Published: Monday, January 31, 2011, 8:30 AM Updated: Monday, January 31, 2011, 12:57 PM By Bob Braun/Star-Ledger Columnist
So — what’s the problem? Why can’t the state tell the truth about charter schools?
Why does the governor have to be asked repeatedly to be fair about comparing charter schools with conventional schools? He’s such a fan of charters, you’d think — prosecutor that he was — he’d jump at the chance of blowing away critics with facts.
Instead, he publishes only selective facts that support his arguments.
After declining to provide that statistics for the past two weeks, his spokesman said vaguely late Friday night that they would be released "in the normal course."
When? After a compliant and clueless Legislature gives him the "reform" he wants — privatizing public education? Pouring billions into the hands of unregulated, privatized schools — charters and vouchers — some run by politicians? Ignoring the state constitution?
Another gimmick solution instead of the persistent and expensive work of improving public schools?
Chris Christie doesn’t like public schools with their unions and tenure, no matter how successful they are. But he’s only one guy in a state of 8.5 million and, even if his ersatz "Jersey attitude" plays well with Republicans in Peoria, people here still have a right to decide.
If the governor can prove charters are better, fine. If he thinks they’re the final solution to the education problem, go for it. Prove it. But right now, he’s hiding the truth. He’s ducking.
Put up or shut up. Come on, Jersey guy, even Snooki can get make a better argument.
Here’s what we know: Many high scoring charters in New Jersey enroll far fewer of their towns’ poorest children than the traditional public schools that must take all comers.
"Regular public school students are often much poorer than charter students," said Liz Smith, head of a statewide group of urban public school parents.
We also know low-income students drag down scores. For example, while 78.4 percent of the general population passed the sixth grade language arts test, the percentage of "economically disadvantaged" who passed was 48.2 percent.
Add in those with learning problems, and that statewide score average drops to 69.8 percent. Happens in every grade. Works with individual schools, too. The more poor and classified children, the lower the scores-the fewer, the higher.
When Christie recently released a report touting the success of charters, he didn’t mention how few poor students the best-performing charters enroll. Selective facts.
Without accounting for income and other factors, said Rebecca Cox, president of the Princeton Regional school board, "The recently released state statistics on charter and traditional public schools are comparing apples and oranges."
Let’s look at high-performing charters. Christie especially likes Newark’s Robert Treat Academy, founded by Steve Adubato, a Democratic boss who nonetheless helped him get elected, and Elysian in Hoboken. Christie visits both to promote charters. In the report the governor released weeks ago, their scores were 40 to 50 points higher than traditional schools.
But only 45 percent of Robert Treat students are eligible for free lunches — meaning the poorest students — compared to 73 percent in Newark. At Elysian, 14 percent are eligible, compared to 58 percent for Hoboken’s traditional students. Both schools also have smaller special education and language-limited enrollments. That’s not a fair comparison.
Other alleged high performers are the same. Northstar-53 percent free lunch compared to 73 percent in Newark; Red Bank, 28.3 to 64.2 percent; Hoboken Charter, none versus 58 percent; LEAP Academy in Camden, 64 to 78 percent; Soaring Heights in Jersey City, 44.4 to 64 percent; Learning Community in Jersey City, 29.7 to 64 percent.
This newspaper asked for fair comparisons. It asked — seven times — for a report comparing similar students. After a week, the administration issued a revised report, but still didn’t account for income differences. The newspaper asked again — three times — but still the administration wouldn’t publish data residents have a right to know. The Star-Ledger finally had to file a formal request under the state’s Open Public Records Act.
Then, his spokesman Michael Drewniak told an editor here — not me — the newspaper would get the facts "in the normal course." He had to say that. It’s the law. Christie, Mr. Law-and-Order, must either tell the truth or break the law.
Everyone knows income affects scores. But what we get are not facts, but assurances like this one from a charter spokesman: "In urban districts, charter schools on average have a similar percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunches," said Bruno Tedeschi.
But he’s combining families eligible for reduced lunches — making $41,000 — with families eligible for free lunches. They make less than $28,700, a lot poorer.
That just doesn’t mean lower public school scores. Charters that want to help poor students — and that was a reason for creating them — look bad because their scores are so low.
Bruce Baker, a Rutgers researcher, contends that, if all factors are honestly considered, score differences would be a "statistically insignificant" 3 points, not the huge differences found in the state report. Charter schools — and Christie — wouldn’t look so good then. Not in Peoria, not in Piscataway.
"The education department should produce accurate studies and not hide data," Baker says.
© 2011 NJ.com. All rights reserved.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
A Note From the Coalition for Affordable Housing and the Environment
Dear Assembly Member:
On behalf of the Coalition for Affordable Housing and the Environment (CAHE), we urge you NOT to concur with the conditional veto of S-1 issued by Governor Chris Christie. The governor's proposed changes bring this legislation back to its unconstitutional form. If enacted, this bill would fail to provide homes for the state's low and moderate income families, while promoting additional sprawl.
CAHE continues to advocate for a system that produces real affordable housing for those who need it most, while protecting the state's precious natural resources. While this issue has been debated in Trenton for the last year, thousands of families have become homeless and the process for providing reasonably priced homes has nearly come to a halt. It is time for the administration to comply with the courts and current law by developing clear regulations that will lead to the creation of homes for New Jersey's low and moderate income families.
We thank you for your interest in this important issue and welcome any questions you may have.
Judy Remington
Executive Director
P.s. The reason why Rebecca Williams and Cory Storch can’t support me on this issue is that they are more concerned about their jobs. Rebecca is an educator in a state facility and Cory’s agency depends on state dollars. They are more interested in attacking me than fighting for the city of Plainfield. They should be like anyone else responsible for making community based decisions and understand that this responsibility is more important than concern about a job.
My advice is this: if a person does not understand the responsibility of the elected official to his/her community do not run for office. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t sit back and allow your community to lose dollars when you are more concerned about your paycheck.
On behalf of the Coalition for Affordable Housing and the Environment (CAHE), we urge you NOT to concur with the conditional veto of S-1 issued by Governor Chris Christie. The governor's proposed changes bring this legislation back to its unconstitutional form. If enacted, this bill would fail to provide homes for the state's low and moderate income families, while promoting additional sprawl.
CAHE continues to advocate for a system that produces real affordable housing for those who need it most, while protecting the state's precious natural resources. While this issue has been debated in Trenton for the last year, thousands of families have become homeless and the process for providing reasonably priced homes has nearly come to a halt. It is time for the administration to comply with the courts and current law by developing clear regulations that will lead to the creation of homes for New Jersey's low and moderate income families.
We thank you for your interest in this important issue and welcome any questions you may have.
Judy Remington
Executive Director
P.s. The reason why Rebecca Williams and Cory Storch can’t support me on this issue is that they are more concerned about their jobs. Rebecca is an educator in a state facility and Cory’s agency depends on state dollars. They are more interested in attacking me than fighting for the city of Plainfield. They should be like anyone else responsible for making community based decisions and understand that this responsibility is more important than concern about a job.
My advice is this: if a person does not understand the responsibility of the elected official to his/her community do not run for office. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t sit back and allow your community to lose dollars when you are more concerned about your paycheck.
