STATE PARKS NEED STEADY SOURCE OF INCOME

[bach2yoga]

OP/ED - STATE PARKS NEED STEADY SOURCE OF INCOME

Date: 030615
From: http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/editorials/

NEGLECTED STATE PARKS NEED STEADY SOURCE OF INCOME

Star-ledger Editorial, June 15, 2003

The view from the top of High Point monument is spectacular: 60-mile
vistas unfold from 220 feet above the state's highest hill, showcasing
the lush natural beauty of the Delaware Water Gap, the Kittatinny
Ridge, the Poconos and the Catskills.

The view is spectacular, but no one can see it. The monument's
stairway has been unsafe and off limits since 1994. Even its lobby
closed in 1997, testimony to years of neglect and underfunding at New
Jersey's state parks.

The parks badly need a new and stable source of funding to replace
fickle annual state appropriations. Park managers must make sharp cuts
when times are hard and then try unsuccessfully to catch up when the
economy is better. The result is a system chronically struggling to
handle growing crowds of visitors without the money or workers to keep
historic buildings from crumbling, to provide modern bathrooms at
popular picnic spots or to protect precious open space from vandals.

High Point needs at least $1.6 million to restore its metal stairway,
improve ventilation and get back into shape to accommodate visitors
again. The money is not there. But High Point, a monument to the
state's war dead, is only the most visible reminder of the trouble in
our parks. Examples span the state:

Ringwood State Park's aging maintenance barns have holes in the roofs
and gaps in the walls. Some are growing so unstable they need to be
torn down. The septic system needs rebuilding. A new maintenance barn
will have to comply with historic standards to fit in with the park's
venerable manor house, home to a valuable collection of paintings and
18th-century antiques. The maintenance renovations are on hold for
lack of $1.5 million. Island Beach and Wawayanda state parks each need
new bathrooms to replace old- fashioned pit toilets at Island Beach
and portable johns at Wawayanda. The state does not have the $950,000
required. The 36-room Batsto Mansion in Burlington County is closed
because large cracks in the foundations and walls and leaks in the
roof allow moisture to seep in and mold to grow. Restoring the
building could take $1.7 million.

Altogether, the state Department of Environmental Protection says
more than $50 million a year is needed for park repair and
construction, more than half of it for "urgent" work such as roof and
other repairs to prevent further damage. But next year's proposed
state budget contains no money at all for such jobs.

Keeping up with aging buildings, roads and other "infrastructure" is
only part of the challenge. The parks service has 484 full-time
workers. That's up from five years ago, but down from the late 1980s.
However, the demands on parks employees have only grown. In that same
period the number of parks visitors has mushroomed by almost 50
percent, from 10.6 million in 1989 to more than 15 million this year.

The operating budget for the parks, which pays for rangers and
lifeguards, electricity and bathroom supplies and other daily
expenses, has yo- yoed up and down over the years, but, at $32 million
next year, it does not even equal the spending in 1989, after being
adjusted for inflation.

DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell and other officials know the parks
need money. The recession-rocked state budget has none to spare. Every
state agency has taken budget cuts. The parks are no different.

The solution is to create a stable source of funding so the parks are
no longer a poor stepchild, getting lost in the annual state budget
debate, saddled with sharp cuts when money is tight and insufficient
raises when times are good.

In 1998 the Governor's Council on New Jersey Outdoors recommended
that park construction and long-term maintenance spending be increased
to about $25 million per year. Key lawmakers, including Sen. Robert
Littell (R-Sussex), have introduced legislation over the years that
would dedicate $20 million from the state fee on real estate sales to
park needs.

But the bills have never gotten far and now there is no chance of
giving the parks money from this source. The state general fund needs
every cent of the estimated $201 million the realty tax will bring in
next year.

The DEP is applying for federal grants to repair historic houses and
perform other long-deferred construction and repair work. This will
help, but is unlikely to do more than nibble around the edges of the
cash shortage. Campbell also wants to set up a nonprofit corporation
to shore up funding for Batsto and the other historic houses.

Another proposal could help even more. Gov. James E. McGreevey's
administration wants to explore charging a new fee on highway
billboards, with at least some of the revenue dedicated to parks
projects. The amount of the charge hasn't been worked out, but it
might raise millions each year for work, such as finishing renovations
at High Point, that otherwise would remain out of reach.

