The 3 "Myths" in the Second Hillsborough Republican Election Committee Mailer Explained with Facts

The second mailer from the Hillsborough Republican Election Committee repeats their repeated false claim that the NJ Sierra Club supports the Open Space Ballot initiative. Jeff Tittel, whose quote was deliberately exploited in order to appear to promote the Open Space Ballot question, is on record as saying, “The Hillsborough Republican Election Committee willfully put in part of a quote without the entire quote to again confuse and misrepresent Sierra Club’s full position”. He then went further: “We urge the people of Hillsborough to vote NO against these dirty tricks and for open space”. Does this sound like “New Jersey's Leading Open Space Advocate Is In Agreement” as claimed in the mailer?

The mailer then proceeds to present three supposed myths they claim. We have listed these myths and provided some facts for Hillsborough voters.

Myth #1:  FOHOS has never claimed that our town is running out of money to acquire open space.

Fact:    Most of the money currently in Hillsborough’s Open Space Trust Fund is not “available” as the Republican Committee claims. The Open Space Advisory Committee’s (OSAC) approved minutes for May state that a large portion of the money in the Fund is already earmarked for pending purchases.  If the ballot question passes, less than 30% of future open space tax revenues would be available to rebuild the fund for additional purchases.  We may not run out of money, but our purchasing power will be severely curtailed.

As for the Somerset County Open Space Trust Fund, the implication in the mailer is that all of the $17 million collected annually is available to Hillsborough.  For the facts concerning the county's actual contribution to local land preservation, consider this statement from the Somerset County website: “The County/Municipal Open Space Partnership Grant Program was established in 1995 to assist municipalities in the acquisition of open space, which would advance local preservation efforts. Since the program’s inception, nearly $14 million dollars has been awarded through the Partnership to help preserve 3,240 acres of open space.” Remember, there are 21 towns sharing this money. In 18 years the county has contributed $14 million (less than $1 million annually) not just to Hillsborough, but to all municipalities.

Passage of this referendum will seriously impact our ability to have the funds needed for significant future purchases or may force Hillsborough to borrow more money in order to finance land purchases. It is precisely because we don’t know when they may become available that we should save as much as possible for when the opportunity arises for land preservation.

Myth #2:  The Township Committee claims they have no preconceived plans for the use of the diverted monies.

Fact:  If they have no specific plans, why did the township committee arrive at such a large amount – up to $310,000 every year starting in January?  At July’s Township Committee meeting, Mayor DelCore stated that the final decisions to select the recreation projects paid for using the diverted funds would be approved by the Township Committee. How does this support their claim of “let the public decide”?   At the May OSAC meeting, the members asked Committeeman Suraci how the money might be used.  The minutes record that, “When asked where he envisioned a need, he said a turf field is needed.”

The Township Committee’s own FAQ says they have “plans to conduct a needs assessment to determine what, if any, recreational development should take place.”  Note the phrase “if any” – if the Township is saying that possibly no needs will be identified, why are we being asked to vote on this question at all?  A needs assessment should have been completed first so that the proper amount, if any, could be determined.

Voters need more transparency from the Township Committee.

Myth #3: The Township Committee states that in some years, the money will not be used at all and in some years only part of the money may be used. The balance would go to preservation.

Fact:   Mayor DelCore is on record as saying that unused funds in a given year can be carried over for use in subsequent years. In addition, Committeeman Suraci is on record in the OSAC’s May minutes that, “he wants to build his fund.”  His fund?  Don't our Open Space tax dollars belong to the public? How do you build “a fund” without diverting the entire 20% every year?  The fact that the money technically remains in the Trust Fund isn’t the issue.  If diverted, the monies in this “fund” have been allocated to uses other than land preservation. Therefore, the establishment of this “fund” is not the fantasy that is claimed in the Republican Election Committee's mailer.

Here is the real Myth that the Republican Committee neglected to bring up and that voters should consider.

Myth #4: The referendum should be passed because the public needs access to open space lands.

Fact: According to the recently released Frequently Asked Questions Pertaining to Open Space Referendum, “The Parks and Recreation Department currently maintains over 200 acres of open space/public parks. There are 9 dedicated staff members assigned to the daily maintenance of this land. The township website produced the Parks and Recreation Parks Directory, a limited list of only 15 of our many parks which include fields for softball, baseball, soccer, lacrosse, tennis and basketball courts, playgrounds and tot-lots, paved and unpaved walking trails, picnic tables and areas, fishing ponds, a skate park, and a roller hockey rink.

Given the township’s own official inventory of acres of parks, trails, and ballfields, how is it possible that the Township Committee, former committee members, and their supporters keep saying that we need access to open space?

To learn more, go to www.facebook.com/fohosnj or www.bit.ly/why_vote_no.