Final Campaign Report

(There's a link to the Rowan archive about the Freeholder debate at the end of this article.)


11/22/05
2005 Campaign Report

(By Chuck Woodrow, Freeholder Candidate)


I decided to run for Freeholder instead of Assembly because most of the members of the Gloucester County local live in different Assembly Districts than I, so I figured I could generate more interest as well as more help by running for a county office. The local pretty much became my campaign committee.

Much of what drives me to run is the particular political situation here in South-West Jersey. The Camden/Gloucester County area is the home base for a powerful political boss named George Norcross. Norcross is a banker who channels money mainly from developers into local Democratic campaigns. He controls all state legislative seats touching Camden, Gloucester and Salem Counties, as well as all Freeholder seats in both Camden and Gloucester. These Democrats vastly outspend the local Republicans in every race.

The Norcross cabal is also the source of the “Fast Track” law, which is a giveaway to the developers to the detriment of the environment. Environmental groups have been calling for the repeal of the law, and the Sierra Club withdrew its standard endorsement of all the Norcross legislators and gave it to their Republican challengers instead. These events made the local papers.

I see this situation as a classic example of the Democrats betraying their traditional base (in this case the environmentalists) and demonstrating how corporate money overrules their alleged system of values. Since this was as clear a case of the Democrats’ hypocrisy as we could hope to get, I felt compelled to make as much hay out of the situation as possible.

It so happens that State Senator Sweeney, who was the original sponsor of the “Fast Track” bill, is also the Director of the Gloucester County Freeholders. And also that he was up for election this year as a Freeholder. By running directly against Sweeney I could raise the Norcross/Fast-Track issues while running at the County level, and could hope to influence the local Assembly races as well. Not to mention publicizing the Green Party and extolling our values.

This was an extremely low-budget campaign. We put material I wrote on the internet with the help of our webmaster, Frank. We created a simple flyer which pointed to the internet site, bundled it with our GlouCo Green Party brochure and with Matt’s brochure, and distributed it through a very limited mailing, through a tabling event, and via individual members handing them out or putting them in doors.

I wrote several letters to editors, and several of our other members also got letters published. I must say that one newspaper, the Gloucester County Times, was amenable to publishing our stuff while 2 other local papers basically ignored us. The Times also helped us by publishing a rather long piece which I submitted to them as part of a voter’s guide. We also placed some 63 lawn signs, most of them received free from Matt, the others leftovers from earlier campaigns.

We also hosted a candidate’s event in Glassboro which included Matt and Rich as well as myself. And I got myself invited to speak at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon after initially being ignored. (I was actually on the same agenda with Forrester that day, although Corzine didn’t show).

I also participated in a radio debate with the other Freeholder Candidates at Rowan University. I think the campaign’s high point, as far as getting us publicity (and thereby credibility), was having a candid color headshot of me on the front page of the Times, along with shots of my opponents, on the morning after that debate. The accompanying story wasn't too bad, with the paper quoting me a couple times on topics of their choosing.

We got 2562 votes. I later found actual voter turnout numbers for the county, so I can tell you that 3.3 % of all voters who either went to the polls or submitted absentee ballots voted for me. This was very similar, percentage-wise, to our results when Peggy and I ran for Assembly 2 years ago, even though I thought we had gotten more and better publicity this time.

I was disappointed by the Democrats’ romp over the Republicans in all races, a big victory for the Norcross cabal despite the cases made against them by us and by the Sierra Club and by the Courier Post’s investigative reports. Of course they were the incumbents, and they did outspend the Republicans by very large amounts.

We spent under 200 dollars on this race. The Dems reportedly raised 900,000 dollars for this Freeholder race alone.


A few weeks before the election I saw a full page ad in Newsweek magazine for the Cooper Medical Center in Camden. TV star Kelly Ripa appeared in the ad alongside none-other than George Norcross.

Then, starting a week or 2 before the election, I started seeing ads for the same hospital on a major Philadelphia TV network during “Jeopardy”. Norcross interacting with sick kids. No politics, no campaign finance reporting, but an image-fixer aimed at just those voters who knew from the newspapers who Norcross was.

I have not seen that ad since the election.


That is what we are up against.





