NJ Ballot Question to take away more rights
As we head to the polls next week, please vote NO on Ballot Question 1.
If you vote yes, you are giving the government carte blanche to deny bail to anyone for any reason (bias. prejudice, etc.). Just another bunch of vague legalese that will be abused in NJ.
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/SCR/128_I1.HTM
http://www.lwvnj.org/images/voting/2014_BallotQs.pdf
The Amendment as currently written:
"No person shall, after acquittal, be tried for the same offense. All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or presumption great."
The Amendment as proposed:
"No person shall, after acquittal, be tried for the same offense. All persons shall, before conviction, be eligible for pretrial release. Pretrial release may be denied to a person if the court finds that no amount of monetary bail, non-monetary conditions of pretrial release, or combination of monetary bail and non-monetary conditions would reasonably assure the persons appearance in court when required, or protect the safety of any other person or the community, or prevent the person from obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process. It shall be lawful for the Legislature to establish by law procedures, terms, and conditions applicable to pretrial release and the denial thereof authorized under this provision."
Mark Mc. Yes, I just read that tonight, what are they trying to pull?
Please, let's all vote NO on all three questions.
Reggie Voter 
5catmom There's nothing wrong with this amendment. It says that if you're either a flight risk, could harm an accuser/victim or could disrupt the investigation, they can deny you bail/pre-trial release. So if they think you'll do something stupid, even with conditions or high cost bail, then they don't have to give it to you.
Where's the problem in that? It doesn't say for "any reason". It states that if the court feels money and/or conditions will be violated. Crystal clear to me. I'm voting Yes.
btownguy 
JeffersonRepub If you're a flight or public safety risk they could just as easily deny you bail *today*.
The devil is in the details... Why take an amendment and quadruple the length with a whole bunch of wishy washy language when, on the surface, it doesn't change what the courts can *already do*. There's some ulterior motive there and it's ripe for abuse.
It's putting judicial power into the legislature's hands.
Calico696 I'm voting yes on this. The current law say you can be released on bail pending trial. It looks like the new version allows for pretrial release without posting bail. Apparently the problem right now is the number of people who can't post bail sitting in jail waiting for trial. Judges can decide to allow pretrial release if they are deemed to be not a flight risk and not dangerous.
RAD I seriously doubt they'll be getting rid of monetary bail, considering the proposed amendment still talks about monetary bail (followed by a whole host of reasons to DENY you release). This is not worded to afford defendants *more* rights...
Bail determination (or denial) is a judicial issue. The legislature is just going for a power grab here.
the state has to give the printing houses so much work to do so we can get charged for more aand more printing of law and polices that are all read on the books
Caged Animal Why would anyone vote yes to the spending bills? Your grandkids and their kids are going to be paying for those bonds!
Because everybody wants more stuff, and right now. No problem paying for it- just raise taxes- especially on the rich, and the corporations.
I'd love to see a public question on the ballot that REQUIRES SPENDING CUTS.
vote no, no and no on the three ballot questions,
JR and Mark Mc. are correct about question #1 which on a first read seems like a good idea to keep certain sex offenders and drug pushers behind bars so they cannot intimidate witnesses, BUT, there is a danger with the way certain tin-pot-dictator-bureaucrats (like local county prosecutors for instance) behave; i don't trust them not to abuse the additional government powers they will be granted under this amendment by refusing bail to political enemies they identify, in other words, the way this is written, local DA's can petition the court not to grant bail to certain charged individuals who they may not like,
that's government overreach, to keep someone in jail who is not convicted of any crime just on a whim of the DA. that's what i call 'bracket creep' in the power of government, they need to be reigned in , not expanded.
so please vote no on question #1.
question #2 calls for spending more money, we have a serious budget problem here in NJ right now, and i think that obligating the state to spend even more money, millions more that it doesn't have weakens us financially,
so please vote no on question #2
question # 3 calls for warren county to spend millions of extra dollars building new government buildings, and adding onto the technical highschool; in my opinion when i go past the county garage as it currently is, it looks like they have plenty of space, plenty of room and lots of existing buildings they are not using efficiently now. the technical highschool (again in my opinion) is being run by a tin-pot-dictator administration that is intent on empire building, the highschool has plenty of room right now, and they have more than enough money in the current budget to fix the roof. this question calls for taxing the citizens of warren county an additional 8.2 million dollars.
our county tax rates will have to go up to give them the 8.2 million additional dollars they are asking for, so i say;
please vote no on question #3
BrotherDog Here is how I understand the amendment:
Currently: Everyone MUST be given bail except the worst of the worst defendants. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Judge cannot deny bail for lower crimes.
so let me ask you how many times in our little town alone have we read that someone committed a crime, posted bail and while they were awaiting trial got arrested for the SAME crime again. Sometimes multiple times. Off the top of my head I can think of 3 in our town in just this yr:
-PV car thieve
-Female Heroin dealer
-Huffing girl
And each time they get arrested while waiting for trial, sometime multiple times, we all ask why is that person out on bail?? The reason is the JUDGE has no choice; he/she HAS to grant bail.
