How To Prevent a State-Wide Emergency
After last year's historic flooding in the Hudson Valley, some politicians continue to demur about the cost of land preservation, putting the economy above your health and safety.
How do you like these more frequent baby tornados (microbursts)?
How about the near-constant threat of flooding whenever a simple thunderstorm rolls by?
I used to love thunderstorms. They were beautiful, relaxing to listen to, and fun to watch. But rarely was there a threat to our collective health and safety when they occurred.
Now, whenever there's a thunderstorm WATCH, everyone thinks about the trees that could come down on their house.
Or the high winds that could blow out their windows.
Or the flooding that neither FEMA, our state government, nor the insurance companies seem to want to pay for regarding the damage your home may suffer.
Are you taking climate change seriously yet?
This is not going to go away or somehow get better. To put it in terms my Haredi friends would appreciate, Hashem will not provide.
It's Up To Us To Fix It
Every year, the planet warms, and the storms, heat, and flooding will worsen. I don't mean to scare you, but I know many people are afraid. I see news reports with comments from people whose homes have been devastated by the extreme weather. Here’s just the latest example from right here in Chester, New York, five days ago:
I am sharing all this with you because, no matter where you reside, the time for talk is over.
And since the local politicians have the most immediate control over this issue, it's about time your local politicians start to hear from you, nice and loud. Because some of them don't appear to be listening, and they are putting your life in danger by continuing to ignore you.
Today, I'm equipping you with information I urge you to share with all your local elected officials. If we unite and work together, we have the power to fix this.
But we need everyone to take their head out of the sand and get to work.
Right now.
Unless we take action now, the extreme weather conditions that are currently causing fear and anxiety among your friends and family will only worsen. And if you think it’s bad now, you have no idea how much worse this could get.
I want to take you back to the June 26th, 2024, Town of Chester Board meeting. At 1:09:15 in the video below, you can see a discussion about the potential purchase of 100 acres of land by the Town of Chester from the Laroe family off of Ridge Road. The resolution being discussed in the video below would allow the Supervisor to negotiate with the family to discuss a potential purchase. The actual purchase would need to be approved by the entire board.
Councilmember Robert Courtenay, a supporter of open space, talked about the Town needing to get its finances in order before making further purchases. The previous Supervisor, Robert Valentine, did much more damage to the Town's financial situation than Chester residents realize.
Mr. Courtenay also requested a study to determine what properties within the Town of Chester can be preserved. Then, he proposed issuing a bond to preserve as much land as possible in one shot after the results were in.
Supervisor Brandon Holdridge agreed with that idea, and also discussed the potential of issuing a bond to purchase the Ridge Road property from the Laroe family. According to the Supervisor, the Laroe family is anxious to sell the land on Ridge Road, so waiting is not an option. The Supervisor said he began speaking with the family in January, and we're now entering July.
Holdridge also mentioned that the Conservation Advisor Council is already reviewing Chester's 2015 preservation plan to help further identify properties for acquisition.
Councilmember Courtenay suggested that, as the Town of Chester examines land to acquire for preservation, it could purchase the development rights instead of the entirety of the property in order to keep it on the tax rolls.
Councilmember Tom Becker mentioned "more desirable land" that the Town might acquire instead of the property on Ridge Road. He asked what the plan would be for this Ridge Road property if it were purchased.
Supervisor Holdridge stressed that he ran on a platform of land preservation and wants to keep his campaign promises.
Councilmember Dysninger is against the Town buying this land from the Laroe family. He wants to preserve land, but the Town needs to be creative about how it does so. He stressed the need for infrastructure and recreation, saying he wants to spend money on what the town residents can take advantage of.
The resolution allowing Holdridge to enter negotiations with the Laroe family passed 3-2, with Becker and Dysinger voting against it.
Councilmembers Tom Becker and Larry Dysinger also voted against a resolution authorizing the Town to spend $3,000 on an appraisal of the Ridge Road property.
Why Am I Telling You This?
The comments made by Councilmember Courtenay about the need for keeping land on the tax rolls, from Councilmember Becker about purchasing "more desirable land," and from Councilmember Ardisana about the need to spend on infrastructure instead of preservation are things you commonly hear when it comes to land preservation at the local government level.
So, while I don't doubt the sincerity and earnestness of all three of these men to do the right thing by Chester residents, I want to examine these comments with you.
That's because these comments must be addressed thoroughly—not just for the Councilmembers in Chester, but for all local politicians who may raise similar concerns about land preservation when you go to raise them.
1. “Keeping Land On The Tax Rolls”
Let's start with the first comment about “Keeping Land On The Tax Rolls.” This is a legitimate concern, especially for smaller municipalities. But there's a mistake often made with this logic: purchasing land for preservation is somehow viewed as a loss for the local economy, not a positive.
The idea being, that since the land can't be developed, the Town won't make any money off it.
That's fair. However, a closer look at New York's neighboring states (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Connecticut) tells a different story for the local economy when they preserve land.
We can verify, factually, that preserving land creates jobs, raises the property value of homes in the community (meaning more tax revenue), and creates the opportunity for an increase in recreation and tourism revenue.
