I read today’s blog by Dan Damon and I hope in the future that he refrains from putting me in the position of debating an issue that involves the late mayor Al McWilliams. I do not think it is fair for his family nor to the City of Plainfield.
I have always mentioned the past administration, without mentioning the name of Al McWilliams. The administration is comprised of many more than just a mayor.
To put me in a position of saying I am being critical of the late mayor is distasteful and I will not feed into it.
Just as you thought it was a joke when my home and family got disrespected a few weeks ago, I will not debate an issue without that person being able to be here to defend themselves.
Now the Teppers site, which I was against because I thought we could do something else, but once the past administration agreed that was the way they wanted to go and voted that way, as an elected official I gave it my support.
This situation is no different from when I did not support Chris Christie’s budget, and I spoke out against it. He however got the budget passed. Now I will work with him for what is best for the residents of New Jersey.
That is the difference between Plainfield politics and New Jersey politics statewide. When you are outvoted on an issue, you do not take it personal nor do you stand in the way of making sure that you support the issue because it is clear that the majority who do support it, want to give it a chance.
Moving forward, there will be many issues I will speak out against, however if the majority votes in favor of the issue I oppose, I will not stand in the way of giving it a chance.
Ps
Doc before you go on a 3-day vacation with the family, I would like to correct you on your latest blog.
The eight Democratic Assembly members and four Senators that voted for the budget was part of an agreement with the Governor’s Office so that we would not have to shut down State government. Secondly, this is Gov. Christie’s budget with no support from the Democratic Assembly or Senate. This budget passing was done strictly to avoid state shutdown.
We made it very clear that this is Christie’s budget and the Republican legislators’ budget.
I made it very clear from day one that I would not be part of the strategy nor would I support the budget, especially when 16,000 millionaires did not get hurt from the budget, while 8 million residents will feel the brunt of this budget.
Now that the budget has passed, I look forward to working with the Governor to deal with the crisis that will be faced here by the people of New Jersey.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Plainfield BOE Potpourri
I read today’s blog in reference to a BOE member’s concern of, where have I been. Maybe I should ask the question, where have you been?
One: Ten years ago, I fought and was able to get Plainfield back as an Abbott School District which pours in over $100 million a year, a fee the Plainfield taxpayers would have had to pay for. Over ten years, that is over $1 billion in savings I have saved the Plainfield taxpayers.
Two: With school construction, I was able to secure funds to build a new Emerson school, as well as remedy other schools within the district. This is a funding source I fought for and won on behalf of the district I represent.
Three: When the BOE left a line item out of the budget that could have cost the BOE over $2 million, while at the same time the BOE was not filling positions and accumulating over $3 million which was borderline criminal, I was able to work with the County Superintendent and the Commissioner of Education and disarm that ordeal.
This last year with the circus over at the Board, which I choose not to be a part of, including the circus that is currently going on at the Board which I will refrain from getting involved in, was and still is an embarrassment to the City of Plainfield.
So for someone to ask me to come by and have a chat, someone of that caliber, I am clearly not interested, especially when they have for the last six months sat quiet as the governor cut over $8 million from our children in education and library resources. Now the governor’s budget has passed and NOW we hear the BOE and Council, but were conducting ‘business as usual’ when the budget was under negotiation.
The Board and Council spend the majority of their time dealing with personal agendas and 'business as usual' politics. Prime example, the Board brought back an attorney that was a part of the management team that basically embarrassed the City and drew up legal fees that are also embarrassing. Some of these legal fees that this firm has clocked along with some of the high-priced staff members who make well over $100,000 could have been eliminated with this year’s school budget. Those dollars could have gone towards our children and working with the library community.
And now, you have done the damage, and now would like to have chitchat. Maybe when the community brought Fox 5 ‘Shame on You’ to Plainfield earlier, we should invite them back to question the current Board on the decisions they have made today.
In case you have not found time to read the newspapers, the job I have been elected to as a State Legislator, I am doing. I am not embarrassing the City with the job that I am doing. This is why I am supporting the Governor in moving the Board of Education elections to November, so that it will take more than a handful of friends to get elected.
One: Ten years ago, I fought and was able to get Plainfield back as an Abbott School District which pours in over $100 million a year, a fee the Plainfield taxpayers would have had to pay for. Over ten years, that is over $1 billion in savings I have saved the Plainfield taxpayers.
Two: With school construction, I was able to secure funds to build a new Emerson school, as well as remedy other schools within the district. This is a funding source I fought for and won on behalf of the district I represent.
Three: When the BOE left a line item out of the budget that could have cost the BOE over $2 million, while at the same time the BOE was not filling positions and accumulating over $3 million which was borderline criminal, I was able to work with the County Superintendent and the Commissioner of Education and disarm that ordeal.
This last year with the circus over at the Board, which I choose not to be a part of, including the circus that is currently going on at the Board which I will refrain from getting involved in, was and still is an embarrassment to the City of Plainfield.
So for someone to ask me to come by and have a chat, someone of that caliber, I am clearly not interested, especially when they have for the last six months sat quiet as the governor cut over $8 million from our children in education and library resources. Now the governor’s budget has passed and NOW we hear the BOE and Council, but were conducting ‘business as usual’ when the budget was under negotiation.
The Board and Council spend the majority of their time dealing with personal agendas and 'business as usual' politics. Prime example, the Board brought back an attorney that was a part of the management team that basically embarrassed the City and drew up legal fees that are also embarrassing. Some of these legal fees that this firm has clocked along with some of the high-priced staff members who make well over $100,000 could have been eliminated with this year’s school budget. Those dollars could have gone towards our children and working with the library community.
And now, you have done the damage, and now would like to have chitchat. Maybe when the community brought Fox 5 ‘Shame on You’ to Plainfield earlier, we should invite them back to question the current Board on the decisions they have made today.
In case you have not found time to read the newspapers, the job I have been elected to as a State Legislator, I am doing. I am not embarrassing the City with the job that I am doing. This is why I am supporting the Governor in moving the Board of Education elections to November, so that it will take more than a handful of friends to get elected.
Bo is Still Clueless
Welcome back to the blog community Bo Vastine. You have been absent for the past six months. In the midst of the devastating budget cuts to the entire 22nd District, especially our seniors and children,
You are more concerned about the 16,000 millionaires that the Governor did not hurt in this budget. So please, spare us the grandstanding. There are some issues I have supported on behalf of the governor, as well as some I do not support.
I do not support making 16,000 people happy while making 8 million suffer. You have not said anything these past six months because you would have been, if elected, in the Republican caucus supporting every move the governor made.
So for you to take one issue that is under negotiation and make it sound like you are the hero, well you had the opportunity to be a hero if you would have come out and question these cuts by the governor which are hurting those within the district. I will not debate an individual who only shows up when he thinks he can look good amongst the Republican Party.
It is clear Bo that you do not read the newspapers nor are on top of housing issues throughout the State. Leaders throughout the State, including the Front Office, have been crediting me with good governmental practice regarding housing issues. Not one time have you come out in support, but this does not surprise me because your style of politics will not allow you to give credit where it is due.
In this last campaign, every issue I stood up for, those which you criticized me, have become a reality; education, rebate checks, local tax increases. If you were elected, you would have been like all the other Republican members in the Assembly who fell in line with the governor’s cuts. They allowed this governor to make decisions that would hurt their districts in spite of their elected duty to represent their districts according to their needs.
So in case you were out of town and were not able to read the editorial in the Star Ledger, I will re-post it on my blog for your edification:
Assembly Committee Shows How It's Done
Anyone curious about what good government looks like should have dropped in on the Assembly committee hearing on the new housing bill last week. Advocates, clergy, builders and mayors all had a chance to sit before the committee chaired by Assemblyman Jerry Green, air their concerns and take questions.
It was a striking contrast to the Senate committee chaired by Ray Lesniak — which not only declined to hear testimony on the bill, but failed to make new amendments public in a timely fashion. And voted to move the bill out of committee, anyway.
The bill would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing and put in its place a different system for making low-cost housing available throughout the state. But the bill is too important to rush through, especially when so many details are still being corrected and clarified.
Green gets it.
He and his committee — vice chair Mila Jasey, Linda Greenstein, Fred Scalera, Celeste Riley, Charlotte Vandervalk and Michael Patrick Carroll — took the time to listen to testimony and asked for copies of statements. The committee was no pushover: Green did everyone a favor by running a tight ship and keeping testimony focused on the details of the bill and possible solutions. No grandstanding allowed.
Senators, take note.
Source: www.nj.com
You are more concerned about the 16,000 millionaires that the Governor did not hurt in this budget. So please, spare us the grandstanding. There are some issues I have supported on behalf of the governor, as well as some I do not support.
I do not support making 16,000 people happy while making 8 million suffer. You have not said anything these past six months because you would have been, if elected, in the Republican caucus supporting every move the governor made.
So for you to take one issue that is under negotiation and make it sound like you are the hero, well you had the opportunity to be a hero if you would have come out and question these cuts by the governor which are hurting those within the district. I will not debate an individual who only shows up when he thinks he can look good amongst the Republican Party.
