Byram plans greenway

Township Journal
October 11, 2007
By Amy Stewart

Byram - “Land preservation doesn’t cost money, development does,” said Ralph Siegel, executive director of the Garden State Preservation Trust at a news conference on Oct. 2 at CO Johnson Park. The meeting was put together with Byram officials to show media their recent land acquisitions and remind people of the need for continued funding for open space and land preservation.

Byram officials combined a local tax with money from the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Morris Land Conservancy, Sussex County and the Garden State Preservation Trust Green Acres program. “Byram has preserved 199 acres utilizing more than $1.96 million in combined funding,” explained Councilman Scott Olson. Byram is hoping to acquire property to create greenway connections, linking the Village Center with public property such as schools, municipal buildings, Highlands and Sussex Trails, as well as parks and recreational facilities.

Laura Szwak, Statewide Greenways Director of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation explained many areas are preserved around the state. She is working toward connecting all open space with trails and pathways so that residents can enjoy all of New Jersey and the land “they preserved.” Eliminating gaps between preserved lands would create a corridor through the state so that state parks are not randomly dispersed islands. “Connections of preserved land are important for both people and animals,” Szwak explained. “We just want people to be able to go outside and enjoy non-motorized trails.”

The big push at the meeting was to support Public Question #3 on the Nov. 6 ballot. If it passes, it would allocate $200 million for continued preservation efforts throughout the state. Eric Stiles, vice president of the New Jersey Audubon Society, reminded attendees that the approval does not constitute a new tax. “It is a continuation of a tax that is already in place.” Sandy Urgo of the Morris Land Conservancy added, “We have helped people preserve their property when they did not want to see their land developed, but could not financially hold on to it themselves any longer.”

‹Back to News