How?
Let’s look at the three states located within less than an hour from Chester:
In Connecticut, outdoor recreation contributes up to $3.7 billion to the State's GDP, including at least 2 billion in wages and salaries and creating almost 50,000 new jobs.
In Pennsylvania, land preservation factors into the $6 billion a year that hunting and fishing contribute to the state economy. The State's waterbodies support up to 18 million fishing days, generating an additional $800 million yearly for the state economy.
In New Jersey, studies have found that land preservation increases the value of nearby homes since homebuyers are willing to pay more for properties near and adjacent to green spaces. The New Jersey Keep It Green coalition found that:
- The average home price increases 16 percent when it is located near permanently preserved open space
-The value of a vacant lot increases by 35 percent when it is located next to permanently preserved open space
-Parks contribute up to 20 percent of the value of homes in urban areas.
So, yes. Preserving land does mean taking it off the tax rolls.
But.
It also means higher property values, jobs, and revenue that can be generated through ecotourism, which could potentially offset that loss over the long term.
Chester, for example, is also located near Woodbury Common and Lego Land, Major tourist destinations in New York State. The Town is well positioned to capture tourists coming out of New York City to enjoy the recreational activities this preserved land creates, to say nothing of the money generated from increased fishing and hunting activities.
2. “More Desirable Land”
Please repeat after me: There's no such thing as "more desirable land."
Here's why: An elected official on the local level's chief responsibility is to ensure the health and safety of their residents. Preserving land does that.
We know this because land preservation also promotes public health, which lowers healthcare expenses through fewer visits to the doctor, the local emergency room, or urgent care.
How?
Access to preserved land can lead to a 40% decrease in healthcare costs associated with hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes. In the case of children, access to preserved land can help in managing ADD, ADHD, and stress. This is something that should be top of mind for parents, given the ongoing Teen Mental Health crisis.
Preserved land provides clean air. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, reductions in air pollution prevented 230,000 premature deaths, 200,000 heart attacks, 120,000 emergency room visits, and 17 million lost work days.
Regarding public health, the economic activity of healthy and productive workers makes the Town more desirable to live in, leading to increased property values for the people living there.
But there's another reason this “more desirable land” statement is false.
Over the last 20 years, the US has lost 11 million acres of farmland to development. The amount of arable land on this planet is finite. Right now, around the world, we have foreign countries buying up as much arable land as they can — Including right here in America — to ensure the food supply of their respective countries. If you've seen "The Grab," the movie puts this situation in terms anyone can understand:
If oil was the main commodity of the 20th Century, food will be the main commodity of the 21st Century. So, protecting their food supply is in the interests of both the state and the nation.
I’ll let the trailer for “The Grab” explain the rest of this national security emergency:
One final note on our 21st Century food crisis:
Locally produced food can help ensure the health and safety of local residents and reduce transportation costs — and in doing so greenhouse gas emissions — by not having to be shipped and moved throughout the world.
There's no such thing as "More Desirable Land." All undeveloped land is desirable.
The more land remains undeveloped, the more safe, healthy, and secure we will be as this century progresses.
3. “Need to Spend on Infrastructure Instead”
There is no distinction between preserving land and infrastructure.
Investing in land is investing in infrastructure.
No preserved land, no food.
No preserved land, no clean drinking water.
No preserved land, a hotter planet with stronger storms because preserved land acts as a carbon sink, and at the time of this writing, there is no scalable technology right now available that will get all that carbon out of the air.
To say nothing of our increasing power consumption and the greenhouse gases that it creates — including the massive carbon footprint Artificial Intelligence has.
That means we need to preserve land. There is no more significant infrastructure investment than land preservation.
The United States is currently spending $150 billion a year on climate change. That's enough money to cover, right now, everyone's social security payments for five weeks.
If you’re reading this and at, or near, the age of receiving monthly Social Security checks — and you’re concerned about the system having enough money to continue giving you this money — you absolutely want to slow down climate change by preserving as much land as possible.
Otherwise, the government may not have the money to keep those checks coming, you know what I mean?
The amount of money we spend on climate change will only increase unless we start preserving as much land as we can.
Any preserved land can help keep temperatures down, improve the quality of our local drinking water, and reduce the potential for flooding by absorbing large amounts of rainwater. That's all infrastructure. When you preserve land, you protect your people, the water, and their property.
Now, yes. There is a question about how we're going to pay for this. So, I will point you to a simple fact: The federal government has plenty of money. Just look at how much the $100M+ Kiryas Joel Catskill Aqueduct Connection Project was funded by Congress.
Hint: A lot of it.
What I'm saying is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The Town of Palm Tree / Village of Kiryas Joel, the future city in Southern Orange County, they’re organized.
The rest of us now need to be. Not only in New York, but across the country.
If you want that congressional money to buy up and preserve land, you must make some noise.
Because for that money to be released, local politicians must bang the drum with us as loud as they can.
And they can only do that if we dispel them of erroneous beliefs like the ones I've highlighted here.