PRO
68 So.
This
quote taken from the following article.
"To invalidate action taken by the agency charged by statute with the
> creation, development and interpretation of the State
Plan would constitute
> impermissible judicial intervention in this highly
complex and technical area."
Dear Governor Corzine:
We hear so much
about activist courts or judges. This would be an example of non-activism as
compared to the courts' role in COAH rulings which would be classified as
activist. COAH is an example of why even well-intentioned meddling by the court
has gotten a bad name. Yet the promise that the court
decision "sends a strong signal" that designation as a town center
may not be used as "a surrogate for environmental considerations in
permitting decisions" will be as hollow as the judges in the Mt Laurel
decision decreeing that the environment need not be sacrificed to create
affordable housing.
Perhaps the
Office of Smart Growth - now headed by Eileen Swan - is up to "this highly
complex and technical area" of creating growth (Centers) in these highly-sensitive
environmental areas, but the State Planning Commission, that makes the designations,
are agents of inappropriate growth cloaked with the legitimacy of a
process. Unless that crowd is thrown out, Smart Growth will remain little
more than a fashionable but meaningless catch phrase in
"Smart
Growth" is directing economic energy to our forever-struggling older
cities and let's face it, so much of what will be growing in these new Centers
has little to do with "the State Plan's policy goal of encouraging tourism
and promoting the recreational use of such lands." And what has to do with encouraging tourism
and promoting the recreational use of such lands doesn't need a Center and what
does need a Center can be used to pump energy into existing Centers in
The court,
perhaps rightly, does not want to usurp what should be the job of other parts
of government. But the status quo of always looking for unused land outside of
developed centers is a habit we will not break until the countryside is gone or
until some judge yells, "Wake up." Governor Corzine,
prove me wrong!
Smart Growth is
growing/reusing/revitalizing on land already used. Something that should not be
that hard in
reward enough for a cash strapped state. We
solve two problems at once: Revitalize the city, which we claim we really want
to do, and stop the ruination of what's left of the environment, which we claim
we will do next chance-not now. "..... the State
Planning Act's mandate to create a vision for the future of our state"
allows the postponement until next time and then to the next time and then the
next time.
Sincerely,
Mike
King, Chairman
c: NJ Office of Smart Growth
Court approves of town centers
> OKs designations for development, but stresses
environmental rules
>
> BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
> Star-Ledger Staff
>
> A state appeals court yesterday upheld the State
Planning Commission's
> designation of five development-friendly
"centers" in rural
> made clear they serve only as "flexible
guidelines" that do not trump other
> environmental regulations.
>
> The ruling was hailed as a victory by both the
Attorney General's Office, which
> defended the designations, and the Sierra Club, which
had challenged them.
>
> Susan Kraham, who argued
the Sierra Club's case, said the ruling sends "a clear
> signal" that designation as a town center is not
a "shortcut" that clears the
> way for development even if it means
"environmental degradation."
>
> "People should have the same protections whether
they live in rural, suburban or
> urban areas," said Jeff Tittel, director of the
Sierra Club's
> chapter. He called the ruling "a victory for
environmental justice."
>
> Peter Aseltine, a spokesman
for Attorney General Zulima Farber, said the office
> is "pleased the court upheld the decisions of
the planning commission and
> recognized the expertise of the commission in matters
involving the State Plan."
>
> The three-judge appeals court rejected the Sierra
Club's arguments that the
> State Planning Commission violated the Open Meetings
Act, conflict of interest
> rules and its own regulations in designating the
centers. They are the
> and Hainesville village
centers in Sandyston, and the Montague,
>
>
> But the court also ruled such designations -- like
the State Plan itself --
> serve merely as a "policy guide."
>
> "Designation of a center under the State Plan
does not mean that development can
> or will occur without regard to state and local land
use, environmental
> considerations, and other planning needs," the
court wrote. "Any development
> that does occur in Sandyston,
Montague,
> meet all terms and conditions for approval, including
those generated by other
> agencies with a legitimate subject matter
interest."
>
> Kraham said that
"sends a strong signal" that designation as a town center may
> not be used as "a surrogate for environmental
considerations in permitting
> decisions."
>
> "It's not enough to go to your local planning
board and say: 'I'm in a
> designated center; I should be approved,'" Kraham said.
>
> But she said it was "unfortunate" the court
rejected the Sierra Club's argument
> that none of the five centers should have been
designated because they are in
> "environmentally sensitive areas."
>
> In its ruling, the court acknowledged the rural
character of the proposed
> centers. It noted, for example, that two-thirds of
> either the
>
> "Although it is sensible to argue that there
should not be any development in
> such close proximity to environmentally protected
national and state forests and
> parks, the State Plan's policy goal of encouraging
tourism and promoting the
> recreational use of such lands suggests
otherwise," the court wrote.
>
> It added, "To invalidate action taken by the
agency charged by statute with the
> creation, development and interpretation of the State
Plan would constitute
> impermissible judicial intervention in this highly
complex and technical area."
>
> Eileen Swan, executive director of the state Office
of Smart Growth, called the
> ruling "truly a victory for the State
Plan." She said, "This reinforces the
> State Planning Act's mandate to create a vision for
the future of our state."
>
> The unsigned ruling was issued by Appellate Division
Judges Howard Kestin, Jose
> Fuentes and Naomi Eichen.
>
> Robert Schwaneberg covers
legal issues. He may be reached at
> rschwaneberg@starledger.com or (609) 989-0324.
>
> © 2006 The Star Ledger