It is clear Bo that you do not read the newspapers nor are on top of housing issues throughout the State. Leaders throughout the State, including the Front Office, have been crediting me with good governmental practice regarding housing issues. Not one time have you come out in support, but this does not surprise me because your style of politics will not allow you to give credit where it is due.
In this last campaign, every issue I stood up for, those which you criticized me, have become a reality; education, rebate checks, local tax increases. If you were elected, you would have been like all the other Republican members in the Assembly who fell in line with the governor’s cuts. They allowed this governor to make decisions that would hurt their districts in spite of their elected duty to represent their districts according to their needs.
So in case you were out of town and were not able to read the editorial in the Star Ledger, I will re-post it on my blog for your edification:
Assembly Committee Shows How It's Done
Anyone curious about what good government looks like should have dropped in on the Assembly committee hearing on the new housing bill last week. Advocates, clergy, builders and mayors all had a chance to sit before the committee chaired by Assemblyman Jerry Green, air their concerns and take questions.
It was a striking contrast to the Senate committee chaired by Ray Lesniak — which not only declined to hear testimony on the bill, but failed to make new amendments public in a timely fashion. And voted to move the bill out of committee, anyway.
The bill would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing and put in its place a different system for making low-cost housing available throughout the state. But the bill is too important to rush through, especially when so many details are still being corrected and clarified.
Green gets it.
He and his committee — vice chair Mila Jasey, Linda Greenstein, Fred Scalera, Celeste Riley, Charlotte Vandervalk and Michael Patrick Carroll — took the time to listen to testimony and asked for copies of statements. The committee was no pushover: Green did everyone a favor by running a tight ship and keeping testimony focused on the details of the bill and possible solutions. No grandstanding allowed.
Senators, take note.
Source: www.nj.com
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
June 29 Thoughts / Post Budget Hearing
The budget hearing on yesterday did not end until 4am this morning. I did not support the budget because of the detrimental cuts, primarily to senior programs, education, and health care services. It was a sad day for the State of New Jersey, especially for the City of Plainfield.
The Mayor and Council will now have to make some serious decisions in terms of what services the City will keep, and those they will eliminate because the public has sent a strong message that they will not accept any tax increases. In the next few days, I will share some of the cuts and their affects on the 22nd Legislative District.
I spoke to the Commissioner of Health, not only about the ambulance service but also about the future of the emergency facilities of Muhlenberg Hospital. Reason being is because at last week’s Solaris Community Meeting (which they have to hold once a year to keep the public abreast), they did not make a strong commitment as to whether or not they would keep the emergency facility open or if they were going to close it.
I think it is important that they share with the Plainfield medical community their plans for Muhlenberg’s future.
I read Jim Pivnichny’s blog complaining about the City looking at the idea of cutting the funding for the library. Do not be fooled! He would prefer to bring blame to the Mayor and Council regarding library cuts, even though he sat back and said nothing about the cuts made by Christie statewide to the library community.
Also, I am surprised when the public defeated the BOE budget, that although the Council could not change the bottom line, they could have reallocated funding to different line items. And since the children of the Plainfield school district depend on the library, I am confident that if the BOE would have spent more time figuring out how they could help close the financial gap in the City, rather than bring back attorneys that we have spent over $1 million in fees, our woes may have been averted. Secondly, we still have many high paying positions within the BOE budget, which could have been removed from the budget and used for servicing beneficial to the children.
Therefore, I believe that the New Democrats, Jim Pivnichny, and the Plainfield BOE have their own agenda, one that is not good government for the City of Plainfield. Not one time have they challenged the cuts Gov. Christie have made in this year’s budget and the impact they would have on the City of Plainfield. Instead, they have spent their time being critical, as well as calling me ‘unethical.’
Ps
There are approximately 8 million residents in New Jersey who will feel the impact of this budget. In both the Senate and General Assembly, EVERY Republican voted in support of this budget, fully knowing the negative ramifications of such budget cuts within their districts.
The only residents happy with this budget are the 16,000 millionaires who were spared this budget. So in the latter part of this year when people begin to receive their tax bills with increases, and fail to receive rebate checks, they will only begin to experience the suffering they must endure at the hands of Governor Chris Christie.
The Mayor and Council will now have to make some serious decisions in terms of what services the City will keep, and those they will eliminate because the public has sent a strong message that they will not accept any tax increases. In the next few days, I will share some of the cuts and their affects on the 22nd Legislative District.
I spoke to the Commissioner of Health, not only about the ambulance service but also about the future of the emergency facilities of Muhlenberg Hospital. Reason being is because at last week’s Solaris Community Meeting (which they have to hold once a year to keep the public abreast), they did not make a strong commitment as to whether or not they would keep the emergency facility open or if they were going to close it.
I think it is important that they share with the Plainfield medical community their plans for Muhlenberg’s future.
I read Jim Pivnichny’s blog complaining about the City looking at the idea of cutting the funding for the library. Do not be fooled! He would prefer to bring blame to the Mayor and Council regarding library cuts, even though he sat back and said nothing about the cuts made by Christie statewide to the library community.
Also, I am surprised when the public defeated the BOE budget, that although the Council could not change the bottom line, they could have reallocated funding to different line items. And since the children of the Plainfield school district depend on the library, I am confident that if the BOE would have spent more time figuring out how they could help close the financial gap in the City, rather than bring back attorneys that we have spent over $1 million in fees, our woes may have been averted. Secondly, we still have many high paying positions within the BOE budget, which could have been removed from the budget and used for servicing beneficial to the children.
Therefore, I believe that the New Democrats, Jim Pivnichny, and the Plainfield BOE have their own agenda, one that is not good government for the City of Plainfield. Not one time have they challenged the cuts Gov. Christie have made in this year’s budget and the impact they would have on the City of Plainfield. Instead, they have spent their time being critical, as well as calling me ‘unethical.’
Ps
There are approximately 8 million residents in New Jersey who will feel the impact of this budget. In both the Senate and General Assembly, EVERY Republican voted in support of this budget, fully knowing the negative ramifications of such budget cuts within their districts.
The only residents happy with this budget are the 16,000 millionaires who were spared this budget. So in the latter part of this year when people begin to receive their tax bills with increases, and fail to receive rebate checks, they will only begin to experience the suffering they must endure at the hands of Governor Chris Christie.
Green: Christie's Tax-Laden Budget Wrong for New Jersey
(TRENTON) - Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green (D-Union) issued the following statement Tuesday on his refusal to support the tax-laden budget put forth by Gov. Chris Christie and the Republicans:
"On March 16, Gov. Christie promised us a budget that would be free of 'one-time gimmicks,' that would 'contain shared sacrifice' and would not increase 'the tax burden we place on our people.'
"A little more than three months later, the budget before us easily and repeatedly breaks every one of those promises.
"This is a budget that all but declares class warfare in our State in the name of revenues equaling expenditures.
"Gov. Christie and Republicans have't just tried to balance this budget on the backs of those who can least afford it - New Jersey's working class and working poor families - they've tried to bury them under it.
"If this is Gov. Christie's idea of 'bold action' that 'will lay the groundwork for a better tomorrow,' then I want nothing to do with it."
"On March 16, Gov. Christie promised us a budget that would be free of 'one-time gimmicks,' that would 'contain shared sacrifice' and would not increase 'the tax burden we place on our people.'
"A little more than three months later, the budget before us easily and repeatedly breaks every one of those promises.
"This is a budget that all but declares class warfare in our State in the name of revenues equaling expenditures.
"Gov. Christie and Republicans have't just tried to balance this budget on the backs of those who can least afford it - New Jersey's working class and working poor families - they've tried to bury them under it.
"If this is Gov. Christie's idea of 'bold action' that 'will lay the groundwork for a better tomorrow,' then I want nothing to do with it."
Monday, June 28, 2010
Impact of Christie’s budget on the residents of the 22nd district
Assembly Democrats drove nearly $200 million in restorations that made the horrendous plan introduced by Gov. Christie in March a better budget.
Thanks to the hard work of Assembly Democrats, the budget now includes more funding for important areas such as general assistance, education for blind children, adult medicine day care, college tuition and scholarship help and after school programs.
Yet the budget remains replete with Republican tax increases that represent an assault on the middle-class and poor and senior and disabled citizens. It also still slashes important programs such as women’s health care, adult education and public libraries.
· The improvements were driven by Assembly Democrats determined to make this budget plan the best it can possibly be for working class New Jerseyans amid unrelenting Republicans support for tax increases on everyone but millionaires.
· This unfortunately remains a tax-laden Republican budget, but thanks to our changes it is at least better than initially proposed.
· We can assure every resident that Democrats did everything possible, but as we know the Republicans wouldn’t even budge on their preference for tax cuts for 16,000 millionaires over property tax relief for more than 600,000 senior and disabled residents.
· Seemingly everything important to average New Jerseyans is being taxed by this Republican budget.
· Working poor will see their income taxes rise and lose their health insurance as millionaires get a tax cut.
· Senior and disabled citizens are losing as much as $1,300 in property tax relief as millionaires get a tax cut.
· Insurance premiums will rise, meaning health and auto insurance bills are about to become even more expensive as millionaires get a tax cut.
