New Jersey Open Space Preservation Funding Amendment, Public Question No. 2 (2014)

Public Question No. 2 Type Constitutional amendment Origin Legislature Topic Environment Status a

2014 measures November 4 Public Question No. 1a Public Question No. 2a Full text Polls

The New Jersey Open Space Preservation Funding Amendment, Public Question No. 2 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in New Jersey as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure was designed to dedicate 6 percent of corporate business tax revenues to open space, farmland and historic preservation. The tax allocation would last from 2016 to 2045. The measure also required that all natural resource damages and environmental fine revenues be allocated to underground storage tank programs and state-funded hazardous discharge cleanups.

The measure ended the current dedication of 4 percent of corporate business tax revenues to environmental programs.

The proposed amendment was introduced into the New Jersey Legislature by Sen. Bob Smith (D-17), Sen. Christopher Bateman (R-16) and Rep. John McKeon (D-27) as Senate Concurrent Resolution 84 and Assembly Concurrent Resolution 130.

Election results

Below are the official, certified election results:

New Jersey Public Question No. 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		925,121	64.78%
No		503,031	35.22%

Election results via: New Jersey Department of State

Text of measure

Ballot title

The proposed ballot text was as follows:

“

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT DEDICATING STATE FUNDS FOR OPEN SPACE, FARMLAND, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND CHANGING EXISTING DEDICATION FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND HAZARDOUS SITE CLEANUPS Do you approve amending the Constitution to dedicate 6% of the Corporation Business Tax revenue each year for the next 30 years? The dedication would be for the preservation of open space, farmland, and historic sites. The amendment would end the current dedication of 4% of that revenue for environmental programs. In addition, the amendment dedicates natural resource damages and fines to fund underground storage tank removals and cleanups and polluted site cleanups? YES NO

”

Ballot summary

The interpretative statement was as follows:

“

INTERPRETIVE STATEMENT This constitutional amendment would provide funding for Green Acres and “Blue Acres” projects. The projects preserve open space, farmland, and historic properties. The amendment would dedicate 6% of Corporation Business Tax revenue each year for the next 30 years for these purposes. The Green Acres program buys land that protects water supplies and preserves open space. The program funds parks, fish and wildlife habitat, and flood prone or affected areas. It also funds park improvements and facilities. “Blue Acres” refers to properties that have been damaged by storms or storm related flooding. The program also purchases properties that appear likely to incur such damage, or that may buffer or protect other lands from such damage. Structures on properties purchased from willing sellers are demolished, the debris is removed, and the land is preserved as open space. This amendment also would end the current dedication of 4% of Corporation Business Tax revenue. That dedication provides funds for water quality programs, public and private hazardous site cleanups, underground storage tank removal and cleanup, air pollution control equipment for diesel engines, and park improvements and facilities. Finally, this amendment would dedicate natural resource damages and fines collected from violations of environmental laws for underground storage tank removals and cleanups and State-funded hazardous site cleanups.

”

Constitutional changes

Public Question No. 2 amended Amend Article VIII, Section II, paragraph 6 of the New Jersey Constitution.

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Amend Article VIII, Section II, paragraph 6 to read as follows:

6. There (a) Commencing July 1, 2015 until June 30, 2045, there shall be credited annually to a special account in the General Fund an amount equivalent to 4% 6% of the revenue annually derived from the tax imposed pursuant to the "Corporation Business Tax Act (1945)," P.L.1945, c. 162 (C.54:10A-1 et seq.), as amended and supplemented, or any other State law of similar effect.