A state task force is already reviewing billboard rules in the wake
of questions over the business practices of two former gubernatorial
aides. We urge the panel to seriously consider a reasonable fee-for-
the-parks charge. Billboards are not anyone's idea of an
environmental benefit. The public will strongly support the idea of
having those giant signs that pollute roadside views generate money to
improve our parks.

Dawdling is not an option. Deferring maintenance carries a severe
cost, one that outweighs short-term savings. The original estimate to
repair High Point, inside and out, was $2 million. The cost has almost
doubled as time has dragged on and more damage has been discovered,
and it could go still higher.

We cannot afford to let our state parks slide further into disrepair.
They are a precious resource, providing a green escape for millions in
the nation's most crowded state. But until we solve the parks'
perennial money woes, New Jersey residents will not have the parks
they need or deserve.

* * *

Copyright 2003 The Star-Ledger.

[JeffD]

The state is not low on dough because of a recession but because of all the pork the politicians, especially in the Mac Greedy adminisration, has been devouring.

A good way to fund the state parks would be the way the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife used to fund itself until Mac Greedy lumped them into the general fund. Like U. S. Fish and Wildlife, which funds the Edwin Forsythe Wildlife Refuge through fishing and hunting fees, the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife was self sustaining, paying for itself, responsible for its own viability. The Forsythe Refuge also charges a small fee, which goes to acquire and maintain refuges. There's a $2.00 fee to visit the refuge on foot, and a $4.00 fee per car to take the 11 mile or so wildlife drive. I didn't mind paying a fee that would go directly to conservation efforts and to maintain a natural area that I can visit. I DO mind paying a fee that would go to pork-barrel projects, to feed the greed of politicans and their cronies.

$4.00 per car is less expensive that doing other activities, such as going to a movie.

I believe that the NJ state parks are part of the state forests. At least they share a website. Funds from activities such as logging could be used to help fund the parks. Also, for certain activities, not just hiking a trail in a park, a small fee is in order.

[Millbilly]

Just my .02, but the NJ State Forest system should take a look at PA, CO, etc.(there is alot of states collecting revenue this way) and develop a OHV funded trail system. What I mean is just like designated hiking trail or bicycling trails, the state forest system should offer designated OHV trails, with a yearly user fee of course. Most people who operate or enjoy OHV's would gladly pay a fee to legally operate their toys on a designated trail or fire road system. The fee alone would easily support rebuilding, protecting and up grading our under funded facilties within our state forest and parks system. Instead of the state forest system hiring rangers to chase and fine OHV use, the state could sit back and collect the revenue and let the rangers attend to more serious problems, like illegal dumpers, etc. The popularity of a program like this would be good and bring more people into the fold of protecting our precious natural resources that developers seem to be gobbling up at a alarming rate. This would also fill a very popular way of eco-tourism that NJ doesn't legally offer at this time. Besides with use comes appreciation and with appreciation comes respect.

[bruset]

^^^ Yeah, if the Sierra Club allowed that to happen... They can't even get ORV parks built in the state because of the eco-nazi's.

[kingofthepines]

Just my .02, . Most people who operate or enjoy OHV's would gladly pay a fee to legally operate their toys on a designated trail or fire road system. .
Well if its just .02 for a yearly permit I might swallow that but why pay for what I can do now for free. Whats next, set up toll booths on 206?

[JerseyJim]

Now don't give the state any ideas

[bruset]

King,

You can't legally operate an ATV anywhere but an ATV park or on private property that you either own or have permission to ride on.

The state banned all ORV's except for SUV's and Trucks from state owned land.

[kingofthepines]

King,

You can't legally operate an ATV anywhere but an ATV park or on private property that you either own or have permission to ride on.

The state banned all ORV's except for SUV's and Trucks from state owned land.
You must see something I don't see. Where does Millbillys post say anything about ATV's? I'm talking OHV's. You do know that they are not the same thing don't you?

[BEHR655]

It doesn't matter if it's an All Terrain Vehicle on an Off Highway Vehicle. I think Ben's point was that off roading is only permitted in off road parks and on private property with permission. Unfortunately there are not a lot of places for off roaders.