The link to the Rowan Radio archive about the Freeholder debate follows.
Unfortunately their website cuts off the G.C. Times story before one of my quotes, and doesn't include the front-page photos. (And the Times' website uses no photos and only archives for two weeks.)

http://wgls.rowan.edu/archive/2005/2005-10-18.html

What can the Greens do to lower property taxes?

Note: We periodically move this article to the top of the list. Please read the others as well. There is an index on the right side of the page. Thank you.


What can the Greens do to lower property taxes?

Property taxes are affected by actions taken at all levels of government: national, state, and local. When funding for various services is not forthcoming from the higher levels of government then the local government is left holding the bag. Hence more property taxes. In recent years the federal government has provided less and less aid to the states, and the states have, in turn, provided less and less aid to the local governments.

I will first address the issue of tax laws, which originate primarily in the federal and state legislatures. I will then address the issue of waste in spending, which is often at the local level and which is often the result of political paybacks.

The federal government has made some very deep tax cuts since the Bush administration came in, and the reduced funding for state and local governments is the direct result. The bulk of these tax cuts have been for capital gains, stock dividends, other investment income, and inheritance. The effect of these tax cuts, as intended, is to nearly eliminate income taxes on “unearned” income. So the bulk of the federal budget is placed on the backs of wage-earners, meaning the middle class. The very wealthy, whose income comes primarily from existing money making more money, are now paying taxes on just a tiny percentage of their income.

Perhaps the most insidious of these tax cuts is on the inheritance tax. There were already no taxes on the first 2 million dollars of inheritance. If the President and Congress were concerned about the retention of small businesses and family farms, as they claimed, they could have raised that figure to say 10 million. Instead the Congress, with the support of many Democrats as well as the Republicans, has totally eliminated the inheritance tax. This means that someone like Bill Gates can literally leave 50 billion dollars to his heirs and they will pay zero in taxes.

The taxes paid by corporations are also in a steep decline, thanks to tax shelters and legislated tax breaks to various companies for various reasons.

All of the tax cuts mentioned, corporate or personal, are the result of our legislators taking campaign contributions from large corporations and their super-rich CEOs.

The federal government has made up for the loss of those taxes by cutting aid to the states, which then cut aid to the local governments. So the taxes which used to be collected on the unearned income of the very wealthy have been passed on to homeowners in the form of property taxes. (Don’t be confused by the war spending. The plan to cut aid to the states was already being implemented prior to the War on Terror.)

The Green Party advocates progressive taxation, which means that as the amount of a person’s income goes up so does the percentage of taxes. Those tax cuts for investment income would be eliminated and the overall income would be taxed at the new rates, which would be higher than now for the very wealthy and lower than now for the working poor. The result would be more income taxes collected, all of the increase coming from the wealthy, which would relieve property taxes. Those who profit the most from our free society should give the most back. (Incidentally, progressive federal income taxes were the norm back in the 1970s and prior. That was before the large corporations controlled both major political parties via campaign funding.)

The Greens also advocate the reinstatement of the inheritance tax, the raising of taxes on corporations, and the closing of corporate loopholes.

The New Jersey state legislature, like the U.S. Congress, has the option of enacting a progressive state income tax to make the wealthy pay their fair share and thus reduce property taxes. Unfortunately the Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature also receive campaign contributions from corporations.


Now let’s consider what can be done at the local level to cut spending.

The one huge thing we can do is to eliminate Pay-to-Play. This is the practice of awarding no-bid contracts to campaign contributors. The New Jersey legislature has recently enacted a rather inadequate Pay-to-Play law. Part of what makes it inadequate is that it applies to state contracts only, making Pay-to-Play legal at the county and municipal level. Only a handful of municipalities and 2 counties have enacted their own Pay-to-Play laws. Gloucester County is not among them.

No-bid contracts are very likely to be inflated contracts. That is the whole point of the bidding process. And contracts given for the purpose of repaying campaign contributors may even be questionable in terms of the services being necessary. Just recently the local papers exposed a no-bid contract given by Gloucester County to a PR firm which is known to make political contributions. A hundred thousand dollars was paid to this firm whose primary assignment was to come up with a county slogan. It may be presumed that many other such contracts have not come to the attention of the press, given the myriad departments, boards and councils that come under the auspices of the County Freeholders.