· Businesses are being stung by higher filing taxes and losses in tax credits that have helped create jobs and drive our economy, all while millionaires get a tax cut.
· If you have a disabled child needing early intervention, you are about to pay more as millionaires get a tax cut.
· If you live in a poor school district and want your child safe in a summer program, you will pay more as millionaires get a tax cut.
· And don’t forget the record-setting NJ Transit fare hike earlier this year that is nothing more than a tax on working New Jerseyans.
· We are saddened that important issues like women’s health care, adult education and libraries remain the victims of this budget, but we at least were able to help some of our most vulnerable residents.
· Democrats will continue to look to find ways to fund these valuable programs in the months ahead and hope to work with Republicans to make it happen.
Friday, June 25, 2010
A Response to Doc
I would like to respond to Doc’s blog today. I made it very clear Doc that I would speak out on any elected official on any level of government in the future. This is why I have spoken to the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs regarding the CFO position in Plainfield.
I made it clear to the Commissioner that I am concerned with City government because of the serious cuts Plainfield is facing within the State Budget. I shared with her that it is time we get ourselves in gear in light of the heavy budget cuts.
Depth of the conversation between the Commissioner and I is not one which can be made public at this time, but I made it very clear that I am concerned. This is no different from the meetings I am having with the Commissioner of Health dealing with the ambulance service here in Plainfield.
In fact, I have asked the Mayor to put together information so that I can share with the Commissioner’s office to not only show the commitment made to the City of Plainfield, but to also demonstrate the need for such a service.
So Doc, I hope I answered your question that I am not going to stand by and allow the City of Plainfield to be mismanaged.
Ps
Doc, it’s like anything else in life, you have to move on. The response I am getting throughout the entire state of New Jersey regarding my leadership role is reassuring.
I will try to refrain from posting, as you quoted, ‘personal vendettas.’ Although I find it very challenging to turn the other cheek when others lie about me.
But I will take your comments into consideration.
I made it clear to the Commissioner that I am concerned with City government because of the serious cuts Plainfield is facing within the State Budget. I shared with her that it is time we get ourselves in gear in light of the heavy budget cuts.
Depth of the conversation between the Commissioner and I is not one which can be made public at this time, but I made it very clear that I am concerned. This is no different from the meetings I am having with the Commissioner of Health dealing with the ambulance service here in Plainfield.
In fact, I have asked the Mayor to put together information so that I can share with the Commissioner’s office to not only show the commitment made to the City of Plainfield, but to also demonstrate the need for such a service.
So Doc, I hope I answered your question that I am not going to stand by and allow the City of Plainfield to be mismanaged.
Ps
Doc, it’s like anything else in life, you have to move on. The response I am getting throughout the entire state of New Jersey regarding my leadership role is reassuring.
I will try to refrain from posting, as you quoted, ‘personal vendettas.’ Although I find it very challenging to turn the other cheek when others lie about me.
But I will take your comments into consideration.
The Public Statewide Stands Behind Asm. Green, Local Officials Call Him 'unethical'
I am happy to see that the Family Planning funds may be restored into the State budget, through working with Assemblywoman Linda Stender within our 22nd Legislative District. The Family Planning organization that manages the Plainfield branch has met with me on numerous occasions to share with me the countless services they offer within Plainfield.
It is unbelievable the services they render to poorer residents, teenagers, young adults and women. This fund has to be restored because it will have a major impact here in the City because of the vital services they offer. Without this funding, the community they service will be in a crisis.
They help to educate our growing community when it comes to making the right decisions. Again, this is not an issue City Council nor the Board of Education has stepped up to the plate and showed support. If anything, I have been accused of ‘mud-slinging, sharing misleading information, and being unethical.’ I wish those individuals who chose to paint me in that sort of picture would share with the public why they feel I am acting unethically while I am fighting for the young and vulnerable within my district.
I am very happy with the thousands of post cards I have received on these issues, coupled with the support of the public. I will continuously update you with these issues and also solicit your support on these issues, especially since I have not received help from local officials.
I have been accused of being a ‘boss’ and also of ‘moving the City in the wrong direction.’ These elected officials have stood by and allowed these untruths to go forth. I am now however, standing up letting the public know that I have NO influence over any elected official in this City. As party chair, my job is to get party candidates elected, period.
I am very proud with that fact that the elected officials in other towns within the 22nd District have been very supportive with the way I have dealt with the issues of the constituents within their towns. It is a rewarding feeling to embrace the support within the balance of my district. You do not hear the problems they are having with their Councils nor Boards of Education because they put their residents FIRST, and not their personal agendas. This is the problem however here in the City of Plainfield.
Ps
I will be supporting Governor Christie’s idea of moving the school board election to a time where more people will get involved. Just the mere fact that this past week, Plainfield’s Board of Education voted to bring back a firm that has been a part of the leadership team for the past three years. It is clear as day that this current Board of Education is sending the message of ‘business as usual’ governance.
When City resident Victor King was an attorney over at the BOE, his fee with about $100,000 a year. Within the last three years, our legal fee has been well over $1 million. You do the math!
It is unbelievable the services they render to poorer residents, teenagers, young adults and women. This fund has to be restored because it will have a major impact here in the City because of the vital services they offer. Without this funding, the community they service will be in a crisis.
They help to educate our growing community when it comes to making the right decisions. Again, this is not an issue City Council nor the Board of Education has stepped up to the plate and showed support. If anything, I have been accused of ‘mud-slinging, sharing misleading information, and being unethical.’ I wish those individuals who chose to paint me in that sort of picture would share with the public why they feel I am acting unethically while I am fighting for the young and vulnerable within my district.
I am very happy with the thousands of post cards I have received on these issues, coupled with the support of the public. I will continuously update you with these issues and also solicit your support on these issues, especially since I have not received help from local officials.
I have been accused of being a ‘boss’ and also of ‘moving the City in the wrong direction.’ These elected officials have stood by and allowed these untruths to go forth. I am now however, standing up letting the public know that I have NO influence over any elected official in this City. As party chair, my job is to get party candidates elected, period.
I am very proud with that fact that the elected officials in other towns within the 22nd District have been very supportive with the way I have dealt with the issues of the constituents within their towns. It is a rewarding feeling to embrace the support within the balance of my district. You do not hear the problems they are having with their Councils nor Boards of Education because they put their residents FIRST, and not their personal agendas. This is the problem however here in the City of Plainfield.
Ps
I will be supporting Governor Christie’s idea of moving the school board election to a time where more people will get involved. Just the mere fact that this past week, Plainfield’s Board of Education voted to bring back a firm that has been a part of the leadership team for the past three years. It is clear as day that this current Board of Education is sending the message of ‘business as usual’ governance.
When City resident Victor King was an attorney over at the BOE, his fee with about $100,000 a year. Within the last three years, our legal fee has been well over $1 million. You do the math!
Thursday, June 24, 2010
New Jersey Law Journal, June 21, 2010, Editorials
Gutting COAH
Senate Bill No. 1 -- which would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing, significantly reduce centralized state oversight of enforcement of the Mt. Laurel affordable housing mandate and essentially allow municipalities to self-certify that they are in compliance -- has passed in the Senate and is headed for the Assembly. The governor, who has vowed to "gut COAH," has announced that he would sign the bill into law.
Once S-1 is enacted, litigation is sure to follow, and absent a significant departure from stare decisis, we predicct that its provisions defining municipalities' affordable housing obligations will be declared unconstitutional.
Abolition of COAH is not the issue. Historically, the council has caused no end of angst, frustration, and exasperation for all sides, and has become a lightning rod for criticism. It has been universally reviled by municipalities, developers, fair housing advocates, and environmentalists.
Ironically, for the first 20 years of its existence, COAH was a convenient shield for many municipalities seeking protection from the more potent builder's rememdy while not actually promoting significant new affordable housing. But in the last few years leading to the promulgation of the third-round rules, it was the municipalities who cried "Et tu COAH!" when they suddenly found that, for once, it meant business, albeit through regulations that are complex, convoluted and at times barely comprehensible.
COAH itself is only one particular process chosen by the Legislature in the Fair Housing Act in response to the Supreme Court's invitation to devise a legislative mechanism in place of a judicial remedy in order to address the constitutional mandate of Mt. Laurel. The Legislature is free to change its mind and devise another solution, and nothing in the Mt. Laurel mandate prohibits abolition of the agency and replacement with something else. We thus have no quarrel with S-1 to the extent that it transfers the functions of COAH to the Department of Community Affairs. Indeed, although COAH is statutorily "in but not of" the department, historically no one has accused it of excessive independence from the department, so the change is somewhat cosmetic.
We do think that accusations that COAH has imposed "unfunded mandates" -- the bete noire of New Jersey politics -- are a bit overdone, given that COAH is a completely voluntary process that over 200 municipalities in New Jersey ignore simply by not seeking substative certification, thus taking their chances with a judicial remedy. As the chairman of the Council on Local Mandates wrote last year when Medford challenged COAH on those grounds, "The fact that over 44 percent of New Jersey's municipalities have elected to not participate in COAH fatally undermines Medford's assertion that the FHA or the COAH regulations are unfunded mandates as defined by the N.J. Const. art. VIII, section 2, paragraph 5. Simply stated, where there is choice, there is no mandate."
