Razing of trees
- Thread starter Teegate
- Start date
What hogwash that is. We in Bamber are not clamoring for development of any kind. It's good you called him out Mark. These guys get away with this noxious spin unless challenged. These sewer packages have always been allowed, but we keep it very hush-hush for fear some developer will foot the bill in exchange for a free-for-all of building.
See today's opinion section of the Hammonton Gazette (September 28, 2011). Publisher Gabe Donio has written a detailed follow-up titled "Looks like it's time to save the Pine Barrens, again," which questions the wisdom of forcing Pinelands Villages to sewer. His commentary is not online, but is available at newsstands.
S-M
S-M
Looks like it’s time to save the Pine Barrens, again
by Gabe Donio
The above mentioned opinion is now online:
S-M
by Gabe Donio
The above mentioned opinion is now online:
"The sewer plants, if allowed to be built, will radically change the character of the Pinelands, create competition for existing Pinelands Communities where development should be targeted and will be a boon for people who buy the currently devalued real estate in the 47 villages that would benefit from the newly-built sewer plants."
S-M
I was just browsing NJGIN and noticed there's a shapefile available showing all the smart growth areas, so I downloaded and have been looking. There are a LOT of them. Let me know if you would like me to post more examples.
The areas in red and designated for smart growth. I would need to do a lot more reading to understand exactly what that means.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/NJ_NJGINE...Name=PUBLIC_BROWSE&mode=ME&spotlightdata=true
The areas in red and designated for smart growth. I would need to do a lot more reading to understand exactly what that means.
https://njgin.state.nj.us/NJ_NJGINE...Name=PUBLIC_BROWSE&mode=ME&spotlightdata=true
Attachments
Boyd,
Good gophering. It is unsettling to how far the scheme has advanced, isn't it? Do you have a shapefile map for Dorothy-Estell Manor for comparison?
Richland is the first and so far only Village redevelopment zone. As such it is touted by politicians as a "redevelopment prototype for the immediate region," even a State model for others to follow if you believe the hype. While I agree with the Pinelands Commission that redevelopment can be a useful planner's toll, it can also forever change the legacy of this special place if misused. I hope the new Executive Director, Wittenberg, sticks to her guns; that all development must still meet Pinelands standards.
In Resolution No. 118-2005, Buena Vista Township's rationale for redevelopment was "due to existing conditions where lands have remained vacant and underutilized for a period of ten or more years [and] likely cannot be developed through the instrumentality of solely private capital." By that broad stroke nearly all 24,000 acres in Village designation can be deemed blighted and in need of publicly subsidized redevelopment. It appears that Pinelands Villages are indeed quietly being prepared for big changes in the name of "growing smart."
S-M
Good gophering. It is unsettling to how far the scheme has advanced, isn't it? Do you have a shapefile map for Dorothy-Estell Manor for comparison?
Richland is the first and so far only Village redevelopment zone. As such it is touted by politicians as a "redevelopment prototype for the immediate region," even a State model for others to follow if you believe the hype. While I agree with the Pinelands Commission that redevelopment can be a useful planner's toll, it can also forever change the legacy of this special place if misused. I hope the new Executive Director, Wittenberg, sticks to her guns; that all development must still meet Pinelands standards.
In Resolution No. 118-2005, Buena Vista Township's rationale for redevelopment was "due to existing conditions where lands have remained vacant and underutilized for a period of ten or more years [and] likely cannot be developed through the instrumentality of solely private capital." By that broad stroke nearly all 24,000 acres in Village designation can be deemed blighted and in need of publicly subsidized redevelopment. It appears that Pinelands Villages are indeed quietly being prepared for big changes in the name of "growing smart."
S-M
Seems like this is the key, based on the metadata posted above
Are the policy objectives determined on the local level? If so, I assume they could mean housing development or shopping centers in one area, industrial development or sand mines in another and tree farms or campgrounds somewhere else.
The dataset covers the whole state, and actually the pines is a very small part of it (see below). The data only indicates areas that have been designated for smart growth, without any further detail. Here's a map showing the Dorothy/Estell Manor area.
Are the policy objectives determined on the local level? If so, I assume they could mean housing development or shopping centers in one area, industrial development or sand mines in another and tree farms or campgrounds somewhere else.
The dataset covers the whole state, and actually the pines is a very small part of it (see below). The data only indicates areas that have been designated for smart growth, without any further detail. Here's a map showing the Dorothy/Estell Manor area.
Attachments
What is redevelopment? According to the New Jersey Redevelopment Authority,
What is smart growth? According to the Department of Community Affairs,
(a) How do you revitalize something that was never there in the first place?
(b) This is not city space, but State and Federally protected reserve lands.
(c) These locations are near wilderness, not urban blight.
(d) As currently planned and implemented, these schemes are antithetic to the above Smart Growth goals, let alone the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).
