the New Urbanism – is it appropriate for the Pinelands?
Smart Growth, the "New Urbanism," promises development that is environmentally, fiscally, and economically smart. Is it appropriate to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to encourage Pinelands redevelopment schemes? I suggest that the wishes of local politicians do not always reflect those of their constituents.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/...cle_37b798dc-dfc2-11de-9398-001cc4c03286.html
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/...cle_ce663ae8-0c92-11df-95e9-001cc4c002e0.html
When asked in a survey (Goertzel and Leonardis 2006) what they hated most about South Jersey, residents overwhelmingly cited sprawl. This survey of 444 residents was conducted in the fall of 2000. The interviewees responded: overdevelopment, too many houses, too much traffic- 51%; insurance too expensive- 27%; taxes too high 26%; not enough to do- 19%; pollution- 19%; problems of the older cities such as Camden- 17%; climate 12%; poor shopping- 9%; poor schools- 8%; people not friendly- 7%.
I again present a figure showing a proposed Pinelands redevelopment project called Comar Place, funded by a NJDCA Smart-Growth study grant. The project was overwhelmingly approved by the municipality as Pinelands ready, and permits a maximum impervious cover of 65% (
Comar Place/Pine Road Redevelopment Area – Redevelopment Plan, p. 39). So which version of Comar Place best fits NJ residents' wishes, and which one represents the politicians'? After all, it is our money they spend.
The figure below represents a before-and-after view of Pine Road and US Route 40, Buena, NJ. Most of the proposed growth area is original woods within the Rural-Development zone, with a small portion (3.68%) designated Pinelands Town. The stated reasons for need of redevelopment is that the area has remained unimproved for over 10 years and it is remote, which pretty much qualifies Pinelands forests and wetlands as Smart-Growth appropriate land.
Spung-Man