This money is not for cleanup, which polluters are already mandated to pay for; it's to restore the neighborhoods, waterways and marshes that were damaged, and compensate the public for the loss of their use.Restored to what? It's really vague. Currently, governors typically use the money for general budget purposes, or to balance the state budget. This is a shame, since it received very little coverage or debate. I didn't find out about it until about a week and a half before the election—and I read the New Jersey Star-Ledger every day. The voters were only given two choices. I hadn't heard anyone talk about it. So I suspect that most voters didn't know about it until the Star-Ledger editorialized in favor of it on October 30, or until they received their sample ballot. So voters had no other alternatives to consider, such as one I offered which would have moneys going directly to individuals proven harmed, or rebated to NJ residents.
Thursday, November 9, 2017
NJ Question #2, Lacking Discussion or Other Options, Is Approved
My October 31 post, In NJ: ‘No’ on Ballot Question #2, passed by a 2-1 margin. The question concerned money won by the state from polluters beyond what is necessary to clean up the pollution. As the NJ Star-Ledger noted,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If the voters had known of a better alternative such as yours, maybe this measure would have more likely been rejected and the money would keep being used for budget purposes. That would make it easier to put another measure offering a better option like yours to the voters sometime in the future. But, since the voters accepted what they were offered, it'll be harder to offer a better option in the future, let alone actually getting it passed.
Post a Comment