I assume you all have heard about global warming and climate change.

Global warming is not what happens when you screw up the barbeque. It is what happens when the inhabitants of planet earth (i.e., you and me!) spew more hydrocarbons into the atmosphere than it can naturally absorb. That is to say, when the emissions from the tailpipes on our cars, from the power plants that bring us juice, from the trucks that deliver our internet purchases, from our lawnmowers and backyard barbeques and from all the other fossil fuel dependent industries we rely on, become too much for our environment to cope with.

Reality check: this is happening to us right now. Wake up and smell the coffee! I know there are still some nay-sayers out there – members of the “Earth is Flat” group – but the vast majority of folks with a credible opinion on this subject – including 17 Nobel Prize winners -- are in agreement. It is happening. We either do something about it, or we perish. Clear enough?

So, what are planners doing? Have we rallied behind the coastal communities that are likely to be most affected? The likely impacts of global climate change are no longer a mystery. We know which communities will be underwater in 2020. We know what the mean high water line will be in 2020. It does not take a rocket scientist (much less a planner) to figure out the consequences. Is there a plan B? Soon enough, the real estate markets will unceremoniously force us to come to terms with this. When oceanfront properties precipitously drop in price, because no credible mortgage company will finance a property acquisition that will likely be underwater in 20 years, then everyone will wake up. Why not do it now, before the plankton hits the fan?

If you are into farmland preservation, you should be backing farmers eager to grow pineapples and mangos. Those will be the new cash crops in New Jersey in 2020. Who knows, maybe coffee will become viable in the Highlands; not to mention other agricultural products with medicinal applications for terminal cancer patients that are currently precluded by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Global climate change need not be a global disaster, if we plan for it.

I believe it is incumbent on the planning profession to bring these issues to light in the communities we represent. While many New Jersey communities are most anxious about a resolution to the COAH mess, I believe it is the responsibility of the planning community to show them that COAH is a minor ripple in what is likely to be a major tidal wave. Climate change is a tsunami. You either get to high ground or you perish.

NJ Supreme Court Negates Planning

The New Jersey Supreme Court – the state’s highest judicial body – has issued a ruling in a seemingly minor case, but which essentially throws planning out the window and into the gutter. I do not normally write about court cases, most of which are at the lower levels of the judicial system, because cooler, more enlightened heads tend to prevail, on appeal. This is not such a case. The NJ Supreme Court, which has in the past acted gallantly in planning-related cases involving affordable housing, access to dignified public education opportunities and other planning-related legal cases, just tripped big time.

The case in question – Mount Laurel Township v. MiPro Homes LLC, NJ Supreme Court A85/86, decided 12/7/06 – has caused the building community heartburn for over a year. The facts of the case are not that interesting. You can read them for yourself. A developer submitted a conforming site plan under existing zoning. The Planning Board granted approval. Then the Governing Body condemned the property for open space, even though there was no basis for this under the master plan or any other municipal planning document. The main argument offered on behalf of this arbitrary action: that the subdivision would generate future school children that would burden the public school system. In other words, Mt Laurel TWP had second thoughts about how it planned for and zoned for this property. It couldn’t be bothered to amend its planning and regulatory documents, or even its open space plan. It just condemned the already approved site to keep those future children from attending public schools. Clean and simple.

While the NJ Supreme Court correctly recognized that the value of the property had increased once site plan approval had been granted, it nevertheless condoned Mt Laurel’s actions in spite of the planning vacuum, thereby sending a strong signal that planning is of no consequence. We cannot accept that.

On the surface, this case is about an arrogant suburban municipality (Mt Laurel, notorious for being judicially chastised in the past for its crass treatment of the housing rights of low income minorities) trying to preserve vital open space, and its heroic efforts to fend off an unwanted developer. While we absolutely do not condone plaintiff Mipro’s development plans – essentially another commonplace low-density, single-family sprawl development – we cannot agree with the municipality’s or the Court’s position. From a public policy perspective this case is an absolute failure of planning, on all sides. We mourn that.

And yet this case is truly only about planning – or the absence thereof – and how much consideration planning is given in our society.

The Builders League of New Jersey (BLNJ), which pursued the case on behalf of the developer plaintiffs, once again demonstrated its lack of legal acumen. BLNJ’s main argument, based on property rights, might have succeeded in other parts the country, but was illadvised in NJ. Perhaps a legal representation (and planning advice!) more in tune with NJ realities would have made the difference. We will never know. The lame legal challenge suggests attenuating circumstances. However, part of the Supreme Court’s job is to deal with mishandled legal challenges and view through the smoke screen. In this case, it never saw through the fog.

The attorney for the NJ League of Municipalities, appearing on behalf of Mt Laurel, is quoted as saying: ”Stopping development and creating open space are opposite sides of the same coin”. Really? Has this person ever heard of creating open space through development? This reflects an intellect that never progressed beyond the 80’s concept of the “zero-sum” game. We are stuck in the 80’s.

Regretfully, in my opinion, the Mipro decision unequivocally indicates that there is a profound chasm between contemporary planning thought and our judiciary. The NJ Supreme Court confirms this in their opinion: “That Mt Laurel Township sought to limit development, thereby to limit the overcrowded schools, traffic congestion and pollution that accompanies development, does not alter our dispensation of the case”. The Supreme Court has opined: development = overcrowding, congestion and pollution. This verdict is hard to contest.

It would appear from the Mipro decision that the current NJ Supreme Court has sided with those nihilistic factions that feel threatened by every new house built, every new job created, every new child born and every new immigrant that lands on our shores. How did we get here? What did we do to deserve or justify this kind of attitude? Could there ever be a more significant policy disconnect between our State Government and our Highest Court?

To bring this back home, I wish to remind everyone that the planning profession has traditionally been AWOL when it comes to our judiciary. With a few exceptions -- namely the few planners directly involved in the court cases -- the planning profession has been a silent bystander. Yet in the end we all must abide by the consequences of these judicial decisions, no mater how ill-advised.

My term as President of the NJAPA is drawing to an end, and with it my bully pulpit. I have but a few months left on my mandate. I will use my remaining time judiciously to urge planners into action on key issues, such as this one. Afterwards, it is entirely up to you. If you – the membership – has not been bitten hard by the bug of planning activism– we will continue a well-meaning profession that doesn’t mind being slapped around by those who really make public policy decisions. Your choice.

As always, I welcome your thoughts. Please contact me at pres@njapa.org.

The President’s Corner reflects the President’s opinion and not necessarily that of the NJAPA Executive Committee or NJAPA membership.