|
McGreevey falls from Mt. Laurel
Originally appeared in the Star Ledger on 10/16/01
In the gubernatorial debate last week, we found out why Jim McGreevey makes a point of sticking to his script. When he departs from it, the results are comical.
That was proven in the Democratic candidate's response to a question from a Gloucester County resident about what each candidate would do to reduce suburban sprawl and "to help communities find ways to limit growth."
Republican Bret Schundler answered first. For him, this was a softball question. He wants the voters to be given a chance to overturn the state Supreme Court's disastrous Mt. Laurel decisions, and he said so. Those decisions let developers crack local zoning codes and build high-density housing in the suburbs. If left unchanged, Mt. Laurel will make New Jersey one of the most densely populated places on the planet.
Whoops. We already are.
Which is why McGreevey needs to do his homework on this issue. His remarks the other night didn't get much news coverage, so the other day I turned on my cassette player and listened to them again. The result was highly instructive. Here are his remarks in their entirety:
"The difference between Mr. Schundler and myself on this issue is that I'll say no to the developers and I said yes to the State Plan."
Stop the tape. The impression created by this remark is that the developers dislike Mt. Laurel. The exact opposite is true. The developers love Mt. Laurel. The New Jersey Builders Association and the National Association of Homebuilders are in court right now defending the Mt. Laurel decisions.
Back to the tape:
"The State Plan simply says this -- that there are areas that we are going to have open and keep open and there are also going to be areas that we target for development."
True. But the areas targeted for development are the suburbs. Here's a direct quote from the plan: "In the Suburban Planning Area, the State Plan's intention is to provide for much of the state's future development."
Without Mt. Laurel, the state would have no way to force the suburbs to accept that development. But by saying the magic words "Mt. Laurel" and invoking the State Plan, a developer can force a place like Clinton Township to accept a giant development on farmland within sight of where black bears roam the hills.
Back to the tape:
"The reason why the Sierra Club and New Jersey Environmental Federation endorsed me is that I'm willing to say no to the developers. If you think we can afford another 25 years of continued development, then respectfully vote for Mr. Schundler."
It's not Schundler calling for continued development; it's the State Plan. The plan foresees adding another million residents in the next 20 years. The Sierra Club and the other environmentalists do indeed support this. Why? You got me.
Back to the tape:
"But if you want a governor who's going to stand up toward ensuring we are going to have open space in downtowns and our neighborhoods . . . "
Hold on. Open space in our downtowns? Whatever that may mean, the State Plan calls for the exact opposite. It calls for downtowns in open space. The good people of Middletown Township are at this very moment fighting a state-endorsed plan to build a huge "town center" on one of the last remaining parcels of open space in that crowded Monmouth County municipality.
Open space in neighborhoods? Again, the State Plan calls for the exact opposite. It calls for something the planners call "infill." The concept of infill calls for filling in the remaining open space in the suburbs with high-density housing. The open space goes in Christie Whitman's neighborhood, which is why her planners thought it up.
Back to the tape:
" . . . that we preserve our quality of life. We keep New Jersey the reason for which we're here, then I respectfully ask for your vote."
How does cramming hundreds of thousands of people into the suburbs preserve our quality of life? If he can answer that, McGreevey's got my vote.
Schundler was asked for a rebuttal. He said one word: "Incredible."
The audience cracked up laughing. But it's no laughing matter. This is one of the two most important issues facing the state, and McGreevey is either unaware of the basic details or is intentionally obscuring them.
I have heard some spirited defenses of Mt. Laurel and the State Plan, but all came from people who accept the idea that we must cram another million people into the state. Till the other night, I had never yet heard a defense based on the belief that you can prevent suburban sprawl by cramming the suburbs full of people.
But that is McGreevey's position. And if the journalists of this state ever tire of their fascination with guns and abortion, they might consider examining it.
Paul Mulshine is a Star-Ledger columnist.
|
