m one of the many people in this state who NEED workforce housing to exist. I cannot afford to buy a decent home in New Jersey and - right now - I can only afford to pay a very low monthly rent. But if the plan above is Governor Money Bags’ idea of how to plan for MY future housing needs, then he can take this plan and shove it.

When will it stop in New Jersey?

When last month’s energy bill passed, there was a provision that called for traditional light bulbs to be phased out over the next 4 to 12 years so that new, compact fluorescent light bulbs can take over the market. As reported in USA Today:

Under the measure, all light bulbs must use 25% to 30% less energy than today’s products by 2012 to 2014. The phase-in will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70% more efficient.

Compact fluorescent bulbs already meet the 70% efficiency standard. A compact fluorescent costs about $2, vs. about 50 cents for an incandescent.

While an incandescent lasts about seven months, a fluorescent burns six times longer. It also saves about $5 a year in electricity costs, paying for itself in as little as four months, says Steve Nadel, head of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).

This looks like a win-win situation for everyone involved. We have a compact fluorescent bulb over our stove in the apartment and it’s been there for a few years. My Mother recently switched over to mostly compact bulbs and they’re working fine at the house and saving a few bucks each month in electricity. It looks like government may have figured something out the right way for once!

While the intent of this book is to help everyday people making small, “green” changes in their everyday lives, the book is written from the stance of a person who does not have an everyday life. The Green Book by Elizabeth Rogers and Thomas Kostigan has some great advice for those of you looking to go green. Please understand that the message of the book is a good one even though I was turned off by the tone of the book!

For example, each chapter ends with a little quote from a celebrity about how they have gone green in one respect or another. Well, hearing about how Will Ferrell drives his electric car to the dump to do recycling doesn’t help me. And speaking of cars, they suggest flipping to a hybrid or using flex fuel if possible. Well, that’s not possible for so many younger Americans because we just can’t afford to buy a new car!

I do like the advice that they give with respect to the “paper or plastic” question. They say to choose paper since it’s easier to recycle paper bags and you can reuse them a few times before you recycle them. A few weeks ago I purchased two canvas bags (there’s a huge “PathMark” on the side of them) and I like them even better than paper or plastic. You can fit more groceries in these bags and you can fit heavier items, too. Plus you get a whopping 2 cents off of your final bill for each bag you reuse! Ha! Making millions, baby!

Right before they get into their advanced advice for each topic, they give three “Simple Steps” to living a greener, more sustainable lifestyle. These are often simple enough to follow. For example, in the Health and Beauty section they suggest buying a reusable water bottle and filling it with filtered water from home for your trips to the gym. This is great advice and can, in the long run, save you some money. Plus, you cut down on the use and production of plastic water bottles. I went out and bought a Nalgene 32 ounce refillable bottle the other day (though, admittedly, not because I read this book - a story in the New York Times got me to thinking about buying one).

They also suggest some other great ideas that I’ve been engaged in since before I read the book Some examples are getting electronic statements from your bank or brokerage account instead of paper ones; making online payments instead of using paper checks; using compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of traditional ones (this seems to be catching on around the nation); and using natural light instead of electronic light when possible. On that last point, I use natural light in the office and in my apartment as much as possible not just for green reasons, but because it’s less stressful on my eyes and the color of the light is better and more “real” than light bulb light.

Read that last sentence again and see if it makes sense. That’s a bit confusing, huh?

For those of you who have the resources and the desire to live a more sustainable, green lifestyle, I would suggest reading The Green Book. For those of you who have more pressing issues (soaring consumer debt, a mortgage gone bad, family issues, etc) you may want to put off buying this book until you’re in a better position.

While I was at the Opportunity Finance Network’s conference last month, I picked up a free sample of the Tanka Bite. As their website states, “The 70-calorie Tanka Bar delivers a slow, powerful protein punch by mixing two primary ingredients: low-fat, high-energy American buffalo meat and tasty cranberries.” This little piece of beef jerky was delicious!

I’m looking into the possibility of buying a 96-case of these little bites and keeping them as a part of my daily lunch at the office. These things are so good that I’m willing to spend the $100 or so it will cost to purchase them (it’s about $1 per bite, which is a reasonable price).

