Garden State Patriot

 Senator Jennifer Beck would like Governor Corzine and Assemblyman Cryan to answer a simple question:

“If you really think taxes are too high, why have you supported billions of dollars of tax increases?”

Tax and Revenue Chart

The following chart lists the taxes and the corresponding amount of revenue that has been generated or is anticipated to be generated since Democrats took control of the Governor’s Office. Assemblyman Cryan voted for all the taxes below and Governor Corzine signed those listed for FY 2007 – FY2009. The list has not been updated to include a recent $500 million toll increase on the Turnpike and Parkway imposed by the Governor, an approximate $400 million employer tax to support unemployment benefits, and taxes and fees the Governor has proposed on income, liquor, wine, and motor vehicle transactions.

FY 2009

• Payroll Tax for Paid Family Leave (P.L. 2008, c. 17, formerly A-873 – Albano/ Oliver/Greenstein) – Beginning January 1, 2009, all employees began paying a portion of their income into an account to be used for family leave benefits. Beginning July 1, 2009 businesses will be forced to expend additional resources to hire new or temporary employees to replace those taking paid family leave.
• Transitional Energy Facilities Assessment Reinstatement and Extension (P.L. 2004, c. 43, formerly A-3102 – Caraballo/Lesniak; P.L. 2006, c. 40, formerly A-4709 – Caraballo/B. Smith); and P.L. 2008, c. 32, formerly A-2807 – Quigley/Lesniak) – The Transitional Facilities Energy Assessment (TEFA) was scheduled to begin to phase-out as of January 1, 2009. This legislation freezes the assessment at the 2001 rate with the phase-out not occurring until at least Fiscal Year 2014.
• Tax on Non-Residential and Residential Development (P.L. 2008, c. 46, formerly A-500 – Roberts/Watson Coleman/Green) – This law requires the imposition of a fee (tax) on non-residential development and allows municipalities to impose development fees on residential property. The tax to be imposed on all construction resulting in non-residential development, and for construction permits affecting non-residential property, is to be set at a rate equal to 2.5% of (1) the equalized assessed value of the land and improvements for all new non-residential construction on an unimproved lot or lots; or (2) the increase in equalized assessed value, of the additions to existing structures to be used for non-residential purposes. In addition, any municipality that has adopted a municipal development fee ordinance may, with the approval of the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), impose and collect development fees from developers of residential property.

FY 2008

• Television and Electronics Tax (P.L. 2007, c. 347, formerly A-3527 – Gusciora/Barnes/McKeon) – This legislation provides for the collection and recycling of used televisions by imposing an annual $5,000 registration fee on television manufacturers, starting on January 1, 2009. The tax revenue will be deposited into a fund, administered by the DEP, and used to provide funding for a State used television recycling and management program, including the administrative expenses and to make payments to authorized recyclers.
• Litter Tax (P.L. 2007, c. 311, formerly A-1886 – McKeon/Gusciora) – This legislation imposes a recycling tax on solid waste generation. The litter/recycling tax will be levied on (1) the owner or operator of every solid waste facility at the rate of $3 per ton on all solid waste accepted for disposal or transfer at the solid waste facility; and (2) on solid waste collectors at the rate of $3 per ton on all solid waste collected for transshipment or direct transportation to an out-of-state disposal site. The tax will be considered a “pass-through” cost to the solid waste facility owner or operator and solid waste collector, meaning the fees or surcharges ultimately will be paid by the solid waste generators utilizing the facilities or services.
• Parking Tax (P.L. 2007, c. 296, formerly S-2891 – Rice/Caraballo) – This legislation authorizes the imposition of a special event parking tax surcharge to be assessed in addition to any other parking tax currently imposed. The special event parking tax surcharge is 7% of the fee for the parking, garaging, or storing of motor vehicles for special events held in the municipality during weekday evenings, beginning at 6:00 p.m. or later, and held at any time on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. This tax was authorized to provide revenue to the City of Newark to pay for costs associated with the operation of the new arena.
• Admissions Tax (P.L. 2007, c. 302, formerly S-2971 – Rice/Caraballo) – This legislation allows a municipality to impose a 5% surcharge on admission charges at places of amusement at which admission charges are regularly paid and which contain fixed seats or bleacher capacity for not less than 10,000 patrons. The surcharge cannot be imposed on major places of amusement owned by the State or an independent State authority, motion picture theaters, or amusement parks. While other towns may fall under the provisions of this law, the tax was authorized to provide revenue to the City of Newark to pay for costs associated with the operation of the new arena.
• Emissions Tax (P.L. 2007, c. 340, formerly A-4559 – Chivukula/McKeon/ Stender) – This legislation places a tax on those New Jersey businesses that emit carbon dioxide. This emission tax will raise millions of dollars to create funds in EDA, DEP and the BPU to fund “energy efficiency and conservation programs.” The legislation will require public electric and gas utilities to raise rates on electric and gas bills for residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial customers to cover the costs of implementing energy efficiency and conservation programs.
• Explosive (Black Powder) Tax (P.L. 2007, c. 274, formerly S-2055 – Sweeney/Burzichelli) – Legislation increased the taxes paid by those who manufacture, sell, transport, sell, store, or use explosives. Included in bill’s provisions was the doubling of the tax on black powder (in amounts in excess of 5 pounds but not in excess of 100 pounds) which is used by private persons for the hand loading of small arms ammunition and which is not for resale.