The amount annually credited pursuant to this paragraph subparagraph shall be dedicated and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature only [for the following purposes: paying or financing costs incurred by the State for the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs may include performing necessary operation and maintenance activities relating to remedial actions and costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge; providing funding, including the provision of loans or grants, for the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substances, and for the costs of remediating any discharge therefrom; providing funding, including the provision of loans or grants, for the costs of the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs may include costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge; for paying or financing the cost of water quality point and nonpoint source pollution monitoring, watershed based water resource planning and management, and nonpoint source pollution prevention projects; for providing grants for the costs of air pollution control equipment to reduce the levels of particulate matter emissions from diesel-powered engines, and for funding for other measures to reduce human exposure to those emissions; and for providing funding, including loans and grants, for the development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, and to satisfy any payments relating to bonds, notes, or other obligations, including refunding bonds, issued by an authority or similar entity established by law to provide funding for the development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes] to provide funding, including loans or grants, for: the preservation, including acquisition, development, and stewardship, of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, including lands that protect water supplies and lands that have incurred flood or storm damage or are likely to do so, or that may buffer or protect other properties from flood or storm damage; the preservation and stewardship of farmland for agricultural or horticultural use and production; historic preservation; and administrative costs associated with each of those efforts.

It shall not be competent for the Legislature, under any pretense whatever, to borrow, appropriate, or use the amount credited to the special account pursuant to this paragraph subparagraph, or any portion thereof, for any purpose or in any manner other than as enumerated in this paragraph subparagraph. It shall not be competent for the Legislature, under any pretense whatever, to borrow, appropriate, or use the amount credited to the special account pursuant to this paragraph subparagraph, or any portion thereof, for the payment of the principal or interest on any general obligation bond that was approved by the voters prior to this paragraph subparagraph becoming part of this Constitution.

(a) Fifteen percent of the amount annually credited pursuant to this paragraph shall be dedicated, and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature, only for paying or financing the cost of water quality point and nonpoint source pollution monitoring, watershed based water resource planning and management, and nonpoint source pollution prevention projects.

(b) There shall be credited annually to a special account in the General Fund an amount equivalent to the revenue annually derived from natural resource damages collected by the State as defined by law and all fines collected by the State from violations of environmental laws as defined by law.

The amount annually credited pursuant to this subparagraph shall be dedicated and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature only for the following purposes: providing funding, including the provision of loans and grants, for the upgrade, replacement or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substances, and for the costs of remediating any discharge therefrom; and paying or financing costs incurred by the State for the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs my include performing necessary operation and maintenance activities relating to remedial actions and costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge.

Twenty-five percent of the amount annually credited pursuant to this paragraph subparagraph shall be dedicated, and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature, only for providing funding, including the provision of loans or grants, for the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substances, and for the costs of remediating any discharge therefrom, and for providing funding, including the provision of loans or grants, for the costs of the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs may include costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substances discharge. Of any amount dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) but not expended prior to January 1, 2004, fifty percent of that amount shall be expended on funding for the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substances, and for the costs of remediating any discharge therefrom, and fifty percent hall be expended on funding the costs of the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, including costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge.

Commencing January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2005, fifty percent of the moneys dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) shall be appropriated for funding the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substances, and for the costs of remediating any discharge therefrom, and fifty percent shall be appropriated for funding the costs of the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs may include costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge.

Commencing January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2006, forty percent of the moneys dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) shall be appropriated for funding the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substances, and for the costs of remediating any discharge therefrom, and sixty percent shall be appropriated for funding the costs of the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs my include costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge.

Commencing January 1, 2007 and ending December 31, 2021, the moneys dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) shall be appropriated for funding the costs of the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs may include costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge; but if in any fiscal year during that time the amount previously dedicated and appropriated for funding loans or grants for the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that sore or were used to store hazardous substances, and for the costs of remediating any discharge therefrom, and available for that purpose but not expended, is less than $20,000,000, then in the following fiscal year, fifty-five percent of the monies dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) shall be appropriated for funding loans or grants for underground storage tanks and only forty-five percent of the monies dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) shall be appropriated for funding the costs of the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs may include costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge.