Christie fails to deliver housing bill that works
Published: Friday, January 28, 2011, 6:00 AM
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
With his conditional veto, Gov. Chris Christie scuttled months of hard work by legislators attempting to craft a sensible affordable housing policy. Gov. Chris Christie has conditionally vetoed the affordable housing bill that legislators spent months piecing together. It was an imperfect bill that fell short of what’s needed, given the housing crisis New Jersey faces. But it was a big step forward.
The approach the governor prefers would take us backward. Again, he is ignoring the pressing needs of the state’s most vulnerable families.
The challenge is to replace the sluggish bureaucracy of the Council on Affordable Housing with something simpler and more efficient. Over the past year, Sen. Raymond Lesniak and Assemblyman Jerry Green, both Democrats from Union County, have struggled mightily to create a bill that took in the concerns of everyone: towns, advocates, environmentalists, developers and builders.
They produced a bill that kills COAH and replaces it with a few simple directives. Typically, towns that can show at least 10 percent of their housing is affordable would face no new obligations. Other towns, though, would have to create affordable housing and would have several options to do so. For example, they could buy existing units and place deed restrictions that ensure they are available to families of modest means. They can collect a small fee from housing developers and build affordable units themselves. They can partner with nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity to encourage more building.
Christie apparently thinks that’s too much. He would require only that new housing projects of more than 20 units set aside 10 percent as affordable. That would allow towns to block affordable housing projects by using zoning and other land-use regulations to restrict all new growth. And builders could escape even that modest requirement by paying a small fee, leaving the town with no new affordable units.
That weak approach would slow the creation of affordable housing and, in some areas, halt it completely. And that would violate the Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel rulings, which are aimed precisely at breaking that kind of effort to exclude families of modest means. The state Office of Legislative Services, a nonpartisan research agency, confirmed that last year. If Christie gets his way, lawsuits will surely follow.
The bill the governor vetoed has strong support from the business community — including the New Jersey Builders Association and the state Chamber of Commerce — housing advocates and a majority in both houses of the Legislature.
This is not a radical measure. It does not require towns to build high-rise projects for the very poor. Its definition of "affordable" is that a family earning up to 80 percent of the median income could live there — people such as schoolteachers, clerks and librarians. New Jersey can find a way to make room for them in every town.
Given that cowed Republicans in the Legislature dare not defy Christie, there is little chance his veto will be overriden. So we are stuck, for now, with a housing policy that no one likes.
© 2011 NJ.com. All rights reserved.
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
With his conditional veto, Gov. Chris Christie scuttled months of hard work by legislators attempting to craft a sensible affordable housing policy. Gov. Chris Christie has conditionally vetoed the affordable housing bill that legislators spent months piecing together. It was an imperfect bill that fell short of what’s needed, given the housing crisis New Jersey faces. But it was a big step forward.
The approach the governor prefers would take us backward. Again, he is ignoring the pressing needs of the state’s most vulnerable families.
The challenge is to replace the sluggish bureaucracy of the Council on Affordable Housing with something simpler and more efficient. Over the past year, Sen. Raymond Lesniak and Assemblyman Jerry Green, both Democrats from Union County, have struggled mightily to create a bill that took in the concerns of everyone: towns, advocates, environmentalists, developers and builders.
They produced a bill that kills COAH and replaces it with a few simple directives. Typically, towns that can show at least 10 percent of their housing is affordable would face no new obligations. Other towns, though, would have to create affordable housing and would have several options to do so. For example, they could buy existing units and place deed restrictions that ensure they are available to families of modest means. They can collect a small fee from housing developers and build affordable units themselves. They can partner with nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity to encourage more building.
Christie apparently thinks that’s too much. He would require only that new housing projects of more than 20 units set aside 10 percent as affordable. That would allow towns to block affordable housing projects by using zoning and other land-use regulations to restrict all new growth. And builders could escape even that modest requirement by paying a small fee, leaving the town with no new affordable units.
That weak approach would slow the creation of affordable housing and, in some areas, halt it completely. And that would violate the Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel rulings, which are aimed precisely at breaking that kind of effort to exclude families of modest means. The state Office of Legislative Services, a nonpartisan research agency, confirmed that last year. If Christie gets his way, lawsuits will surely follow.
The bill the governor vetoed has strong support from the business community — including the New Jersey Builders Association and the state Chamber of Commerce — housing advocates and a majority in both houses of the Legislature.
This is not a radical measure. It does not require towns to build high-rise projects for the very poor. Its definition of "affordable" is that a family earning up to 80 percent of the median income could live there — people such as schoolteachers, clerks and librarians. New Jersey can find a way to make room for them in every town.
Given that cowed Republicans in the Legislature dare not defy Christie, there is little chance his veto will be overriden. So we are stuck, for now, with a housing policy that no one likes.
© 2011 NJ.com. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
An Invitation to the National Conference of State Legislatures
I am happy that I will have an opportunity to meet with the President to talk about housing, crime, gangs and job creation. If you have concerns that you think I should bring to the attention of the President, please reach out to me at the 22nd District Legislative Office.
NCSL knows that legislative leaders like yourself are extremely busy right now as sessions gather steam in most states. We hope however, you can find a way to make a quick trip to Washington, D.C., on February 16-18 for what we believe is a leaders meeting that you won’t want to miss. We will be speaking with key congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle and have a private meeting with President Obama. This will be a unique opportunity to hear from the President and share your thoughts about issues and concerns in your state. It’s also a great opportunity to learn from and network with other leaders about the issues you are struggling with right now.
Dear Assemblymember Green,
NCSL knows that legislative leaders like yourself are extremely busy right now as sessions gather steam in most states. We hope however, you can find a way to make a quick trip to Washington, D.C., on February 16-18 for what we believe is a leaders meeting that you won’t want to miss. We will be speaking with key congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle and have a private meeting with President Obama. This will be a unique opportunity to hear from the President and share your thoughts about issues and concerns in your state. It’s also a great opportunity to learn from and network with other leaders about the issues you are struggling with right now.
The agenda includes a briefing from political analyst Charlie Cook and a session on energy policy with former Shell CEO John Hofmeister. Alison Acosta Fraser, director of Economic Policy Studies for the Heritage Foundation, will speak about the economic outlook, and NCSL’s state fiscal expert, Corina Eckl, will discuss how states continue to deal with the budget crisis.
This meeting is for speakers, speaker pro tems, senate presidents, president pro tems, majority and minority leaders.
Reject Housing Legislation A3447/S1 Conditional Veto - A comment from the Fair Share Housing Center
Random Observation - I still haven’t figured out the connection between Gov. Chris Christie and the New Democrats – Cory Storch and Rebecca Williams. Just recently, Rebecca quoted me as being “Ineffective”. With all of the below organizations (statewide) supporting me, I find it interesting that Cory and Rebecca still cannot show anything that they have done for the state of New Jersey and they definitely cannot show anything that they have done for the city of Plainfield.
I spend 98% of my time working with people around the state that have supported me in making life better for everyone. The New Democrats fail to realize that my involvement as Chairman of the Party here in Plainfield is with the purpose of getting people elected, not running Plainfield. The New Democrats have done a poor job over the last 8 years running Plainfield and now they want to blame me.
I spend 98% of my time working with people around the state that have supported me in making life better for everyone. The New Democrats fail to realize that my involvement as Chairman of the Party here in Plainfield is with the purpose of getting people elected, not running Plainfield. The New Democrats have done a poor job over the last 8 years running Plainfield and now they want to blame me.