FY 2007

• Sales Tax Rate Increase (P.L. 2006, c. 44, formerly A-4901 – Payne/Cruz-Perez/Kenny) – As part of his budget message, Governor Corzine proposed increasing the sales tax rate from 6% to 7% and expanding the sales tax to cover previously untaxed items. The Governor chose to raise this tax because it was the only one of the major taxes that had not been increased during the previous five years, and raising taxes is an easier alternative for Democrats than cutting spending. The sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes and its increase has caused Democrats to make up for it by proposing to provide tax relief to the poorest New Jerseyans (through an Earned Income Tax Credit increase).
• Sales Tax Expansion (P.L. 2006, c. 44, formerly A-4901 – Payne/Cruz-Perez/Kenny) – In conjunction with the sales tax rate increase, the sales tax base was expanded to impose the 7% levy on previously untaxed goods and services. Those items newly taxed include digital property and pre-written software; shipping and handling; dry cleaning of non-clothing items; landscaping; self-storage rental units; tanning and tattoo services; massages; information services; limousine services; flooring and carpet installation; parking, storing and garaging a motor vehicle; non-subscription magazines and periodicals; investigative and security services; and membership fees. Membership fees include charges by health clubs, gyms, golf clubs, and YMCAs.
• Health Care Tax (P.L. 2006, c. 43, formerly A-4716 – Pou/Watson Coleman/Kenny) – This legislation increased the tax on HMOs and their members by 100%; the tax of 1% on net written premiums was increased to 2%.
• Tax on the Sale of Commercial Property (P.L. 2006, c. 33, formerly A-4701 – McKeon/Epps/Bryant) – This legislation imposes a tax on the sale of commercial property valued in excess of $1 million. The tax is set at 1% of the value of the property and is paid by the buyer.
• Cigarette Tax (P.L. 2006, c. 37, formerly A-4705 – Gusciora/Epps/Lesniak) – This legislation increased the cigarette tax for the fourth time in five years. This increase raised the tax by 17.5¢ per pack, bringing the total state cigarette tax to $2.575 per pack. The legislation also changed the method of taxing moist snuff to a weight-based tax.
• Tax on Motor Vehicle Purchases (P.L. 2006, c. 39, formerly A-4707 – Greenwald/ Lesniak) – This legislation imposes a tax on the purchase of any new passenger vehicle with a sales price of $45,000 or more, or that gets less than 19 miles per gallon. The tax is set at 0.4% of the sales or lease price. For a vehicle selling for $45,000, this means an additional tax of $180.
• Car Rental Tax (P.L. 2006, c. 42, formerly A-4715 – Burzichelli/Epps/Bryant) – This legislation increased the tax on motor vehicle rentals from $2 to $5 per day.
• Transitional Energy Facilities Assessment Reinstatement and Extension (P.L. 2004, c. 43, formerly A-3102 – Caraballo/Lesniak and P.L. 2006, c. 40, formerly A-4709 – Caraballo/Bob Smith) – The Transitional Facilities Energy Assessment (TEFA) was scheduled to begin to phase-out as of January 1, 2007. The phase-out was further delayed until December 31, 2010.
• Fur Clothing Tax (P.L. 2006, c. 41, formerly A-4714 – Caraballo/Vitale) – This legislation imposes a 6% gross receipts tax on the retail sale of fur clothing.
• Corporation Business Tax Surcharge (P.L. 2006, c. 38, formerly A-4706 – Roberts/Watson Coleman/Kenny) – This legislation imposes a new tax on business. In addition to corporation business tax liability, a business is now required to pay a surcharge equal to 4% of the amount of the corporation’s tax liability. The surcharge is to be assessed for each corporation tax year occurring during fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 2009.
• Corporation Business Tax Minimum Payment (P.L. 2006, c. 38, formerly A-4706 – Roberts/Watson Coleman/Kenny) – This legislation increased the corporation business tax minimum payment for taxpayers with New Jersey gross receipts of $100,000 or more. The new minimum tax ranges from $500 to $2,000.
• Nuclear Electric Generating Facilities (P.L. 2006, c. 35, formerly A-4703 – Quigley/Cohen/Bryant) – This legislation authorizes the State Treasurer to impose an annual tax/assessment (above and beyond the assessment made under P.L.1981, c.302) against the operator of each nuclear electric generating facility located in New Jersey. The total of the assessments must reflect the actual costs incurred by the State in providing supplemental security services at each nuclear facility.
• Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Increase (P.L. 2005, c. 311), formerly A-4584 – Sires/Quigley/Greenwald/Kenny) – This bill imposes a $4 motor vehicle registration surcharge. Of this amount, $3 is intended to purchase and maintain the state’s helicopter fleet. The remaining $1 is statutorily directed to new state police classes. For FY 2007, all of the new surcharge revenue was redirected to balance the budget. In FY 2008, a portion of this revenue was again redirected. Instead of using the funds for their intended purpose, surcharge collections have been used to buy state police vehicles and pay for existing state police salaries.