There are also ways to repay campaign contributors which go beyond service contracts. The biggest campaign contributors in the State of New Jersey, as a group, are the developers. The county is regularly involved in development projects, land-use planning, and administering land-preservation grants. The county is in a position to help developers find and acquire land, to have land zoned for development, and to give developers “incentives” in the form of county-provided infrastructure, services, tax breaks, or subsidies.

The potential to waste vast amounts of taxpayer money through no-bid contracts and “corporate welfare” for developers and others exists at the county level. Considering that Pay-to-Play is legal here, and that at least some no-bid contracts are known to exist, this should be a serious concern to homeowners who pay property taxes.

Green Party candidates are in a unique position to fight Pay-to-Play. That is because Green Party candidates will not accept campaign contributions from corporations, other businesses, PACs or other special interests. We owe nothing to corporate campaign contributors in either perception or in fact. Not even to lean in their direction on close calls or minor issues. Because the only campaign contributors we have are people.

Placing even one Green, such as myself, on a Board of Freeholders which is otherwise all Democrats will help curb no-bid contracts and corporate welfare. As a Freeholder I will see what is going on. I will view the county government from my background as a senior systems analyst and from my value system as a Green. When I see things I don’t like I will raise the issues with the board and with the public.

I don’t like Pay-to-Play, and I don’t like corporate welfare.



Charles Woodrow
Candidate for Gloucester County Freeholder

Commerce Bank, George Norcross, Steve Sweeney, and No-Bid Contracts

The following article was written for the North Jersey Media Group (northjersey.com) in May of 2003. It has been cut down from 13 pages to include just those paragraphs of most interest to Gloucester County residents. Lines will indicate places where text has been removed.

Please read the other articles on this blog. There is an index on the right side of the page.



Banking on your money: Commerce counts on political ties

Wednesday, May 21, 2003

By CLINT RILEY
STAFF WRITER


With help from taxpayers and government deregulation, Commerce Bancorp has expanded into one of the nation's fastest-growing suppliers of financial services - and New Jersey's most impressive political benefactor since the Pennsylvania Railroad controlled politicians and public policy a century ago.

Few of the thousands of new customers flocking to Commerce's big red C realize that this $17.7 billion-a-year financial powerhouse is run by a corporate syndicate whose members wield an astonishing breadth of influence over New Jersey's elected officials, the public policy they make, and the taxpayer dollars they spend.

No other bank, bond underwriter, or insurance broker operating in New Jersey has doled out more campaign cash, received more no-bid government contracts, or employed more of the state's politically connected figures in the last five years.

At least five county political bosses, a former acting governor, two former state Senate presidents, and dozens of state and local public officials have received both personal income and campaign contributions from Commerce Bancorp.

----------

In New Jersey counties and municipalities where party bosses and local political leaders have financial ties to the bank, Commerce obtains a sizable portion of government banking, underwriting, and financial advisory work without formal competitive bidding.

Last year, two-thirds of all long-term bonds underwritten primarily by Commerce were not put out for bid, compared with less than half of those handled by its nearest competitor, Wachovia Securities. Commerce was the primary underwriter in 64 negotiated bond deals (out of 94 deals), a total more than four times the 15 no-bid deals underwritten by Wachovia (out of 33 deals). The Commerce no-bid deals were worth $1.5 billion; Wachovia's were worth $392 million.

--------------

Hill says Commerce is just doing what its many governmental customers want.

"It's not our choice whether the municipalities go competitive or non-competitive,'' he says. "It's theirs.''

Whoever makes the call, taxpayers typically end up paying higher fees in no-bid deals, especially when the contracts go to suppliers that make political contributions, says Robert B. Lamb, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business.

-----------------

Today, George Norcross, 47, and Buckelew, 74, sit on Commerce Bancorp's main 13-member board of directors and are two of the company's largest stockholders. Norcross is also chief executive officer of Commerce Insurance Services, and a top adviser to McGreevey and other prominent state Democrats. Buckelew, a major Republican fund-raiser, is president of the bank's Shore division.

The 1996 purchase of George Norcross' and Buckelew's insurance companies - and the installation of the two political heavyweights in Hill's executive suites - gave Commerce an immediate one-two political punch. Overall spending by Compac NJ exploded, to almost $654,000 last year from $72,000 in 1996.

