Introduction
Devolution of development to localities and regions is a process that has been taking place for a considerable period of time in various countries led by the United States. Ideas of decentralizing development to locals and regions has been largely informed by the reaffirmation of liberal democracy values and ideals following demise of the cold war in 1990s.
The notion of free enterprise expresses the idea behind intensive devolution of development, that is, the belief, that people should be at liberty to develop as they wish through free trade and free exchange of goods and ideas Somerville (2011). Free development of people and communities has however raised concerns about protection of our environment from adverse effects of our socioeconomic activities.
The concerned authorities have thus attempted to come up with strategies that can help in safeguarding our core natural resources from the negative impacts of our socioeconomic activities.
Politicians too have been on the front line in striving towards coming up with strategies that can mitigate negative impacts of our activities upon the natural resources of our states. This task is a case review on the article titled “The Struggle over Smart Growth in New Jersey”
Origins of Smart Growth in New Jersey
According to Kennedy School of Government (2011) development strategists of twentieth century endorsed the idea of directing development into regional cities, suburbs, restraining the expansion of sprawl and safeguarding farmlands and natural resources. These ideas were christened smart growth.
Smart growth ideas were largely informed by the urgent need to promote development while at the same time protecting the natural resources from excessive degradation especially within the cities and suburbs.
While running for the governorship in New Jersey in 2001democrat James E.McGreeevey understood the idea of smart growth as a potential solution to the adverse effects of suburban development that had eroded natural environments, had brought decay of the urban centers and had led to an increase in property taxes.
McGreevey also perceived the idea of smart growth as political opportunity and went ahead to campaign for New Jersey Governor’s seat and won Kennedy School of Government (2011).The school also notes that the ideas behind smart growth has a long history going back to the 1920s.
Major Management and Political Issues of the Case
After his election to the governorship of New Jersey there was a brief stopping in the progress of his smart growth ideas. However, he began to get back his momentum for smart growth towards the end of year 2003 aiming to restrict development in the farms, mountains, lakes and in northwestern Highlands.
Kennedy School of Government (2011) points out that it was socioeconomic factors that helped to put smart growth on the political agenda in New Jersey. For instance, factors such increase in traffic congestion called for a change on New Jersey’s urban roads.
Management wise New Jersey is known as one of several states that put a lot of effort on smart growth initiatives from a state level Wiewel and Knaap (2005). Wiewel and Knaap (2005) argue that New Jersey’s plan has its foundations in the state plan which illustrates growth management needs for New Jersey State which is the most densely populated in US.
The year 2001 state plan was particularly initiated as a response to the dilapidated economy and quality of life in urban centers, increased traffic congestion, degradation of natural resources and loss of open space Wiewel and Knaap (2005).It is against this background that Democrat James E.McGreeevey was elected the governor of New Jersey in year 2001.
As governor of the state and knowing too well that the residents of New Jersey urgently wanted a solution for the above mentioned problems McGreevey embraced the smart growth as a solution to those problems. However, he was to face fierce opposition from other stakeholders in his bid to implement his ideas of smart growth through legislation Knaap (2007).
New Jersey’s state plan is its version of a statewide smart growth initiative through which it mobilizes communities to develop more compact, mixed-use designs that protect the environment and provide for more efficient infrastructure systems while at the same time allowing envisaged growth to take place Wiewel and Knaap (2005).
Major management and political issues regarding New Jersey’s case of struggle with smart growth revolves around the efforts made by governors like McGreevey in ensuring that his state’s development legislation and plans remained safeguarded and the interests of other stakeholders including developers, lawmakers, environmentalists as well as his political opponents.
For instance, Salmore and Salmore (2008) argue that the Smart Growth Act given McGreevey was dismissed by his opponents as “fast track”. Environmentalists were equally unhappy with Sierra Club state chapter dismissing Smart Growth Act by McGreevey as a bad bill.
Major Interests Involved
Major interests involved in this case revolve around the efforts of various stakeholders including state authorities, developers, environmentalists, lawyers among others.
On one hand the state was concerned about safeguarding environment from adverse economic activities through state plan and further legislation that would make smart growth its part while on the other hand other stake holders are concerned about protecting their interests from legislation deemed bad and unrealistic in relation to their development interests.
Reference List
Kennedy School of Government. (2011). The struggle Over Smart Growth in New Jersey.
Knaap, G. (2007). Incentives, regulations and plans: the role of states and nation-states in smart growth planning. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing Edward Elgar Publishing.
Salmore, B. G., & Salmore, S. A. (2008). New Jersey politics and government: the suburbs come of age. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Somerville. (2011).Understanding Community: Politics, Policy and Practice. New York: The Policy Press.
Wiewel. W., & Knaap, G. (2005). Partnerships for smart growth: university-community collaboration for better public places. New ,York: M.E. Sharpe.