Commencing January 1, 2004, up to $2,000,000.00 per year, which shall be taken from the amount appropriated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) for the costs of the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, may be expended for the costs of a State underground storage tank inspection program, which costs may include the direct but not indirect program administrative costs incurred by the State for the employment of inspectors and a compliance and enforcement staff, and the purchase of vehicles and equipment necessary for the implementation thereof.

All moneys derived from repayments of any loan issued from the amount dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph )b) shall be dedicated, and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature, only for the purposes authorized pursuant to this subparagraph (b). The dedication of moneys derived from loan repayments shall not expire.

Except for moneys that may be expended for the costs of a State underground storage tank inspection program, and except for amounts that may be appropriated from time ti time by the Legislature on or after January 1, 2006, but not to exceed $1,000,000 annually, to administer programs to provide loans and grants for the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substances, no No moneys appropriated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) may be expended on any direct or indirect administrative costs of the State or any of its departments, agencies, or authorities.

Commencing January 1, 2006, funding for administrative costs for programs to provide loans and grants for the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substancaes may be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature from the amount dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (B) for those purposes in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 in any year.

No moneys appropriated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) may be expended on any upgrade, replacement, or closure of any underground storage tank, or for the remediation of any discharge therefrom, for any underground storage tank owned by the State or any of its departments, agencies, or authorities, or for costs incurred by the State for the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances.

Commencing on January 1, 2022, the moneys dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (b) may be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature: for providing funding, including the provision of loans or grants, for the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substances, and for the costs of remediating any discharge therefrom; for providing funding, including the provision of loans or grants, for the costs of the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs may include costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge; or for the costs of a State underground storage tank inspection program, in an amount up to $2,000,000.00 per year.

The Legislature may appropriate after January 1, 2006, an amount not to exceed $10,000,000, of any of the amounts appropriated in any fiscal year ending before July 1, 2005, made for the purpose of the provision of loans or grants, for the upgrade, replacement, or closure of underground storage tanks that store or were used to store hazardous substances, and for the costs of remediation any discharge therefrom, and not expended for that purpose prior to the end of the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2005, for the purpose set forth in subparagraph (d) of this paragraph.

(c) Twenty-eight Seventy-five percent of the amount annually credited pursuant to this paragraph subparagraph shall be dedicated, and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature, only for paying or financing costs incurred by the State for the remediation of discharges of hazardous substances, which costs may include performing necessary operation and maintenance activities relating to remedial actions and costs incurred for providing alternative sources of public or private water supplies, when a water supply has been, or is suspected of being, contaminated by a hazardous substance discharge. No moneys appropriated pursuant to this subparagraph (c) may be expended for any indirect administrative costs of the State, its departments, agencies, or authorities. No more than nine percent of the moneys annually credited pursuant to this paragraph, which shall be taken from the amount dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (c), may be expended for any direct program administrative costs of the State, its departments, agencies, or authorities.

(d) Commencing January 1, 2006 and ending December 31, 2015, seventeen percent of the amount annually credited pursuant to this paragraph shall be dedicated, and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature, only for providing grants for the costs of air pollution control equipment to reduce the levels of particulate matter emissions from diesel-powered engines, funding for other measures to reduce human exposure to those emissions, and funding for those program administrative costs as provided in this subparagraph. No more than $1,150,000 per year of the amount dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (d) may be expended for program administrative costs of the State, its departments, agencies, or authorities for implementing the provisions of this subparagraph (d), and for regulating particulate matter emissions from diesel-powered engines.

Any amount dedicated and appropriated pursuant to this subparagraph (d) but not expended prior to January 1, 2016 shall be dedicated and may be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature for the purposes authorized in subparagraph (c) of this paragraph.

(e) Fifteen percent of the amount annually credited pursuant to this paragraph shall be dedicated, and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature, only for providing funding, including loans and grants, for the development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, and to satisfy any payments relating to bonds, notes, or other obligations, including refunding bonds, issued bay an authority or similar entity established by law to provide funding for the development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes.

