For the second time this week the N&R conjures a taxpayers-should-beware-but-screw-them-this-one’s-OK editorial. On Sunday it was the Gateway Research Park. Today, it’s land conservation:
The freshly approved state budget includes $8 million for the relatively new Farmland Preservation Trust. In our area, funds from the trust already have been used to buy land for parks and walking trails.
Yet, while not insignificant, that amount only scratches the surface. An all-encompassing statewide conservation program could cost upwards of $1 billion and require referendum approval to issue bonds.
Voters, for the most part, look kindly on conservation initiatives, but the staggering cost may raise doubts. Other possibilities, such as higher water-use fees or a hotel-motel occupancy tax that single out property owners and tourists, rightly have elicited little support…..
Development is inevitable, but safeguards must be in place to protect the environment. Because land is a finite resource, we must use it wisely. It’s going to be expensive, but the state must act now to ensure that future generations have room to live and grow.
Funny, the N&R didn’t mention that the $8 million for farm preservation is part of $128 million the General Assembly included in its budget for land and water conservation, $120 million of which will be issued through certificates of participation.
So we’ve got a $20 billion budget and the state has to borrow money to pay for land and water conservation, and the local paper of record thinks this is OK? I realize I’m hard on the N&R editors, perhaps unjustifiably at times (although I think it’s entirely possible they could be tired of their columinists promoting the Rhino). We have a difference of opinion, but I don’t understand why they don’t see what’s clear as day: our state government spends too much money, period.
