At its root, this question asks the voters to approve a $400 million bond to preserve open space, certain flood zones, and historic places in New Jersey. Of those dollars, $364 million will be segregated specifically for open space purposes.

The Daily Record recently endorsed a “no” vote on this question. I beg to differ. For what it’s worth, JerseySmarts.com endorses a “yes” vote on Question #1. Why? Good question…

After moving out of Manhattan when I was younger, my family went to Morris County near the Sussex County border (near the Lake Hopatcong area). Now that I’ve been all over the this great state I can confidently say that the area of land near the Morris County/Sussex County border is a really beautiful area of the state. Each year I entertain a lot of guests who are from out of state. We generally have to stick to the Parkway or the Turnpike to get to our various destinations and they see what the country thinks is the stereotypical life in New Jersey: concrete and congestion. However, when I have the opportunity to take these guests to Morris, Hunterdon, Sussex, or Warren counties they wind up bringing home a completely different view of New Jersey.

I’m not suggesting that you vote in favor of this bond issue because of the impression that out of staters get when they visit Northwest New Jersey. No, I’m suggesting that you vote in favor of this bond issue because once this open space is gone, it’s not coming back. I’m suggesting that you vote in favor of this bond issue because even though this state is in a severe financial crisis, the only true way to get out of it is by creating an equitable tax base (in other words, everyone pays taxes, not just everyone except people living in Camden County and Newark). I’m suggesting that you vote in favor of this bond issue because there over-urbanization of Northwest New Jersey needs to stop and it needs to stop now.

Yes, the country is in a tight financial situation. And yes, the state needs to fix its budget and quick. However, let’s not panic ourselves into making a terrible decision. Remember, a rising tide lifts all boats. In other words, when the economy does come back, it’s going to bring increased revenues to the state and to its municipalities. Times are tough now, but this state (and this country) will come booming back like it always does. In the mean time, let’s not open up our precious and depleting green spaces to excessive development just because we can’t see the future for what it will ultimately be – which is prosperous.

In my vote-by-mail ballot, I voted “yes” on Question #1 to authorize the state to issue a $400 million bond. I hope that you do, too.

According to a series of proposed amendments to COAH’s current round-three regulations, Eatontown’s affordable housing obligation jumped from 92 units to 447 units, Tarantolo said.

“Where are we going to build [the 447 units]?” Tarantolo asked, adding, “I have no idea.”

According to Tarantolo, COAH officials used a geographic information system (GIS) to map out the available land in the borough where affordable units can be constructed.

A GIS is a system that collects various forms of statistical data and maps it according to its geographic location.

“When they worked out the new numbers, they did it using the GIS to determine the number of acres that were still green in particular municipalities,” Tarantolo said.

“As it turns out, COAH just arbitrarily took green space and said this should be developed and some of it should be for affordable housing.

“The GIS labeled some of our parks and open space as buildable land. We suspect they made a mistake.

“The parks and open space are already registered with the state as not being able to be built,” Tarantolo said.

If COAH removes the acreage from the borough’s parks and open space from the vacant-land calculations, Eatontown will see a significant reduction in its affordable housing obligation, Tarantolo said.

Let me put that in layman’s terms for everyone out there. The state used a system that said designated “green spaces” (i.e. parks and protected wildlife area) are okay to build affordable housing units on. Are you f’ing kidding me? Someone at the state was paid to sit down and figure out a new formula for affordable housing and they produced Round Three of COAH by saying that green spaces are legit for building on? What?!

This is the kind of stuff where in ancient Rome you’d find yourself in the Colosseum with some pretty big cats. In New Jersey, though, we reward our morons by giving them taxpayer-funded raises and one of the most ridiculous publicly-financed benefits packages in the nation. Way to go, New Jersey!

Why is this so hard for people to understand? If you want to provide increased housing options for our existing residents, then you need to start redeveloping brownfields across the state. For those of you that don’t know, brownfields are former industrial lots that need serious environmental attention before they can be rebuilt. Many community based groups are doing a magnificent job of making former warehouses into usable community facilities or housing units. Just look up in Paterson where there are a growing number of housing options (yet still not enough).

As for COAH – it might be time to throw it out the window. The system is obviously broken when we are counting our preciously scarce open space in as “buildable lots.” Frankly, it’s that type of idiocy that gives this state a bad name. Fire the person that dreamed up this farce and start again. Now!