Replies

Look you can argue all you want about "Constitutional Rights" and while I normally would agree with you, this situation is quite a bit different.

What we are talking about here is a plan that would stop large developments in the Highlands Region. Small developments in properly zoned areas would still be allowed.

You want to talk about rights ?? How about my rights to keep my property in the way I bought it ? For 30 years I lived on property that never flooded. Now that huge developments have gone in on the watershed all around me, my land floods everytime we have a decent rain.

What about my rights ?? What about my rights to live in a Township where the rate of government services stays stable or shrinks... Now that we have 10,000 new residents in the last 10 years, we need more roads, more police, bigger schools....who pays for this ?? The Taxpayer, mostly people who have lived here most of their lives, who now have to foot the bill for big development projects we never wanted and never needed. Two years ago the County took a 15 foot right of way off my land to widen the road because now there are too many cars heading to and from those big developments and shopping centers.

How about my rights. How about my right to live in a community that isn't sued every year by another big developer who bought zoned land and now decides that are going to bankrupt the town if we don't allow them to build what they want, zoning or no zoning.

How about my neighbors rights to farm his land ? His farm has been in his family for 4 generations but now is at risk because of high local property (school) taxes and the complaints from people who live in the big new development next to him "that his machinery is loud and the fertilizer smells".

Everybody has rights but those rights come with responsibilities. I own land, it's my land but I also realize I can't put a chemical dump on it just because I want to. In a world where everyone was isolated and no cause had an effect, then absolute private property rights would make sense. We don't live in that world. If you or I are doing something on our property that screws over other people, then it becomes their business. The constitutional rights of huge land speculators/developers like Hovnanian and Toll Brothers don't outweigh tose of the rest of us. If they had built in a responsible manner, people would have welcomed them with open arms but they did not. They have no constitutional right to speculate on land and expect taxpayers to foot the bills for their huge development projects.

Big developments in the Highlands have the potential to screw over hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans. I am not a fan of regional planning but in the state we live in today, with the development pressures we face, it seems to be the only system that makes sense. Local planning and zoning boards have become almost helpless to stop development they do not want and cannot afford. The only way to fight it is for communities to be grouped together in a regional structure. I don't know if the Highlands legislation is the answer, I have only read parts of the plan but something has to be done to control the development here that has gone beyond reasonable into the realm of "build as much as you can on every square foot of land and f*ck everyone else".

Regionalism is not the answer. If your property has been harmed by developments near you, you have the right to sue and to protect your property. The answer is not unelected bureaucrats in a phony regional government.

I live in an area that was taken over by so-called phony regional governments and committees and believe me, the Constitution is the only thing that is going to protect your rights. IF your constitutional rights had been valued and protected your attendence at the town meetings about zoning changes or whatever was going on in the community should have protected you. But because the regionalists bypass constitutional government and enact regulations that people take for laws, they get away with murder.

Absolute private property rights are the basis of freedom. You cannot give away _one_ stick in the property rights bundle without having the potential for all of them being taken away.

In my county we have had regional governments and committees for years. They are squeezing everyone out of the rural areas to protect the red legged frog and the water shed. The only housing they are permitting to be built is high density, mixed use. People thought they were going to keep their open space with the regional committees deciding everything for them. Well guess what, no one can afford to build anymore because the permits cost too much and land is too high because it is all being taken out of private hands and put into the "public" domain.

When you say you think the only thing to do is to support regional government you are throwing away everyone's constitutional rights. And you know not what you do, because soon after you give up your rights, worse things are going to happen to your area.

We have a proposal on the table that would penalize farmers in our area if rainwater runs off their land into the watershed. Yes, perfectly natural rainwater is considered a pollutant when it runs into the watershed. Do you know what that is going to do to property ownership and farming in our area? Can you guess? Can you guess who dreamed up the idea to penalize people who have rainwater running off their property? Watch out you are asking for disaster.

Look you can argue all you want about "Constitutional Rights" and while I normally would agree with you, this situation is quite a bit different.

What we are talking about here is a plan that would stop large developments in the Highlands Region. Small developments in properly zoned areas would still be allowed.

In regards to the assertion that your situation is different, I note in the following quote from the text many similarities to what has been implimented in our area (They are in bold print)

The council will have dramatic impact in the long run, but the bill also calls for immediate action in the form of sweeping new regulatory powers by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

DEP would be given the right of first refusal on all property sales in the core, and all development on more than one acre would require a special Highlands permit.

The permitting process would ban development on steep slopes, within 300 feet of all streams and upland forests. It would tighten restrictions on water withdrawals, septic tank installations and "impervious" cover.

You bring up some very good points XRdsRev, but I agree with hedgetrimmer, massive government intervention is an awfully dangerous way to address these issues.

FWIW, these comments are only meant as a warning. Here is a related thread discussing the same issues for others who did not catch it: Interior Department Seeks Legislation for Establishing a National Heritage Area Program