Should Ocean County amend natural lands trust program?
Should Ocean County amend natural lands trust program?
wobm.com
SHOULD OCEAN COUNTY AMEND NATURAL LANDS TRUST PROGRAM?
- Thread starter Teegate
- Start date
wobm.com
At first it would seem a good idea, but I'm always a bit concerned when government wants to expand on something to include things not originally intended for. In this case, there would be less funds available for land preservation. How much or if there is a limit is unknown.
I'd like to see more examples of what they mean by 'recreation'. And as far as history, I'm not a big fan of saving every old house some local committee wants to save. For me, it would need to have grand significance, not just some sea captain's former home.
Keep track of the goings on;
www.planning.co.ocean.nj.us
Natural Lands Trust Fund | Ocean County Planning Board
The Ocean County Planning Board reviews all subdivisions of land within Ocean County. Subdivision approval is required for those subdivisions that affect County road or drainage facilities.
www.planning.co.ocean.nj.us
Vote no on this issue on Nov. 5th if you are an Ocean County resident.
Vote “No” on Ocean County ballot question 1
Ocean County’s tax-funded Natural Lands Trust Fund Program has been one of the few effective tools for restraining excessive growth. It is threatened.
www.app.com
I hope the "right" words get out to vote no. The public needs to be fully educated on the matter.
Just an update, the resolution passed by the voters so now funds will include recreation and historic buildings. I read they're already planning to expand the rail trail. The article went on to say Bartlett would have wanted this.
Cape May County already amended their open space trust fund.
Initially, I was in favor of the amendment. Most of the open space funding originates in the barrier islands where there isn't any open space to preserve. The amendment would allow built out islands to participate in the program and utilize the funds for recreational uses.
However since its passage, I can't think of one farm or block of woods that has been preserved. All the money goes to soccer fields and bike trails.
The program really lost its original intent.
Initially, I was in favor of the amendment. Most of the open space funding originates in the barrier islands where there isn't any open space to preserve. The amendment would allow built out islands to participate in the program and utilize the funds for recreational uses.
However since its passage, I can't think of one farm or block of woods that has been preserved. All the money goes to soccer fields and bike trails.
The program really lost its original intent.
I'm against this bastardization of the original fund and I voted against it. There should be two separate funds, so it's easier to track where the moneys going and easier to get rid of one while preserving the other. This blurry line between recreation and open space will not end well.
From what I have experienced so far, I agree that it will not. Active recreation will always bring in more money to the landowner and the parks systems than "passive recreation" (never liked that word), so the choice will often be an easy one for the landowner/parks system. Ironically, I don't always see them asking what is best for the land.
No, but that's not a bad idea, now I know what to ask my next of kin to do with my ashes
From the EPA website:
"Active recreation refers to a structured individual or team activity that requires the use of special facilities, courses, fields, or equipment.
Examples of Active Recreational Activities:
• Baseball • Football • Soccer • Golf
• Hockey • Tennis • Skiing • Skateboarding
Passive recreation refers to recreational activities that do not require prepared facilities like sports fields or pavilions. Passive recreational activities place minimal stress on a site’s resources; as a result, they can provide ecosystem service benefits and are highly compatible with natural resource protection.
Examples of Passive Recreational Activities:
• Hunting • Camping • Hiking • Wildlife viewing • Observing and photographing nature
• Picnicking • Walking • Bird watching • Historic and archaeological exploration • Swimming
• Cross-country skiing • Bicycling • Running/jogging • Climbing • Horseback riding • Fishing"
Well, if they're going to do it, then build the family oriented off-road motor vehicle parks and get it over with. For Ocean County residents only. But choose sites that are not wilderness or environmentally sensitive and that won't disturb neighbors. Charge fees for maintenance and upkeep.
Get 'er done.
Get 'er done.
Seems like camping would require some level of development and maintenance... unless campers build fires and poop wherever they like, bring their own water and carry all their trash out.
Last edited:
The ideal location for this activity is mined out closed gravel pits since the land is already highly disturbed. I'm sure you remember the problems when the ORV park in Chatsworth that was forced to close and find a new location. Then when an obscure distant location was approved the State imposed such strict rules that any private enterprise that the State mandated operate that it would be impossible to make a profit. At present, the only Ocean county location would be the old long abandoned Lacey Materials on Lacey rd which was recently acquired. There are a few cluster houses in the area which I'm sure would raise a stink. The usual "NIMBY" excuse.