Save open space, but not at the cost of middle-class workers’ jobs

Open space and closed doors. In a state which is facing a $5 billion deficit in its 2004 budget, the governor has proposed an idea that could have catastrophic effects. Gov. James E. McGreevey has laid out an aggressive plan to preserve open space. On the upside, it will save trees for one year. On the downside, it could affect 163,000 jobs and $79.4 million in wages.

The governor has proposed a moratorium on building for one year. He also proposes funneling people away from rural areas into cities. Based on the governor’s plan, Lakewood, Brick and Dover would be areas that growth would be encouraged, creating an urban environment in northern Ocean County.

The estimated growth for New Jersey in the next 10-15 years is one million people. This growth would cause an ever-growing population in northern Ocean County to skyrocket. The governor also proposes impact fees which will undoubtedly be passed onto the consumer, causing house prices to continue to rise.

The housing industry in New Jersey is a $10 billion industry that the governor proposes shutting down for a year. Having said that, I believe we need to preserve open space, but not at such a high price. The Democratic Party has routinely referred to itself as the party of the people representing the common man. If that is true, why are they willing to jeopardize 163,000 jobs of mostly middle-class (union) workers? Why do they want to funnel people into our neighborhoods, causing Ocean County to become urban?

There is no doubt that we need to preserve open space, but in a creative and responsible manner. If our leaders can’t be responsible and creative in their policy-making, then why do we elect them to lead?

Brian Patterson

Brick