Compac NJ's donations, however, are only a fraction of the campaign dollars connected to Commerce. Since 1997, bank executives, board members, lobbyists, and consultants on Commerce's payroll have conservatively helped raise an additional $10 million for New Jersey politicians through dozens of political funds.

An example is First Jersey PAC, headed by George Norcross. In one recent 18-month period, First Jersey PAC gave $408,500 to county parties and candidates and $489,400 to candidates running for the Assembly and state Senate.

-----------

Indeed, Commerce's expansion has run on a parallel track to the bank's political donations. Since 1997, Commerce's total assets have grown from $2.9 billion to $17.7 billion by the end of 2002. Its overall government deposits have risen from less than $500 million to more than $2.5 billion.

More than $1.8 billion of those government deposits belong to New Jersey taxpayers.

Public business, private business

The foundation of Commerce's power is capital - both the monetary and political varieties - and the ability to grant access to it.

Simply put, Commerce and its leaders have what others crave. Politicians want campaign dollars, lawyers need billable hours, and developers seek financing and subsidies for the sewers and highway ramps that will help their projects sell.

Commerce's extraordinary reach allows its executives and board members to bring politicians, lawyers, and developers together for mutual benefit.

For watchdog groups, however, the interlocking political and financial relationships between policymakers and Commerce executives and board members, including private business deals, raise a vital question: Can officeholders with ties to both the bank and the public be counted on to make decisions on behalf of the people they represent, rather than to benefit those who supply them with campaign cash and personal income?

--------

In his successful 2001 campaign for state Senate, Democrat Stephen Sweeney - already director of the Gloucester County Board of Freeholders - raised $1.8 million, a state record for a legislative race. His opponent, incumbent Raymond Zane, raised just under $711,000.

The man behind much of Sweeney's money was his boyhood friend, George Norcross.

In February 2002, barely four months after Sweeney's victory, Gloucester County and the Gloucester County Utilities Authority each completed no-bid agreements with Commerce Capital Markets to refinance bond debts of $11 million and $4.7 million, respectively.

On the county bond issue, Commerce shared a $68,000 underwriting fee with Salomon Smith Barney. It made approximately $30,000 on the utilities authority's bond.
The same month, Compac NJ contributed $9,250 to the Gloucester County Executive Committee.

Furthermore, each bond deal was legally blessed by a law firm with close allegiances to Commerce. Parker, McCay & Criscuolo - whose lead bond lawyer, Philip Norcross, is Commerce's campaign finance lawyer - made $26,500 on the county deal. Blank Rome LLP, Commerce's corporate counsel, made $40,000 on the utilities authority deal.

Both law firms contributed heavily to political funds benefiting county Democrats and Sweeney. From 1998 through 2002, Parker, McCay gave $52,500 to the Gloucester County Democratic Committee, and Blank Rome gave $41,500. Parker, McCay gave $9,800 to Sweeney's 2001 campaign, and Blank Rome contributed $7,500.

Sweeney did not return a reporter's call seeking comment.

Zane, the man Sweeney defeated, was not shy when drawing conclusions about his opponent's backers. In an interview after his loss, Zane said, "This business of raising a million dollars for a $49,000 legislative seat is nonsense. This was a major investment by people who look to gain personally."

Chamber of Commerce Speech

The following is the text of the 5-minute speech given by Freeholder Candidate Charles Woodrow to the Gloucester County Chamber of Commerce, at their "Meet the Candidates" luncheon on 10-07-2005:



When I say something like “You Folks”, I will be referring to business people, particularly those who do business with the state or local government, or who aspire to.

These days both major parties are preoccupied with soliciting campaign contributions from businesses of all sizes. The politicians themselves complain about the amount of time they have to spend doing these solicitations. But they do them for a very good reason. The reason is that the candidate who raises the most campaign money wins 96% of the time. (That is based on U.S.Congressional races).

I am sure some of you out there actually make political contributions for the sake of “Good Government”. Although one might dispute the idea that “good government” can arise from a system in which the elections are virtually always won by whichever candidate can afford the most negative TV ads.