FY 2006

• Eliminates Gross Income Tax Exclusion for Pension Income (P.L. 2005, c. 130, formerly A-4404 – Sires) – This legislation eliminates the ability of certain senior citizens to exclude their pension and retirement income from their gross income for the purpose of paying New Jersey state gross income taxes. Taxpayers with an income of $100,000 or more no longer will be able to exclude their pension and retirement income. Democrats call the individuals impacted by this legislation Ahigh income taxpayers.
• Increases the Tax on Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey and the Premiums of its Policy Holders (P.L. 2005, c. 128, formerly A-4401 – Roberts/Cohen/Buono) – This legislation establishes a new and higher tax to be paid solely by Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey. Horizon is required to pay an insurance premium tax on all premiums (previously only “experience rated,” or group insurance premiums were subject to the insurance premium tax while individual and small group insurance premiums were not). In addition, the bill excludes Horizon from the maximum tax rule which caps taxable premiums at 12.5% of total premiums for any company whose taxable premiums in New Jersey exceed 12.5% of total worldwide taxable premiums. Some believe that Horizon was targeted for one of several reasons including: (1) the company’s decision to not go public; (2) the inability of the Legislature to grab a portion of the company’s surplus; (3) its position in labor negotiations with Cooper and Hackensack Hospitals; or (4) all of the above.
• Health Care Tax (makes permanent) (P.L. 2005, c. 129, formerly A-4402 – Cryan/ Buono) – This bill converts the one-time, special interim assessment of one percent on net written premiums received by health maintenance organizations (HMOs), enacted as P.L.2004, c.49 (C.26:2J-45 et seq.), to an annual assessment to support charity care.
• Tax on Builders (P.L. 2005, c. 131, formerly A-4405 – Cryan/Bryant) – Democrats in the Assembly wanted to take balances in the New Home Warranty Fund. However, the New Home Warranty Fund statute provides that balances in the Fund may only be used to provide buyers of new homes with insurance-backed warranty protection in the event that certain standards are not met. In the event funds are spent for other purposes, the obligation of builders to contribute to the fund is suspended until the funds are replenished. This legislation provides that builders will continue to contribute to the Fund (be taxed) even though balances are being used to pay for the Democrats’ spending.
• Decouple the Corporation Business Tax and Gross Income Tax from the Federal Deduction of Qualified Production Activities Income (P.L. 2005, c. 127, formerly A-4294 – Cryan/Vas/Bryant) – This legislation increases taxes for certain New Jersey businesses by decoupling New Jersey’s Corporation Business Tax (CBT) and Gross Income Tax (GIT) from the federal manufacturer tax deduction.