REJECT CONDITIONAL VETO ON HOUSING POLICY LEGISLATION A3447/S1
On January 24, Governor Christie conditionally vetoed the housing legislation that was passed by the Legislature earlier in the month. The legislation had support from many housing and special needs groups and the business community. NAIOP New Jersey Chapter, New Jersey Business & Industry Association, International Council of Shopping Centers, New Jersey Builders Association and the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce all urged the Governor to sign the legislation as "workable housing policy". While we believed that the municipal obligations in S1/A3447 were too low, we agreed that the bill does provide a workable and predictable framework to get homes built.
Gov. Christie's conditional veto would return the bill to the "old S1" considered by the Legislature last spring, a bill deemed unconstitutional by the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services. In this e-mail, we recap the various reasons why the old bill gathered so much opposition from the business, civil rights, environmental, housing, mental health, religious and smart growth communities.
We agree with Housing and Local Government Committee Chair Jerry Green, who has demonstrated strong leadership and conducted an admirable public process to involve all stakeholders throughout this debate.
"The governor has now made it clear that he supports unconstitutional legislation that imposes higher fees on New Jersey businesses," Green said in a statement released Monday. "The governor, sadly, wants higher business taxes and a court fight. That accomplishes nothing."
As Chairman Green says, the old S1 would accomplish little more than a court fight - it certainly would not get housing built. It would allow municipalities to determine their own housing obligations, allow any housing obligation to be met with a $10,000 payment instead of actually building homes, and would reimpose growth share, a failed system that has been rejected twice by the courts as unconstitutional.
This egregious housing bill was opposed by the following groups: NJ State Conference of the NAACP, New Jersey's Catholic Bishops & NJ Catholic Conference, NJ Builders Association, NJ Mental Health Association, 80 Special Needs Providers, including the Corporation for Supportive Housing, Covenant House, and Catholic Charities, Habitat for Humanity (eight NJ chapters), The Housing and Community Development Network of NJ, NJ Future, Pinelands Preservation Alliance, Sierra Club of NJ, Coalition on Affordable Housing and the Environment and Fair Share Housing Center, among others.
The "old S1" proposed by the conditional veto is bad for New Jersey because:
- It discourages economic development throughout the state - business groups are opposed due to the approval by the bill of exclusionary zoning practices that restrict growth even in appropriate places near jobs and transit.
- It lets all obligations be met through a $10,000 payment instead of actually building homes.
- Whether a town is "inclusionary" is not determined based on who lives there, instead based mainly on % of townhouses and condos (even if they are expensive). Towns like Pennsauken and Maplewood are "exclusionary" while Princeton and Summit are "inclusionary."
- The bill does not include funding for urban areas or any very-low-income housing requirements for families earning under $25,000.
- All prior obligations forgiven - towns that did a good job start at the same place as towns that did nothing.
- Far fewer homes would have been built under S-1 than under COAH (even though everyone agrees COAH has not done enough). If S-1 has been in place since 1986, it would have resulted in $767 million of public and private investment in affordable housing, all through minor rehabilitation. COAH since 1986 has produced over $6 billion of public and private investment and over 50,000 new homes, in addition to over 15,000 homes rehabilitated.
- Far fewer homes would be built under S-1 in the future than under current law. If S-1 were in place between now and 2018, it would require no new construction and at most 18,000 homes receiving minor rehabilitation; municipalities currently have plans for over 40,000 new homes affordable to low- and moderate income people plus a requirement for minor rehabilitation of 51,000 homes by 2018.
-The bill is an environmental disaster - it encourages development in New Jersey's most environmentally sensitive and rural areas while discouraging development near transit and jobs.
Even the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services stated that S-1 is unconstitutional because there is no way to actually meet the need for low- and moderate-income homes in the bill and because any municipality can simply choose to exclude low- and moderate-income people entirely.
We urge legislators to reject this flawed and widely opposed legislation.
Fair Share Housing Center, founded in 1975, is based in Cherry Hill. It is the only public interest organization devoted entirely to defending the housing rights of New Jersey's poor through implementing the Mount Laurel doctrine, which requires that each municipality provide its fair share of affordable housing to low- and moderate-income people. Visit us on the web at www.fairsharehousing.org.
Even the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services stated that S-1 is unconstitutional because there is no way to actually meet the need for low- and moderate-income homes in the bill and because any municipality can simply choose to exclude low- and moderate-income people entirely.
We urge legislators to reject this flawed and widely opposed legislation.
Fair Share Housing Center, founded in 1975, is based in Cherry Hill. It is the only public interest organization devoted entirely to defending the housing rights of New Jersey's poor through implementing the Mount Laurel doctrine, which requires that each municipality provide its fair share of affordable housing to low- and moderate-income people. Visit us on the web at www.fairsharehousing.org.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Gov. Christie rejects N.J. bill's affordable housing minimum requirement
Published: Tuesday, January 25, 2011, 6:00 AM
By Matt Friedman/Statehouse Bureau
TRENTON — The messy question of how New Jersey provides affordable housing is back in the hands of the state Legislature after Gov. Chris Christie Monday conditionally vetoed a compromise bill aimed at revamping long-criticized rules.
Christie said the bill (S-1) had changed too much from the version he supported, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly in June but ran into opposition in the Assembly.
In his veto message, Christie said the original version was "a clearly superior bill and was the result of significant negotiation between the Legislature and the governor’s office."
"This bill, for many municipalities, is worse than the existing system," said the governor, who sent the Legislature an identical bill to the one the Senate passed in June.
The bill Christie vetoed Monday took seven months and several revisions before passing both houses.
Although both versions eliminate the controversial Council on Affordable Housing, Christie objected to the new bill’s requirement that towns have at least 10 percent of all their housing affordable for lower- and middle-class residents. The original version required only 10 percent of new construction.
Christie also said the bill would encourage sprawl, did not do enough to protect towns from lawsuits from developers, and would create more red tape.
Affordable housing advocates said Christie’s action set the state back. "The governor sided with wealthy towns that want to keep out bus drivers, waitresses and public employees," said Kevin Walsh, associate director of the Fair Share Housing Center.
Assembly Housing and Local Government Chair Jerry Green (D-Union), who sponsored the latest version of the bill, burnished a December legal opinion by the Office of Legislative Services that said Christie’s preferred bill would not have stood up to a court challenge. "It’s obvious the governor wants everything his way and it’s not going to happen," said Green.
The state has to set these rules because of court decisions saying towns must provide affordable housing for lower-income families. In October, a state appeals court ordered the state to come up with new affordable housing rules by March. But with several groups appealing parts of that decision, the state Supreme Court last week delayed the deadline.
By Matt Friedman/Statehouse Bureau
TRENTON — The messy question of how New Jersey provides affordable housing is back in the hands of the state Legislature after Gov. Chris Christie Monday conditionally vetoed a compromise bill aimed at revamping long-criticized rules.
Christie said the bill (S-1) had changed too much from the version he supported, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly in June but ran into opposition in the Assembly.
In his veto message, Christie said the original version was "a clearly superior bill and was the result of significant negotiation between the Legislature and the governor’s office."
"This bill, for many municipalities, is worse than the existing system," said the governor, who sent the Legislature an identical bill to the one the Senate passed in June.
The bill Christie vetoed Monday took seven months and several revisions before passing both houses.
