Gov. Murphy Seeking To Monetize Failed Environmental Policy That Fed Explosion In Warehouse Growth
Truck Fee Is A Bad Joke
Meanwhile, DEP Rubber Stamps Approvals And Voluntary State Plan Has Zero Impact
After 6 years of turning a blind eye to the explosion of growth of warehouses across the State, NJ Gov. Murphy is now seeking to monetize that massive policy failure.
Gov. Phil Murphy proposed a $1 tax for every truck movement and projected that the revenue would amount to $10 million for the state’s general fund. Part of Murphy’s fiscal year 2025 spending plan presented last week, the money would go toward alleviating the impact on traffic and roads.
Gov. Murphy’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has sat on the sidelines and rubber stamped permits and approvals for millions of square feet of new warehouse development. This head in the sand approach has allowed warehouses to pave over unknown thousands of acres of NJ’s last remaining farmlands and forests, while dramatically increasing truck traffic, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and exacerbating NJ’s massive flooding and water quality problems.
Heck of a job DEP Commissioner LaTourette.
Murphy’s State Planning Commission, and regional planning agencies in the Highlands and Pinelands, were ordered to stand down and do nothing to adopt enforceable plans and policies to slow warehouse growth and protect natural resources.
[Correction & clarification: The Highlands Council ED Ben Spinelli wrote to correct my error. Ben wrote (emphasis mine):
I read your post from this morning regarding the warehouse development issues in the state. There was one inaccuracy.We are in fact moving forward with the adoption of Highlands-specific warehouse siting and design guidance as an update to the RMP. The public comment period runs through the end of the month. A link to the document is below. Any comments you might have on these standards would be welcomed.
Ben
https://www.nj.gov/njhighlands/master/amendments/warehouse_lucz/warehousing_policy.pdf
But I wrote that the Highlands and Pinelands were not adopting “enforceable plans and policies”. The Guidance Ben refers to is not enforceable. Clarified but not corrected. ~~~ end update]
Now, after all that damage is done – and thousands or even millions of square feet of additional warehouse development in the pipeline – Gov. Murphy wants to cash out on that negligent land use and environmental policy.
The Gov. would impose what amounts to a development impact fee to fund the damage to local roads caused by increased heavy truck traffic. The huge warehouses themselves would not be effected.
There are at least 3 major problems with this approach:
First, towns already have the authority under NJ Municipal Land Use Law to collect impact fees to offset and finance the damage to local infrastructure like roads and pay for additional new municipal services required to manage new development (police, fire, utilities, etc).
A State impact fee diverts from these impact fee tools and lets town off the hook for their failure to impose such impact fees. A State fee also would discourage towns from imposing them and instead rely on the State.
Second, the magnitude of fee is pathetic and the $10 million it would generate is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs these trucks and warehouses impose on the environment, infrastructure, and local governments. And they are a pittance when compared to the billions of dollars in corporate and real estate profits generated by this warehouse boom.
Third, the Gov.’s plan would allocate the revenues to the State general Fund, where it would be diverted to other purposes and not dedicated to restoring the local damage caused by the warehouses and trucks. The State General Fund and the Legislative appropriations process would not be an effective way to offset local government costs.
And the causes of the warehouse sprawl problem, e.g. weak DEP regulations, lax DEP oversight, a voluntary State land use plan, and inaction by regional land use planning agencies with regulatory authority (i.e. Pinelands and Highlands) all go uncorrected.
A bad idea, that would make a bad situation worse, designed to cover up and benefit from policy failure, while failing to fix the underlying policy flaws.
It doesn’t get any worse than that.
And of course you wouldn’t’ know any of this by reading the NJ Spotlight story.
Even worse, Spotlight absolutely buried and obfuscated the DEP’s regulatory powers and failures – look at this:
[Rowan Professor] Hasse said the plan would have created 1.3 million square feet of impervious surface, increasing stormwater runoff. The site also borders so-called Category 1 waterways, designated by the state as of exceptional ecological value, and would be built on land that is home to several endangered bird species.
Gee wiz, I wonder what DEP is doing about all that?