Now the new amendment is looking to change that. They don't want to do a complete 180 and give the JUDGES absolute power and let them grant/deny bail to anyone they want for ANY reason. Instead they want to get together and create some criteria that if a defendant meets one of those criteria, such as flight risk, risk to an individual, or risk to the community, the JUDGE MAY deny bail. It is looking to give the JUDGES more power, not less.
I think some just want fewer laws on the book not more no matter what, even if the new law makes sense and is an improvement. Unless someone can tell me my understanding of the amendment is wrong, I will be voting yes for this
darwin Again the government will not have the power to deny bail. The power will all be in the hands of the COURTS. The government is not saying that the COURT HAS to deny bail, but instead MAY deny bail. More power for the COURTS
". Pretrial release MAY be denied to a person if the COURT finds"
Because , you want the govt to "take care of you", cradle to grave. Just the ever-increasing attitude of "what can my govt do for me" as opposed to "what is the govt trying to do TO me now"
People GIVING their rights away.
A "Yes" vote here on all three measures...
#1 will help to stop the abuse of denying bail to those who pose no flight risk...that is why it is supported by civil rights groups throughout the state...
#2 is helpful both in an intrinsic sense...that is helping to provide some open space in NJ...those of us blessed to live in the most bucolic section of NJ should be supportive of this effort so that all of NJ does not come to resemble the eastern corridor of NJ...it also makes fiscal sense by establishing a sustained funding formula that will not require far more costly periodic bonding...
#3Warren County has several significant infrastructure issues that need to be addressed...those issues such as the Vocational School are not going away and will only become more costly over time.
Evergreen'69 "Again the government will not have the power to deny bail"
yes, they will, your own statements tell us that you know this.
the courts in criminal cases act on petitions that the prosecutor's bring to them, that's how the system (government) works
granting additional reasons for DA's to ask the courts to deny bail increases the likelyhood for abuse by these same DA's for their own selfish personal reasons, like targeting their political opponents for one, and there are others. we should not give them the additional power to do this. it is a bracket creep over reach by the government,
btw, the courts are part of the government, and i think you know that right?
i urge everyone to vote 'NO' on question #1
Haven't looked at the spending bills, but on the bail bill, currently NJ MUST offer bail to all offenders except capital which we don't have anymore, by law (no death penalty). Judges can set really high bails, but must set bail.
Obviously, they're are some defendants we would rather not put back on the streets to either flee or do more harm.
New bill allows judges discretion to place defendants on remand (no bail). Prosecutors can ask for it, just like defense can ask for release or low bail, but it is the judges discretion.
So the "fear" is that the judge will not use it correctly, not the prosecutors or anyone else.
"In accordance to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, most states allow for bail to be denied
for capital offenses, which are crimes punishable by death. Around 28 states have laws that allow or bail to be denied for charges other than capital offenses with rationales that vary greatly." Justice Policy Institute
On the other hand, the bail system is failed, favoring the rich, while 60% of all prisoners in the U.S. are those who can't make bail; this is both unfair to the alleged as well as to the taxpayer. But this amendment does nothing for that.
I will vote yes in that I can not find great abuse to date in the rest of the U.S. Also, Christie supports it; every NJ state legislator voted to put it on the ballot. Most support.
However, for the bail system in general:
“What has been demonstrated here is that usually only one factor
determines whether a defendant stays in jail before he comes to trial. That
factor is not guilt or innocence. It is not the nature of the crime. It is not
the character of the defendant. That factor is, simply, money. How much
money does the defendant have?” Attorney General Robert Kennedy
mistergoogle Sorry, BD, Yes on #1 here...
Current state law only allows judges to deny bail to persons charged with capital offenses. However, New Jersey repealed the death penalty in 2007, meaning there are no capital offenses and it is, therefore, impossible to deny a prisoner bail. However, judges still have the option of setting very high bails to attempt to prevent the release of such prisoners. Gov. Chris Christie (R) has been advocating for such an amendment since 2012.[4] The League of Women Voters of New Jersey released a voter's guide, which includes a background section on Public Question 1, which states:[5]
“ Currently, the New Jersey Constitution states that all persons charged with a crime in New Jersey, except for those charged with capital offenses, are entitled to be released on bail, regardless of their past record or the threat he or she poses to society. 40% of the State's prison population are non-violent offenders with rights to bail, but lack the means to secure bail. They are incarcerated an average of 10 months before trial.