But the observation that, in the eyes of some, COAH has now outlived its usefulness as a voluntary alternative to judicial remedies enforcing the Mt. Laurel doctrine, highlights what is really at stake in S-1. If substantive certification by COAH no longer provides protection against a direct judicial remedy, then does S-1's replacement concept of "inclusionary municipality" do so in a way that the courts will accept? Unless the courts are willing to revisit the Mt. Laurel doctrine itself, we think the answer is no.
The real problem with S-1 is that it utterly fails to fulfill the Mt. Laurel mandate that obligates municipalities to provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing on a regional basis. S-1 does away with state-imposed calculations of affordable housing need, euphemistically known as quotas. Municipalities will simply be deemed to have fulfilled their housing obligation if 7.5 percent of their housing stock is price restricted, or 33 percent of their housing stock consists of multifamily housing to be included, although municipalities "may" exclude it.
And how do we know that such housing stock will satisfy the actual need for affordable housing? S-1 doesn't tell us. As pointed out by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, the bill requires neither the State Planning Commission nor the municipalities to determine and allocate regional housing need among the municipalities. There is no metric to evalute and determine whether need has been satisfied. Absent some nexus between the housing provided and satisfaction of regional and statewide affordable housing needs, the OLS rightly believes that S-1 will be declared unconstitutional.
S-1 also relis upon inclusionary zoing, under which builders will be required to reserve, or set aside, 10 percent of all new housing units for people of low and moderate income. The courts have repeatedly made clear, however, that satisfaction of Mt. Laurel cannot depend upon the inclination of developers to help the poor, but must depend on affirmative inducements to make the construction of affordable housing a reality. Such inducements must include, at a minimum, density bonuses, elimination of cost-generating features and removal of excessive restrictions and exactions.
S-1 does not require municipalities to provide any such inducements. It is unfair to require builders, and the ultimate purchasers of their market rate housing units, to bear the entire cost of affordable housing. But that is what S-1 does. As the Appellate Division held in its most recent COAH decision, "A regulatory regime that relies on developers to incur the uncompensated expense of providing afforable housing is unlikely to result in municipal zoning ordinances that make it realistically probable that the statewide need for affordable housing can be met."
While S-1 satisfies the pledge to "gut COAH,' it will accomplish nothing else if, as expected, the bill is enacted and invalidated by the courts. The Legislature needs to go back to the drawing board to draft a bill which simplifies the process while actually satisfying the need for affordable housing.
Senate Bill No. 1 -- which would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing, significantly reduce centralized state oversight of enforcement of the Mt. Laurel affordable housing mandate and essentially allow municipalities to self-certify that they are in compliance -- has passed in the Senate and is headed for the Assembly. The governor, who has vowed to "gut COAH," has announced that he would sign the bill into law.
Once S-1 is enacted, litigation is sure to follow, and absent a significant departure from stare decisis, we predicct that its provisions defining municipalities' affordable housing obligations will be declared unconstitutional.
Abolition of COAH is not the issue. Historically, the council has caused no end of angst, frustration, and exasperation for all sides, and has become a lightning rod for criticism. It has been universally reviled by municipalities, developers, fair housing advocates, and environmentalists.
Ironically, for the first 20 years of its existence, COAH was a convenient shield for many municipalities seeking protection from the more potent builder's rememdy while not actually promoting significant new affordable housing. But in the last few years leading to the promulgation of the third-round rules, it was the municipalities who cried "Et tu COAH!" when they suddenly found that, for once, it meant business, albeit through regulations that are complex, convoluted and at times barely comprehensible.
COAH itself is only one particular process chosen by the Legislature in the Fair Housing Act in response to the Supreme Court's invitation to devise a legislative mechanism in place of a judicial remedy in order to address the constitutional mandate of Mt. Laurel. The Legislature is free to change its mind and devise another solution, and nothing in the Mt. Laurel mandate prohibits abolition of the agency and replacement with something else. We thus have no quarrel with S-1 to the extent that it transfers the functions of COAH to the Department of Community Affairs. Indeed, although COAH is statutorily "in but not of" the department, historically no one has accused it of excessive independence from the department, so the change is somewhat cosmetic.
We do think that accusations that COAH has imposed "unfunded mandates" -- the bete noire of New Jersey politics -- are a bit overdone, given that COAH is a completely voluntary process that over 200 municipalities in New Jersey ignore simply by not seeking substative certification, thus taking their chances with a judicial remedy. As the chairman of the Council on Local Mandates wrote last year when Medford challenged COAH on those grounds, "The fact that over 44 percent of New Jersey's municipalities have elected to not participate in COAH fatally undermines Medford's assertion that the FHA or the COAH regulations are unfunded mandates as defined by the N.J. Const. art. VIII, section 2, paragraph 5. Simply stated, where there is choice, there is no mandate."
But the observation that, in the eyes of some, COAH has now outlived its usefulness as a voluntary alternative to judicial remedies enforcing the Mt. Laurel doctrine, highlights what is really at stake in S-1. If substantive certification by COAH no longer provides protection against a direct judicial remedy, then does S-1's replacement concept of "inclusionary municipality" do so in a way that the courts will accept? Unless the courts are willing to revisit the Mt. Laurel doctrine itself, we think the answer is no.
The real problem with S-1 is that it utterly fails to fulfill the Mt. Laurel mandate that obligates municipalities to provide a realistic opportunity for affordable housing on a regional basis. S-1 does away with state-imposed calculations of affordable housing need, euphemistically known as quotas. Municipalities will simply be deemed to have fulfilled their housing obligation if 7.5 percent of their housing stock is price restricted, or 33 percent of their housing stock consists of multifamily housing to be included, although municipalities "may" exclude it.
And how do we know that such housing stock will satisfy the actual need for affordable housing? S-1 doesn't tell us. As pointed out by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, the bill requires neither the State Planning Commission nor the municipalities to determine and allocate regional housing need among the municipalities. There is no metric to evalute and determine whether need has been satisfied. Absent some nexus between the housing provided and satisfaction of regional and statewide affordable housing needs, the OLS rightly believes that S-1 will be declared unconstitutional.
S-1 also relis upon inclusionary zoing, under which builders will be required to reserve, or set aside, 10 percent of all new housing units for people of low and moderate income. The courts have repeatedly made clear, however, that satisfaction of Mt. Laurel cannot depend upon the inclination of developers to help the poor, but must depend on affirmative inducements to make the construction of affordable housing a reality. Such inducements must include, at a minimum, density bonuses, elimination of cost-generating features and removal of excessive restrictions and exactions.
S-1 does not require municipalities to provide any such inducements. It is unfair to require builders, and the ultimate purchasers of their market rate housing units, to bear the entire cost of affordable housing. But that is what S-1 does. As the Appellate Division held in its most recent COAH decision, "A regulatory regime that relies on developers to incur the uncompensated expense of providing afforable housing is unlikely to result in municipal zoning ordinances that make it realistically probable that the statewide need for affordable housing can be met."
While S-1 satisfies the pledge to "gut COAH,' it will accomplish nothing else if, as expected, the bill is enacted and invalidated by the courts. The Legislature needs to go back to the drawing board to draft a bill which simplifies the process while actually satisfying the need for affordable housing.
Correction on June 23rd Commentary
I mentioned in yesterday’s blog that I attended a CAG meeting earlier this week. However, that meeting was an annual Solaris Community Meeting, updating the community on Plainfield Campus and JFK issues. Although CAG members were invited, I did want to clarify the formal nature of the meeting.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
June 23rd Commentary
I have shared with the readers of my blog a letter I received from the NJLA and a sample of the cards that thousands of concerned citizens have sent to me regarding their opposition to the budget cuts that will affect the library community within the State of New Jersey.
I find it very surprising that neither a Democratic nor a Republican candidate running for the 2nd and 3rd ward Council seat in Plainfield have not come out in support of the library community statewide. Just as they have been quiet regarding the $8 million in funding Plainfield will lose when it comes to educating our children.
They would prefer spending time with issues that really do not help the . Library and educational issues should be important to both candidates. However, when I bring these issues to the public’s attention, the effect of the cuts to our library and educational system, I am accused of ‘mud-slinging’ and ‘being unethical.’
I will not stand by and have the people of Plainfield be misled by School Board members who stay quiet, refusing to stand up for the children of Plainfield, allowing these cuts to happen without trying to do something about it.
As we can all see nothing has changed over at the BOE; it is ‘business as usual.’ They are more concerned about their personal agendas rather than that of the children. You the public, read the new papers daily, when have you heard of BOE members of Plainfield speaking out against the cuts of our public library and educational funding? The public library is a resource our kids use because they do not have those resources in their homes.
I take my hat off to Council members Linda Carter, Bridget Rivers, Rashid Burney and Bill Reid, who have on a consistent basis been supportive of me in dealing with these crucial issues that are threatening the future of Plainfield.
It is time that the public wake up and realize they should make the BOE members accountable. Again, are they more focused on their own personal agendas, or on drafting educational policy that will strengthen our children?