There is an added positive to this product. It is made by a Native American tribe out in the Midwest. This is what you would call a socially responsible purchase since the profits are used to benefit the tribe (the Lakota tribe). It’s a great bar, check it - you’ll love it!

And when you’re done chomping on the Tanka Bar, check out New Jersey Carpet Cleaning for the best carpet cleaning in the Garden State!

Earlier today I found an interesting little diddy on FOXNews.com regarding some of Al Gore’s assertions in An Inconvenient Truth. The article is written by a FOX News contributor named Steven Milloy who, by all accounts, appears to be a strong conservative in all of his policy and political leanings. So bear that in mind if you choose to go read the article.

This is an interesting post to me because Milloy’s article quotes a British judge who has ruled some of Al Gore’s findings as unscientific. In other words, the judge says there is no science to back up some - not all, but some - of Gore’s claims. There is no discussion of where the judge got his doctorate in environmental science, though…

Later in the article, some legitimate incorrect assertions are detailed and I think those are all known to the public at this point (the wrong date being given for a cigarette advertisement, 2005 NOT being the hottest year on record, there not being a cure for polio, etc). But those are all somewhat moot points (except the one about 2005 not being the hottest year on record - that’s an exaggeration of the truth).

In any event, I fail to see how a judge has the standing to make such decisions. This may be more politics than anything else. Of course, this is all taking place across the pond, so I don’t care about it too much, but I thought some of you folks may find it interesting.

Anyway, check out New Jersey Carpet Cleaning for the best carpet cleaning in the Garden State!

Alright - is everyone listening? This is a good idea alert! I was reading the Roxbury Register online the other day and they had an editorial sent in from a Ms. Tamara Scully. Ms. Scully is a member of the Foodshed Alliance. According to their website, the Foodshed Alliance:

a grassroots, non-profit devoted to promoting profitable, sustainable farming and locally-grown, fresh, healthy food in northwestern New Jersey. We believe that the future of our health, our land, and our communities depends, to great extent, on the existence of local farms-that farmers are the keystone to our connection with our food, the land and our sense of place.

Anyone who is interested in this “going green” movement and the idea of making our bodies and lives healthier by eating sustainable foods should check out the Foodshed Alliance at www.foodshedalliance.org. It sounds interesting to me and is definitely something that I’ll be sure to look into the next time I’m up in the Northwest New Jersey area. When I was a little bit younger I had the chance to eat some home grown fruits and vegetables from Northwest New Jersey and they were good!

Anyway, check it out.

Last night I decided to add a new category to this blog called “Sustainable Living.” One of my pet interests is the concept of green living and sustainable communities. In fact, one of the reasons why I got into the community and economic development fields is because I think that there is a large opportunity (especially in New Jersey) to redevelop some of our existing communities in vibrant, sustainable centers.

Sustainable communities are described in different ways, but to break it down into the most simplest of terms - imagine a community where you can walk to work, walk to the grocery store, and then walk to the gym at the end of the day. Imagine a community where you have all of your life’s needs within your reach and in a setting that is earth-friendly: solar energy being used, wheat board instead of sheet rock, little congestion on the roadways (and thus less pollution), renewable energy sources, and renewable organic food sources (also known as local farms).

There is so much more to a sustainable community when you get into the nitty gritty such as appropriate income levels to maintain local businesses, which create jobs for local people, which creates the income that is recycled back into those businesses, etc. I could go on forever…

In any event, since this stuff is catching my eye more and more these days, I added a new category for such entries. Enjoy!

Over in Detroit they are switching all of their downtown street lights to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). I think this is really cool! No, not because I’m some sort of environment whack job (believe me, I’m not), but what a cool concept.

You can get the same exact lighting from a source that uses much less than half of the power of the current source. Forget about the better-earth ramifications (though they are vast), think about the ability to use that excess energy towards other purposes! Think about the ability to offer extremely low-cost electricity services to the rural areas of the country - or to distressed markets that could use a month of free electricity to bolster a local economy.