The new constitutional amendment would allow all persons, before conviction, to be eligible for pretrial release with or without posting bail, depending upon the decision of the court. A judge would have the authority to deny pretrial release if it is reasonable to determine that, if released, the offender would (1) be a threat to the safety of another person or the community, (2) would not appear in court for his or her hearing, and/or (3) obstruct the criminal justice process.
The new amendment would also make it lawful for the Legislature to establish procedures, terms, and conditions by law which are applicable to pretrial release and the denial thereof authorized under this provision. The amendment would take effect on January 1, 2017 to allow any new laws to be enacted and their requirements to be established. In addition, the amendment would remove language in the Constitution about bail eligibility for death penalty cases (capital offenses), since the death penalty no longer exists in New Jersey.[3]
”
—League of Women Voters of New Jersey
yankeefan Sorry, just found Q2, constitutional earmark for open space.
Christie to vote no and you probably know how others will vote.
I will vote NO, not because I hate open space, but I find constitutional earmarks for spending (or NOT spending) to be irresponsible. If our legislators and the public can not figure out the budget, let it all burn.
Meanwhile, FYI, I would recommend an earmark to have a balanced federal budget BUT ONLY if either for a timed interval (3 years for example) and/or other metrics like GDP, growth, etc. But not a Constitutional amendment. You can't let the public officials off the hook; make them earn their pay.
evergreen, i think you got question 1 backwards, that's not what it says, question 1 gives more reasons to DENY bail, some of them loosey goosey enough to cause legitimate concern for abuse by those in power.
on question 2 - NJ doesn't have the money for increasing obligatory spending, the money just isn't there, we are over-taxed now and you want to increase the taxes? i agree with you that open space is beautiful, but the state of NJ will have to raise taxes by millions of dollars to pay for it and NJ cannnot afford it, we are taxed enough in this state already; so vote no
question 3 - Warren county has plenty of infrastructure to support us now. the highschool does not need the additions, and the county has everything it needs right now. raising the county tax rate another 8.2 million dollars is burdensome, and it's not even needed. so vote no on this one as well
So Darwin, explain the explicit permission granted to the LEGISLATURE in an amendment directed to COURT powers and procedures.
There is a reason we have three branches of government. This sounds like a giant foot for in the door for abuse.
wow Brother you have some issues with DAs?
"the courts in criminal cases act on petitions that the prosecutor's bring to them, that's how the system (government) works"
Yes the DA will present their case on why bail should be denied, and the Defense attorney will present their case on why it should be granted. The Judge will then rule.
And yes I know the courts are part of government. I apologize I thought Mark's concern was with the Legislative branch getting involved in the bail decision.
Wrong again, BD...Number 2 does not increase taxes... it simply increases from 4% to 6% the amount taken from EXISTING corporate business tax that would be applied to certain environmental programs.
New Jersey's second public ballot question is: "Do you approve amending the Constitution to dedicate certain State revenues each year for environmental programs? The Constitution now dedicates four percent of the money collected from the Corporation Business Tax to help pay for some environmental programs. This amendment raises the amount from four percent to six percent beginning on July 1, 2019. The amendment also changes, beginning July 1, 2015, some of the programs funded by the current dedication. The new dedication would be used mostly to preserve and steward open space, farmland, historic sites, and flood-prone areas. Funds would also be used to improve water quality, remove and clean up underground tanks, and clean up polluted sites. Lastly, the amendment dedicates money received from leases and other uses of State open space lands to pay for open space, farmland, and historic preservation."
This question would increase the percentage of money taken from the Corporation Business Tax (CBT) for environmental programs from 4 percent to 6 percent and redirect that money into preserving open spaces, which generally had previously been purchased or preserved using bond money. Proponents say the dedication is needed to replenish the state's empty Green Acres fund and would do so without raising additional taxes or putting the state in additional debt. Opponents either do not support using more corporate tax dollars for environmental purposes or argue that the question would cut funding for state water resource programs and hazardous waste cleanups, and leave little money for capital projects at state parks and historic sites.
"I apologize I thought Mark's concern was with the Legislative branch getting involved in the bail decision."
It is. Because the way NJ tends to write laws in a "guilty until proven innocent" manner, they will certainly require the defendant to prove that he is *not* a danger to other persons or communities or will *not* obstruct the criminal justice process, instead of forcing the state to prove that a (still *innocent* person at this point) is in fact a risk.
