FOHOS' Thoughts re: Signs Asking for a Yes Vote on Open Space Ballot Question

Recently, campaign signs paid for by former Township Committeeman Bob Wagner have appeared around town asking for a yes vote on the November Hillsborough Ballot Question. The stated purpose of a yes vote is to "support our parks and open space". The Friends of Hillsborough Open Space (FOHOS), of which I am a member, has for some time had signs asking for a no vote. The stated purpose of our signs is to support the open space preservation effort by not allowing for the diversion of up to 20% of the open space tax dollars from preservation to undefined development.

Voters might understandably ask the question: "How can both a yes vote and a no vote support open space?". The answer is different depending on how you define "support".

How does a NO vote support open space?: FOHOS believes supporting open space means the continuation of Hillsborough's outstanding open space preservation effort. Development in Hillsborough continues, bringing with it the inevitable increase in traffic as well as upward pressure on school and local property taxes. Hillsborough's Open Space Advisory Committee has identified thousands of acres that remain unprotected that are on their wish list for preservation. Shouldn't we make every effort to preserve these lands while they are still available? The recovery of the housing market will surely lead to increased land values. Slowing down our preservation efforts by reducing the amount of our open space tax dollars available for this purpose will only result in higher costs and less land preserved.

How does a YES vote support open space?: Proponents of a yes vote believe that supporting open space means slowing down the work of preservation in order to further develop open space lands that already exist. When asked to define what is meant by development so that voters will have a clear idea what will be done with the diverted money, the response is that a needs assessment will be done after the ballot question is approved. Does it make sense to ask for up to $310,000 of future open space preservation tax dollars each year to "support open space" development when no needs have yet been identified? The FAQ document recently issued by the Township says that the referendum does not mandate that the full 20% be diverted. Why then is Mayor DelCore on record as saying that unused monies in one year can be carried over to subsequent years? Why is Committeeman Suraci on record as saying that he wishes to build up a fund for future development?

Regarding the request to "support our parks" on the signs asking for a yes vote, the Parks and Recreation website contains a directory of no less than 13 fully developed parks. These parks support a truly amazing array of programs for both children and adults. All this has been accomplished to date without the need for a dime of open space tax money. Prior to casting their ballots, voters should ask themselves why is it necessary to divert tax dollars currently dedicated to preserving farms and open space lands, which will protect the rural character of Hillsborough for this and future generations, to parks that already receive an abundance of support?

Money Magazine identified the importance of a vigorous open space program as a major factor in their recognition of Hillsborough as one of the best places to live in America. The Friends of Hillsborough Open Space continues to ask voters to reaffirm Hillsborough's commitment to open space preservation by voting NO on November 5th.