Commencing January 1, 2016, thirty-two percent of the amount annually credited pursuant to this paragraph shall be dedicated, and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature, only for providing funding, including loans and grants, for the development of lands for recreation or conservation purposes, and to satisfy any payments relating to bonds, notes, or other obligations, including refunding bonds, issued by an authority or similar entity established by law to provide funding, for the development of lands for recreation or conservation purposes.

All moneys derived from repayments of any loan issued from the amount dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (e) shall be dedicated, and shall be appropriated from time to time by the Legislature, only for the purposes authorized pursuant to this subparagraph (e).

No more than five percent per year of the amount dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph (e) may be expended for program administrative costs of the State, its departments, agencies, or authorities for implementing the provisions of this subparagraph (e).

The authority or other similar entity established by law as described in this subparagraph (e) shall be the same authority or entity established for the purposes of Article VIII, Section II, paragraph 7 of the State Constitution. (cf: Article VIII, Section II, paragraph 6 amended effective December 7, 2006)

Background

The League of Women Voters of New Jersey published a voter's guide for Public Question No. 2, including background information on the measure:

“	The New Jersey Constitution currently allocates four percent of New Jersey’s Corporation business Tax to fund five environmental programs as follows: 1) 15% water quality. 2) 25% hazardous substance discharge remediation (brownfields and underground storage tank removal and cleanup). 3) 28% polluted site cleanup performed by the State. 4) 17% diesel air pollution control. This allocation expires after 12/31/15 and will be reallocated to improvement in parks and other preserved open space. 5) 15% improvements in parks and other preserved open space. In the most recent fiscal year, this four percent provided $103.1 million for the above programs This amendment to the Constitution would reallocate the current four percent dedication of the corporate business tax to the following environmental programs: 1) 5% water quality 2) 10% hazardous substance discharge remediation (brownfields) 3) 9% underground storage tank removal and cleanup 4) 5% polluted site cleanup performed by the State 5) 71% preservation of open space (Green Acres), farmland, historic sites and flood prone areas (Blue Acres) It would also raise the amount of the dedication of the corporate business tax in the constitution from four percent to six percent starting on July 1, 2019 and change the allocation of the six percent dedication between the five programs to increase the preservation of open space, farmland, historic sites and flood prone areas to 78% of the dedicated funds. Traditionally, the funding for open space preservation programs has relied on borrowed money which is placed in the Garden State Preservation Trust Fund. All of those monies have been spent or allocated.	”
—League of Women Voters of New Jersey

Support

The campaign in support of the amendment was led by New Jersey Keep It Green.

Supporters

Officials

The following officials sponsored the amendment in the legislature:

• Sen. Bob Smith (D-17)
• Sen. Christopher Bateman (R-16)
• Rep. John McKeon (D-27)
• Rep. Grace Spencer (D-29)
• Rep. Gilbert Wilson (D-5)
• Rep. Mila Jasey (D-27)
• Rep. Reed Gusciora (D-15)
• Rep. Thomas Giblin (D-34)
• Rep. Angel Fuentes (D-5)
• Rep. Timothy Eustace (D-38)
• Rep. Celeste Riley (D-3)
• Rep. Daniel Benson (D-14)
• Rep. Raj Mukherji (D-33)
• Rep. Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-37)
• Rep. Bonnie Coleman (D-15)
• Rep. Angelica Jimenez (D-32)
• Rep. Herb Conaway (D-7)
• Rep. Carmelo Garcia (D-33)
• Rep. Upendra Chivukula (D-17)
• Rep. Cleopatra Tucker (D-28)
• Rep. Ralph Caputo (D-28)
• Rep. David Wolfe (R-10)
• Rep. Linda Stender (D-22)
• Rep. Sean Kean (R-30)
• Rep. Ronald Dancer (R-12)
• Rep. Nancy Munoz (R-21)
• Rep. Robert Clifton (R-12)
• Rep. Mary Pat Angelini (R-11)
• Rep. Amy Handlin (R-13)
• Rep. Carolina Casagrande (R-11)
• Rep. Holly Schepisi (R-39)
• Rep. Benjie Wimberly (D-35)