Trust me, it won't be long before *any* drug related or gun related crime (among others) hve absolute mandatory "no bail" laws. Now on the surface that sounds great, but NJ has some asinine drug and gun related laws. Your kid in HS gets caught with a joint and he/she will get thrown him in the slammer indefinitely just like a drug dealer. Stop for food on the way back from the shooting range (even with your guns locked up appropriately - yes this is a crime) and you'll get thrown in the slammer indefinitely just like a murderer.
There have been plenty of cases where judges already claim their hands are tied with minimum bail/sentencing rules. Look at Shaneen Allen who was thrown through the ringer due to minimum guidelines, which required national attention and a specific letter written by the Attorney General to clear up. How many of us have that kind of PR machine waiting in the wings to help?
I find it laughable that the people who want this "more govt power and intrusion/further limiting of individual liberties" are the same people who were for the 99% crowd, abhor police "brutality" even in it's mildest forms, and will defend to the death (well, ok, not to the death, but willing to get fire-hosed, tear-gassed, and jailed over) their 1st Amendment right to free speech and assembly.
Yet, they are willingly giving up a portion of their individual liberty and rights with a bill like this.
I am against ANYTHING that further limits individual rights and liberties: I will stand WITH liberals who will defend the right to free speech and right to assemble, I will stand WITH liberals who are for equal rights for gay people, but I don't see any liberals willing to stand with ME when the issue is encroaching government or further infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.
So Darwin, explain the explicit permission granted to the LEGISLATURE in an amendment directed to COURT powers and procedures.
checks and balances... They do not what to give the Courts absolute power to have the ability to deny bail for ANY reason. They want to setup a set of guidelines so the DA and Judge can't deny bail without cause. It seems like they are trying to limit corruption rather than create it.
again that is how i interpret the change and the reason why i am voting yes for it. i'm still gathering info on the other 2 Admendments so i'm not sure how i will vote yet
rededicated taxes will have to be replaced in the next budget cycle, the increase is coming and it is severe. in the millions of dollars range, that' s millions of extra tax dollars that NJ just doesn't have.
increasing obligatory spending is not done on a budget neutral basis, it always increases taxes in the next budget cycle
i am not wrong, i am right about this, and you can look at the history of prior spending amendments and their impact on the state budget for proof.
budget question #2 is a tax increase clothed in the guise of a budget neutral proposal that will increase the tax burden on ordinary citizens like you and me, you may be ok with spending millions of more dollars, i and many others are not.
so i urge all voters to vote no on all three questions
I fear that your faith is misplaced.
The laws they write will only tell a judge when they CANNOT grant bail, not when they MUST grant bail.
Mark look at the examples in our town that i gave:
person commits a crime, post bail and while out on bail awaiting trial commits another crime. As the law stands now the Judge in the 2nd case MUST grant bail even though the defendant has shown he/she will commit the same crime again.
Now wouldn't it be nice if the Judge in the 2nd case can look at the defendant's behavior and determine that if this person is given bail a 2nd time they are most likely to commit a crime yet again? Wouldn't it be nice if the Judge in the 2nd time has the ability to deny bail to this repeat offender and thus keep them off the streets while they are awaiting now 2 trials? or should we just keep playing the game of catch and release until they finally have their day in court?
So why not just adjust the amount of bail allowable for the specific crimes/risks as published in the NJ Bail Schedule? Then judges can set an amount based on the merit of the cases and the risks each defendant presents without any changes to the law?
https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/directive/2005/dir_9_05%20Supplement.pdf
Technically, until one is convicted of any crimes, you are not a repeat offender. You are again assuming guilt over innocence.
#1 Yes. It seems pretty reasonable to me. Courts need some guide lines because they have been so unfair is the past with judges having such divergence views.
#2 No. This is a Constitutional amendment. Serious stuff. You create the permanent pot of goal in front of the poles they will have a party. Let them come to the people when they can justify a need as they have been doing.
#3 Yes. This sounds like a reasonable request. Some debit is retiring and just picking up new for capital improvements.
Old Gent real life example on how this new admendant can limit things like this:
http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2014/10/post_20.html#incart_river
Their objections in that case were related to funding, not public safety.
And apparently the judge has enough power to keep him in jail now, so why change the law?
Your average, everyday thug isn't going to have $75,000 to $100,000 (assuming the 10% option is off the table due) to bail themselves out.
BD - From what you said about more reasons to deny it sounds like you've interpreted the ballot wording to be the guidelines. That's not correct. Those are supposed to be the reasons behind why a policy should be created. But the ballot says the legislature will create that policy.
