There's a better way to save farmland
Home News Tribune Online 05/6/07
An Appellate Court gave the state an important tool for preserving the state's farming industry last week when it unanimously ruled that New Jersey need not match developers dollar for dollar when it tries to buy temporarily protected farmland. The court said farmers in the state's temporary protection program — which gives farmers access to state grants in return for voluntarily agreeing not to sell their farm for development for eight years, and which gives the state the right of first refusal if the farmer does sell within that time frame — must sell his land to the state if the state's offer is "substantially similar" to the developers'.

The ruling is expected to allow the state to permanently shelter more farmland; hopefully it will not also mean that fewer farmers will agree to go into the program.

Although the ruling may mean the state will have to spend less to protect farmland from developers, the point is moot if the state has no money to spend. The Farmland Preservation Trust is due to run out of funds in the very near term, and there is still no agreement on how to restock it. Although open space continues to rank high on the list of public priorities, the governor's budget did not include funding for preservation, presumably because Corzine wants to use preservation funding as leverage in any fight to convince a dubious public to get behind selling or leasing the Turnpike or some other valuable state property.

There is a movement in the Legislature, meanwhile, to devote a portion of the state's ever-increasing sales tax collections to preservation. While constant squabbling over sales tax revenue is disheartening, this is by far the more logical choice; unfortunately, the proposal appears to be moving slowly, if at all. Legislators should get behind it.

Still, the state needs to use more leverage than money, especially taxpayer money. The Legislature also ought to look closely at increasing the penalties to developers and/or farmers who sell to developers. The farmland preservation program itself also deserves careful review. Most of the time, the state spends its money buying the development rights to farmland. The land itself continues to be owned by the farmer and his or her family and heirs. But in some cases the state buys the land outright. It then turns around and sells that land at auction.

The idea is to provide relatively inexpensive land for farmers. However, the state's restrictions are deliberately loose; there is no absolute requirement that the land must be actively farmed. And so it is that about every one in four of the state's farmland sales are made not to farmers but to wealthy residents looking for a country estate. And they get a taxpayer-subsidized price.

The Corzine administration says it is concerned enough about the practice to be undertaking a county-by-county assessment of the program, and its effect on farming. They are also loathe, however, to place too many restrictions on the land.

Certainly caution is called for. Still, taxpayers signed onto a preservation program not simply to protect open space; they also want to protect the farming industry. The surging interest in locally and organically grown produce offers New Jersey the perfect opportunity to stabilize its farming industry.