I attended a CAG meeting, and it shocked me to see no Council members present. I have been in communication with the Governor’s office as well as the Commissioner of Health regarding the ambulance issue, and the lack of participation of the Council members is disheartening.
This past Saturday I attended a rally concerning the violence in the City, and I also attended a community conference the Mayor had regarding crime prevention. Again, Council and its leadership were nowhere to be found.
Maybe it is time we start talking about recall. Unfortunately, when a small amount of people comes out to vote, whether it is a school board election or a council race, this is the result you get. These small numbers usually reflect a special interest, electing those who could care less about good government, but look to support their friends’ agendas versus the agenda of Plainfield.
I find it very surprising that neither a Democratic nor a Republican candidate running for the 2nd and 3rd ward Council seat in Plainfield have not come out in support of the library community statewide. Just as they have been quiet regarding the $8 million in funding Plainfield will lose when it comes to educating our children.
They would prefer spending time with issues that really do not help the . Library and educational issues should be important to both candidates. However, when I bring these issues to the public’s attention, the effect of the cuts to our library and educational system, I am accused of ‘mud-slinging’ and ‘being unethical.’
I will not stand by and have the people of Plainfield be misled by School Board members who stay quiet, refusing to stand up for the children of Plainfield, allowing these cuts to happen without trying to do something about it.
As we can all see nothing has changed over at the BOE; it is ‘business as usual.’ They are more concerned about their personal agendas rather than that of the children. You the public, read the new papers daily, when have you heard of BOE members of Plainfield speaking out against the cuts of our public library and educational funding? The public library is a resource our kids use because they do not have those resources in their homes.
I take my hat off to Council members Linda Carter, Bridget Rivers, Rashid Burney and Bill Reid, who have on a consistent basis been supportive of me in dealing with these crucial issues that are threatening the future of Plainfield.
It is time that the public wake up and realize they should make the BOE members accountable. Again, are they more focused on their own personal agendas, or on drafting educational policy that will strengthen our children?
I attended a CAG meeting, and it shocked me to see no Council members present. I have been in communication with the Governor’s office as well as the Commissioner of Health regarding the ambulance issue, and the lack of participation of the Council members is disheartening.
This past Saturday I attended a rally concerning the violence in the City, and I also attended a community conference the Mayor had regarding crime prevention. Again, Council and its leadership were nowhere to be found.
Maybe it is time we start talking about recall. Unfortunately, when a small amount of people comes out to vote, whether it is a school board election or a council race, this is the result you get. These small numbers usually reflect a special interest, electing those who could care less about good government, but look to support their friends’ agendas versus the agenda of Plainfield.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
June 22, 2010
I want to thank my supporters in the City of Plainfield for their support and guidance in the past and currently, for I have been able to take on a responsibility that will deal directly with the future of housing in the State of New Jersey. I am proud to live here in this City and I and proud to represent the entire 22nd Legislative District in Trenton.
The editorials and support I have received from individuals and groups within the housing industry is the reason why I continuously work for good government. As this issue begins to come together, I will try to make sure that I keep my supporters in the loop.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees the future of housing in the State of New Jersey as I do. Unfortunately, I live in a community where some people spend more time being negative than being positive.
Just this last week I asked Councilman Storch to respond to some accusations that were made towards he and his family. He has yet to give me an answer, but when on to what for him is ‘business as usual’, posturing as if I were attacking him. I will ask Councilman Storch to simply answer my questions:
1. Did Councilman Storch support the 30 tax-abatement for Teppers, as did other New Democrats?
2. Mr. Storch’s family benefited when the YMCA sold the mansion on Franklin Place. Mr. Storch’s daughter was on the Board of Directors. His wife was the realtor who made a large commission on that sale. That entire time the Franklin property did not pay property taxes, even though it should have since it was not being used for non-profit use. Is this true?
Also, Councilman Storch mentions that I offered him my support and the Democratic Party line next June primary. This is NOT TRUE. I simply asked him if he was running for re-election. I made it clear to him that I will not make that commitment to ANY potential candidate in the future until they make it clear to me that they have gained the respect and support of the voters in Plainfield. I made a mistake four years ago in making a commitment to Cory, and here we are four years later not seeing any fruit of Mr. Storch’s labor. I will not offer that sort of blind support again.
Mr. Storch went on in detail in his blog in confusing banter, for I made it clear that individuals with special needs do indeed need housing, but Plainfield does not need to the only City that houses such individuals. The Councilman gets two bites from the apple: one due to the fact that this is his job, and secondly, by placing making such housing available in Plainfield, these units are now owned by non-profit agencies, thus removing the units from the City’s tax rolls.
In closing, Cory Storch accuses me of being unethical and throwing out misleading information as I deal with the housing crisis that faces New Jersey. You make the choice; do you believe in the editorials statewide on my handling the COAH issues, or Councilman Cory Storch, who has done nothing as an elected official?
Ps
Yesterday, my bill, A-444 passed out of the Assembly 80-0, which means EVERY member of the New Jersey General Assembly voted in support of my bill. This bill disqualifies member of board of education for conviction of certain crimes and requires member to undergo criminal history background investigation. This is an issue Mr. Storch has been very critical of me.
The editorials and support I have received from individuals and groups within the housing industry is the reason why I continuously work for good government. As this issue begins to come together, I will try to make sure that I keep my supporters in the loop.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees the future of housing in the State of New Jersey as I do. Unfortunately, I live in a community where some people spend more time being negative than being positive.
Just this last week I asked Councilman Storch to respond to some accusations that were made towards he and his family. He has yet to give me an answer, but when on to what for him is ‘business as usual’, posturing as if I were attacking him. I will ask Councilman Storch to simply answer my questions:
1. Did Councilman Storch support the 30 tax-abatement for Teppers, as did other New Democrats?
2. Mr. Storch’s family benefited when the YMCA sold the mansion on Franklin Place. Mr. Storch’s daughter was on the Board of Directors. His wife was the realtor who made a large commission on that sale. That entire time the Franklin property did not pay property taxes, even though it should have since it was not being used for non-profit use. Is this true?
Also, Councilman Storch mentions that I offered him my support and the Democratic Party line next June primary. This is NOT TRUE. I simply asked him if he was running for re-election. I made it clear to him that I will not make that commitment to ANY potential candidate in the future until they make it clear to me that they have gained the respect and support of the voters in Plainfield. I made a mistake four years ago in making a commitment to Cory, and here we are four years later not seeing any fruit of Mr. Storch’s labor. I will not offer that sort of blind support again.
Mr. Storch went on in detail in his blog in confusing banter, for I made it clear that individuals with special needs do indeed need housing, but Plainfield does not need to the only City that houses such individuals. The Councilman gets two bites from the apple: one due to the fact that this is his job, and secondly, by placing making such housing available in Plainfield, these units are now owned by non-profit agencies, thus removing the units from the City’s tax rolls.
In closing, Cory Storch accuses me of being unethical and throwing out misleading information as I deal with the housing crisis that faces New Jersey. You make the choice; do you believe in the editorials statewide on my handling the COAH issues, or Councilman Cory Storch, who has done nothing as an elected official?
Ps
Yesterday, my bill, A-444 passed out of the Assembly 80-0, which means EVERY member of the New Jersey General Assembly voted in support of my bill. This bill disqualifies member of board of education for conviction of certain crimes and requires member to undergo criminal history background investigation. This is an issue Mr. Storch has been very critical of me.
Dan Damon
This is exactly why Plainfield receives negative coverage and is not taken seriously on a consistent basis. This picture and reporting by Dan Damon is shameful and embarrassing.
Dan, you are the one confused, I know who I am.
Dan, you are the one confused, I know who I am.
Housing reform: Tweaks won't do
June 21, 2010
www.app.com
The state Assembly last week recognized what the state Senate didn't: that the much-ballyhooed bill that would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing needed more than just tweaking or smoothing out some rough edges.
The Legislature needs to start from scratch to ensure that the very idea of affordable housing is preserved in the Garden State, even as COAH undergoes needed reform. Any proposal should ensure that each municipality be required to provide its fair share, as well as having a mechanism in place to ensure compliance. The plan also must be clear about funding sources and address regional as well as municipal needs. S-1 fails to acomplish this in every material way.
Assembly Housing Chairman Jerry Green, D-Union, did the right thing at his committee hearing last week when, instead of posting a companion bill to the Senate's S-1, he invited testimony from the dozens of groups and individuals who mostly opposed the legislation — something that the Senate, in its hellbent-for-leather approach to S-1, refused to do.
Central to the Senate version of the bill was transferring authority for affordable housing to the State Planning Commission and allowing towns to determine for themselves, through their master plans and zoning, whether they were meeting their constitutional obligation to provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents.
Establishing such an amorphous "honor system" to provide judicially mandated affordable housing is no way to proceed.
The criticism of the Senate bill has come from every corner — builders, housing advocates and environmental groups, who believe it would wreak havoc in the state's rural areas.