Mark Mc. - "Trust me". Can't. Can't do that for the same reasons you say you can't trust the government. I'm not willing to just change the shepherd. But just as this could actually give people more rights (like clearing up something like the Shaneen Allen case), it could also take them away. The real issue to me is we don't know because there isn't a specific guideline being proposed. In an ideal world I would have liked to have seen legislation ready, or even approved pending ballot approval. That's what bothers me. A judge today has already got enough power to make those scenario's happen which means it's got to be changed. But knowing the specifics are what would make it palatable.
GC 
5catmom - THIS is all...
Or perhaps you are a religious person...
Genesis 18:23-32:
Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it? ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."
"But knowing the specifics are what would make it palatable."
SPECIFICS?!?! From GOVERNMENT?!?! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
"A judge today has already got enough power to make those scenario's happen which means it's got to be changed. But knowing the specifics are what would make it palatable."
So you're saying you've got to "pass the bill to find out what's in it?"
Yep, that's worked out well in the past.
If you like your "innocent until proven guilty" you can keep your "innocent until proven guilty".
I just don't understand the people on here, like 5catmom, who LOVE it when the government takes away more and more and more of their, and their fellow citizens rights.
I scratch my head at the lack of thought they give to their votes and don't have the ability to look around and see where we are now as opposed to where we were 100 years ago as far as government intrusion, laws, permits needed for everything, penalties, search and seizure, regulations up the wazoo, illegal everything, etc.
I think it boils down to the fact that they don't trust people to take care of themselves and really love the whole nanny-state idea where the government "governs" every move everyone makes.
If you like the amendment or not is really irrelevant...it's more about do you REALLY want the government to have just ANOTHER freaking power grab? When does it end?
Heidi "So you're saying you've got to "pass the bill to find out what's in it?"
Not even close. I'm saying give us a ballot with the bill, then we're the final say on whether it passes or not..
"Not even close. I'm saying give us a ballot with the bill, then we're the final say on whether it passes or not.."
So in the meantime you'll be voting NO on the amendment, correct?
Because there is no bill ready yet. The legislature is just saying "trust us with this blank check".
Gee Mark, you are certainly showing your liberal side. But when you say"Your average, everyday thug isn't going to have $75,000 to $100,000 (assuming the 10% option is off the table due) to bail themselves out," you assume.
So only the rich villains can always be better able buy their way out no matter what the crime, no matter what the prima facie evidence might be, no matter the defendant's record. Drug dealers can be rich. Lots of experienced criminals can be rich. And rich people can do really evil things.
Today, the judge can post high bail, but must post bail INDEPENDENT of whatever crime, whatever person (who might have a HUGE history) is on trial. The judge has no choice.
This amendment provides a choice to incarcerate by denying bail. As to it's usage, like I said, I can not find a trail of abuse in the 20 some odd states that have the option.
At the federal level, the 8th prohibits excessive bail, however the Supremes have deemed that bail can be denied if the charges are significantly serious enough. They call it "preventative detention." If that's wrong, then the Boston Bomber may be on the streets again.
"The judge has no choice. "
The judge has a range as established in the NJ Bail Schedule that I posted above.
If that is insufficient, amend the amounts based on the severity of the crime in question.
Why create more laws?
Heidi,
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they haven't given thought to how they vote. How self-righteous can you be?
MB Mark Mc - Blank check is the wrong way to phrase it, that's just worrying about the amount. I'm worried with all good things it's intended to do (and there are rights it would give back), it may also do some other very wrong things at the same time. I can't vote for the possibility of the wrong things.
"I scratch my head at the lack of thought they give to their votes and don't have the ability to look around and see where we are now as opposed to where we were 100 years ago as far as government intrusion, laws, permits needed for everything, penalties, search and seizure, regulations up the wazoo, illegal everything, etc"
Heidi those of us that are FOR this admendant have given pretty detail and thoughtful reasons why we came to the decision to for for it. You however only seem to give the reason of we have too much gov't already as your reason against it.
"If you like the amendment or not is really irrelevant...it's more about do you REALLY want the government to have just ANOTHER freaking power grab? When does it end?'
Isn't that the definition of lack of thought??? it doesn't matter if this amendment is good or bad, we should just not have any more laws. We shouldn't bother using logic or thought to see if this admendment is something good, we should just reject it.
How does that show any level of thought? Seems you should take your own advise and learn about something before you vote on it one way or another. Don't be a blind voter.
Question #2 is budget NEUTRAL. As pointed out above, it is not a new tax, but a reallocation of a tiny portion of the existing corporate business tax. There is no reason to believe that those funds will be replaced by a budget increase as BD has suggested, And in fact with the current administration, you can be sure that will not happen.
