Question 6 a needed investment in healthy future for R.I.

In its editorial (“Voter referenda present mixed choices,” Oct. 29), Providence Business News argued that, given Rhode Island’s structural budget deficit, the state cannot afford all the bond issues on the ballot “without compelling evidence of positive long-term economic benefits.”
We agree that voters need to look very carefully at long-term economic benefits. We strongly disagree, however, with PBN’s conclusion that voters should reject Question 6 – Environmental Management Bonds – and with PBN’s characterization of Question 6 as simply providing “access to undeveloped land.”
“Access to undeveloped land” does not accurately describe what approval of Question 6 would mean to Rhode Island and its residents. Question 6 is intended to protect the working farmland and water quality needed by our agricultural and fishing industries, and expand and improve the natural attractions and park facilities that attract visitors to our state. It will, in fact, have positive long-term economic benefits.
Here, specifically, is where the $20 million in bond issues authorized in Question 6 would go:
• $4.5 million to fund the state program that permanently protects productive farmland.
• $4 million to protect our rivers, streams and Narragansett Bay from polluted stormwater and to restore freshwater and marine habitats.
• $2.5 million for state land acquisition for beaches and shoreline areas that provide public access to the bay and for state park land and another $2.5 million for matching grants for community-based land-conservation efforts.
• $5.5 million to help municipalities acquire and develop parks, playgrounds, ball fields and other active recreation facilities, and another $1 million to restore historic parks.
What specific long-term economic benefits would these public investments have? They would ensure that our agricultural industry ($170 million in sales and growing) will continue to have the land essential for farming. Agriculture and the local-foods economy are bright spots in the state’s economy. But only 25 percent of our working farmland is protected – the rest is at risk for development.
Rhode Island has no funds left in its agricultural-lands protection program. If we do not pass the state bond, 27 farms that have been approved for protection must remain on the waiting list. If they can’t afford to wait, then some may be forced to put land up for sale. And the state bond will not only replenish the program, but it will also provide the match required to access an additional $5 million in federal funding for farmland protection each year.
Question 6 also would help to protect the fresh and saltwater habitats and the fishing grounds essential to our $200 million fishing industry and to aquaculture initiatives that are showing much promise.
And Question 6 would ensure that our own residents have the safe and attractive parks, playgrounds and ball fields that are essential for public health. With obesity-related health spending in Rhode Island currently costing $2 billion annually, according to the Trust for America’s Health, this public health issue is also an economic issue.
Finally, an investment in land conservation is truly a sound investment. Land protected is likely to appreciate in value and will be worth more when the bonds are paid off. •


Jan Eckhart is the owner-farmer of Sweet Berry Farm in Middletown and chair of the Rhode Island Agricultural Partnership. Scott Wolf is the executive director of Grow Smart Rhode Island.

No posts to display