Steve

[supercilious]

the funny answer to funding is one thing, hire people who can repair the problems. The state has a habit of not hiring people who are capable of the work, or if they have them not allowing them to do the work. The maintenence and repair of the work can be supervised by an adequate manager (no i dont mean some college educated know nothing). The state allows building inspectors, they can allow a true inspector of all knowledge (all inspectors are jokes) to manage the repair crew. This crew can consist of current employees under that persons supervision. Now what is the cost to the state? Technically none, they can fire some fool and hire a true trademan and have him manage the employees to do the work. Now it will cost in supplies but that is actually quite minimal compared to competative labor charge. Unfortunatly the state has idiotic laws about unions and code, but of course money trumps those laws so the state can easily rehab structures and areas it wants with the labor it now employs.

[bach2yoga]

the funny answer to funding is one thing, hire people who can repair the problems. The state has a habit of not hiring people who are capable of the work, or if they have them not allowing them to do the work. The maintenence and repair of the work can be supervised by an adequate manager (no i dont mean some college educated know nothing). The state allows building inspectors, they can allow a true inspector of all knowledge (all inspectors are jokes) to manage the repair crew. This crew can consist of current employees under that persons supervision. Now what is the cost to the state? Technically none, they can fire some fool and hire a true trademan and have him manage the employees to do the work. Now it will cost in supplies but that is actually quite minimal compared to competative labor charge. Unfortunatly the state has idiotic laws about unions and code, but of course money trumps those laws so the state can easily rehab structures and areas it wants with the labor it now employs.


All building inspectors are not jokes. My husband is not employed as a building inspector, but is a self-employed building contractor. He has been in business for over 30 years and has an impeccable reputation, and is known for his perfection on a job site. However, he has all of his inspector licenses, and attends all the necessary workshops to maintain those licenses. I know other well-established contractors that are also licensed as inspectors. But why work for $30k a year? You want a tradesperson with competence, you can expect to pay for it--because that same experienced tradesperson can easily make double that with benefits by doing his trade, more often than not, more than a new kid out of college.

Furthermore, while the reputation of state employees is that of incompetence, and is often deserved, there are a number of state departments involved with the environment which are functioning with only one person per department, or two people, trying to do many people's job. Our state botanist is far, far behind logging endangered species. Natural Lands Trust and Tom Breden's office and other DEP offices have lost employees to death, etc., who have never been replaced--and the employee or employees that remain, some of whom I know personally, are competent and committed to what they do. But there is only so much a shorthanded office can do. Some of these departments are sharing the same employee. Imagine trying to straddle two departments by yourself.

Sometimes the answers aren't as simply as they seem.

[supercilious]

All building inspectors are not jokes. My husband is not employed as a building inspector, but is a self-employed building contractor. He has been in business for over 30 years and has an impeccable reputation, and is known for his perfection on a job site. However, he has all of his inspector licenses, and attends all the necessary workshops to maintain those licenses. I know other well-established contractors that are also licensed as inspectors. But why work for $30k a year? You want a tradesperson with competence, you can expect to pay for it--because that same experienced tradesperson can easily make double that with benefits by doing his trade, more often than not, more than a new kid out of college.

Furthermore, while the reputation of state employees is that of incompetence, and is often deserved, there are a number of state departments involved with the environment which are functioning with only one person per department, or two people, trying to do many people's job. Our state botanist is far, far behind logging endangered species. Natural Lands Trust and Tom Breden's office and other DEP offices have lost employees to death, etc., who have never been replaced--and the employee or employees that remain, some of whom I know personally, are competent and committed to what they do. But there is only so much a shorthanded office can do. Some of these departments are sharing the same employee. Imagine trying to straddle two departments by yourself.