I would assume that most of you, being business persons, make such contributions because they are good for your business. Or maybe because the failure to make them would be bad for your business. You perceive, reasonably, that you have a better chance of getting business from state and local governments if you have given money to the incumbents than if you haven’t.

Capitalism, in its ideal form, promotes competition between businesses. Competition rewards hard work, innovation, a job well done.

But today, you are no longer competing for government business on the basis of your hard work, or through the high quality of your services, or with your innovative ideas. You are competing to spend the highest dollar amount on political contributions among companies in your field.

And that is a competition which the largest and richest corporations will win every time.

Your largest competitors have a huge competitive advantage which goes way beyond their size alone. They can afford the perfectly legal political payoffs required to get the government contracts which you may be equally qualified to perform.

I will not even get into the tax breaks and subsidies often written into legislation for specific large corporations.

It is not unusual for a New Jersey state legislator to receive well over a million dollars in campaign contributions. Well over half of that generally comes through political committees. The big contributors route their money through such committees to avoid spending limits and to obscure their identities. And it’s legal.

So what would make this situation better? I believe that most of you truly believe that “fairer” would be better. You are proud of your products and services and you are prepared to compete. You just want a level playing field.

Two things would help level the playing field. One is campaign finance reform. The other is the elimination of Pay-to-Play in all of its manifestations. These have been two of the Green Party’s signature issues for many years.

The state legislature has made a half-hearted attempt recently to “be seen as” addressing both issues. They may eventually succumb to public pressure to provide real reform. The Green Party will be among those applying the pressure. Voting Green is a way of expressing your displeasure with the inherent unfairness in the existing Campaign Financing and Play-to-Pay systems.

In addition to “advocating” clean campaigns, Green Party candidates run them, by refusing to accept contributions from corporations, businesses, developers, PACs, or special interests.

If elected to the job of Freeholder, I will propose a Pay-to-Play ordinance for the county, which, by the way, does not have one. My proposal will look at money routed through political committees, and money for non-Freeholder campaigns, such as when a Freeholder also runs for a legislative office. Plus it will eliminate no-bid contracts.

I will also propose a “conflict-of-interest” ordinance, which will require a Freeholder to abstain from voting on any motion which stands to directly benefit a campaign contributor.

I will ask for the public’s help in putting pressure on the Freeholders to adopt these ordinances.

One more thought:

The Gloucester County Board of Freeholders is currently comprised of seven Democrats. I am the only Independent running. Regardless of what happens in this election, the Democrats will control the Board.

So, if elected, I will have no power to make policy, just the power to influence it. There can be no Green control, but there can be Green “input”.

If you are interested in having a diversity of ideas, and a diversity of points of view, represented on the Board of Freeholders, then this is your opportunity.

Thank you.

Proposed "Conflict of Interest" Law for Gloucester County Freeholders

The following is the body of a letter I wrote to the Courier Post, outlining a "Conflict of Interest" ordinance which I intend to propose to the Gloucester County Freeholders.....



The preponderance of campaign contributions from corporations, developers and other special interests undermines democracy itself by making our elected officials more indebted to the contributors than to the voters. Our current “safeguard” against contributors buying favors, a limit on contributions, is legally and routinely circumvented by the practice of routing large contributions through political committees.

As a candidate for Gloucester County Freeholder I will be pushing a strong “Pay-to-Play” law for the county, which does not currently outlaw pay-to-play. I will also be going a step further by proposing a “Conflict of Interest” law.

This law would require Freeholders to abstain from either debating or voting on any motion which would directly benefit one of their “major” contributors. A “major” contributor would be defined as someone who gave more than an allowable amount of money (perhaps $400 in the past 4 years) either to any campaign in which the Freeholder has run (for any office) or to any political committee which in turn channeled money to the Freeholder.

Since “following the money” can get complicated, a stiff penalty for knowingly violating the law would be needed to ensure compliance.

A number of cities out west have added campaign contributions to their traditional “conflict of interest” ordinances, typically citing the fact that developers were exercising too much influence over their city councils. Most of these laws have resulted in dramatic decreases in political contributions by developers, and thus in their influence.