Organizations

• New Jersey League of Conservation Voters
• American Institute of Architects (AIA) New Jersey
• Energy Plus
• Geoscape Solar
• Green Dawn Solutions, LLC
• Greener New Jersey Productions
• Haddon Township Environmental Commission
• Historic Cold Spring Village
• Natural Lands Trust
• New Jersey Energy Coalition
• New Jersey State Federation of Women's Clubs
• Salmon Ventures Ltd.
• Stafford Township Historic Preservaion Commission
• Twin Pine Rod and Gun Club

Arguments

Eliot Daley, a writer from Princeton, New Jersey, reflected on the state's nickname, "The Garden State." He stated:

“	Those who only pass through New Jersey may wonder why we would ever call it the Garden State... Little do they know of the magnificent farmlands and woodlands and wetlands that lie beyond the toll booths. Little do they know of the parks, both rural and urban, of the pinelands, of lakes large and small, of the bucolic shaded towpaths that line our 66 miles of Delaware and Raritan Canal, or the sometimes serene, sometimes tumultuous Delaware River that graces our entire western boundary... We have a lot to be proud of. Pride not just in the amazing state we call home, but also pride in our own steadfast funding over the years for protecting and conserving what makes New Jersey so special... But little do those passing through know, either, of the rising threat to these treasures that define us as the Garden State. The money that we voters allocated in past years has enabled us to fund our Green Acres and farmland protection and historic preservation programs, but now it has run out. The money was wisely invested in keeping New Jersey’s open spaces open and clean water clean, and mopping up environmental messes left behind by polluters perhaps heedless of the damage they were doing. But now, all that prior funding is gone — well spent, to be sure, but gone — and so we must decide either to replenish it or to witness the inexorable decline of what we have worked hard to preserve for ourselves and future generations... But for anyone who cares about clean water and the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren, the only true option is to refresh the funding for our admirable and exceptionally effective efforts. And we voters will have the chance to do just that at the polls on Nov. 4, when we can vote “Yes” on Public Question 2...	”
—Eliot Daley

The League of Women Voters of New Jersey released a voter's guide detailing support and opposition arguments for Public Question No. 2. The arguments in support of the measure included:

“	Reasons to vote “YES” This dedication will provide a source of stable and reliable long-term funding to ensure protection of the state’s valuable natural resources and sustain its quality of life. Without approval of this amendment, the continued preservation of open space, farmland, historic sites and flood prone area will cease as all monies have been spent or allocated. Continuing to borrow money for these needs is an option the State cannot afford to choose given its current condition of indebtedness.	”
—League of Women Voters of New Jersey

SCR 84 "Yes" votes

The following members of the New Jersey General Assembly voted in favor of placing Public Question No. 2 on the ballot.

Note: A yes vote on SCR 84 merely referred the question to voters and did not necessarily mean these legislators approved of the stipulations laid out in Public Question No. 2.

