BY ELAINE VAN DEVELDE
Staff Writer
Adversaries of the open space tax have something in common with proponents. Like proponents, they are not against saving open space. They are just against taxing for it.
And now that Edison voters have said no to 15 more years of taxing for open space, advocates say they’ll find another way to get their space. And critics are saying they’ll be happy to help.
Open Space Committee Chairman Walter Stochel was not deterred by the Nov. 2 vote against the ballot question, which would have extended the current open space tax of 1 cent for each $100 of assessed valuation from 2014 to 2029.
“With everything, there is a challenge and this is just a new challenge,” said Stochel. “Regardless, we will carry on preserving what open space we can and try to find new sources of funding.”
Funds from the current tax of 1 cent for each $100 of assessed valuation, which has been in effect since 1999, have been exhausted.
Anthony Russomanno, a former member of the Open Space Committee and a local Democratic municipal committeeman, campaigned against the extension of the open space tax.
But Russomanno said he and other open space tax opponents would be glad to help.
“People don’t seem to understand,” he said. “We are for open space, just against taxing people for it. There are a lot of funding sources out there. The Open Space Committee and officials just have to figure out how to tap into them. Hey, any of us would help.”
The question is how to tap into those funds without the benefit of having a dedicated open space tax.
The trust fund from the tax gives the township an advantage when it comes to grants, Stochel said.
Municipalities that have a dedicated Open Space Trust Fund in their budget are put higher on the grant eligibility list.
Since 1999, the township has preserved 757 acres, according to the Open Space Committee’s inventory.
Of those 757 acres, 181 are acquisitions acquired with the tax for the township. About 480 acres are “existing township-owned lots that have been dedicated as park lands,” Stochel said.
There are about 1,000 acres of open space that preservationists must compete with developers for, he said.
But developers would not be able to acquire more acreage if the land was zoned differently, Russomanno said.
“Officials can just zone to protect that remaining land,” he said. “But no, they make it accessible to developers. Then it costs us more to preserve. It doesn’t make sense.”
Mayor George A. Spadoro disagreed
There are parts of the new master plan, revised last year, that protect land and recommend it for parks or preservation.
Getting land now is important, before prices go up, the mayor said.
Open Space Committeewoman Jane Tousman thinks people would feel more comfortable about the open space tax if they knew where their money was going and what priority purchases were being considered.
‘“There is a deeply ingrained secrecy concerning the price of land in Edison,” she said.
Tousman has been an activist trying to save land and the environment since the 1970s.
“We have our list of properties that we, as an advisory committee, recommend for acquisition,” she said. “There are priorities and acreage and that sort of thing, but there are no price tags. That makes it difficult to pursue land or estimate what is attainable.”
There is another solution.
Dedicating township-owned land as open space will create bigger passive and active recreation tracts, preservationists say.
Land purchased with state Green Acres funds cannot be developed, according to state law.
“We have no choice but to compete with developers to keep whatever land we have left open for the public’s enjoyment,” said Robert Spiegel, executive director of the Edison Wetlands Association, and member of both the Edison Greenways Group and Open Space Committee. “We are in a race with the devil — developers.”
Spiegel said the campaign against the open space tax was political.
“The public has to know what is at stake without that fund for purchasing land,” he said. “This group of opponents did not inform. They misinformed. They should be called the group of citizens against everything.”
Solutions and alternatives need to be presented by adversaries, he said. That would make their cause more credible.
Russomanno and resident Joseph Petrocelli both question why the township couldn’t have used some of the budget surplus this year for open space.
More than $10 million of the surplus was siphoned, leaving a little more than $700,000 as a rainy day cushion.
“We could have spent a little of that money on open space,” Petrocelli said. “Why do we have to have another tax for that?”
The open space tax is needed as a protective measure and to make it easier to secure grants, Spiegel said.
“But residents are tired of being taxed,” Russomanno said. “I’ll donate money to a fund. I’d do that today. But senior citizens like my parents just can’t face more taxes. It should be a choice. There should be other sources.”