FY 2005

• Income Tax Rate Increase (P.L. 2004, c. 40, formerly A-100 – Sires/Cryan/Green/ Kenny) – This legislation implements former Governor McGreevey’s proposal to increase gross income tax rates in order to provide higher property tax rebate checks for some New Jersey residents. It establishes a new marginal tax rate of 8.97% on the amount of taxable income in excess of $500,000. In order to generate enough revenue to cover the cost associated with the distribution of homestead rebates at increased levels, the change to the gross income tax rate schedule was made retroactive to January 1, 2004.
• Telecommunications (Cell Phone/Land Line) Tax (P.L. 2004, c. 48, formerly A-3112 – Caraballo/Bryant) – This legislation imposes a per month, per phone number tax on telecommunications services. Specifically, a tax of $0.90 is to be assessed on each bill (1) charged by a mobile telecommunications company for each “voice-grade access” service number as part of mobile telecommunications service provided to a customer or for the customer’s home service provider and provided to a customer with a place of primary use in New Jersey, and (2) charged by a telecommunications exchange company for each telephone voice grade access service line provided as part of that telephone exchange service.
• Cigarette Tax (P.L. 2004, c. 67, formerly A-3113 – Weinberg/Lesniak) – This legislation increased the cigarette tax for the third time in as many years. This increase raised the tax by $0.35 per pack, bringing the total state cigarette tax to $2.40 per pack. The increase in conjunction with the motor vehicle surcharge fee (see below) is being used to securitize approximately $1.9 billion of deficit bonds to balance the FY 2005 budget.
• Motor Vehicle Registration Tax (P.L. 2004, c. 64, formerly A-3107 – Sires/Bryant) – This legislation quadruples the cost of a motor vehicle registration by requiring the purchaser of a new passenger automobile to pre-purchase a four-year registration. Full payment of this registration tax is required upon the initial registration.
• New Tire Purchase Tax (P.L. 2004, c. 46, formerly A-3106 – Quigley/Kenny) – This legislation imposes a tax of $1.50 for each new motor vehicle tire sold at retail within the State. The tax is paid by the purchaser and is to be assessed on all new tire purchases, including the tires sold as a component part of a new motor vehicle or whenever new tires are installed on a used motor vehicle prior to that vehicle being offered for sale.
• Realty Transfer Tax (P.L. 2004, c. 66, formerly A-3115 – Cryan/Kenny) – For the second time in as many years, the Democrats increased the tax on certain realty transfers. The change translates to a $70 million increase in home costs to be paid by the seller.
• Tax on the Sales of Homes Valued in Excess of $1 million (P.L. 2004, c. 66, formerly A-3115 – Cryan/Kenny) – A new tax has been established on the purchase of residential property priced over $1 million. This change represents a $29 million increase in home costs to be paid by the purchaser.
• Imposition of Unsafe Driving Surcharges (P.L. 2004, c. 69, formerly A-3114 – Barnes/Bryant) – This legislation creates a new surcharge of $250 for unsafe driving. This is in addition to other fines and surcharges previously established for unsafe driving. The Democrats used this increase in conjunction with the increase in the cigarette tax (see above) to securitize approximately $1.9 billion in deficit bonds to balance the FY 2005 budget.
• Deductibility of Net Operating Losses (P.L. 2004, c. 47, formerly A-3110 – Watson Coleman/Johnson/Kenny) – This tax change takes away the ability of a business to fully deduct net operating losses. Specifically, the legislation limits to 50% the application of net operating loss (NOL) deductions under the corporation business tax for privilege periods beginning in calendar years 2004 and 2005. Full deductibility was to have begun for the 2004 tax year. Instead it expired as of December 31, 2007. (Net operating loss is a tax accounting concept; if a taxpayer has more business expense than business income in a tax year, the taxpayer has a net operating loss for that year.)
• Disallowance of Depreciation Deduction (P.L. 2004, c. 65, formerly A-3111 – Sires/Cohen/Bryant) – This tax change takes away from New Jersey businesses certain of the tax relief benefits included in the federal Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). The specific measure being altered deals with the ability of a business to deduct from their taxes an amount for the depreciation of equipment and machinery.
• Transitional Energy Facilities Assessment Reinstatement and Extension (P.L. 2004, c. 43, formerly A-3102 – Caraballo/Lesniak and P.L. 2006, c. 40, formerly A-4709 – Caraballo/Bob Smith) – The Transitional Facilities Energy Assessment (TEFA) was scheduled to begin to phase-out as of January 1, 2005. The 2004 legislation froze the assessment at the 2001 rate and pushed back the phase-out date. In 2006, the phase-out was further delayed and now the tax will not sunset until at least December 31, 2010.
• Hazardous Discharge Site Cleanup Fund/New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund Tax (P.L. 2004, c. 50, formerly A-3117 – McKeon/Bob Smith) – This legislation increases the tax imposed for the transfers of hazardous substances. Specifically the tax increases from $0.015 to $0.023 per barrel for petroleum or petroleum products, precious metals, elemental phosphorus, or in certain circumstances, antimony or antimony trioxide sold for use in the manufacture or for the purpose of fire retardants. For other hazardous substances, the legislation increases the tax rate to the greater of $0.023 per barrel or 1.53% of the fair market value of the product.
• Billboard Tax (P.L. 2004, c. 42, formerly A-3101 – Mayer/R. Smith/ Madden/Sweeney) – This legislation extends the sales tax on billboard advertising space. In 2003, the Legislature imposed a fee of 6% on the gross amounts collected by a retail seller for billboard advertising. Beginning on July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, the tax is reduced to 4%, and on July 1, 2007 the tax is to be discontinued.
• Air Emissions Tax (P.L. 2004, c. 51, formerly A-3118 – Greenwald/Bob Smith) – This legislation creates a new tax to be assessed on the owner or operator of any facility that emits certain air toxics. The surcharge is based on the annual emissions of each Category 2, Category 3 and Category 4 toxic substance as reported in the release and pollution prevention report for that facility.
• Tax on Medical Care (Ambulatory Care) (P.L. 2004, c.54, formerly A-3127 – Diegnan/Bryant) – This legislation establishes an annual assessment on the gross receipts of certain licensed ambulatory care facilities. Specifically, a facility with $300,000 or more in gross receipts will be taxed at a rate of 3.5% of gross receipts or $200,000, whichever is less. A facility with annual gross receipts less than $300,000 will not have to pay an assessment. For FY 2006, the rate was recalculated to include calendar year 2004 data. Beginning in 2007, a facility’s uniform gross receipts assessment will be based on the facility’s ost recent annual report to the DHSS. No facility will be required to pay more than $200,000.
• Health Care Tax/HMO Assessment (P.L. 2004, c. 49, formerly A-3116 – Wisniewski/Buono) – This legislation establishes a special interim assessment on health maintenance organizations (HMOs). This assessment translates to $7 per client and a $56 million tax on the health care industry.
• Sales Tax on Cosmetic Procedures (P.L. 2004, c. 53, formerly A-3125 – Cryan/Bryant) – This legislation imposes a 6% gross receipts tax on certain cosmetic medical procedures. “Cosmetic medical procedures” are defined as any medical procedure performed on an individual which is directed at improving the individual’s appearance, and which does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease. The legislation defines cosmetic medical procedure as cosmetic surgery, hair transplants, cosmetic injections, cosmetic soft tissue fillers, dermabrasion and chemical peel, laser hair removal, laser skin resurfacing, laser treatment of leg veins, sclerotherapy, and cosmetic dentistry.