Although both versions eliminate the controversial Council on Affordable Housing, Christie objected to the new bill’s requirement that towns have at least 10 percent of all their housing affordable for lower- and middle-class residents. The original version required only 10 percent of new construction.
Christie also said the bill would encourage sprawl, did not do enough to protect towns from lawsuits from developers, and would create more red tape.
Affordable housing advocates said Christie’s action set the state back. "The governor sided with wealthy towns that want to keep out bus drivers, waitresses and public employees," said Kevin Walsh, associate director of the Fair Share Housing Center.
Assembly Housing and Local Government Chair Jerry Green (D-Union), who sponsored the latest version of the bill, burnished a December legal opinion by the Office of Legislative Services that said Christie’s preferred bill would not have stood up to a court challenge. "It’s obvious the governor wants everything his way and it’s not going to happen," said Green.
The state has to set these rules because of court decisions saying towns must provide affordable housing for lower-income families. In October, a state appeals court ordered the state to come up with new affordable housing rules by March. But with several groups appealing parts of that decision, the state Supreme Court last week delayed the deadline.
Making Lemonade from a Lemon -- New Housing Legislation Deserves Support
By REV. R. LENTON BUFFALO JR.
Versions of the op-ed below by Rev. R. Lenton Buffalo Jr., President of the New Jersey Regional Coalition, were published during the week of 12/27/10 as an op-ed or a letter to the editor in The Daily Record (Morris County), Trenton Times, The Burlington County Times, and Press of Atlantic City.
Making Lemonade from a Lemon--New Housing Legislation Deserves Support
While it’s not perfect, Assembly Majority Leader Joe Cryan and Senate President Steve Sweeney deserve compliments and gratitude for turning a near disaster for fair housing into a very positive framework for a more progressive and fair system for affordable housing in New Jersey.
Assembly Bill 3447, which passed the Assembly earlier this month and is expected to be voted on in the Senate in the coming weeks, is a far cry from the original bill. That bill, known as S1, would have hurt both the poor and middle class communities and thrust us back to the dark days before former Speaker Joe Roberts and the New Jersey Regional Coalition spearheaded A-500. That legislation, passed in 2008, abolished the distasteful practice of Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs), in which wealthy towns could sell their housing obligations to distressed cities and older suburbs, a practice which would have been revived by S1 but that has thankfully been left out of A3447.
The new bill reflects significant input from our organization, a faith-based, grassroots coalition of groups from throughout New Jersey, and our allies. We thank our legislative leaders for listening to and adopting so many of our suggestions and recommendations. For example, this bill, A3447, for the first time, recognizes the different types of communities in our state and gives consideration based on a town’s low-income demographics and not just its housing stock. It begins to reward and encourage diversity rather than punishing it. We are very pleased that RCAs (or buy-outs and opt outs of any kind) have been removed from the bill and that affordable housing requirements are much more fair and equitable than in the earlier versions.
As with any legislation, there is room for improvement, and we look forward to working on further reform in the future. But this bill is a strong one that deserves our elected officials’ support now. Legislative leaders have skillfully managed competing pressures and carefully considered legitimate issues and interests in a year long process. Many legislators played critical roles in sorting through this complex issue — including Housing Committee Chair Jerry Green, Vice Chair Mila Jasey, Assemblyman Al Coutinho, Senator Donald Norcross and, of course, Speaker Sheila Oliver. In the end, their bias was with the people of New Jersey — providing stability for middle class communities and opportunity for low-income families.
We need action on this issue that has been endlessly debated, and hope that the Senate will vote to approve it and Gov. Christie will sign it without further delay. We look forward to continued collaboration with our elected officials and allies to build ONE New Jersey.
www.njregionalequity.org
Versions of the op-ed below by Rev. R. Lenton Buffalo Jr., President of the New Jersey Regional Coalition, were published during the week of 12/27/10 as an op-ed or a letter to the editor in The Daily Record (Morris County), Trenton Times, The Burlington County Times, and Press of Atlantic City.
Making Lemonade from a Lemon--New Housing Legislation Deserves Support
While it’s not perfect, Assembly Majority Leader Joe Cryan and Senate President Steve Sweeney deserve compliments and gratitude for turning a near disaster for fair housing into a very positive framework for a more progressive and fair system for affordable housing in New Jersey.
Assembly Bill 3447, which passed the Assembly earlier this month and is expected to be voted on in the Senate in the coming weeks, is a far cry from the original bill. That bill, known as S1, would have hurt both the poor and middle class communities and thrust us back to the dark days before former Speaker Joe Roberts and the New Jersey Regional Coalition spearheaded A-500. That legislation, passed in 2008, abolished the distasteful practice of Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs), in which wealthy towns could sell their housing obligations to distressed cities and older suburbs, a practice which would have been revived by S1 but that has thankfully been left out of A3447.
The new bill reflects significant input from our organization, a faith-based, grassroots coalition of groups from throughout New Jersey, and our allies. We thank our legislative leaders for listening to and adopting so many of our suggestions and recommendations. For example, this bill, A3447, for the first time, recognizes the different types of communities in our state and gives consideration based on a town’s low-income demographics and not just its housing stock. It begins to reward and encourage diversity rather than punishing it. We are very pleased that RCAs (or buy-outs and opt outs of any kind) have been removed from the bill and that affordable housing requirements are much more fair and equitable than in the earlier versions.
As with any legislation, there is room for improvement, and we look forward to working on further reform in the future. But this bill is a strong one that deserves our elected officials’ support now. Legislative leaders have skillfully managed competing pressures and carefully considered legitimate issues and interests in a year long process. Many legislators played critical roles in sorting through this complex issue — including Housing Committee Chair Jerry Green, Vice Chair Mila Jasey, Assemblyman Al Coutinho, Senator Donald Norcross and, of course, Speaker Sheila Oliver. In the end, their bias was with the people of New Jersey — providing stability for middle class communities and opportunity for low-income families.
We need action on this issue that has been endlessly debated, and hope that the Senate will vote to approve it and Gov. Christie will sign it without further delay. We look forward to continued collaboration with our elected officials and allies to build ONE New Jersey.
www.njregionalequity.org
CHRISTIE COAH VETO SHOWS HE WANTS HIGHER BUSINESS TAXES & COURT FIGHTS
(TRENTON) – Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green released the following statement Monday on Gov. Chris Christie’s conditional veto of legislation he sponsored (A-3447) he sponsored to abolish the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and reform affordable housing laws to put less pressure on municipalities.
In his conditional veto, the governor sought the original version of the bill that was judged unconstitutional by the Office of Legislative Services – that opinion is attached - and imposed a 2.5 percent fee on businesses.
Green’s bill was deemed constitutional and lowered the fee to 1.5 percent:
“The governor has now made it clear that he supports unconstitutional legislation that imposes higher fees on New Jersey businesses.
“The last thing New Jersey and its economy needs is unworkable laws that force businesses to pay higher taxes, but that’s exactly what the governor has endorsed with this unfortunate decision.
“Our bill was backed by a broad range of businesses, housing advocates, legal experts and local officials who understood it was the best way to provide housing for working class residents, create jobs and spark the economy.
“The governor, sadly, wants higher business taxes and a court fight. That accomplishes nothing.”
In his conditional veto, the governor sought the original version of the bill that was judged unconstitutional by the Office of Legislative Services – that opinion is attached - and imposed a 2.5 percent fee on businesses.