Among critics' concerns are formulas by which towns may calculate their housing obligations and fees developers can pay to avoid including affordable units in new projects. By one standard under S-1, a town could be considered "inclusionary" — or accessible to poor or disabled people — if a third of its existing residences were multifamily units or mobile homes. Price would not be a consideration, so tony townhouses and condominiums could count toward affordable housing stock.
Proponents of S-1 can't even agree on whether its passage would result in more or fewer affordable housing units. There already is a huge deficit of affordable housing in this state. And since the provision of affordable housing is part of the state constitution, reform should not result in some sort of guessing game about whether the mandate is being met.
Last week, state Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Lori Grifa urged the Assembly Housing Committee to move on legislation to abolish COAH. Failure to pass a bill before the summer recess could lead to court rulings that would force lawmakers to start from scratch, Grifa warned.
"My job is to get the bill right," Green said. Exactly. No bill, he added, is better than a bad bill. The Assembly has its work cut out for it, to be sure. But at least it is listening.
Source: www.app.com
www.app.com
The state Assembly last week recognized what the state Senate didn't: that the much-ballyhooed bill that would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing needed more than just tweaking or smoothing out some rough edges.
The Legislature needs to start from scratch to ensure that the very idea of affordable housing is preserved in the Garden State, even as COAH undergoes needed reform. Any proposal should ensure that each municipality be required to provide its fair share, as well as having a mechanism in place to ensure compliance. The plan also must be clear about funding sources and address regional as well as municipal needs. S-1 fails to acomplish this in every material way.
Assembly Housing Chairman Jerry Green, D-Union, did the right thing at his committee hearing last week when, instead of posting a companion bill to the Senate's S-1, he invited testimony from the dozens of groups and individuals who mostly opposed the legislation — something that the Senate, in its hellbent-for-leather approach to S-1, refused to do.
Central to the Senate version of the bill was transferring authority for affordable housing to the State Planning Commission and allowing towns to determine for themselves, through their master plans and zoning, whether they were meeting their constitutional obligation to provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents.
Establishing such an amorphous "honor system" to provide judicially mandated affordable housing is no way to proceed.
The criticism of the Senate bill has come from every corner — builders, housing advocates and environmental groups, who believe it would wreak havoc in the state's rural areas.
Among critics' concerns are formulas by which towns may calculate their housing obligations and fees developers can pay to avoid including affordable units in new projects. By one standard under S-1, a town could be considered "inclusionary" — or accessible to poor or disabled people — if a third of its existing residences were multifamily units or mobile homes. Price would not be a consideration, so tony townhouses and condominiums could count toward affordable housing stock.
Proponents of S-1 can't even agree on whether its passage would result in more or fewer affordable housing units. There already is a huge deficit of affordable housing in this state. And since the provision of affordable housing is part of the state constitution, reform should not result in some sort of guessing game about whether the mandate is being met.
Last week, state Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Lori Grifa urged the Assembly Housing Committee to move on legislation to abolish COAH. Failure to pass a bill before the summer recess could lead to court rulings that would force lawmakers to start from scratch, Grifa warned.
"My job is to get the bill right," Green said. Exactly. No bill, he added, is better than a bad bill. The Assembly has its work cut out for it, to be sure. But at least it is listening.
Source: www.app.com
A real hearing on housing:
Assembly committee shows how it's done
Published: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 5:43 AM
www.nj.com
Anyone curious about what good government looks like should have dropped in on the Assembly committee hearing on the new housing bill last week. Advocates, clergy, builders and mayors all had a chance to sit before the committee chaired by Assemblyman Jerry Green, air their concerns and take questions.
It was a striking contrast to the Senate committee chaired by Ray Lesniak — which not only declined to hear testimony on the bill, but failed to make new amendments public in a timely fashion. And voted to move the bill out of committee, anyway.
The bill would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing and put in its place a different system for making low-cost housing available throughout the state. But the bill is too important to rush through, especially when so many details are still being corrected and clarified.
Green gets it. He and his committee — vice chair Mila Jasey, Linda Greenstein, Fred Scalera, Celeste Riley, Charlotte Vandervalk and Michael Patrick Carroll — took the time to listen to testimony and asked for copies of statements. The committee was no pushover: Green did everyone a favor by running a tight ship and keeping testimony focused on the details of the bill and possible solutions. No grandstanding allowed.
Senators, take note.
Source: www.nj.com
Published: Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 5:43 AM
www.nj.com
Anyone curious about what good government looks like should have dropped in on the Assembly committee hearing on the new housing bill last week. Advocates, clergy, builders and mayors all had a chance to sit before the committee chaired by Assemblyman Jerry Green, air their concerns and take questions.
It was a striking contrast to the Senate committee chaired by Ray Lesniak — which not only declined to hear testimony on the bill, but failed to make new amendments public in a timely fashion. And voted to move the bill out of committee, anyway.
The bill would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing and put in its place a different system for making low-cost housing available throughout the state. But the bill is too important to rush through, especially when so many details are still being corrected and clarified.
Green gets it. He and his committee — vice chair Mila Jasey, Linda Greenstein, Fred Scalera, Celeste Riley, Charlotte Vandervalk and Michael Patrick Carroll — took the time to listen to testimony and asked for copies of statements. The committee was no pushover: Green did everyone a favor by running a tight ship and keeping testimony focused on the details of the bill and possible solutions. No grandstanding allowed.
Senators, take note.
Source: www.nj.com
Friday, June 18, 2010
Assembly Puts the Brakes on S-1
by: Adam Gordon at Fair Share Housing Center
The S-1 runaway train has hit a bump in the road.
Finally, our political leadership has realized that ramming a deeply unpopular bill through the Legislature that has managed to alienate all of the Democrats' core constituencies - and a few of the Republicans' too - is not such a good idea.
Housing and Local Government Committee Chair Jerry Green released a statement late today stating "MY PRIORITY IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW THAT WORKS, NOT ONE THAT IS RUSHED". His words shows that he has been listening - a skill in short supply in this debate so far.
He, Vice Chair Mila Jasey, Speaker Oliver, and Majority Leader Cryan heard - from everyone - that we need reform of our state's complex affordable housing laws.
But they also heard - from the NAACP, every Catholic Bishop in the state of NJ, the Sierra Club, Coalition on Affordable Housing and the Environment, and Pinelands Preservation Alliance, the New Jersey Regional Coalition, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, and so many others - that we need reform that produces more homes, that recognizes the diversity already present in our cities and first suburbs, and that we don't want a prolonged court battle - we want to get it right the first time.
It can be hard to get elected officials to listen. But this bill is such a colossal disaster that finally the Assembly realized that it had to stop - both because it made no political sense, and because of the sheer force of the groups against it.
We are not out of the woods yet. Gov. Christie and Sen. Lesniak may still try to bully the Legislature into passing something by June 30, their arbitrary self-imposed deadline. Sen. Lesniak says exactly that in the Ledger. That's why it's so important to keep the pressure on - through phone calls to legislators and through attending the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee hearing this Thursday at 10 am in Committee Room 11.
And no doubt even if S-1 does not get passed this month, there will be more to come. New Jersey does need housing policy reform. And there will continue to be those who try to exploit that need for reform to push the wrong policies - that ask our cities and first ring suburbs to do more than their fair share, don't produce homes, and destroy our environment.
But for this moment, at least, we have achieved a significant victory, thanks to many people coming together, and to the leadership of Oliver, Cryan, Green, and Jasey (with an important honorable mention to the senators who stood up to the S-1 juggernaut - Rice, Turner, Weinberg, and, with an unusually public and vocal abstention, Don Norcross). And BlueJersey has been a big part of that - thanks very much to all of you for making calls and spreading the word and to Rosi and Jason for their constant encouragement. We look forward to updating you on the hearing tomorrow and what comes next after.
The S-1 runaway train has hit a bump in the road.
Finally, our political leadership has realized that ramming a deeply unpopular bill through the Legislature that has managed to alienate all of the Democrats' core constituencies - and a few of the Republicans' too - is not such a good idea.
Housing and Local Government Committee Chair Jerry Green released a statement late today stating "MY PRIORITY IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW THAT WORKS, NOT ONE THAT IS RUSHED". His words shows that he has been listening - a skill in short supply in this debate so far.
He, Vice Chair Mila Jasey, Speaker Oliver, and Majority Leader Cryan heard - from everyone - that we need reform of our state's complex affordable housing laws.
But they also heard - from the NAACP, every Catholic Bishop in the state of NJ, the Sierra Club, Coalition on Affordable Housing and the Environment, and Pinelands Preservation Alliance, the New Jersey Regional Coalition, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, and so many others - that we need reform that produces more homes, that recognizes the diversity already present in our cities and first suburbs, and that we don't want a prolonged court battle - we want to get it right the first time.
It can be hard to get elected officials to listen. But this bill is such a colossal disaster that finally the Assembly realized that it had to stop - both because it made no political sense, and because of the sheer force of the groups against it.
We are not out of the woods yet. Gov. Christie and Sen. Lesniak may still try to bully the Legislature into passing something by June 30, their arbitrary self-imposed deadline. Sen. Lesniak says exactly that in the Ledger. That's why it's so important to keep the pressure on - through phone calls to legislators and through attending the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee hearing this Thursday at 10 am in Committee Room 11.