FY 2004

• Hotel/Motel/Bed and Breakfast Occupancy Tax (P.L. 2003, c. 114, formerly A-3710 – Roberts/Impreveduto/Bryant) – This legislation imposes a new fee on hotel and motel occupancies. The fee is to be paid by the guests of the hotel or motel. From August 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004, the new tax was set at 7%, with the total amount going to the General Fund. During this period a local option tax of 1% could be imposed on transient rentals. Beginning on July 1, 2004, the statewide tax dropped to 5% and the local option tax may increase to 3%. This tax was intended to raise $140 million for the State during FY 2004, with a portion of the tax revenue used to restore cuts made to the programs that fund arts, history and cultural grants. The amount of revenue generated by the tax increase now depends on the number of municipalities which opt to impose the local option tax. Revenue available to the state will decline.
• Cigarette Tax (P.L. 2003, c. 115, formerly A-3711 – Diegnan/Lesniak) – The tax on a pack of cigarettes was increased by $0.55 per pack. This is on top of the $0.70 tax increase imposed during FY 2003. This brought the total state tax on a pack of cigarettes to $2.05 per pack.
• Casino Taxes (P.L. 2003, c. 116, formerly A-3713 – Greenwald) – This legislation raises revenue from new and expanded taxes on casinos. Specifically, the legislation imposes a 7.5% tax on the annual adjusted net income of a licensed casino; a 4.25% tax on the value of complimentary rooms, food, beverages or entertainment provided by a casino; a tax of 8% on casino service industry multi-casino progressive slot machine revenue; and a $3 per day charge on each hotel room in a casino hotel facility as well as a $1 increase, from $2 to $3, in the casino hotel parking fee. The deduction that a casino licensee was previously permitted to take for uncollectible gaming debt, when calculating gross revenue, is eliminated. $90 million in additional revenue generated from these tax changes was directed to the Casino Revenue Fund.
• Realty Transfer Tax (P.L. 2003, c. 113, formerly A-3709 – Cryan/Kenny) – This legislation increases the realty transfer fee for each conveyance or transfer of property. The seller is required to pay a supplemental fee based on the sale price of the property. The legislation is intended to generate $62 million in additional revenue for the State and approximately $22 million in additional revenue for the counties.
• Billboard Tax (P.L. 2003, c. 124, formerly A-3714 – Gusciora/Bryant/Sweeney) – In addition to Gov. McGreevey’s tax increase proposals, the Democrat-controlled Legislature thought it would be appropriate to impose a sales tax on billboard advertising. This legislation imposes a tax of 6% on the gross amounts collected by a retail seller of billboard advertising.
• Fees (P.L. 2003, c. 117, formerly A-3719 – Caraballo/Codey) – A total of $35 million in new revenue is being generated through instituting or raising various fees, including a fee for licenses issued by the Real Estate Commission ($4.5 million), construction code fees under the Uniform Construction Code ($2.7 million), costs imposed on employers under the Right to Know Act ($2.1 million), license and permit fees imposed under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act ($2.0 million), unemployment insurance fines ($2.5 million) and fees imposed for non-criminal background checks ($1.7 million). New fees also have been imposed on limousine owners, and the fee for filing for a divorce has been increased.
• Nursing Home Assessment (P.L. 2003, c. 105, formerly A-3686 – Watson Coleman/Conaway/Kenny and P.L. 2004, c. 41, formerly A-3051 – Conaway/Watson Coleman/Kenny) – An assessment on nursing home facilities based on the number of non-Medicare patient days also was levied in FY 2004. The assessment was deemed a health care-related tax which makes the amount collected eligible to be matched by federal Medicaid reimbursement. The FY 2004 budget skimmed $51.5 million from the additional Medicaid reimbursements. Subsequent budgets also have skimmed a portion of this revenue.