Green’s bill was deemed constitutional and lowered the fee to 1.5 percent:
“The governor has now made it clear that he supports unconstitutional legislation that imposes higher fees on New Jersey businesses.
“The last thing New Jersey and its economy needs is unworkable laws that force businesses to pay higher taxes, but that’s exactly what the governor has endorsed with this unfortunate decision.
“Our bill was backed by a broad range of businesses, housing advocates, legal experts and local officials who understood it was the best way to provide housing for working class residents, create jobs and spark the economy.
“The governor, sadly, wants higher business taxes and a court fight. That accomplishes nothing.”
Monday, January 24, 2011
Amendment Rights and Opinions....
Doc I appreciate your apology. Mud slinging comes with the territory but I will not sit silent when racial slurs of any type are put out there. As for me, as a blogger I will not allow my page to be used as a vehicle for other's to communicate their messages of negativity. They should do what you and I have done... write their own blog - stand on their on and in many instances stop hiding behind anonymous comments.
P.S.
I have received support for my work with the housing issues facing the state of NJ from some of the largest organizations in the state of NJ which includes the Builder’s Association and the legal community (because they feel the legislation that I am pushing will stand the court test) and the non-profit organizations who feel that NJ should not turn its back on the poor. I receive support because I am working to make certain that young couples have the opportunity to buy a home here in the state of NJ. I receive support because this legislation will also be a means for putting people back to work. I feel that in these last 12 months my record speaks for itself in regards to the support that I have received statewide. So, when reading comments from a handful of local haters, I choose to take the high road in ignoring them. When putting them all together there is not one thing that they can show that they have done for the people in the state of NJ or Plainfield. I voted to abolish the death penalty. I have supported legislation for women’s health care, I have supported the civil rights of the gay community, I am on record opposing racial profiling, and my record on affordable housing reform in our state speaks for itself. So it is comical when I read these comments; therefore I am going to take the high road and chalk it up to the fact that they don’t have a clue in the meantime I am waiting for one of them to show me the facts and the actions on what they have done. I have yet to see any of them testify or even show up at the Housing Committee hearings or any other type of hearings in Trenton nor has any one of them contacted me with ideas or suggestions for reform of any type.
I do not have to worry about respect because I have gained the respect of my colleagues from working in the Statehouse for over 19 years. Only in Plainfield do we have people that have done nothing and not offered nothing and to put it nicely are just plain jealous. God has blessed me with all the tools that a man needs to be successful in life, mother wit, common sense, and the ability to care for all people.
I would just like to make one comment in reference to a comment that I made about Rebecca Williams. Here is a woman that has not done anything other than charge a commission to the New Democrats for the work that she does when she helps them out with their campaigns. My comments regarding her not lasting 4 years is in reference to the public asking for a recall, most certainly not a threat to her life. So when I read the response comments, threatened is the last thing in the world that I feel.
For the record… last year Rebecca asked me to support her, I have never asked her to support me and have no intentions of asking for her support.
I must say that as an open advocate of gay rights, I have all of the respect in the world for the gay community and was honored with statewide recognition for my work on behalf of this community. So I ask Prof. Williams when has she openly and publically supported gay rights here in the City of Plainfield or in the State of NJ? I do not recall any dialogue on this issue from her during the last election year. Now a year later after I have gained the respect of elected officials around the state due to my work on affordable housing and other issues, she has the nerve to say that I am ineffective.
Rebecca someone must have hurt you really bad during your life but please, do not take it out on me.
P.S.
I have received support for my work with the housing issues facing the state of NJ from some of the largest organizations in the state of NJ which includes the Builder’s Association and the legal community (because they feel the legislation that I am pushing will stand the court test) and the non-profit organizations who feel that NJ should not turn its back on the poor. I receive support because I am working to make certain that young couples have the opportunity to buy a home here in the state of NJ. I receive support because this legislation will also be a means for putting people back to work. I feel that in these last 12 months my record speaks for itself in regards to the support that I have received statewide. So, when reading comments from a handful of local haters, I choose to take the high road in ignoring them. When putting them all together there is not one thing that they can show that they have done for the people in the state of NJ or Plainfield. I voted to abolish the death penalty. I have supported legislation for women’s health care, I have supported the civil rights of the gay community, I am on record opposing racial profiling, and my record on affordable housing reform in our state speaks for itself. So it is comical when I read these comments; therefore I am going to take the high road and chalk it up to the fact that they don’t have a clue in the meantime I am waiting for one of them to show me the facts and the actions on what they have done. I have yet to see any of them testify or even show up at the Housing Committee hearings or any other type of hearings in Trenton nor has any one of them contacted me with ideas or suggestions for reform of any type.
I do not have to worry about respect because I have gained the respect of my colleagues from working in the Statehouse for over 19 years. Only in Plainfield do we have people that have done nothing and not offered nothing and to put it nicely are just plain jealous. God has blessed me with all the tools that a man needs to be successful in life, mother wit, common sense, and the ability to care for all people.
I would just like to make one comment in reference to a comment that I made about Rebecca Williams. Here is a woman that has not done anything other than charge a commission to the New Democrats for the work that she does when she helps them out with their campaigns. My comments regarding her not lasting 4 years is in reference to the public asking for a recall, most certainly not a threat to her life. So when I read the response comments, threatened is the last thing in the world that I feel.
For the record… last year Rebecca asked me to support her, I have never asked her to support me and have no intentions of asking for her support.
I must say that as an open advocate of gay rights, I have all of the respect in the world for the gay community and was honored with statewide recognition for my work on behalf of this community. So I ask Prof. Williams when has she openly and publically supported gay rights here in the City of Plainfield or in the State of NJ? I do not recall any dialogue on this issue from her during the last election year. Now a year later after I have gained the respect of elected officials around the state due to my work on affordable housing and other issues, she has the nerve to say that I am ineffective.
Rebecca someone must have hurt you really bad during your life but please, do not take it out on me.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Doc's Potpourri from Jan 19....
Doc, I have always found you to be honest and fair, every once in awhile you crossed the line but it was always done in good taste. If I recall, in one of your past blogs you mentioned that you would never allow anyone to place comments on your blog that were distasteful.
First of all, I have no desire to get into any dialogue with Councilwoman Rebecca Williams. Too many people have already seen how she operates as a councilperson. It is only a matter of time before she self-destructs - she does not need my help to do so. The people in the 2nd and 3rd ward have made a huge mistake in not re-electing Rashid Burney. He is a man of class, who knew how to talk to people and how to keep his word and that is why I supported him. However, as Chairman of the party my job is to support ALL Democrats on the Democratic slate. That is why I supported Rebecca Williams. Because as Chairman I am committed to support ALL Democrats and then it is up to the public to decide who they vote for. So now the public will have an opportunity to see the real Rebecca. She was the person behind the scenes that ran the New Democrats' campaign and now she has her chance to show the Public the type of an elected official she is going to be - IF she survives the next four years.
I am encouraging the citizens of Plainfield to listen very carefully to what she has to say, watch her mannerisms and to watch her facial expressions and reactions when she dislikes something that she does not support.