No, I’m not looking to have the government start giving away these free handouts, but I am definitely looking for private electric companies to give away some electricity instead of making a big profit.

Like the majority of the world’s population, I agree that there is something to this Global Warming debate. I’m not sure if it’s as severe as the environmentalists would have us think. On the same token, I’m not sure if it’s as “who cares” as the non-believers would have us believe. I’m just not scientifically knowledgeable enough to figure these things out - sorry!

That being said, I always wondered something about Global Warming. Take the Greenland Ice Shelf, for example. The word going around the environmentalist camps is that if this ice sheet melts and falls into the ocean, then it would raise absolute hell on earth. The sea level would rise, the world’s temperatures would go haywire - we’d be shot.

But I always wondered what would happen to the cold parts of earth. In other words, if the part of the earth around Greenland warms up, then another part of the earth has got to get a little bit colder. Isn’t that how it works? I honestly don’t know, but I would assume that unless our planet is goofed out of its current orbit, then for every warm-up there would be an equal freeze up somewhere (even if it’s in the middle of the Pacific Ocean where it wouldn’t help anyone).

Any scientists out there?

The other night I had the opportunity to watch Al Gore’s award-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth” in a downloaded format. I’ll be honest - even though I don’t like Al Gore too much, I thought that he did a great job narrating this documentary and teaching the “lesson” of the documentary. Now, whether or not I agree 100% with his message is another story that we’ll get to in a minute. But in terms of whether or not this documentary should have won the Oscar? Oh yeah - it was a job well done by all involved.

The documentary is basically Al Gore giving a lecture with some interesting charts and graphs on a huge projection screen. This is intermingled with scenes from Al’s research and his 2000 campaign for the United States Presidency. Okay, this is the first area where I’ll take issue with Gore - it seemed at times that he included an unnecessary political commentary (specifically about his loss in 2000). Listen, we know that he doesn’t like President Bush and we know that while he won the national popular vote, he actually lost the Florida vote by a mere 543 and that’s all he needed to win the election.

If Al Gore was sitting next to me, I’d say something like, “Bro, you lost the election. Get over it.” Contrary to popular extremist belief, there was no foul play and FOX News didn’t somehow make President Bush win the election (in fact, the truth is they hurt his chances at winning by releasing information about his drunk driving record the weekend before the election). But I know the extremists don’t want facts to get in the way of a good anti-Bush story, so we’ll leave that where it lies…

Back to the documentary - I liked the message that Al Gore presented towards the end of the film. He essentially said, “Hey, we goofed up and we heated up the earth. But all is not lost - we CAN do something about it and YOU can do something about it. This is what you can do…” and then he proceeds to list out a bunch of things that we can do as a worldwide community, a nation, and individuals to change the earth’s climate. Some far-right or anti-Gore thinkers stop at this point and complain about the science and how Al Gore is lying about certain facts and that he exaggerates other facts. Well, I admit that it sounds more like he is telling a story that he just so happens to have science to fit as opposed to letting the science tell a story, but I guess I just neglect to see a problem with his methods.

In other words, most of what he is saying is true, even if it’s not to the extreme that he presents it as. You can’t lie or exaggerate basic facts like, “the earth’s atmosphere is made up of chemicals A and B.” Comments like that are just comments on scientifically proven facts. Now, can he exaggerate when he says that New York City will be under water in a few decades? Sure. That’s probably a bit much and I don’t believe that enough research has been done on enough variable-based situations to prove that we’ll be losing the wealthiest island in the world by 2050. But is the overall message worth over-inflating a point like this?

Well, yeah.

Is it so bad that people start to conserve more energy? Isn’t that a good thing? In fact, this is a nonpartisan issue. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents can all agree that energy efficiency is something that we all need to be concerned about, whether you define that efficiency as better gas mileage, creating less carbon emissions, or recycling. This is an issue that everyone can - and does - get behind.

So do I think you should go out and get a copy of this movie? Sure, I’d recommend watching it. Maybe I wouldn’t put this in the “must buy” column and I probably wouldn’t put it in the “see at all costs” column, but it was a good documentary. Job well done by Al Gore…now if he could just get over the fact that he lost in 2000, he might be less despicable!