I read a lot on here about people appreciating the rural area including the farms and the parks. If you believe these aspects of our area, and our state, improve your quality of life, then you should VOTE YES ON #2. This is your chance to do something that directly results in protecting the best of what New Jersey has to offer.
gadfly It is encouraging to see this form express there opinions. I would say I believe half of the voters in this country vote on one issue and some don't even look at questions.
"Blank check is the wrong way to phrase it, that's just worrying about the amount."
I didn't mean blak check in regards to bail amounts, but a blank check of power.
"it may also do some other very wrong things at the same time."
It WILL do some things very wrong. Have you even been to a Senate/Assembly hearing? They care *NOTHING* for what the public thinks or their rights. They have an agenda to push and it will happen no matter what that takes. They barely pay attention and literally play solitaire on their cell phones/ipads while public testimony is being given. I fully expect the same (lack of) respect for our rights while they are passing laws that this amendment explicitly gives them permission to do.
"I scratch my head at the lack of thought they give to their votes and don't have the ability to look around and see where we are now as opposed to where we were 100 years ago as far as government intrusion, laws, permits needed for everything, penalties,..."
Wow! That's quite a statement. Well I don't go back 100 years but I suspect anybody here who are in their sixties or seventies have at least some memories about how the environment was when they were young. Air pollution, water pollution, city sewage dumped directly into rivers, dead lifeless rivers, hazardous and toxic waste dumped anywhere and everywhere, chemicals, asbestos, spraying DDT for mosquito control everywhere from trucks driving down the street, radioactive rain from nuclear testing, Strontium 90 in our milk. The good old days really weren't so good at all. Things started to improve after agencies like the EPA were created in 1970 - and by the way that's a big Republican program. The EPA was created by the Nixon administration.
But I'm not saying that some things haven't gone too far - because I think they have.
"I'm worried with all good things it's intended to do (and there are rights it would give back), it may also do some other very wrong things at the same time. I can't vote for the possibility of the wrong things."
Exactly. So we agree on that- voting NO.
Gadfly, the State collects approximately $2.5 billion in corporate tax. Right now, they put 4% or $100M toward the environmental programs. Tomorrow they will be putting 6% or $150M toward the environmental programs. (A 50% increase and/or $50M is not so "tiny", IMO)
What happens to the programs that the other $50M was currently funding? Do you really believe that those programs will be cut or spending will be reduced in any way, shape or form? Or will they raise taxes in the future to make up for the shortfall? I'm guessing the latter and I'm voting No on that one.
I'll be voting Yes on #1 because there are some people who don't deserve bail. Do you really think that a guy who walks into a Burger King and kills ten people in front of dozens of witnesses should be able to walk free to do it again prior to his trial date if he has enough money in the bank? I think it's flawed reasoning to assume that this is going to be used punitively against people for minor offenses. Have you seen how crowded the County jails are? There's no way to start a policy of not setting bail; they just don't have the infrastructure.
Number 3 gets a No vote as well. The County is a mess. I'm not voting for them to borrow even more money to be mismanaged.
ianimal "Air pollution, water pollution, city sewage dumped directly into rivers, dead lifeless rivers, hazardous and toxic waste dumped anywhere and everywhere, chemicals, asbestos, spraying DDT for mosquito control everywhere from trucks driving down the street, radioactive rain from nuclear testing, Strontium 90 in our milk. "
And these are all programs that will get LESS money if the amendment passes. Read the details... while the total environmental contribution will go from 4% to 6%, it is also re-allocating the contributions within those programs so that money dedicated to water quality and polution control will have been cut in HALF.
All the while open space preservation has a 710% increase. With such a drastic imbalance, I'm guessing there's some shenanigans going on.
Rad, You are right, but like all government programs they become unreasonable and expand to preserve there jobs and seek control.I have worked with asbestos, DDT,and the like that I would not do today. I grew up by a DuPont plant that when the rain hit there sulfur pile you couldn't breath for miles around. There was a Reichol chemical plant with yards full of rusty barrels all around the place next to the river. It eventually caught fire. They evacuated us for 4 days. That was the only way they got rid of.it by letting it burn for a week. Yea, The good old days.
"Do you really think that a guy who walks into a Burger King and kills ten people in front of dozens of witnesses should be able to walk free to do it again prior to his trial date if he has enough money in the bank? "
The bail amount for murder is $250,000 to $1,000,000 with no 10% option.
When's the last time someone like Bill Gates walked into a Burger King to kill everyone? I'm thinking it's more likely someone that needs to steal $20 to get their next hit of crack.