FY 2003

• Estate Tax – P.L. 2002, c. 31 (formerly A-2302 – Watson Coleman/Gusciora/Turner) – established a new tax on estates by providing that New Jersey estate taxes are to be computed as though the terms of the federal estate tax that applied on December 31, 2001, including those provisions governing liability for the tax and allowance of a state legacy tax credit, continue to apply. P.L. 2002, c. 31 also repealed R.S. 54:38-8 which would have voided the New Jersey estate tax in the event of the repeal of the federal estate tax or the federal credit for state legacy taxes.
• Corporation Business Tax – P.L. 2002, c. 40 (formerly A-2501 – Sires/Roberts/Kenny) – restructured the Corporation Business Tax by making fundamental changes in the way New Jersey taxes business. This legislation is the result of Governor McGreevey’ mandate to raise an additional $1 billion from the business community.
• Cigarette Tax – P.L. 2002, c. 33 (formerly A-2504 – Weinberg) increased the tax on the sale of cigarettes by $0.70 per pack (from $0.80 to $1.50 per pack) with the anticipation of an additional $240 million of revenue for the state. The increased revenue is statutorily dedicated for health programs ($200 million) and to fund anti-smoking initiatives ($30 million in FY 2003 and FY 2004, $40 million in FY 2005, and $45 million in FY 2006). However, the language dedicating $30-$40 million for tobacco cessation programs has been superseded by language included in the FY 2004 and FY 2005 budgets. Only $10 million was provided in FY 2004 and $11 million in FY 2005.
• Fee Increases – P.L. 2002, c. 34 (formerly A-2506 – Cohen/Codey) – $129 million in additional state revenue was anticipated to be generated through this Omnibus Fee bill. The legislation established, increased and modified fees and penalties. It increased fees and penalties in the following areas: agriculture, motor vehicles, bulk purchase of drivers’ bstracts by insurance and credit companies, commercial truck/tractor registration fees, open competitive and promotional examinations, corporate filings, health maintenance organizations, the Department of Environmental Protection, notaries public and the Judiciary. The fee bill also increased municipal revenue by $1.15 million (50% of the estimated revenue from the additional $100 surcharge on persons convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol).

Well done, Senator! Well done!

As if we needed any more evidence that COAH needs to be killed and buried deep underground never to surface again, here is more fuel to the fire.

COAH mandates are based on estimates of job growth and housing in New Jersey. Problem? COAH estimates of job creation have no basis in reality.

Municipal-level obligations to plan for affordable housing are now derived from projected growth in jobs and housing, although affordable-housing units are only required to be built or rehabilitated as actual growth occurs.

The state Council on Affordable Housing, which has identified a need to add 115,000 affordable units statewide between 1999 and 2018, projects New Jersey will add 790,000 jobs between 2004 and 2018. But actual performance combined with Rutgers University consultant Robert Burchell’s projection suggest job growth will be flat.

A municipality’s projected “growth share” includes one unit for every 16 new jobs. Stuart Koenig, an attorney for 20 municipalities appealing the COAH numbers, said projected job growth accounts for 49,000 of the assigned housing obligation.

“Those jobs they’re looking at are not real. . . . You would think COAH realizes we’re not going to be growing 52,000 jobs a year, but yet they steadfastly maintain that we will,” Koenig said.

“It reinforces what many people have been saying all along, that the numbers are way out of whack,” said Sen. Christopher “Kip” Bateman, R-Somerset. “This reinforces the need to start over. The numbers are unrealistic. In this economy in particular, you’re just not going to see those kinds of numbers being built.”

So, think about this: 49,000 COAH units (over 40% of the total requirement) are based on projected job growth that will not happen. This isn’t hard to believe considering New Jersey’s current lost decade, in which the state has not created jobs at all and the fact that our business climate remains the very worst in the nation.

Of course, the COAH fathead bureaucrats defend their little socialist scheme to the bitter end. Reminds me of the Reagan quote, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”

Spokesman Chris Donnelly of the state Department of Community Affairs, which includes COAH and the planning commission, said it’s too soon to say whether the State Plan impact assessment presented March 25 ought to change COAH’s course.

“Dr. Burchell’s report has not been completed yet. In fact, he presented only a brief, seven-slide summary during the presentation on the status of his work as part of the evaluation of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan,” Donnelly said.

“The presentation provided no details which would allow for an understanding of his methodology, so it is impossible for anyone to make any kind of evaluation of his work based on this abbreviated summary,” Donnelly said. “We are awaiting the final report to determine any potential impact of its conclusions.”

Oh what a tangled web central planning and social engineering brings. Seems like a great model to apply to our health care industry, no?

By the way, I came across an interesting proposal regarding COAH by Spencer Peck of Clinton Township. Spencer says:

In the course of my remarks, I indicated that I believed we’ve been too passive for too long regarding COAH and Abbott. Both programs are fundamentally discriminatory and need to be abolished. I base my comment on the rationale that both programs tax one category of citizenry to provide a financial benefit to another; this is reverse discrimination.

