Why I'm voting 'No' on both state ballot questions

By Seth Grossman
The two Statewide Public Questions are as important as any candidates on next Tuesday's ballot. However, we read and hear almost nothing about them.
Question #1 asks voters to let state government borrow another $125 million dollars. The second question asks us to amend our NJ State Constitution--AGAIN!
Voting "yes" on ballot questions is usually a bad idea in New Jersey. Other states let ordinary citizens put questions on the ballot by signing petitions. In New Jersey, only a majority of both the 40 member State Senate and 80 member State Assembly can do that. In practice, that gives just two powerful politicians, Democratic Senate President Steve Sweeney, and Democratic Assembly Speaker Vince Prieto the absolute power to decide what goes on the ballot, and what does not.
Back in 1993, Republican Governor Christie Todd Whitman and Republican candidates for State Senate and Assembly promised to change that when they ran for election. They did win with large Republican majorities in both the State Senate and Assembly. However, they all forgot about "initiative and referendum" (and most of their other promises) right afterwards.
Subscribe
I normally vote "no" on state ballot questions. I am suspicious when politicians who already control state government ask voters to give them even more money and power.
Ballot Question #1 claims state government needs to borrow $125 million, so it could then give that money to selected local governments to build or fix up their local libraries.
We all support public libraries, but there are some devils in these details.
1. New Jersey's system for awarding government construction projects is very political and expensive. Most of the borrowed money would got to union contractors, and no-bid architects, and lawyers who paid for the campaign ads, mail, and phone calls that are overwhelming us.
2. Thanks to Amazon, digital books, and the internet, brick and mortar physical libraries are less important than ever before. Today's public libraries spend enormous resources on movies and video games.
3. State law already mandates that much of our property taxes be spent on public libraries, even when not needed.
4. If a particular town needs money for a library, shouldn't its own residents pay for it? Whenever the state offers "free" money, local officials apply for it whether they need it or not.
5. Finally, borrowed money must be paid back with interest and big Wall Street "transaction fees". Every "yes" vote to borrow money in November, is a "yes" vote for years of future tax hikes to pay it back.
Because of past "yes" votes (and questionable schemes that borrowed money without public votes required by state constitution), New Jersey is already up to its eyeballs in debt. We just raised the gas 23 cents a gallon just to pay back $16 billion owed by the Transportation Trust Fund Authority. State government shut down last summer because of squabbling over paying back the $225 million loan approved by voters in 2012. That money is building Stockton University classrooms and dorms on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City and questionable projects for other colleges. Aren't our property, sales, and state income taxes high enough already?
6. If our local libraries really need that money, and if state officials agree that state taxes should pay for them, let those state officials raise those state taxes now! Aren't you tired of the kabuki dance where politicians get elected promising to cut taxes? But then borrow money and tell us they "had no choice" but to raise taxes to pay the money back?
A "yes" vote on Public Question #2 would AGAIN amend our New Jersey State Constitution. It would require all money collected by the State from environmental lawsuits to "preserve the State's natural resources" and "pay legal and other costs". This sounds like a good idea--until you think through the details.
1. Our amended State Constitution would give 10% of all money collected off the top for "administrative expenses" for bureaucrats of the state's Department of Environmental Protection. As a lawyer, I know abusive and obnoxious government agencies and officials get when fines and penalties become bounties that they depend on to fatten their budgets and salaries.
2. We all want polluters to pay for the damage they create. However, very little pollution is taking place these days. Most pollution stopped in the 1960's, and most environmental lawsuits are brought against unlucky owners of properties who have nothing to do with problems found there today. Most suits against them now are shakedowns.
3. Nothing in the proposed constitutional amendment even suggests that money collected from polluted properties would be used to clean them up. On the contrary, it seems clear that most money will be spent on politically connected lawyers, consultants, environmental activist groups for expensive projects (like sand dunes) that have nothing to do with cleaning up pollution. More money will buy out and bail out political friends from bad real estate deals to "preserve" open space. The amendment is also cleverly worded to most of this money will be paid to people in areas run by entrenched Democrat machines.
4. Even most "legitimate" environment "cleanups" these days are a scam. They simply spend fortunes to move pollutants from one remote place where they harmlessly decay to another.
5. a constitutional amendment would force money desperately needed for other purposes to be spent where it may not be needed at all.
Seth Grossman is a Somers Point attorney and executive director of LibertyAndProsperity.org. The organization maintains a Liberty and Prosperity Facebook page. It meets for breakfast 9:30 am every Saturday at the Shore Diner in Egg Harbor Township by Parkway Exit 36. Seth Grossman can be reached at info@libertyandprosperity.org.