Plus, if they killed 10 people, I'm guessing it would be $2.5M to $10M bail (one for each count) so it's pretty much no bail for them.
it seems the rationale stated on here for ballot question #1 is based on who do you "trust" more - a person brought to trial or the judge? I'm voting in favor of the judge with a "yes".
ken e"When's the last time someone like Bill Gates walked into a Burger King to kill everyone? I'm thinking it's more likely someone that needs to steal $20 to get their next hit of crack.
Plus, if they killed 10 people, I'm guessing it would be $2.5M to $10M bail (one for each count) so it's pretty much no bail for them."
So you're saying that it's ok for the situation to be "pretty much no bail for them" if the defendant is poor, as long as rich people can still get out of jail?
For me, #1 comes down to this: at this point in American history, I am unwilling to grant the government any MORE power than they already have, regardless of what that power is. Period. Government needs LESS power, not more.
And no- government can't be trusted. If you can't figure that out by now, just go back to sleep.
If question #2 passes, 4% of the corporate business tax that currently goes to other environmental programs will be allocated to open space. That means there will be about $71 Million available for all of the open space programs annually. That includes farmland preservation, green acres, historic preservation (a small amount), and blue acres. If you're not familiar with blue acres, it is a program that buys lands in flood hazard areas, mitigating the public and private expense of catastrophic floods like we saw with Irene.
In 2019, the percentage of the CBT would be increased to 6%, providing an estimated $117 Million in funds for open space. That may seem like a lot, but since 1998 there has been an average of $200 Million per year in open space funds.
Protecting open space costs money. If we value parks and farmland, we have to invest in it. The current proposal reduces that investment from an average of $200M to $71M for four years and then about $117M in 2019. If the question does not pass, the alternative is no state investment in preserving farms and open space.
We have maybe another ten or twenty years to decide the future of our state. Do we want to keep the beautiful rural areas, productive farms, and rich natural areas? Or do we want to let our state turn into a real life version of the jokes told by outsiders who have only seen it on the Sopranos or driving down the turnpike?
"So you're saying that it's ok for the situation to be "pretty much no bail for them" if the defendant is poor, as long as rich people can still get out of jail?"
I'm saying that the "rich" people typically aren't the issue as far as community safety.
The examples given so far have been small time drug busts where the guy gets such minimal bail (below the currently allowable threshold) and then goes on to mug someone else.
If we aren't even applying the maximum amount of bail *currently allowable* what good does it do to allow for "no bail" to be an option?
Just another case along the lines of making something "more illegaler" which this state loves to do.
"If you're not familiar with blue acres, it is a program that buys lands in flood hazard areas, mitigating the public and private expense of catastrophic floods like we saw with Irene."
How about just not building your house in a flood plain? Why should all of us have to buy land to prevent someone else's stupidity of either putting their house there in the first place and/or not buying flood insurance?
gadfly,
That's a great sales pitch, and I love the open spaces we have. What do think of Mark's point, that if no EXTRA taxes are collected, then the money has to come from SOMEWHERE:
"Air pollution, water pollution, city sewage dumped directly into rivers, dead lifeless rivers, hazardous and toxic waste dumped anywhere and everywhere, chemicals, asbestos, spraying DDT for mosquito control everywhere from trucks driving down the street, radioactive rain from nuclear testing, Strontium 90 in our milk. "
And these are all programs that will get LESS money if the amendment passes. Read the details... while the total environmental contribution will go from 4% to 6%, it is also re-allocating the contributions within those programs so that money dedicated to water quality and polution control will have been cut in HALF.
All the while open space preservation has a 710% increase. With such a drastic imbalance, I'm guessing there's some shenanigans going on.
MarkMc wrote:
""If you're not familiar with blue acres, it is a program that buys lands in flood hazard areas, mitigating the public and private expense of catastrophic floods like we saw with Irene."
How about just not building your house in a flood plain? Why should all of us have to buy land to prevent someone else's stupidity of either putting their house there in the first place and/or not buying flood insurance?"
Of course that makes sense, and current laws are very good about not allowing building in flood plains. However, many homes and even whole towns were built in flood prone areas many years ago. Look at Manville for example. And yes, people in flood prone areas should have flood insurance, but flood insurance is often subsidized by tax dollars. Not to mention all of the public expenses associated with these flooding events including FEMA payments, emergency services, and damage to infrastructure.
It is also important to remember that flooding is getting worse. Rivers in NJ flood more now, and in areas that they did not previously do so. Why? Well, one reason is an increasing frequency of extreme weather events. But another important reason is development. If you develop most of the land in the watershed, and cover it with impervious lawn and asphalt, you get increased flooding. In fact, this is a perfect example of how investment in land preservation, reduces public costs.