Sometimes the answers aren't as simply as they seem.[/quote]

ok, so you wish to debate Building Inspectors and State Employees? First off Building Inspectors are a joke. You say they make 30k a year, thats good for part time work that most retirees do. Inspectors are paid by the Government which means they do a service to their country, a service which must be to the highest standards, if they care, they should do it for free. Lets not forget the envelope with cash in the basement, that is serious, its not some "old wives talk", its outright truth. For an inspector to come into your house whenever he chooses is technically against the constitution. If you read that document you might understand that. So beyond them being overpaid and corrupt lets move on to another standard. Each state has their own standards, now Bush is pushing for Federal Standards which i praise, it stops foolish regulation. You speak of State Departments with one employee, why did you not speak of State Departments who have DOUBLED or TRIPLED in employment for the same or less about of work? I assume you are Uneducated on the topic. Maybe if the State did not hire 150 more employees in New Lisbon they could afford a few more Elsewhere. Now if these people you claim who "straddle offices" care they would work overtime for free. More Offices, more money, and more taxes on YOU, maybe you are rich and can afford your taxes NOW, Not the old 70% days. Didint you remember Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to our problems, but is the problem"? I assume not, the State could easily create a constitutional admendment making a NO BUILD ZONE in all State Parks. This here alone stops threats to the enviroment, and by actually creating working laws, not selective laws, the DEP can do a fair job. This prevents damage from other sources and allows full growth in the State Park Lands without worry of human damage. If you really care you would support a ban on anyone entering State Park Land, No Hunting, No Fishing, No Hiking, No NOTHING, so we can allow bears, cougers, ect.. to flourish again. Now when the cougar is outside eating your kid you are going to get upset, want them killed. There is alot more to the Park Problem then just Hiring MORE and MORE employees, who most do nothing anyway.
[/quote]

[bach2yoga]

"Inspectors are paid by the Government which means they do a service to their country, a service which must be to the highest standards, if they care, they should do it for free."

Why should they work for free? Do state police officers work for free? Do rangers? Do judges? Does the president? Do YOU work for free? It's their work. They have taken college courses, studied, taken state and national exams, and are required to attend professional workshops to retain their licenses. I could just as easily say that if you cared, you should be doing those jobs for free so the government doesn't have to pay someone else. :think:

If all building inspectors are jokes, imagine how you would fare trying to plan review a high rise building with a fire command station that operates the whole building with elevators and electrical and emergency lighting, stand pipes and pressure for sprinkler systems for 7 to 10 story buildings etc. That's not a joke.

If you spent 500k on a house, and had it fall apart on you, then you would appreciate a building inspector. Because of a few bad apples, we should let anarchy reign??? Can you imagine what some developers and builders would try to get away with if we didn't have inspectors?? You put more faith in them than a building inspector, then more power to you. When your family burns in its house because it is not up to code, then you'll be crying that the state should have had it inspected.

"Lets not forget the envelope with cash in the basement, that is serious, its not some "old wives talk", its outright truth. "

And that happens with police officers and judges and everyone else. I don't know where you live, but it sure isn't an every day situation here. Inspectors are taught in class that they are not even to accept a cup of coffee anymore.

You are also incorrect on your assumption that 30k is for PT inspectors. Many places in NJ cannot hire their own inspectors, they are too small, or too poor. Vineland, for instance, has several of their own. Others have none--so they hire through the state, and one building inspector will work parttime in that town one day or two days a week, and parttime in another town another day a week, etc., in order to get a full work week. Most state inspectors work at least two different townships, more if the townships are smaller, to constitute a full work week.

The "old inspector" is not the way things are anymore. There are still some retirees in those positions, but many of the state inspectors are now younger, college educated people.


"For an inspector to come into your house whenever he chooses is technically against the constitution. If you read that document you might understand that. "

Not only have I read it, I had an entire semester of nothing but the U.S. constitution where we were required to memorize it and prove by article, section and paragraph the constitutionality of various scenarios. It wasn't one of my favorite classes, but it was educational. But I'm not an attorney. Are you? Some how I don't think so. An inspector may come during normal business hours, and usually by appointment. Generally the owner or contractor calls for an inspection. When you apply for a permit you are indicating your understanding of that in order to be in compliance with state building codes, local zoning rules, etc.

"So beyond them being overpaid and corrupt lets move on to another standard. "

I believe that is called "generalization" and "stereotyping". Because some people have accepted cash doesn't make everyone corrupt. That is faulty logic. And working a fulltime week at 30k is hardly overpaid. I don't think you've proven either point.