Charles Woodrow
Green Party Candidate for Freeholder

"Green" Pay-to-Play Legislation Proposed

Brian Unger, the Green Party Candidate for Freeholder up in Monmouth County, has researched, written and proposed a Pay-to-Play Law for that county known as the "Public Accountability in Contracting Act". I would propose that my fellow Green's fine work become the basis for similar Pay-to-Play legislation here in Gloucester County, which like Monmouth has no such law at present.

The article which follows was a Press Release which appeared in the Atlantic Highlands Herald for August 25, 2005.

Charles Woodrow
Candidate for Gloucester County Freeholder



UNGER PROPOSES PAY-TO-PLAY LAW FOR COUNTY FREEHOLDERS

Calls for public bids on all contracts to cut spending

FREEHOLD, NJ — County Freeholder candidate Brian Unger delivered his campaign finance reform and pay-to-play legislative proposal to the Monmouth County Freeholders Thursday, Aug. 18 at an afternoon workshop session.

The proposal, which he terms the "Public Accountability in Contracting Act," or PACA, eliminates no-bid contracts of any sort and forbids granting any contracts over $10,000 to any individual or business that contributes more than $400 to the political campaign of any county officeholder who has influence over the award of contracts. It forbids current contractors from contributing to the campaigns of incumbent officeholders, and it also bans county contracts with any business or individual who make such contributions for a period of four years.

"The time for slick rhetoric has truly passed," said Unger today in Freehold at the County Courthouse. "Belmar has acted, Long Branch has acted, dozens of towns throughout the state have acted. Monmouth County is the center of the biggest corruption and government waste scandal in New Jersey. Let’s have the toughest pay-to-play legislation now. Let’s have the toughest ban on wheeling now. Let’s ban double-dipping, job tacking, unnecessary free cars and gasoline for county employees, let’s enact a hiring freeze now, at the next freeholders meeting," declared Unger.

In Unger’s plan, contributions no higher than $400 to an individual campaign, or $2,400 countywide to candidates, political committees and PACs would be permissible.

Unger said that well-established constitutional rights protected political donations as
free speech but that limitations were up to local legislatures.

Unger’s proposed ban includes municipal, county, or state committees that ‘wheel’ money into Monmouth County from the outside. The measure would weaken the influence of powerful political bosses who have boasted that they control governors and gubernatorial candidates. New Jersey’s political chieftains dole out lucrative contracts and jobs to themselves and their political allies, fueling government spending with highly paid no-show and low-show jobs and wasteful no-bid service contracts.

For the first time in county history, Unger’s plan would establish a transparent, open public bidding and contracting process with bidders disclosing up front all previous campaign contributions to elected officials’ political war chests.

For the first time, every contract awarded by the county for professional services, without exception, could be awarded only after a competitive contracting process as defined in federal standards at Title 40A:11-4.1, et seq.

""Why not stop the no-bid contracts and excessive patronage now," Unger asked in a prepared statement. "Let’s slash the 269 free cars, free gas, and free car insurance in half, now. Let’s legislate an end to double-dipping, job tacking, pension padding, and nepotism now; because the taxpayers in Rumson, Asbury Park, Belmar, Spring Lake, Matawan, Bradley Beach and all the towns can’t wait for a tax roll-back they expect and deserve from Monmouth County government."

Unger’s legislation forces the county freeholders to commit to a public on-line database for county bids and contractual documents, including all requests for proposals, bids, work projects, professional services, and related correspondence, documentation and executed contracts. All the information would be available to any member of the public or the media for easy examination on the county website.

Unger said that after job cuts and a hiring freeze, he would recommend the creation of a non-political, non-partisan Inspector General for Campaign Donation Compliance ("IGCDC") to provide the public and the media any information requested regarding campaign financing or county contracts.

"This position would not and could not have any taint of political affiliation," said Unger. "It cannot be an elected or appointed official, functionary, representative, employee, or legal, political or communications counsel of any candidate, any party, or any political organization," said Unger. "I would like to see this position come from a respected and well-educated member of the clergy, the non-profit world, the world of advocacy, public service, academia, or business, with no functioning ties to any political party or organization whatsoever."

"In an April 14 commentary to a local newspaper, Freeholder Amy Handlin said we must "analyze" what has happened in Monmouth County with all this corruption, bid rigging and ridiculous over-spending," stated Unger. "Today I say to Amy Handlin, William Barham and the other freeholders, "Analyze this! What are you doing? Why are you not doing what you should be doing now, right now?"