On a second note, Doc I am surprised that you allowed an individual to use your blog to make a comment that I felt crossed the line in terms of racial remarks. As you are aware over 60% of my district is white and for you to allow someone to post the following ...”Doc quite simply... the problem is we have an electorate that has the mentality and mindset of a bunch of toothless rednecks from the backwater of Appalachia..." I find this to be one of the most disgusting racial remarks that can be said. I feel that this is a personal attack towards my white support in the 22nd District and it is not acceptable. Maybe racial remarks of any type were viewed as ok in the south in the 1950’s but in this day and age there is no rationalization or justification in these types of remarks. Personally I find them unacceptable. So understand that I will defend a white voter as quickly as a black voter because I feel that there is no place in today's society for individuals that help generate divisiveness through racial hate.
Currently, I am researching the issue of bloggers allowing their blogs to be used as a platform for these types of remarks, implying that people are criminals and stating other remarks that are defamatory to someone's reputation. The blogger should be held legally responsible for the messages relayed through his/her blog and frankly the blogger should face the retaliatory action of a court of law...
First of all, I have no desire to get into any dialogue with Councilwoman Rebecca Williams. Too many people have already seen how she operates as a councilperson. It is only a matter of time before she self-destructs - she does not need my help to do so. The people in the 2nd and 3rd ward have made a huge mistake in not re-electing Rashid Burney. He is a man of class, who knew how to talk to people and how to keep his word and that is why I supported him. However, as Chairman of the party my job is to support ALL Democrats on the Democratic slate. That is why I supported Rebecca Williams. Because as Chairman I am committed to support ALL Democrats and then it is up to the public to decide who they vote for. So now the public will have an opportunity to see the real Rebecca. She was the person behind the scenes that ran the New Democrats' campaign and now she has her chance to show the Public the type of an elected official she is going to be - IF she survives the next four years.
I am encouraging the citizens of Plainfield to listen very carefully to what she has to say, watch her mannerisms and to watch her facial expressions and reactions when she dislikes something that she does not support.
On a second note, Doc I am surprised that you allowed an individual to use your blog to make a comment that I felt crossed the line in terms of racial remarks. As you are aware over 60% of my district is white and for you to allow someone to post the following ...”Doc quite simply... the problem is we have an electorate that has the mentality and mindset of a bunch of toothless rednecks from the backwater of Appalachia..." I find this to be one of the most disgusting racial remarks that can be said. I feel that this is a personal attack towards my white support in the 22nd District and it is not acceptable. Maybe racial remarks of any type were viewed as ok in the south in the 1950’s but in this day and age there is no rationalization or justification in these types of remarks. Personally I find them unacceptable. So understand that I will defend a white voter as quickly as a black voter because I feel that there is no place in today's society for individuals that help generate divisiveness through racial hate.
Currently, I am researching the issue of bloggers allowing their blogs to be used as a platform for these types of remarks, implying that people are criminals and stating other remarks that are defamatory to someone's reputation. The blogger should be held legally responsible for the messages relayed through his/her blog and frankly the blogger should face the retaliatory action of a court of law...
Thursday, January 20, 2011
N.J. lawmakers, governor agree and disagree on stimulating the economy
By Maya Rao Inquirer Trenton Bureau
Posted: 01/20/2011 12:05 PM
Shopping centers wouldn't have to pay an extra 2.5 percent fee to help subsidize affordable housing when they build in New Jersey. Pharmaceutical giants with a major presence in the northern part of the state could pay fewer corporate taxes.
Film studios such as NBC would qualify for more tax credits. Builders could see their permits approved far more rapidly. Investors in biotech start-ups would get tax breaks.
Small businesses would better weather unprofitable years with new changes in the tax code, while corporations could be persuaded to stay with money from a new $50 million fund.
These are just some of the ways corporations came out on top during a legislative cram session this month, but whether the bills will become law without further changes remains in doubt.
Gov. Christie, a Republican, said in his State of the State speech last week that he would support economic incentives only in the context of a balanced budget, and his office said that he was concerned the Legislature had not found a source of funding for the measures. Still, the governor said he would call for a rollback of personal and corporate tax rates when he proposes the budget in February.
How to boost the economy has been up for debate in the Statehouse lately, as New Jersey joins states around the country in trying to advocate for business in the face of massive budget shortfalls that are expected to result in less aid for schools, health care, and social programs.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott promised this month to phase out the state's corporate income tax, while leaders in Iowa are looking at cutting corporate income and commercial property taxes. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo vowed in his first State of the State address that he would use corporate tax breaks to make the state more business-friendly.
Meanwhile, a commission appointed by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon recently recommended that the state cut tax-credit programs to save $220 million a year. New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has called for cuts to the film-production tax-credit program to save money.
And lawmakers in Illinois last week approved corporate income-tax hikes of 45 percent and personal income-tax increases of 66 percent to offset a $15 billion budget shortfall.
Referring to Illinois in his State of the State speech, Christie said, "Is that what we want for New Jersey? No. New Jersey intends to remain the leader, not only in turning around the national trend of out-of-control spending and taxes, but in finding the path to growth."
Gaining consensus on how to improve the battered economy has not been easy. Consider a proposed overhaul of the state's affordable-housing policy, which business organizations told Christie would make New Jersey more attractive for development.
A state appeals court in October invalidated revised rules by the state Council on Affordable Housing and gave the state five months to come back with new ones. The Christie administration said in court papers filed last week that it might not meet the deadline.
In an order released Wednesday, the court told the state "to immediately comply" with its directive from last fall and submit biweekly reports on its progress.
Rewriting the rules could become unnecessary if Christie signs into law a housing bill that passed both houses of the Legislature last week and gained the rare support of both advocates for businesses and low-income residents in need of housing. The governor is expected to veto it in the next few days, having voiced support for an earlier version of the legislation that passed the Senate last June.
Businesses liked the bill because, among other things, it would eliminate COAH as well as a 2.5 percent fee on commercial development. Most towns would see their housing obligations drop under the state-mandated housing quotas in the legislation.
A recent letter to Christie signed by associations representing builders, shopping centers, and businesses said a workable housing policy is a "critical component" of efforts to make New Jersey more attractive for investment and job growth.
Christie did recently sign into law a bill - passed with no opposition - to expand a tax-credit program to encourage businesses to stay in or move to the state, at a cost of up to $18.6 million a year.
Yet leaders in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, where all 120 seats are up for grabs in November, have been criticizing Christie over the last week for not signing other business-friendly bills as they continue pounding the theme of economic development.
Democrats insist their legislation - which in many cases has bipartisan support - will get people back to work in a state where the unemployment rate fell slightly to 9.1 percent and employers shed 16,300 jobs in December, according to figures released Wednesday.
Fiscal estimates have not determined whether their proposals would bring in enough money to offset the immediate loss of revenue, and it is uncertain how the state can pay while also protecting the programs Democrats have derided Christie for cutting in the current budget.
For example, a bill to restore and expand the film-production tax credit, which was suspended in the current budget, would cost up to $45 million - enough to offset reductions last year in the earned-income tax credit for low-income workers.
And a change in the tax code approved by lawmakers allowing people to offset gains in one business-related category of income against losses in another, and to carry forward losses in one year for up to 20 years, would cost about $400 million. That's almost equivalent to last year's municipal-aid cuts, which mayors blame for rising property taxes.
"If we give businesses the ability to do better in New Jersey, we will create jobs, we will create more income, and if we create more income, government will be able to pay its bills," said Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D., Middlesex).
