Next Tuesday, voters will head to the polls to vote for council members, county executives and other political positions. In addition, they will be asked to vote up or down on ballot questions that hold both local and statewide implications.
Of those, one question that has received a lot of press is Ballot Question No. 3, the Green Acres, Farmland, Blue Acres and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2007. If approved, it will provide $200 million in stopgap funding for one year to these programs while New Jersey decides whether or not to replenish the Garden State Preservation Trust, a program that has successfully provided preservation funding since 1998 but is close to being tapped out.
We ask that voters say “yes” to Question No. 3 on Nov. 6. While it’s not the necessary long-term solution, its approval is vital to keep open space out of the developer’s portfolio. It is vital that towns and farmers wanting to preserve agricultural legacies be given that option. Most important, it’s vital that New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the nation, continues to improve the quality of life for its residents.
Preservation funding means fewer services needed from municipalities. It means historical structures maintained for future generations to learn from and enjoy. It means fewer impermeable paved surfaces, which can cause flooding in low-lying areas. It means fewer natural resources consumed on a daily basis. It means sites like the recently acquired Loveless Nature Preserve, on Eggerts Crossing Road, won’t become another townhouse community when the real estate market heats up again.
Had the GSPT not been approved by voters nine years ago, many places saved from development would have likely been lost. If Ballot Question No. 3 is not approved on Tuesday, many more than the estimated 40 to 50 acres developed per day in this state could quickly follow. Vote “yes” on Ballot Question No. 3 on Election Day.
Blind voting worse than not voting
While the average voter turnout in a local election can rival the average turnout at a local high-school sporting event, those who feel it is their patriotic duty to get out on Election Day but have less than zilch knowledge on who is running or what issues are being decided are doing more harm than good.
Voting the slate, simply choosing one set of candidates because of party affiliation, is toxic. As we said on Oct. 4, local candidates are (we hope) all in it for the best interests of the town and are not running on broadleaf issues that might polarize voters at the national level. Many people decide based on whether they’ve known a candidate outside the political realm or what one might have (or have not) seen or read in The Lawrence Ledger. We hope these pages have provided at least some suitable insight.
Please vote on Nov. 6, but first take the time to get an understanding of what you’re voting for beyond whether someone’s symbol is an elephant or donkey.