To fight these programs in the state courts that have mandated them, could at best, only wound them and not end them. However, reverse discrimination is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

If we are to gain permanent relief, the better course would be to fight these mandates in federal court. This would require developing a broad consensus among communities statewide before any tangible action could take place due to the time, effort and expense involved.

Something else to consider as we fight to rid ourselves of this wrongheaded government program.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude! and Red County.

I haven’t posted much about COHA lately, so in an effort to keep this vital issue on the radar I wanted to share this.

Assemblymen Michael Doherty and Michael Patrick Carroll have introduced a concurrent resolution (ACR-216) that would lead to amending the state Constitution to remove the affordable-housing obligations placed upon local municipalities as a result of the Mount Laurel court decision.

If both houses of the Legislature approve it, the declaration would be submitted for voter approval at the next general election. The resolution will also prohibit state government from imposing laws that would overturn or interfere with a municipality’s zoning ordinances.

The amendment says that no law shall require any municipality to “create, fund or implement any program to provide housing for all income levels by means of land use regulation, or by fee assessment.”

“Nowhere in New Jersey’s Constitution is there a mandate for the state or local towns to provide affordable housing,” said Mr. Doherty, a Republican representing 24 of Hunterdon’s 26 municipalities. “There is not even an acceptable definition of what constitutes ‘affordable.’
“Our intent is to take such nebulous terms out of the hands of the court system and ultimately let the voters decide whether they should subsidize new housing in their towns. The infrastructure costs associated with this directive are enormous, and are ultimately borne by the taxpayer. This resolution will correct a misguided public policy.”
Mr. Carroll said the amendment “restates — for a judiciary that wrote its own policy preferences into the Constitution — that property tax payers owe no obligation to subsidize development of any kind.

We commend the efforts of Assemblymen Doherty and Carroll for taking this first step towards ending COHA mandates. Of course, Steve Lonegan has been very much at the forefront of this issue as well, with one of his priorities being to put this issue before the voters via referenda should he win the governorship.

Ultimately, this is exactly what needs to happen in order to re-establish the right of the people to govern themselves and thwart a renegade NJ Supreme Court.

Read more COAH news here:

• Impact on Randolph, NJ/Highlands Area: We’re being pressured to sign on
• Marlboro team trounces COAH in resolution

Cross-posted at Red County.

Help put an end to this socialist policy that is crippling New jersey. Make your voice heard.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE.

Also, please check out this excellent write-up on COAH by Thomas Roughneen which appeared in mycentraljersey.com.

Over at Alice’s Restaurant blog, Alice provides a firsthand account of a COAH meeting she attended regarding New Jersey’s Highlands region. The Highlands region is considered by state law a ‘Special Resource Area,’ limiting the area to development. This, of course, creates a dilemma for the region – trying to preserve the area while also trying to comply with mandated ’affordable housing’ units under COHA.

Alice does a great job in narrating for us the events at the meeting but also provides an excellent historical perspective of how we have reached this point.

In addition to the numerous problems I have outlined in previous posts on this subject, Alice points out another heretofore unmentioned problem — the inherent unfairness of the entire plan for some homeowners:

I questioned the ‘panel’ on the fairness of the many residents living in homes valued at less than the ‘affordable units’.  Many have incomes less than the qualifying incomes for an ‘affordable unit’, but will pay for others.  Many homes are in need of repair yet these owners are also paying a share toward affordable housing for others who are getting living quarters that are new or refurbished.

I highly recommend reading Alice’s entire post here.

While on this subject, I would also say ‘kudos’ to Assemblyman Merkt who actually introduced legislation yesterday to abolish COHA.

As I’ve been reporting on this blog, COAH regulations are eating at the quality of life in New Jersey. Fiscally, the program is already costing taxpayers greatly with the burden only forecast to increase to some $2 Billion a year per town. And in numerous cases, the housing is not going those it was intended for, but to former criminals and sex offenders.

But it’s even more than this. COAH is a regulatory nightmare that is undermining the authority of municipalities across the state and hampering their ability to run themselves and meet their obligations.

Perhaps nowhere else in the state is this more of an issue than in Hunterdon County (via NJ.com):

Hunterdon municipal officials whose towns lie in part or entirely within the environmentally sensitive Highlands region learned a few weeks ago they could get a one-year extension to the Dec. 31 deadline to develop their affordable housing plans if they agreed to follow the more stringent rules governing preservation areas in their town’s planning areas.

Now Highlands towns have been told they cannot approve any new residential development application unless it sets aside at least one-fifth of the homes for middle- and low-income families.

The “scarce resource restraint order” issued Nov. 12 by the state Council on Affordable Housing affects 15 Hunterdon municipalities and takes effect immediately.

For that reason, Ms. Karrow called the order “unconscionable.”

“It condemns Highlands municipalities to tax hell,” she said. “How are my municipalities expected to pay for new growth or annual increases in utilities, insurance and pension obligations without the ability to grow ratables?”

It does not prevent municipalities from granting permits for single-family or duplex units on existing lots. It also does not explicitly exclude commercial developments from the 20% rule.

