Vote 'yes' on questions
Sunday, October 28, 2007
When the curtains close around you in the voting booth Nov. 6, you will be confronted by four statewide ballot questions.
One will ask if you want to dedicate all of last year's penny increase in the sales tax to property-tax relief; the next two ask if you want to approve borrowing $450 million for stem-cell research and $200 million to buy and preserve open space; and the fourth asks your permission to change the wording of the state constitution when referring to people who are judged to lack the mental capacity to vote.
On all these questions, we recommend you vote "yes," some with enthusiasm and some with reservation.
Let's look at each question.
QUESTION NO. 1: "Do you approve the amendment of Article VIII, Section I of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, to provide for the annual dedication and annual appropriation of an amount equal to the annual revenue derived from a tax rate of 1% imposed under the New Jersey Sales and Use Tax, exclusively for the purpose of property tax reform through a special Property Tax Reform Ac count established in the constitutionally dedicated Property Tax Relief Fund?"
Who can vote against earmarking funds to reduce property taxes? Unfortunately, it presents a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Our tax dollars are being shifted from one source (the sales tax) to offset another (the property tax) and requires a state bureaucracy to carry it out. This is hardly tax reform, but it at least provides tax-weary homeowners some relief from the highest property-tax rate in the coun try.
QUESTION NO. 2: "Shall the 'New Jersey Stem Cell Research Bond Act', which authorizes the State to issue bonds in the amount of $450 million for grants to fund 'stem cell research projects,' as defined in the act, at institutions of higher education and other entities in the State conducting scientific and medical research, and provid ing the ways and means to pay the interest on the debt and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof, provided that recurring revenues of the State are certified by the State Treasurer to be available in an amount equal to the sum necessary to satisfy the annual debt service obligations related to such bonds, be approved?"
This question is fraught with moral and financial problems, since it allows use of embryonic stem-cell research and requires using public money for what some say should be the realm of private for-profit medical-research companies. Another problem is that it is expected to add $3 billion in interest and principal payments each year to the state's $33.7 billion borrowing debt. But just as the government helps fund cancer and heart research, so, too, we be lieve the state should lend its assistance to stem-cell research, which seems to hold great potential in finding treatments for such illnesses as Parkinson's disease and spinal injuries.
QUESTION NO. 3: "Shall the 'Green Acres, Farmland, Blue Acres, and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 2007,' which authorizes the State to issue bonds in the amount of $200 million to provide moneys for (1) the acquisition and development of lands for recreation and conservation purposes, (2) the preservation of farmland for agricultural or horticultural use and production, (3) the acquisition, for recreation and conservation purposes, of properties in the floodways of the Delaware River, Passaic River, and Raritan River, and their tributaries, that are prone to or have incurred flood or storm damage, and (4) funding historic preservation projects; and providing the ways and means to pay the interest on the debt and also to pay and discharge the principal thereof, be approved?"
Again, approval of this question would add to the state's debt and likely inflate housing costs, but from a quality of life and ecological point of view, we should try to keep New Jersey, one of the most densely populated states in the country, as green as possible for generations to come.
QUESTION NO. 4: "Shall the amendment of Article II, Section I, paragraph 6 of the Constitution, agreed to by the Legislature, revising the cur rent constitutional language concerning denial of the right to vote by deleting the phrase "idiot or insane person" and providing instead that a "person who has been adjudicated by a court of competent juris diction to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting" shall not enjoy the right of suffrage, be adopted?"
This is the easiest of the four questions to support and it deserves an unqualified "yes" response from voters. By today's standards, words such as "idiot" and "insane" are loaded with negative connotations that do not belong in such an important document as our state constitution.
© 2007 The Times of Trenton
© 2007 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.