"Each state has their own standards, now Bush is pushing for Federal Standards which i praise, it stops foolish regulation. You speak of State Departments with one employee, why did you not speak of State Departments who have DOUBLED or TRIPLED in employment for the same or less about of work? I assume you are Uneducated on the topic. "

Every state having their own standards is changing. Most states are requiring that the international standards--not federal-- are used and are in the process of changing so that everyone will have the same standards--so that when a builder goes to a different state and builds, the customer is ensured of the same strength, quality, etc. It had nothing President Bush, or foolish regulation. It is standardization of the industry. The movement for this international standard has been making for many years. Better check your facts there.

I am not speaking of the state departments as a whole; I am speaking specifically of people who are working with departments such as the Natural heritage office, the state botanist, natural lands trust, etc; people I know personally. I'd be curious to know just what makes you so educated on the topic. While you may be familiar with other areas of the state--which I am not--your comments reflect that you not familiar with all of the state departments, in particular, the ones that I am familiar with. There is nothing wrong with that, I am just trying to point out that you can't generalize everyone with a statement that isn't true of everyone. That's all.

"Maybe if the State did not hire 150 more employees in New Lisbon they could afford a few more Elsewhere. Now if these people you claim who "straddle offices" care they would work overtime for free. "

I'm not familiar with New Lisbon, so I can't voice an opinion on that one way or the other. As I said, I am not addressing the state as a whole, merely the environmental offices that I am familiar with. I can't speak for the rest of the state--I have no clue there. But I do know that when it comes to the environmental offices, you are way off the mark.

Bob Cartica, who is currently straddling two offices, since Tom Breden's death, works many hours over and above the call of duty. So do a number of other people I know. He, and others, contribute their spare time to groups that are working for protection of endangered species as well. Why do you seem to think everyone should work for free? Do you???? And what do you do for a living that is so much more worthy that these people, that you should be paid, and they shouldn't? I know a number of these people personally, people who are taking pay cuts so they can learn more by taking professional classes, people who put their free time and commitment where there work values are--on conservation. These are honest, good people. My point is not that you are wrong--just that you are not always correct. You cannot correctly make that sort of statement, that all such and such are this way or that way or all of these people are crooks etc. It isn't logical and it isn't true.


"More Offices, more money, and more taxes on YOU, maybe you are rich and can afford your taxes NOW, Not the old 70% days. Didint you remember Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to our problems, but is the problem"? I assume not, "

I'm not that young. I remember him quite well. I do agree with his statement as well.


"the State could easily create a constitutional admendment making a NO BUILD ZONE in all State Parks. This here alone stops threats to the enviroment, and by actually creating working laws, not selective laws, the DEP can do a fair job. This prevents damage from other sources and allows full growth in the State Park Lands without worry of human damage. If you really care you would support a ban on anyone entering State Park Land, No Hunting, No Fishing, No Hiking, No NOTHING, so we can allow bears, cougers, ect.. to flourish again."

The State cannot create a constitutional amendment. The State does not have the power to do that. What was that you said....."is technically against the constitution. If you read that document you might understand that"??

And such an amendment would not stop the threat to the environment. It's not true that caring about the environment means allowing noone in. Our Pines are a product of stress--fire, colonization over many years, etc. Many of our rare plants exist because of those stresses. We ARE part of that environment, albeit in a very screwed up sort of way. :(

Any environmentalist worth his salt knows that the "enemy of diversity is succession". You have to find the balance. Letting succession take over would overtake many of our rarest habitats, such as the savannahs and bogs.

As far as if I really cared, I doubt very much that you put as much time into conservation volunteer work as I do. I put my money and my time where my mouth is. You don't know me; don't take the liberty of assuming you know what I care about and what I don't.

"Now when the cougar is outside eating your kid you are going to get upset, want them killed. There is alot more to the Park Problem then just Hiring MORE and MORE employees, who most do nothing anyway."

Well, since cougars are considered extirpated, I wouldn't think that is any serious danger. And I fully support the bears back in the Pines.

[foofoo]

why is it that you have to pay for everything and its just an accepted way of things. my buddy who lived in florida who lives here now said he could go out and have a day of things to do and not cost for every little thing. there are ways im sure to manage our parks without all the stupid fees. i dont care if it is cheaper than going to the movies. i dont go to the movies for that reason.