The order prevents municipalities from granting development approvals, water and wastewater allocations until and unless they can demonstrate to COAH that those resources “have been dedicated on a priority basis for the production of affordable housing,” Ms. Vandenberg wrote, but gave no details.

According to Ms. Karrow, it means, “You can’t even build a Wawa or a gas station until you prove you meet your COAH requirement.”

Clinton Township Mayor Nick Corcodilos said by requiring towns in the Highlands to allocate the use of scarce resources for COAH housing before anything else, “It locks down and takes over all your land-use rules.” He said attorney John Drill advised the township Planning Board to explain to applicants that their approvals are subject to COAH’s rules, even if they change.

In truth, the order will have little impact on municipalities like Clinton Township, where developable land, sewer capacity and water availability are already in short supply, Mayor Corcodilos said Monday. “We’re already imposing a restriction on ourselves,” allocating what is left of these resources to COAH housing, “because we have to.”

Two pending township plans would yield 100 units, he said, practically tapping out township sewer and water opportunities. “Anyone who comes to Clinton Township and wants to build something must go to a private entity to get sewer capacity.”

This is what you get when you put in place socialistic policies in the name of the public good. In essence, we have tyranny of the state government over local branches of government. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And until we repeal COAH, New Jersey will be feeling hotter and hotter.

Also, check out this related COAH story from the pressofatlanticcity.com. In particular, we agree with this quote from Atlantic County Executive Dennis Levinson:

“Is it a good idea to have affordable housing?… Of course. But I’m going to give you a better deal. How about an affordable state to live in? If you have an affordable state, you have affordable housing.”

This from a post over at The Cranbury Conservative.

It is being reported that an owner of a new small laundry business in Bridgeton will have to pay between $4,000 & $5,000 in affordable housing fees in order to get his certificate of occupancy.

This is all because of Assembly Speaker Roberts affordable housing legislation which was signed into law by Governor Jon Corzine in July of this year.

The affordable housing law call for a fee of 2.5% to be assessed for a property’s estimated assessed value before a new business can open its doors.

Again, it’s no wonder his state is not creating jobs and people are moving out. The liberals in Trenton are killing us with their social engineering.

Read the rest of the post here and the original story here.

If this isn’t enough to tell you what a terible idea COAH is, nothing will. According to State Senator “Kip” Bateman, COAH will likely cost $2 BILLION for each community. That’s 2 BILLION DOLLARS to pay for housing for sex offenders and other ex-prisoners.

Read Senator Bateman’s entire release here.

While we certainly appreciate the Senator’s efforts, amending COAH isn’t the solution. The solution is getting rid of it altogether before this program really sends this state under for good.

COAH means ex-prisoners and sex offenders in your community. Nice.

From Americans for Prosperity:

Who’s This Housing Really For?

Proponents of the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) mandates claim this housing proposal will provide for police officers and teachers who want to live in their communities.   They claim it is for our young people who want to stay in the New Jersey.  This sounds nice–if you want your child graduating college and moving into a government housing unit, alongside those described on page 15 of the 2006 Housing Report.   A careful examination of this Report  reveals that police and teachers are never mentioned except in a paragraph that references below market mortgages available through the Police and Firefighters Retirement System (PFRS), mainly because police and teachers earn well above the median average for their communities. .  No where does this report call for the provision of such housing.  

The report does, however, outline who is eligible…

Ex-offenders leaving Northern State Prison will be “mainstreamed” into your neighborhood.  Youth aging out of juvenile detention are another targeted market.  But the most unsettling group eligible to live here are persons called “hard to house.”  What does this mean? The state places sex offenders and pedophiles in housing units.  Visit the State police Web site at http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/reg_sexoffend.html and find out how many of these individuals are in your community.  

Under this mandate, there are lots more to come. Toms River, for example, currently is home to 102 known sex offenders. Hoboken, the home of Governor Jon Corzine and one of New Jersey’s largest cities, is home to five.  Toms River is mandated to build 4,386 low income units.  The number of convicted sex offenders moving into Toms River and other suburban communities can be expected to rise significantly. The Trenton planners will be experimenting with our neighborhoods to find out if their social engineering schemes work. You and I will suffer the consequences, but they don’t care. We are just guinea pigs.

In 1911, when “Trenton Makes-the World Takes” was adopted as Trenton’s official slogan and the famous sign built on the approach to Trenton, 10% of America’s population lived within 75 miles of Trenton. The free market met the demands of a growing and diverse population with innovations like Sears’s homes, row housing, mansions, Cape Cod homes and more.  Now, with New Jersey experiencing increased outward migration, the Trenton planners want to step in and second guess our needs and wants, replacing the success that made New Jersey an economic powerhouse with massive entitlement housing projects.

Please call your legislator, and tell him to stop threatening our neighborhoods with Trenton’s radical experiments.

To see where COAH units are going up in your neighborhood click here.