And no doubt even if S-1 does not get passed this month, there will be more to come. New Jersey does need housing policy reform. And there will continue to be those who try to exploit that need for reform to push the wrong policies - that ask our cities and first ring suburbs to do more than their fair share, don't produce homes, and destroy our environment.
But for this moment, at least, we have achieved a significant victory, thanks to many people coming together, and to the leadership of Oliver, Cryan, Green, and Jasey (with an important honorable mention to the senators who stood up to the S-1 juggernaut - Rice, Turner, Weinberg, and, with an unusually public and vocal abstention, Don Norcross). And BlueJersey has been a big part of that - thanks very much to all of you for making calls and spreading the word and to Rosi and Jason for their constant encouragement. We look forward to updating you on the hearing tomorrow and what comes next after.
Questions for Councilman Storch
Yesterday I had a hearing dealing with affordable housing within the State of New Jersey. It is clear that COAH has been a failure. With that, I am looking forward to working with the groups that came forth and testified on this issue.
Yesterday I received information regarding Councilman Cory Storch, and I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt by responding to these concerns. The concerns are as follows:
1. Councilman Storch supported the 30 tax-abatement for Teppers as did other New Democrats.
2. Mr. Storch’s family benefited when the YMCA sold the mansion on Franklin Place. Mr. Storch’s daughter was on the Board of Directors. His wife was the realtor who made a large commission on that sale. That entire time the Franklin property did not pay property taxes, even though it should have since it was not being used for non-profit use.
Councilman Storch, is this information true? The public and I are waiting for an answer.
I would like to wish every father a Happy Father’s Day this Sunday.
Yesterday I received information regarding Councilman Cory Storch, and I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt by responding to these concerns. The concerns are as follows:
1. Councilman Storch supported the 30 tax-abatement for Teppers as did other New Democrats.
2. Mr. Storch’s family benefited when the YMCA sold the mansion on Franklin Place. Mr. Storch’s daughter was on the Board of Directors. His wife was the realtor who made a large commission on that sale. That entire time the Franklin property did not pay property taxes, even though it should have since it was not being used for non-profit use.
Councilman Storch, is this information true? The public and I are waiting for an answer.
I would like to wish every father a Happy Father’s Day this Sunday.
Hearing on S-1
Thu 6/17/2010 2:30 PM
Mr Chairman: You are to be congratulated on how you conducted today’s hearing on S-1. Mike Cerra just briefed me on what transpired and I thank you for all of the courtesies you extended to our Mayors panel. I think you were wise in “ holding” the bill to take comments from all interest groups and you gave clear instructions on what you were looking for in gathering information to craft a workable and fair bill.
We stand committed to helping you in anyway we can if we can be of further assistance please let me know
Regards, Bill
Bill Dressel
Executive Director
NJ League of Municipalities
Bill Dressel
Executive Director
NJ League of Municipalities
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
June 15, 2010
As Chair of Housing and Local Government, I will be having a committee meeting wherein S-1 will be on the agenda. I have been working with Governor’s Office, housing groups throughout the State, as well as Senator Lesniak to construct an effective bill. My approach has been to have everyone sit at the table, which will allow me to gain cohesive support.
Not everyone will be happy of course, but we must do something to ease the pain of this crippling issue of affordable housing within New Jersey. I hope to have a conscious bill drafted within the next 48 hours that deals directly with the issue at hand. I am aiming for it to be fair and hit the target of taking the first big steps of shaping an effective bill.
In the last four years, I have been able to stop, what I consider, how Plainfield has been taken advantage of those previous eight years under the past administration who closed their eyes to Plainfield being a dumping ground for low-income housing. The one person who has benefited from this practice, sitting on the sidelines allowing this to go on, was Councilman Cory Storch. He and his family have made a fortune off real estate transactions that profit from bringing in this type of housing into the City of Plainfield.
A prime example, under Storch’s leadership on the Council, the Teppers site was converted into a low-income housing facility within one of our prime locations of our downtown area. Under Cory’s leadership on the Council, we also had a bank converted into a halfway house. Plainfield has had numerous houses brought and converted into housing for social issues.
I do not have a problem with initiating housing for individuals with social disabilities, but I do have a problem with the fact that Cory converts these buildings for personal gain, thus disarming the quality of Plainfield. Once these houses are purchased by non-profit agencies, they are taken off the tax rolls.
Another example of Cory’s leadership ruining the image of Plainfield is the Park Hotel having been converted into a low income/homeless shelter. Again, Councilman Storch sat by in silence along with the past administration while this happened.
I am just happy to see the people in the 2nd ward are beginning to realize that Cory is only a member of the Council to benefit himself personally, and not his constituents. I take my hat off to those in 2-11 who recognized that under Cory’s leadership, South Avenue, with the bump-outs (Cory’s idea), forced more traffic onto Seventh Street. People in the district remembered this when voting in the June primary this year where Rebecca Williams received 26 votes, when a year and a half ago, Obama received 248 votes.
This same voting practice was evident in 3-10, where Obama received close to 200 votes, and Rebecca received only 10.
Therefore, the next couple of days, I will use Plainfield as the example of why the State of New Jersey should support the idea that every municipality should have their fair share of affordable housing.
One ordinance that the City could pass is that any sitting councilperson, be it themselves or family members, should abstain from any real estate transactions here in the City of Plainfield.
Within the past administration, just about every member had a real estate license. During those years, I received countless complaints dealing with favoritism and partiality, referencing unfair tax assessments for those who did not have political ties to the past administration.
Unfortunately, during the phone calls from this past election, the consensus was that their 2nd ward representatives have been absent at the wheel, and have not been accurately representing their constituents.
Cory needs to understand that his constituents are not happy, and would like to see his resume as council member. They want answers as to why and how he has been going to the bank big time while his constituents are not happy.
Ps
I was happy to receive a phone call from Steve Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, inviting me to their annual gala, the Legends Dinner, and thanking me for my support over the years. He also recognized the fact that when I shared the truth in reference to the mail I sent out, that some people in Plainfield tried to put a spin on it that I was ‘gay bashing.’
He said he would gladly send a letter stating that I have been a friend of the Garden State Equality organization, deflating the argument of those individuals trying to spin my stances with gutter politics.
I was happy to hear him say that I have a record of support for his organization, where those who have tried to spin my stance have done NOTHING to champion their cause.
Not everyone will be happy of course, but we must do something to ease the pain of this crippling issue of affordable housing within New Jersey. I hope to have a conscious bill drafted within the next 48 hours that deals directly with the issue at hand. I am aiming for it to be fair and hit the target of taking the first big steps of shaping an effective bill.
In the last four years, I have been able to stop, what I consider, how Plainfield has been taken advantage of those previous eight years under the past administration who closed their eyes to Plainfield being a dumping ground for low-income housing. The one person who has benefited from this practice, sitting on the sidelines allowing this to go on, was Councilman Cory Storch. He and his family have made a fortune off real estate transactions that profit from bringing in this type of housing into the City of Plainfield.
A prime example, under Storch’s leadership on the Council, the Teppers site was converted into a low-income housing facility within one of our prime locations of our downtown area. Under Cory’s leadership on the Council, we also had a bank converted into a halfway house. Plainfield has had numerous houses brought and converted into housing for social issues.
I do not have a problem with initiating housing for individuals with social disabilities, but I do have a problem with the fact that Cory converts these buildings for personal gain, thus disarming the quality of Plainfield. Once these houses are purchased by non-profit agencies, they are taken off the tax rolls.
Another example of Cory’s leadership ruining the image of Plainfield is the Park Hotel having been converted into a low income/homeless shelter. Again, Councilman Storch sat by in silence along with the past administration while this happened.
I am just happy to see the people in the 2nd ward are beginning to realize that Cory is only a member of the Council to benefit himself personally, and not his constituents. I take my hat off to those in 2-11 who recognized that under Cory’s leadership, South Avenue, with the bump-outs (Cory’s idea), forced more traffic onto Seventh Street. People in the district remembered this when voting in the June primary this year where Rebecca Williams received 26 votes, when a year and a half ago, Obama received 248 votes.
This same voting practice was evident in 3-10, where Obama received close to 200 votes, and Rebecca received only 10.
Therefore, the next couple of days, I will use Plainfield as the example of why the State of New Jersey should support the idea that every municipality should have their fair share of affordable housing.
One ordinance that the City could pass is that any sitting councilperson, be it themselves or family members, should abstain from any real estate transactions here in the City of Plainfield.
Within the past administration, just about every member had a real estate license. During those years, I received countless complaints dealing with favoritism and partiality, referencing unfair tax assessments for those who did not have political ties to the past administration.
Unfortunately, during the phone calls from this past election, the consensus was that their 2nd ward representatives have been absent at the wheel, and have not been accurately representing their constituents.
Cory needs to understand that his constituents are not happy, and would like to see his resume as council member. They want answers as to why and how he has been going to the bank big time while his constituents are not happy.
Ps
I was happy to receive a phone call from Steve Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, inviting me to their annual gala, the Legends Dinner, and thanking me for my support over the years. He also recognized the fact that when I shared the truth in reference to the mail I sent out, that some people in Plainfield tried to put a spin on it that I was ‘gay bashing.’