Assembly

• Bob Andrzejczak (D-1)
• Mary Pat Angelini (R-11)
• Robert Auth (R-39)
• Daniel Benson (D-14)
• Jon Bramnick (R-21)
• Chris Brown (R-2)
• Anthony Bucco (R-25)
• John Burzichelli (D-3)
• Michael Carroll (R-25)
• Caroline Casagrande (R-11)
• Upendra Chivukula (D-17)
• Robert Clifton (R-12)
• Herbert Conaway Jr. (D-7)
• Craig Coughlin (D-19)
• Joseph Cryan (D-20)
• Ronald Dancer (R-12)
• Wayne DeAngelo (D-14)
• Patrick Diegnan, Jr. (D-18)
• John DiMaio (R-23)
• Joseph Egan (D-17)
• Timothy Eustace (D-38)
• Angel Fuentes (D-5)
• Carmelo Garcia (D-33)
• DiAnne Gove (R-9)
• Gerald Green (D-22)
• Louis Greenwald (D-6)
• Reed Gusciora (D-15)
• Amy Handlin (R-13)
• Mila Jasey (D-27)
• Angelica Jimenez (D-32)
• Gordon Johnson (D-37)
• Sean Kean (R-30)
• Joseph Lagana (D-38)
• Pamela Lampitt (D-6)
• Charles Mainor (D-31)
• Vincent Mazzeo (D-2)
• Gregory McGuckin (R-10)
• John McKeon (D-27)
• Paul Moriarty (D-4)
• Gabriela Mosquera (D-4)
• Raj Mukherji (D-33)
• Nancy Munoz (R-21)
• Jason O'Donnell (D-31)
• Erik Peterson (R-23)
• Nancy Pinkin (D-18)
• Vincent Prieto (D-32)
• Annette Quijano (D-20)
• Celeste Riley (D-3)
• Scott Rumana (R-40)
• Brian Rumpf (R-9)
• Holly Schepisi (R-39)
• Troy Singleton (D-7)
• Linda Stender (D-22)
• Shavonda Sumter (D-35)
• Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-15)
• Gilbert Wilson (D-5)
• John Wisniewski (D-19)
• David Wolfe (R-10)

Senate

• Diane Allen (R-7)
• Peter Barnes, III (D-18)
• Christopher Bateman (R-16)
• James Beach (D-6)
• Jennifer Beck (R-11)
• Anthony Bucco (R-25)
• Gerald Cardinale (R-39)
• Richard Codey (D-27)
• Christopher Connors (R-9)
• Sandra Cunningham (D-31)
• Michael Doherty (R-23)
• Nia Gill (D-34)
• Robert Gordon (D-38)
• Linda Greenstein (D-14)
• James Holzapfel (R-10)
• Thomas Kean (R-21)
• Joseph Kyrillos (R-13)
• Raymond Lesniak (D-20)
• Fred Madden (D-4)
• Steven Oroho (R-24)
• Kevin O'Toole (R-40)
• Joseph Pennacchio (R-26)
• Nellie Pou (D-35)
• Teresa Ruiz (D-29)
• Nicholas Sacco (D-32)
• Paul Sarlo (D-36)
• Nicholas Scutari (D-22)
• Robert Singer (R-30)
• Bob Smith (D-17)
• Brian Stack (D-33)
• Stephen Sweeney (D-3)
• Shirley Turner (D-15)
• Jeff Van Drew (D-1)
• Joseph Vitale (D-19)
• Loretta Weinberg (D-37)
• Jim Whelan (D-2)

Opposition

Opponents

• Gov. Chris Christie (R)

Arguments

• Daryn Iwicki, state director of Americans for Prosperity, said, “It’s also amazing how we can find $4 billion in the budget for open space but can’t find the money to make the required payment into our pension system or for tax relief.”

• The League of Women Voters of New Jersey released a voter's guide detailing support and opposition arguments for Public Question No. 2. The arguments in opposition to the measure included:

“	Reasons to vote “NO” The expansion of the dedication from four percent to six percent will divert money that is currently available for the State budget. At a time of fiscal austerity this may mean either cuts in other state budgeted programs or a need for additional revenue sources. Approval will drain dollars from other environmental programs currently being funded by the dedication. Constitutional dedication of taxes ties the hands of the legislature, limiting their ability to use tax funds as needed at any given time.	”
—League of Women Voters of New Jersey

SCR 84 "No" votes

The following members of the New Jersey General Assembly voted against placing this measure on the ballot.

Note: A no vote on SCR 84 meant that a legislator did not want to refer the question to voters and did not necessarily mean these legislators disapproved of the stipulations laid out in Public Question No. 2.

