Just when you thought you’ve heard it all, along comes the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to propose rules that will make much of the New Jersey shoreline and tidal river areas uninhabitable. With the sweet-sounding acronym of NJ PACT, this rule change would be absolutely disastrous for present and future homeowners who are unlucky enough to fall into one of the new Inundation Risk Zones (IRZ).
Here are some of the main points of the rule change:
- No further development will be allowed on the barrier islands
- Areas in the IRZ will be limited to a miniscule 3% lot coverage
- Elevation requirements in the IRZ will make it impossible to raise or renovate smaller homes on smaller lots, severely diminishing the value of those properties
- The NJ PACT will result in the repeal of the “in-fill” rule, making it very difficult to build on a vacant lot straddled by existing homes
- Urban redevelopment projects will no longer be allowed to build within an existing footprint. Reducing the size of a development will make it less profitable and therefore, less viable to developers
- The DEP even notes that it “will likely cause a slight increase in the amount of time required by consultants, engineers, surveyors, and other professionals to help applicants demonstrate compliance with the rules.” Time being money also means more costly to the property owner
The impetus for this rule stems from a 2019 Rutgers Science and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) study from Rutgers University speculating that sea levels around the world would rise by more than five feet within 75 years. In reality, no one on the planet believes this to be accurate (except some in New Jersey government). To make matters worse, this rule was written as if those conditions were here now. As a result, these rule changes are designed to save people from themselves and force them to move away from the shore areas to places well inland deemed “safe” by the NJDEP.
The problem with proposals like this, based on wildly inaccurate data that have since been debunked is this – we have heard it all before. Many may remember the UN’s panicked warning from 1989 that if global warming were not reversed, by the year 2000, entire nations would be underwater. One publication actually printed a map showing huge portions of Manhattan underwater by the same year. Of course, neither happened, not even close. The one thing it proves is that dubious scientific data, begets bad models, which begets unbridled panic, which begets inaccurate recommendations.
This is the case with the NJ PACT rule proposal. Unlike an inaccurate weather report that results in a dry day when rain is predicted, the ramifications of these rules will be far more serious and destructive. The first and most visible negative will impact flood insurance. If it can even be secured, it will be prohibitively expensive. Insurance companies, like most businesses, plan their future business models on projections that take into account anticipated changes to legislation, demographics, economic conditions and so on. Simply put, they won’t wait for the shoe to drop, they will begin their response immediately. Constituents have already contacted my office stating that they’ve been dropped by their insurance company or have seen a huge jump in their premium.
Next will be the impact on schools, counties and local municipalities. The loss of ratables because of severely diminished land values will result in falling revenues, which can only be made up by increased taxes for the remaining residents and businesses.
Finally, the storied Jersey shore and other similar areas generate billions of dollars in economic activity through tourism. The NJ PACT rules will devastate these economies and create a ripple effect across the state.
Clearly, everyone wants sound policy that will protect the environment and the people who live, work and recreate in these areas. That can only be achieved by using reliable data and including everyone who will be impacted in the discussion. To date, many of the major stakeholders have been precluded from the process. Making the at-risk areas more resilient must be a collective effort, especially for those who will be most affected.