He said he would gladly send a letter stating that I have been a friend of the Garden State Equality organization, deflating the argument of those individuals trying to spin my stances with gutter politics.
I was happy to hear him say that I have a record of support for his organization, where those who have tried to spin my stance have done NOTHING to champion their cause.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Assemblymen Green, Conners and Conaway Advance in Tightening Bill Requirements for Serving on Local Boards of Ed
BILL TIGHTENING REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVING ON LOCAL BOARDS OF ED ADVANCES
(TRENTON) – Legislation Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green and Assemblymen Jack Conners and Herb Conaway, M.D., sponsored to tighten requirements for serving on boards of education was released Thursday 8-0-1 by the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee.
“If we prohibit someone from teaching in a classroom because of past convictions, then they definitely should be prohibited from presiding over the education of an entire school district,” said Green (D-Union). “It’s a common sense change that is long overdue.”
“If we prohibit someone from teaching in a classroom because of past convictions, then they definitely should be prohibited from presiding over the education of an entire school district,” said Green (D-Union). “It’s a common sense change that is long overdue.”
Under the bill (A-444), any person elected or appointed to a board of education would be disqualified from serving if they currently or previously have been convicted of any crime that, under existing law, would disqualify them from being employed in a public school.
“People guilty of serious crimes should not be the ones to decide the educational future of our children,” said Conners (D-Camden). “Our students deserve an education system that is supported by the integrity of its members.”
The bill also would require each member of a board of education to undergo a criminal history background check within 30 days of being elected or appointed.
Furthermore, it would amend the oath of office taken by new board members to include a specific declaration that the member is not disqualified from service due to conviction of one of those crimes. Any member who falsely swears that he or she is not disqualified would face penalties of up to 18 months in prison and $10,000 in fines.
“A good education is the foundation upon which our lives our built,” said Conaway (D-Burlington). “We owe it to both students and parents to only have the most qualified individuals presiding over the education future of our children.”
The bill now heads to the Assembly Speaker, who decides if and when to post it for a floor vote.
Statement from Governor Chris Christie
Trenton, NJ –.Today the Governor issued the following statement:
“The legislation passed by the Senate today eliminates COAH and goes a long way toward fundamentally reforming the affordable housing system which New Jerseyans have long demanded and that I have promised to deliver.
We will continue to work with members of both parties in the legislature to bring the COAH nightmare to an end and replace a broken system with a common sense, predictable and achievable process. I want to thank Senators Lesniak, Bateman and Van Drew for their work on this issue and the Senate as a whole for the bipartisan support the bill received. I look forward to working with Assemblymen Green, Prieto and Rible to ensure sound and sensible affordable housing policy becomes law.”
“The legislation passed by the Senate today eliminates COAH and goes a long way toward fundamentally reforming the affordable housing system which New Jerseyans have long demanded and that I have promised to deliver.
We will continue to work with members of both parties in the legislature to bring the COAH nightmare to an end and replace a broken system with a common sense, predictable and achievable process. I want to thank Senators Lesniak, Bateman and Van Drew for their work on this issue and the Senate as a whole for the bipartisan support the bill received. I look forward to working with Assemblymen Green, Prieto and Rible to ensure sound and sensible affordable housing policy becomes law.”
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Post Campaign Thoughts
Let me first begin by congratulating all of the victors in yesterday’s election. Reading the blogs today, one would think that the election that occurred yesterday did not happen here in the City of Plainfield. No candidate can take credit, other than the fact that they were able to win. The turnout was low and the bottom line is that people were not happy with any of the candidates.
Fortunate enough, I must give credit to Ms. Williams. She was able to get her base out to vote. That base however, is shrinking every year. Five years ago, Al McWilliams received roughly 700 votes, winning the ward by 500 votes. Two years ago, Annie McWilliams won the ward by 500 votes. This year, Rebecca only won the ward by roughly 150 votes. In the third ward, Rebecca won by 50 votes.
Therefore, if anyone feels or cannot do the math, then they do not understand politics. This is true because this was a wake up call that the public in general is not satisfied with our school board, nor are they satisfied with local government. Blaming me and accusing me of being the political boss, which to me is very embarrassing because my definition of ‘boss’ dates back to slavery times, but because I know the caliber of people I am dealing with, I mark them up as a group of ignorant people I have to deal with.
Just seven months ago, I was able to win the second and third wards in my election. Therefore, if anything, I think that my support base is stronger now than it has ever been. In this campaign, whatever I put out there was the truth. Unfortunately, some people would like to put a spin on it, but my record speaks for itself.
It is a shame that people would like to put a negative spin on the issues I have supported, especially that of my support of the gay community. If I would have said or done something wrong, the public backlash would have been more severe on a local, county and state level. I have a member of my family that is gay, and I have publicly acknowledged the love and respect that I have for him, which merits the same plane of love and affection I give to all of my family members.
It is despicable that a handful of bloggers would try to poison my words. Even this morning when I went out to get my newspaper, my family and I were met with disrespect and our privacy was violated, and as a taxpayer in Plainfield, my property was disrespected. My lawn was littered from end to end with Rebecca Williams’s lawn signs. This was an all-time low for me politically here in Plainfield. I have notified the police department and the press so that they can see this total disrespect of my family’s privacy.
To read in the blog today where Dan wrote that this was a joke, I did not find this amusing at all. The campaign is over. There is no place for this type of childishness, classlessness and disrespect shown by the perpetrators. This is why the New Democrats are losing supporters daily. They call my office telling me they were misled and misguided in the past, but have had their eyes opened to their personal agendas.
Like I said earlier, I received about 5,500 votes in this past November election while Rebecca received 800 votes. You do the math, who should be concerned about their base of support?
If Don Davis were not in the race, this race would have been a lot closer. In fact, Rashid most likely would have won. Many of my supporters would not support him because he is a New Democrat and they felt he was not committed. They said other than his commitment to the Obama effort; they felt his support for the Democratic Party was very soft.
Taking this all into consideration, along with the fact that the Regular Democratic Party were not impressed with any of those running in the primary, there was a low turnout, just ask our neighbors in 3-10 and 2-11. I respect the fact that Rebecca Williams has won the Democratic primary, and I have to accept the fact that many of my supporters could not bring themselves to support a candidate that they felt has not been supportive of them in the past.
Fortunate enough, I must give credit to Ms. Williams. She was able to get her base out to vote. That base however, is shrinking every year. Five years ago, Al McWilliams received roughly 700 votes, winning the ward by 500 votes. Two years ago, Annie McWilliams won the ward by 500 votes. This year, Rebecca only won the ward by roughly 150 votes. In the third ward, Rebecca won by 50 votes.
Therefore, if anyone feels or cannot do the math, then they do not understand politics. This is true because this was a wake up call that the public in general is not satisfied with our school board, nor are they satisfied with local government. Blaming me and accusing me of being the political boss, which to me is very embarrassing because my definition of ‘boss’ dates back to slavery times, but because I know the caliber of people I am dealing with, I mark them up as a group of ignorant people I have to deal with.
Just seven months ago, I was able to win the second and third wards in my election. Therefore, if anything, I think that my support base is stronger now than it has ever been. In this campaign, whatever I put out there was the truth. Unfortunately, some people would like to put a spin on it, but my record speaks for itself.
It is a shame that people would like to put a negative spin on the issues I have supported, especially that of my support of the gay community. If I would have said or done something wrong, the public backlash would have been more severe on a local, county and state level. I have a member of my family that is gay, and I have publicly acknowledged the love and respect that I have for him, which merits the same plane of love and affection I give to all of my family members.
It is despicable that a handful of bloggers would try to poison my words. Even this morning when I went out to get my newspaper, my family and I were met with disrespect and our privacy was violated, and as a taxpayer in Plainfield, my property was disrespected. My lawn was littered from end to end with Rebecca Williams’s lawn signs. This was an all-time low for me politically here in Plainfield. I have notified the police department and the press so that they can see this total disrespect of my family’s privacy.
To read in the blog today where Dan wrote that this was a joke, I did not find this amusing at all. The campaign is over. There is no place for this type of childishness, classlessness and disrespect shown by the perpetrators. This is why the New Democrats are losing supporters daily. They call my office telling me they were misled and misguided in the past, but have had their eyes opened to their personal agendas.
Like I said earlier, I received about 5,500 votes in this past November election while Rebecca received 800 votes. You do the math, who should be concerned about their base of support?
If Don Davis were not in the race, this race would have been a lot closer. In fact, Rashid most likely would have won. Many of my supporters would not support him because he is a New Democrat and they felt he was not committed. They said other than his commitment to the Obama effort; they felt his support for the Democratic Party was very soft.
Taking this all into consideration, along with the fact that the Regular Democratic Party were not impressed with any of those running in the primary, there was a low turnout, just ask our neighbors in 3-10 and 2-11. I respect the fact that Rebecca Williams has won the Democratic primary, and I have to accept the fact that many of my supporters could not bring themselves to support a candidate that they felt has not been supportive of them in the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)