Wisniewski, also chairman of the New Jersey State Democratic Committee, has gone on the offensive over the last week, accusing Christie of putting the economy on the back burner.
"In one breath he'll criticize [Democratic lawmakers] for being anti-business, and in another breath he'll criticize us for being too pro-business," said Wisniewski.
Christie sounded a theme of fiscal austerity in last week's speech, signaling he will trim funding for Medicaid in the next budget and saying the state must continue examining "the amount and structure of municipal and school aid programs."
But he hailed the Legislature's new focus, saying, "You know the debate has changed when my friends across the aisle propose legislation highlighting the need for tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. A year ago, they were advocating tax increases."
Posted: 01/20/2011 12:05 PM
Shopping centers wouldn't have to pay an extra 2.5 percent fee to help subsidize affordable housing when they build in New Jersey. Pharmaceutical giants with a major presence in the northern part of the state could pay fewer corporate taxes.
Film studios such as NBC would qualify for more tax credits. Builders could see their permits approved far more rapidly. Investors in biotech start-ups would get tax breaks.
Small businesses would better weather unprofitable years with new changes in the tax code, while corporations could be persuaded to stay with money from a new $50 million fund.
These are just some of the ways corporations came out on top during a legislative cram session this month, but whether the bills will become law without further changes remains in doubt.
Gov. Christie, a Republican, said in his State of the State speech last week that he would support economic incentives only in the context of a balanced budget, and his office said that he was concerned the Legislature had not found a source of funding for the measures. Still, the governor said he would call for a rollback of personal and corporate tax rates when he proposes the budget in February.
How to boost the economy has been up for debate in the Statehouse lately, as New Jersey joins states around the country in trying to advocate for business in the face of massive budget shortfalls that are expected to result in less aid for schools, health care, and social programs.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott promised this month to phase out the state's corporate income tax, while leaders in Iowa are looking at cutting corporate income and commercial property taxes. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo vowed in his first State of the State address that he would use corporate tax breaks to make the state more business-friendly.
Meanwhile, a commission appointed by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon recently recommended that the state cut tax-credit programs to save $220 million a year. New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has called for cuts to the film-production tax-credit program to save money.
And lawmakers in Illinois last week approved corporate income-tax hikes of 45 percent and personal income-tax increases of 66 percent to offset a $15 billion budget shortfall.
Referring to Illinois in his State of the State speech, Christie said, "Is that what we want for New Jersey? No. New Jersey intends to remain the leader, not only in turning around the national trend of out-of-control spending and taxes, but in finding the path to growth."
Gaining consensus on how to improve the battered economy has not been easy. Consider a proposed overhaul of the state's affordable-housing policy, which business organizations told Christie would make New Jersey more attractive for development.
A state appeals court in October invalidated revised rules by the state Council on Affordable Housing and gave the state five months to come back with new ones. The Christie administration said in court papers filed last week that it might not meet the deadline.
In an order released Wednesday, the court told the state "to immediately comply" with its directive from last fall and submit biweekly reports on its progress.
Rewriting the rules could become unnecessary if Christie signs into law a housing bill that passed both houses of the Legislature last week and gained the rare support of both advocates for businesses and low-income residents in need of housing. The governor is expected to veto it in the next few days, having voiced support for an earlier version of the legislation that passed the Senate last June.
Businesses liked the bill because, among other things, it would eliminate COAH as well as a 2.5 percent fee on commercial development. Most towns would see their housing obligations drop under the state-mandated housing quotas in the legislation.
A recent letter to Christie signed by associations representing builders, shopping centers, and businesses said a workable housing policy is a "critical component" of efforts to make New Jersey more attractive for investment and job growth.
Christie did recently sign into law a bill - passed with no opposition - to expand a tax-credit program to encourage businesses to stay in or move to the state, at a cost of up to $18.6 million a year.
Yet leaders in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, where all 120 seats are up for grabs in November, have been criticizing Christie over the last week for not signing other business-friendly bills as they continue pounding the theme of economic development.
Democrats insist their legislation - which in many cases has bipartisan support - will get people back to work in a state where the unemployment rate fell slightly to 9.1 percent and employers shed 16,300 jobs in December, according to figures released Wednesday.
Fiscal estimates have not determined whether their proposals would bring in enough money to offset the immediate loss of revenue, and it is uncertain how the state can pay while also protecting the programs Democrats have derided Christie for cutting in the current budget.
For example, a bill to restore and expand the film-production tax credit, which was suspended in the current budget, would cost up to $45 million - enough to offset reductions last year in the earned-income tax credit for low-income workers.
And a change in the tax code approved by lawmakers allowing people to offset gains in one business-related category of income against losses in another, and to carry forward losses in one year for up to 20 years, would cost about $400 million. That's almost equivalent to last year's municipal-aid cuts, which mayors blame for rising property taxes.
"If we give businesses the ability to do better in New Jersey, we will create jobs, we will create more income, and if we create more income, government will be able to pay its bills," said Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D., Middlesex).
Wisniewski, also chairman of the New Jersey State Democratic Committee, has gone on the offensive over the last week, accusing Christie of putting the economy on the back burner.
"In one breath he'll criticize [Democratic lawmakers] for being anti-business, and in another breath he'll criticize us for being too pro-business," said Wisniewski.
Christie sounded a theme of fiscal austerity in last week's speech, signaling he will trim funding for Medicaid in the next budget and saying the state must continue examining "the amount and structure of municipal and school aid programs."
But he hailed the Legislature's new focus, saying, "You know the debate has changed when my friends across the aisle propose legislation highlighting the need for tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. A year ago, they were advocating tax increases."
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Transparency... the concept works both ways
Comments were made in the last couple of days in reference to my actions as Party Chair and my reasoning for moving in the direction that I did in terms of giving the council three names to choose from. I would like to respond to these comments and to the concerns of one of the Democratic Committee members reasoning for my not sharing certain information that I had received from four different attorneys in terms of the process that we used. First all four attorneys agreed that the process used was legitimate, in fact a similar process was used in another NJ municipality in which a Democratic Committee picked a Republican to include in a slate for nominees for a council vacancy.
This same person that basically questioned why I have not shared information with "anyone" failed to realize that our last mayor - who was elected by the Democratic party - never asked for a meeting with me or the Democratic party to announce that he had decided to become a Republican. Since the law allows an individual to be able to do this, I had to accept his rights. He had a right to make that decision and I understood that the law gave him that right, so why should I challenge his decision?
Secondly, there is a bigger reason why I did not share this information with some members of the Democratic Committee. I found out that without the permission of the Democratic Committee, our meeting was video taped and put on the internet; furthermore the tape was altered to show an incorrect message of what went on at the meeting. This leads me to feel that the City Committee can no longer trust some members. So I am now researching how the Committee can avoid someone taking such actions without getting permission from the members of the Committee. The Committee members feel that they are attending a meeting and that they have the right to maintain their privacy with respect to expressing their feelings on various issues within the party with no fear of seeing themselves on the internet. Now when the same individual is complaining about how I was conducting myself found no problem with the implementation of this “new” process in terms of videoing private meetings and then posting the meeting on the internet – that means that there is no respect for the members of the Committee or the subject matter – some of which is sensitive and should be treated as such.
