The Race To Save Open Space

	The Race To Save Open Space By Weston Kosova Christine Todd Whitman, New Jersey’s governor, has heard all the jokes. welcome to the garden state, goes one bumper sticker. "How long can you hold your breath?" With 8 million people on 5 million acres, the country’s most densely populated state is infamous for its sclerotic turnpike and bleak cityscapes. But these days Whitman is more interested in trumpeting the state’s lesser-known attributes. "We have a Revolutionary War trail that runs from the northern part of the state on down. We’ve got natural watersheds and miles of bike trails." All of which Governor Whitman is determined to keep out of the hands of developers. Last year she introduced the Garden State Preservation Trust, a 10-year, $1 billion proposal to set aside a million acres of land–roughly a fifth of the state–for parks, farmland, and wildlife habitat. New Jersey voters enthusiastically approved the plan 2-1. "This is about quality of life," Whitman says. "It’s not just for people in rural areas or about protecting land in distant places for people in the cities to visit. It’s land we can all use and enjoy." The trust plans to get started by spending $140,000 to create a wildlife refuge on a reservoir in Clark and Scotch Plains, and $240,000 for 22 acres of Pine Barrens habitat in Burlington County as part of a plan for a preserve that will expand to 4,000 acres. New Jersey’s ambitious experiment is just one example of a growing movement across the country to preserve open spaces and prevent developers from pushing into the diminishing farmland and forestland on the outskirts of many cities. In prosperous but sprawl-fatigued America, limiting pavement is becoming a hot political issue. In the past year voters in nearly all 50 states approved hundreds of plans to set aside green space–despite the tax increases required to pay for many of them. President Clinton has made wilderness preservation a top priority in his home-stretch year; his Land Legacy program would set aside $1 billion in federal money to protect open lands. He has also said he’ll fight to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) with profits from offshore oil drilling. Meanwhile, Vice President Al Gore’s Livability Agenda is a centerpiece of his own campaign for the White House. Many Republicans in Congress who spent the past decade fighting efforts to protect wilderness and habitat were among the biggest supporters of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which would preserve land for, among other things, hunting and fishing. "Open-space land protection isn’t Democrats versus Republicans," says Daniel P. Beard, vice president for public policy of the National Audubon Society. "It’s a nonpartisan issue." In November Democrats and Republicans on the House Resources Committee approved a 15-year, $45 billion land-preservation plan using funds from the LWCF. "Baby boomers like me are interested in being able to see songbirds, get to a creekside, and enjoy the quiet of the outdoors, without having to drive two hours," says Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO). "A lot of my colleagues–many Republicans included–are starting to think the same way. Maybe the land won’t be of pristine quality, but it can be enough to experience the smells and sights and sounds of the natural world." The economic and development boom of the 1990s gobbled up farms and forests at an astonishing rate. A recent Agriculture Department study highlighted not only the trend (see "Who’s Losing the Race?" right) but another troubling byproduct of sprawl: Urban areas across the country are losing trees. In 1973 trees covered about 37 percent of the Washington, D.C., area. By 1997 that had dwindled to a mere 13 percent. Many other cities nationwide have suffered comparable losses. In recent years, however, a movement has sprung up to conserve the patches of land the bulldozers have missed. In 1998 there were 240 initiatives on state ballots nationwide intended to preserve green space or curb development, according to Phyllis Myers, whose group, State Resource Strategies, tracks environmental politics. Seventy-two percent of the measures passed, giving states and local governments the green light to spend more than $7 billion on land protection. In Oregon, voters approved a citizen-led initiative to set aside $45 million a year for parks, watersheds, river corridors, and salmon habitat. In Minnesota, voters overwhelmingly agreed to extend the state’s Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund to 2025, with the aim of setting aside more land. Even Arizona voters, a predominantly conservative lot, approved a plan to spend $220 million over 11 years to purchase environmentally sensitive areas. The open-space movement shows no signs of slowing down. Although 1999 wasn’t an election year in most states, Myers says activists in 22 states managed to bring 139 habitat, parkland, and open-space measures to the ballot; 77 percent passed, authorizing more than $1 billion in new spending. The largest allocations of funds were in Long Island, New York; Glendale, Arizona; and Larimer County, Colorado. Ballot watchers expect to see dozens more initiatives in this November’s presidential election. Whether this political activity is the start of a green revolution is unclear. "I don’t think everyone who votes for these measures is worried about improving the environment as a whole," Myers says. "It’s more that they want to improve their community and their own way of life." Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who surveyed Americans about preserving green space last year, says people overwhelmingly wanted more of it–but not necessarily because they feared for the planet or hated developers. "You want to know what this is about?" Luntz says. "It’s about Americans screaming, ‘I want it all! I want the big house, I want the TV, I want the jobs, I want the economy, and I want green and open spaces.’ People’s wallets are filled with cash, and they want to have a place they can go to get back to nature. Not that they will–but they want to know they can." No matter what the motive, the result is that green space is being preserved. "Hey, if people are only interested in saving the woods so they can hike and play in them, that’s fine with me," says Melanie Griffin of the Sierra Club, which released a widely read report on open space and has worked extensively to protect it. "After all, the woods still get saved." © 2000 NASI Also see "There Goes The Neighborhood" See "Who's Losing the Race" See What You Can Do

By Weston Kosova

Christine Todd Whitman, New Jersey’s governor, has heard all the jokes. welcome to the garden state, goes one bumper sticker. "How long can you hold your breath?" With 8 million people on 5 million acres, the country’s most densely populated state is infamous for its sclerotic turnpike and bleak cityscapes. But these days Whitman is more interested in trumpeting the state’s lesser-known attributes. "We have a Revolutionary War trail that runs from the northern part of the state on down. We’ve got natural watersheds and miles of bike trails."