"When does the rhetoric and posturing stop; when does this freeholder board enact real pay-to-play legislation? When do you move from words to action? For how long do you put off the voters saying you are waiting for our state legislature, the most corrupt body of politicians in the region, exceeded only by New York State’s infamous legislative body?"

Unger said several local attorneys assisted with the research and writing of his proposed PACA legislation.

What can the Greens do to prevent the disappearing farm land?

What can the Greens do to prevent the disappearing farm land?


The Greens believe that government officials should have a sense of stewardship for the environment. All land use plans, policies and practices should be based on “sustainable” development, which preserves open spaces.

Sustainability is one of the Greens’ key values. By some estimates there will be no place left to build in New Jersey in just one generation. At this rate South Jersey will have the same problems with overpopulation, traffic and pollution that North Jersey has now in our children’s lifetime if not our own.

In order to stop the disappearance of both farmland and natural areas we need to (a) implement programs specifically designed to prevent the sale of farms and natural areas to developers, (b) slow down the spread of housing developments, and (c) incorporate environmental friendly concepts and technologies into the planning process.

The tool most commonly used today to preserve open spaces is called an “easement”. An easement is a legal agreement in which a landowner sells (or donates) the development rights to his land. The person still owns the land but he, and all future owners of the property, are restricted from certain specific usages such as development. The buyer then “holds” the easement and is responsible for enforcing it. In other words an owner who doesn’t abide by the easement must be taken to court.

New Jersey, as with many states these days, has a Farmland Preservation program. Grants for easements are issued through this program to counties, municipalities, or non-profit organizations. Grants for other options, such as direct sales of the property, are also available but the bulk of farmland preservation is accomplished through easements. This is a program which should be continued and expanded as much as is feasible.

It is worth noting that in many cases the public money spent to purchase development rights on a tract of land is less than what the cost would have been for a municipality to provide the infrastructure for a housing development.

Gloucester County has a Farmland Preservation Program as well, which is funded primarily by the state program, with about a third of it coming from Gloucester County taxpayers, who voted for the program via referendum.

I would advocate one major change to the county’s Farmland Preservation Program. The county funds and administers the program and provides the expertise for drawing up the legal documents. This how it should be. When the process is complete, the county becomes the sole “holder” of the easement. This is my area of concern.

One of the key responsibilities of the easement holder is to monitor the easement. An established non-profit environmental group, such as the local chapter of the Sierra Club or the South Jersey Land Trust, is more certain to have a long-term interest in monitoring the easements and keeping them enforced than a government body. While the elected officials and their appointees who originally obtain the easements may believe strongly in the program, officials, ruling parties, policies, and even laws are subject to periodic change. A future Freeholder Board may have new priorities which could lead to the easements being left unenforced, forgotten, or maybe even sold. The misuse of employee pension funds by a number of corporations reminds us that nothing is really permanent.

I would propose that the county partner with a well-vetted environmental group as co-holders. This would prevent the easements from being forgotten or quietly dispensed with. Such partnerships are written into the charters of certain other publicly-funded land preservation programs.

The county also has a similar but smaller program for the preservation of “natural areas”. My comments would apply to that program as well.

The subject of “slow-tracking” the spread of housing developments is one upon which I have expounded in other articles. The short version is this: the rapid spread of sprawl in New Jersey is the result of large amounts of campaign money going from the developers to politicians, who in turn grease the path for development. By electing Greens to all levels of government we will have highly ethical officials, from the political party which refuses to accept campaign contributions from corporations, businesses, PACs, or special interests, in positions where they can see what is going on and raise the red flags.

Finally, “Green” concepts which reduce the consumption of open space should be used in planning as we move forward, such as:

Encouraging higher-density communities and urban infill development.

Locating schools, places of employment, medical facilities, and shopping areas within easy walking distances of residences, reducing the need for roads (and cars).

Promoting appropriate public transit and locating housing near the stops.

Supporting efforts to redevelop, restore and revitalize impacted local ecosystems.

Promoting the restoration and revitalization of degraded lands.



Chuck Woodrow
Candidate for Gloucester County Freeholder