From: OSG Mail
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:34 AM
To: Stevens, Danielle; Pental, Kathleen
Subject: FW: Statewide Issues - Additional Coments
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ESnyder@sussex.nj.us [mailto:ESnyder@sussex.nj.us]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:35 PM
To: OSG Mail
Cc: JEskilson@sussex.nj.us; bobbr@co.cumberland.nj.us; Kratina@co.somerset.nj.us; Lbrennan@monmouthplanning.com
Subject: Statewide Issues - Additional Coments

Thank you for the opportunity to offer additional comments in regard to the SDRP and the Cross Acceptance discussions now underway.  I offer the following points for your consideration:

 

Structure

 

Reconcilitation Statement – There needs to be a statement of reconciliation between the various state agencies and OSG acknowledging that the planning function should and will drive the regulations that exist or will be proposed.  Where there needs to be greater clarity and flexibility the rules should be modified to be consistent with the adopted SDRP.  Additionally, heavy emphasis must be given the need for expeditious action on applications to the state agencies.  Delays in the process add tremendous costs to both development and preservation, all of which are borne by the taxpayers of the state.

 

#2.  This is more a matter of economics and available public moneys to subsidize service.  Densities are a surrogate for adequate demand.

 

#10.  Municipal plans, particularly those having received designation or endorsement must be made part of any regional plan.

 

#14.  From a practical persepective, existing designated centers, if they have followed the PIA or other agreements, should be able to use an update process rather than a full scale PE application to retain their designation.

 

Public Investment Priorities

 

#3.  The SDRP should acknowledge that there are serious tax related impediments to proper land use planning.  As NJ Future notes, a statewide property tax may e an alternative to the local property tax that would eliminate the competition for rateables.  Alternatively, regional tax sharing (as in the Meadowlands) might also provide a disincentive to municipal competition for rateables.  Both would also avoid the avoidance of housing and the consequent bias against children that is funding based. (See also Infrastructure Investments #4)

 

Critical Environmental Sites

 

#16.  We recommend that language making this point clear be added to the SDRP.

 

#20.  Strongly agree with both the comment and response.

 

 

Eric K. Snyder

Sussex County