All of which Governor Whitman is determined to keep out of the hands of developers. Last year she introduced the Garden State Preservation Trust, a 10-year, $1 billion proposal to set aside a million acres of land–roughly a fifth of the state–for parks, farmland, and wildlife habitat. New Jersey voters enthusiastically approved the plan 2-1. "This is about quality of life," Whitman says. "It’s not just for people in rural areas or about protecting land in distant places for people in the cities to visit. It’s land we can all use and enjoy." The trust plans to get started by spending $140,000 to create a wildlife refuge on a reservoir in Clark and Scotch Plains, and $240,000 for 22 acres of Pine Barrens habitat in Burlington County as part of a plan for a preserve that will expand to 4,000 acres.

New Jersey’s ambitious experiment is just one example of a growing movement across the country to preserve open spaces and prevent developers from pushing into the diminishing farmland and forestland on the outskirts of many cities. In prosperous but sprawl-fatigued America, limiting pavement is becoming a hot political issue. In the past year voters in nearly all 50 states approved hundreds of plans to set aside green space–despite the tax increases required to pay for many of them. President Clinton has made wilderness preservation a top priority in his home-stretch year; his Land Legacy program would set aside $1 billion in federal money to protect open lands. He has also said he’ll fight to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) with profits from offshore oil drilling. Meanwhile, Vice President Al Gore’s Livability Agenda is a centerpiece of his
own campaign for the White House.

Many Republicans in Congress who spent the past decade fighting efforts to protect wilderness and habitat were among the biggest supporters of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, which would preserve land for, among other things, hunting and fishing. "Open-space land protection isn’t Democrats versus Republicans," says Daniel P. Beard, vice president for public policy of the National Audubon Society. "It’s a nonpartisan issue." In November Democrats and Republicans on the House Resources Committee approved a 15-year, $45 billion land-preservation plan using funds from the LWCF. "Baby boomers like me are interested in being able to see songbirds, get to a creekside, and enjoy the quiet of the outdoors, without having to drive two hours," says Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO). "A lot of my colleagues–many Republicans included–are starting to think the same way. Maybe the land won’t be of pristine quality, but it can be enough to experience the smells and sights and sounds of the natural world."

The economic and development boom of the 1990s gobbled up farms and forests at an astonishing rate. A recent Agriculture Department study highlighted not only the trend (see "Who’s Losing the Race?" right) but another troubling byproduct of
sprawl: Urban areas across the country are losing trees. In 1973 trees covered about 37 percent of the Washington, D.C., area. By 1997 that had dwindled to a mere 13 percent. Many other cities nationwide have suffered comparable losses.

In recent years, however, a movement has sprung up to conserve the patches of land the bulldozers have missed. In 1998 there were 240 initiatives on state ballots nationwide intended to preserve green space or curb development, according to Phyllis Myers, whose group, State Resource Strategies, tracks environmental politics. Seventy-two percent of the measures passed, giving states and local governments the green light to spend more than $7 billion on land protection. In Oregon, voters approved a citizen-led initiative to set aside $45 million a year for parks, watersheds, river corridors, and salmon habitat. In Minnesota, voters overwhelmingly agreed to extend the state’s Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund to 2025, with the aim of setting aside more land. Even Arizona voters, a predominantly conservative lot, approved a plan to spend $220 million over 11 years to purchase environmentally sensitive areas.

The open-space movement shows no signs of slowing down. Although 1999 wasn’t an election year in most states, Myers says activists in 22 states managed to bring 139 habitat, parkland, and open-space measures to the ballot; 77 percent passed, authorizing more than $1 billion in new spending. The largest allocations of funds were in Long Island, New York; Glendale, Arizona; and Larimer County, Colorado. Ballot watchers expect to see dozens more initiatives in this November’s presidential election.

Whether this political activity is the start of a green revolution is unclear. "I don’t think everyone who votes for these measures is worried about improving the environment as a whole," Myers says. "It’s more that they want to improve their community and their own way of life." Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who surveyed Americans about preserving green space last year, says people overwhelmingly wanted more of it–but not necessarily because they feared for the planet or hated developers. "You want to know what this is about?" Luntz says. "It’s about Americans screaming, ‘I want it all! I want the big house, I want
the TV, I want the jobs, I want the economy, and I want green and open spaces.’ People’s wallets are filled with cash, and they want to have a place they can go to get back to nature. Not that they will–but they want to know they can."

No matter what the motive, the result is that green space is being preserved. "Hey, if people are only interested in saving the woods so they can hike and play in them, that’s fine with me," says Melanie Griffin of the Sierra Club, which released a widely read report on open space and has worked extensively to protect it. "After all, the woods still get saved."