According to David N. Kinsey (2008, "Has the Mount Laurel Doctrine delivered on Smart Growth?," Planning & Environmental Law, Vol. 60), in New Jersey's case Smart Growth was spawned by the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and the New Jersey Planning Commission in response to Mount Laurel II. COAH did not apply to the Pinelands (P.L. 1987, c. 267; N.J.S.A. 13:18A-12.b. and -15) and it is the Pinelands Commission, not the New Jersey Planning Commission, who has say over the Pinelands National Reserve. Why the heck is redevelopment invoked here other than to circumvent the CMP? See my post above:
Mount Laurel by law didn't apply here and, correspondingly, neither should redevelopment or Smart Growth. I use the past tense when relating to COAH since the program was eliminated on August 27, 2011.
S-M
"Our mission is to provide a unique approach to revitalization (a) efforts in New Jersey's cities (b). We develop programs and resources to improve the quality of life by creating value in urban communities (c)."
What is smart growth? According to the Department of Community Affairs,
"Smart Growth is the term used to describe well-planned, well-managed growth that adds new homes and creates new jobs, while preserving open space, farmland, and environmental resources (d)."
(a) How do you revitalize something that was never there in the first place?
(b) This is not city space, but State and Federally protected reserve lands.
(c) These locations are near wilderness, not urban blight.
(d) As currently planned and implemented, these schemes are antithetic to the above Smart Growth goals, let alone the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP).
According to David N. Kinsey (2008, "Has the Mount Laurel Doctrine delivered on Smart Growth?," Planning & Environmental Law, Vol. 60), in New Jersey's case Smart Growth was spawned by the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and the New Jersey Planning Commission in response to Mount Laurel II. COAH did not apply to the Pinelands (P.L. 1987, c. 267; N.J.S.A. 13:18A-12.b. and -15) and it is the Pinelands Commission, not the New Jersey Planning Commission, who has say over the Pinelands National Reserve. Why the heck is redevelopment invoked here other than to circumvent the CMP? See my post above:
"due to existing conditions where lands have remained vacant and underutilized for a period of ten or more years [and] likely cannot be developed through the instrumentality of solely private capital."
Mount Laurel by law didn't apply here and, correspondingly, neither should redevelopment or Smart Growth. I use the past tense when relating to COAH since the program was eliminated on August 27, 2011.
S-M
T
hought i would update the mcMansion progress . I also noticed down the street going towards hammonton on the right, they are putting up modular homes also.
Do you think that's a McMansion? Those look like openings for 4 big roll up doors across the front, like you might see at a garden center or produce market. Or maybe a big garage for farm equipment? But that photo is so dark that I might be misinterpreting what I see.
Boyd i think you might me right, since the property looks to be owned by a blueberry farmer maybe it will be like a farm market
This is just a quick review to bring you up to date on this complex issue as I understand it. It boils down to a very fundamental problem that could forever change the very nature of the Pinelands National Reserve– does the new Office of Planning Advocacy have the ability to alter the Comprehensive Management Plan? The Sewer Service Area (SSA) designation is needed to support the State Development and Redevelopment Plan to make all Villages Centers of Place and hence Priority Growth Investment Zones. If not, why won't the Pinelands Commission just leave things the way they are?
The hard sell is on:
Of sewers and the Pinelands / Relax, folks
"The sewers are coming! The sewers are coming!....Why don't they just ask to see Barack Obama's birth certificate, too?"
While sewers were always allowed, they were never pushed. That choice was always up to the local municipality. It is disappointing that the Atlantic City Press chose to do an editorial rather than have their reporters investigate the details of this important issue.
Here's what has transpired so far: Three out of five Buena Vista Township Committeemen expressed doubts about including their Villages in SSA mapping. Mullica Township, Weymouth Township, and Estell Manor City are removing Villages from the County SSA mapping. The two Freeholders who represent western Atlantic County voted against the County SSA map. Burlington County removed all of their Villages from their County SSA mapping. Ocean County removed every one of their Villages from their County SSA mapping, with one exception, Beckervillle. I believe it was added to support low income housing projects.
What happens if municipalities include their Villages in the SSA mapping? According to a recent interpretation by Carleton Montgomery, Executive Director of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance,
"We also believe it would be a mistake to include a Village in a new sewer service area just in case the township decides it wants sewers there sometime in the future. The very inclusion in a sewer service area could give developers vested rights, and many will certainly treat it as doing so, making it very difficult for the township to prevent sewering, and the intensive development it can bring, after the fact. The prudent course is to agree to sewer service area designation after the township has thought through and adopted a vision for a Village that includes sewers and the development sewers would facilitate" (letter from C. Montgomery to Mayor Bylone, September 11, 2012).
While it is a lot more fun to talk about history, dirt, and critters, we've reached a point where we need to become pro active stewards of this place. Don't expect much help from the National Park Service. With Commissioner Harris' recent and sudden retirement, there is no one at the Service in charge of monitoring the Pinelands National Reserve. Call the Philadelphia office and ask!
S-M