JR wrote:
"gadfly,
That's a great sales pitch, and I love the open spaces we have. What do think of Mark's point, that if no EXTRA taxes are collected, then the money has to come from SOMEWHERE:"
I would say that argument is based upon a false assumption that no government program ever has its budget reduced. That's simply not true. I don't believe that the Governor is going to favor increasing taxes so that no environment program takes a hit.
I think its a matter of setting priorities and deciding which programs are more important. Notably, there seems to wide agreement from the whole spectrum of conservation organizations in NJ in support of the question, including groups that focus on water quality.
"The examples given so far have been small time drug busts where the guy gets such minimal bail (below the currently allowable threshold) and then goes on to mug someone else."
I think that's a misinterpretation of what is proposed. You aren't ever going to get low-level drug dealers and muggers held without bail. Like I said before, the infrastructure simply can't sustain it.
The State Constitution currently allows only those people charged with "capital offenses" (essentially murder... I don't think NJ ever had any other capital offenses) to be held without bail, which was fine and dandy up until Corzine signed into law the abolishment of the death penalty. So, whereas the law used to allow holding murderers without bail, it no longer does because murder is no longer a "capital offense". The whole thing could have been avoided if they would have just spelled out murder in the original text rather than getting cute with the "capital offense" wording.
"The whole thing could have been avoided if they would have just spelled out murder in the original text rather than getting cute with the "capital offense" wording."
OK, so it sounds like a simple one word amendment is needed... why the extra paragraphs, and especially that last sentence?
gadfly wrote:
" I don't believe that the Governor is going to favor increasing taxes so that no environment program takes a hit. "
But wait... republicans want dirty air and dirty water, the governor isn't going to raise taxes, he's going to allow the environmental programs to take the hit. No?
I'm not baiting you- I'm talking seriously- because as conservative as I am, I am also a conservationist when it comes to the outdoors (note I did not say environmentalist). The money has to come from somewhere. It can't be printed. If money is relocated somewhere else, where it was relocated from will suffer a deficit.... unless more money is added. ?
"OK, so it sounds like a simple one word amendment is needed... why the extra paragraphs, and especially that last sentence?"
The flip side is that I think they want to let people out without having them post any money at all; hence, the change from "bail" to "pretrial release".
There are a lot of people sitting in jail awaiting trial because they can't post even the nominal bail required. Again, it's really straining the infrastructure, especially on the County jail level, where these people are typically held until trial.
Only an arrogant fool would start a post telling people what they should vote for.
"Again, it's really straining the infrastructure, especially on the County jail level, where these people are typically held until trial."
Maybe the answer is to stop criminalizing everything. Anything else is a band-aid.
"Only an arrogant fool would start a post telling people what they should vote for."
Where did I "tell" anybody to do anything?
You are really starting to get annoying around here. I can deal with differences of opinion when they are based in reality or personal experience, but your comments have absolutely zero basis in either.
Sorry if I wasn't clear JR. I believe the following:
1. The state is not going to raise taxes as a result of this question, and:
2. the other programs will take a hit in the form of reduced funding.
I think its a matter of prioritizing where you want to spend money. My opinion is one shared by a wide range of conservation and water protection groups, as well as former Governor's Kean and Whitman: passage of public question #2 will result in a better use of our limited funds.
Also worth noting: 17% of the funds to be reallocated go to a diesel emission's program that is scheduled to be defunded anyway in a year. Currently, those funds are going to be moved to development of state park facilities. Under the question 2 proposal, those moneys would be used for buying new parkland and/or preserving farmland. So, whether the question passes or not, that 17% is being reallocated.
gafly,
I guess I'm just not as trusting as you are regarding the state not raising taxes. Regardless of whether the gov is a dem or repub, taxes ALWAYS get raised, over the long haul. I guess I see this program, as well as your #2 above, as "ammo" for the state to indeed raise taxes.
I would love to see more money for park land and less development, Lord knows NJ, even this little corner, is overcrowded as it is. I'm just not sure Question 2 will play out like you're HOPING it will. Again, I guess it comes down to "how much do you trust your elected representatives to do exactly what they say they are going to do, no more and no less"?
These are great examples of why the rhetoric of cutting spending or cutting taxes is nothing but a farse. When a politician spouts such nonsense we should try and remember that while one program may be cut another will quickly pop up to take its place. Its a shell game, that's all.
2016 is right around the corner so I'm sure we'll be hearing it all once again...
Justintime "while one program may be cut another will quickly pop up to take its place."
This is how we eventually end up with a list of Federal agencies as follows:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Agency-Index.pdf
New Jersey has a few of its own:
http://www.nj.gov/nj/gov/deptserv/
Government too large? Nahh....
Commenting is no longer available.