Assembly

• Christopher Brown (R-8)
• Jack Ciattarelli (R-16)
• BettyLou DeCroce (R-26)
• Alison McHose (R-24)
• David Rible (R-30)
• Maria Rodriguez-Gregg (R-8)
• Donna Simon (R-16)
• Parker Space (R-24)
• Jay Webber (R-26)

Senate

• Samuel Thompson (R-12)

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of New Jersey ballot measures, 2014

Support

• The Burlington County Times said,

“	Public Question No. 2 would dedicate existing corporate business tax revenues to preserve land and improve water quality. You should vote to approve it.	”
—Burlington County Times

• The New York Times said,

“	Public Question 2 is a constitutional amendment that would create a continuous source of revenue drawn from the state’s corporation business tax to replenish a popular (but now largely broke) environmental program that acquires open space, preserves farmlands and protects historical sites. Once open space is gone, it is virtually impossible to get it back. This important measure has bipartisan support from legislators, but not from Governor Christie. Vote yes on Public Question 2.	”
—New York Times

• The Star-Ledger said,

“	A “yes” vote would deepen the fiscal crisis and weaken some existing environmental protections. A “no” vote would signal surrender in the fight to preserve a dwindling supply of green space in the most densely populated state in the nation. It’s a close call, but we urge a “yes” vote. And perhaps by 2020, we will have more responsible leadership to cope with the added fiscal burden.	”
—Star-Ledger

Opposition

• The Record said,

“	Amending the constitution to lock in funding requirements is poor government policy. How does anyone know today what the state's needs in regard to open space are going to be in, say, 2021, or even 2031? We are reluctant objectors in the sense that we support the need to preserve some of the open land very developed New Jersey still has left. Preservation enables the creation of parks, maintains water purity and improves our quality of life. Most residents would prefer a nature preserve in their town over a sprawling new development. The challenge for lawmakers is to find a responsible way to raise money to buy land, which can certainly include a new revenue stream. Tinkering with the constitution is not the prudent thing to do. The Record endorses a "no" vote on Public Question No. 2.	”
—The Record

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures

New Jersey SCR 84 (2014)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates and Public Opinion Strategies 6/17/2014 - 6/19/2014	76.00%	21.00%	4.00%	+/-4.0	600
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

New Jersey Constitution
Preamble
Articles
I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI

See also: Amending the New Jersey Constitution

In New Jersey, proposed constitutional amendments have two ways of achieving ballot access. The New Jersey Legislature can either qualify it with supermajority approval of 60 percent in one legislative session or with simple majorities in two successive sessions.

SCR 84 was introduced on February 27, 2014. The bill was then referred to the Senate Environment and Energy Committee. It was reported out of committee on March 17, 2014, by a vote of four to one, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It was reported out of that committee and placed on the desks of both the Senate and Assembly on June 5, 2014. Following a June 16 public hearing on the measure, it was passed by the Senate on June 26, 2014, by a supermajority of 36 to 1. It was received in the Assembly on the same day and referred to the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

ACR 130 was introduced on March 13, 2014, and referred to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, as well. Ultimately, the Assembly voted on the Senate version of the measure, and it was approved with a supermajority vote on August 4, 2014. The vote placed the measure on the 2014 ballot.

Senate vote

June 26, 2014 Senate vote

New Jersey SCR 84 Senate vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		36	97.30%
No		1	2.70%

Assembly vote

August 4, 2014 Assembly vote

New Jersey SCR 84 Assembly vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		58	86.57%
No		9	13.43%

See also

Suggest a link

• 2014 ballot measures
• New Jersey 2014 ballot measures
• List of New Jersey ballot measures

External links

General

• Senate Concurrent Resolution 84
• League of Women Voters of New Jersey voter's guide

Support

• Keep It Green
• Keep It Green Facebook page
• Keep It Green Twitter account

Additional reading

• myCentralJersey.com, "EDITORIAL: Trenton fails on open space," July 2, 2014
• myCentralJersey.com, "EDITORIAL: Put open space bond on ballot," June 15, 2014