So understand that there is nothing that was done illegally, there was nothing done that was corrupt. I have read some comments that I have identified as coming from the new Tea Party that we have here in the City of Plainfield. I am not surprised at some of the comments, the Tea Party members are trying to turn something that I did legally into something bad. It is embarrassing when you hear some of these individuals mention one individual was not registered because he must have served time in jail.
These kinds of comments are not only embarrassing but they hurt a man’s reputation. Unless these types of comments can be proven, bloggers should not allow the use of their blogs as a way to get this false information out.
I would like you to take a moment to read how the township of Aberdeen’s all Democratic Council appointed an individual as a replacement and nothing in the news article said anything negative about anyone.
I have been told that a person is blessed when God has given him common sense rather than being blessed with book knowledge and no common sense.
Dems cross party lines on council appointee
BY ERIN O. STATTEL Staff Writer
December 11, 2008
ABERDEEN — The township's all-Democratic council appointed a Planning Board member to fill a vacant council seat at the Dec. 2 meeting.
Newly appointed Councilman Fred Tagliarini just happens to be a Republican.
He was one of three candidates whose names were submitted to council by the Democratic County Committee of Aberdeen Township on Nov. 18.
"It is a tremendous honor and I was flattered," Tagliarini said of his appointment. "I wasn't expecting it, which makes it that much more pleasurable in a way."
Tagliarini was appointed by a unanimous vote at the Dec. 2 Township Council meeting to fill the seat vacated when former Councilwoman Janice Gallo resigned.
Gallo was elected to a four-year term in 2007 and her resignation came just shy of one year into that term.
Tagliarini, who filled a vacancy on the Township Council previously, will fill the vacancy and run for election in 2009.
"There was an identical situation some years ago when a councilman moved away and the same thing happened when they asked me to fill the term," Tagliarini explained. "At this point in time, I would like to get up to speed on the issues and workings of the council. However, in light of these economic times, I would like to make sure the council and the town are both operating as efficiently as possible."
Tagliarini said the fact that he is a Republican didn't seem to matter to the mayor.
"I think it is a credit to the council for looking across party lines," he said. "When the mayor called, I said 'I am not of your party's persuasion,' and he said that the council didn't care and that they would like to work with me regardless."
"We received what I believe were three names of people who are very qualified and are longtime residents of the township," Mayor David Sobel said in a Dec. 5 interview. "Fred, I have known for over 20 years. He has headed up the Little League baseball for years and now the Babe Ruth League, so he is very involved. He actually served for a year on the council in the mid-90s, and it may be interesting because he is a Republican." According to Aberdeen Township Manager Joseph Criscuolo, the Democratic County Committee of Aberdeen Township is the municipal party that selected Tagliarini as one of the potential candidates.
"They can choose anyone they wish just as long as that person is eligible to run for office in town, if they are over the age of 18 and have a current residence, and so on. The party can submit anyone they choose regardless of party affiliation."
Sobel also said that Tagliarini, who was sworn in at the Dec. 2 meeting, serves on the Planning Board and will also be the council's liaison, and an alternate will fill Tagliarini's spot on the Planning Board.
"He is just a great person, and I think in time, people who come to meetings will think so also," Sobel said.
Criscuolo confirmed Dec. 1 that the municipal party submitted the names of Tagliarini, Henry Arnold and Irwin Katz for the Township Council to succeed Gallo, who submitted her letter of resignation on Nov. 8.
"The municipal vacancy law allows [the Township Council] to take up to 30 days after the submission of the names," Criscuolo explained. "The council has through Dec. 18 to decide who to appoint to the council."
The law that Criscuolo referred to is NJSA 40A:16-11, and according to the New Jersey League of Municipalities Web site, the law provides that if the office of a governing body member who was the nominee of a political party becomes vacant, the municipal committee of that party has 15 days from the date of the vacancy to present three candidates for the office to the governing body.
The governing body then has 30 days to appoint one of the three to the position. If they fail to meet this deadline, the municipal committee that submitted the nominees, within 15 days, will appoint the successor to fill the vacancy.
Gallo, a Democrat, submitted a singlepage letter of resignation Nov. 8 that listed personal and health reasons for leaving.
In it, she wished Aberdeen Township "success in all its future endeavors" and intimated some sort of disagreement between her and the rest of the council.
"Over the past year we have certainly had our share of differences; however, recent developments have [caused] me to realize that my attempts to promote what I believe are the best [interests] of Aberdeen, are often at odds with my fellow council members," Gallo stated. "As a result of my strong commitment, my personal life and health have begun to suffer. I therefore no longer feel that I can fulfill my duties and responsibilities as a council member."
Speculation that Gallo would step down began after a contentious Sept. 2 Township Council meeting during which she posed numerous questions about the $15.3 million budget that was adopted despite her no vote.
At that time, Gallo said she was unsure if she would continue her term as councilwoman.
http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2008-12-11/front_page/007.html
This same person that basically questioned why I have not shared information with "anyone" failed to realize that our last mayor - who was elected by the Democratic party - never asked for a meeting with me or the Democratic party to announce that he had decided to become a Republican. Since the law allows an individual to be able to do this, I had to accept his rights. He had a right to make that decision and I understood that the law gave him that right, so why should I challenge his decision?
Secondly, there is a bigger reason why I did not share this information with some members of the Democratic Committee. I found out that without the permission of the Democratic Committee, our meeting was video taped and put on the internet; furthermore the tape was altered to show an incorrect message of what went on at the meeting. This leads me to feel that the City Committee can no longer trust some members. So I am now researching how the Committee can avoid someone taking such actions without getting permission from the members of the Committee. The Committee members feel that they are attending a meeting and that they have the right to maintain their privacy with respect to expressing their feelings on various issues within the party with no fear of seeing themselves on the internet. Now when the same individual is complaining about how I was conducting myself found no problem with the implementation of this “new” process in terms of videoing private meetings and then posting the meeting on the internet – that means that there is no respect for the members of the Committee or the subject matter – some of which is sensitive and should be treated as such.
So understand that there is nothing that was done illegally, there was nothing done that was corrupt. I have read some comments that I have identified as coming from the new Tea Party that we have here in the City of Plainfield. I am not surprised at some of the comments, the Tea Party members are trying to turn something that I did legally into something bad. It is embarrassing when you hear some of these individuals mention one individual was not registered because he must have served time in jail.
These kinds of comments are not only embarrassing but they hurt a man’s reputation. Unless these types of comments can be proven, bloggers should not allow the use of their blogs as a way to get this false information out.
I would like you to take a moment to read how the township of Aberdeen’s all Democratic Council appointed an individual as a replacement and nothing in the news article said anything negative about anyone.
I have been told that a person is blessed when God has given him common sense rather than being blessed with book knowledge and no common sense.
Dems cross party lines on council appointee
BY ERIN O. STATTEL Staff Writer
December 11, 2008
ABERDEEN — The township's all-Democratic council appointed a Planning Board member to fill a vacant council seat at the Dec. 2 meeting.
Newly appointed Councilman Fred Tagliarini just happens to be a Republican.
He was one of three candidates whose names were submitted to council by the Democratic County Committee of Aberdeen Township on Nov. 18.
"It is a tremendous honor and I was flattered," Tagliarini said of his appointment. "I wasn't expecting it, which makes it that much more pleasurable in a way."
Tagliarini was appointed by a unanimous vote at the Dec. 2 Township Council meeting to fill the seat vacated when former Councilwoman Janice Gallo resigned.
Gallo was elected to a four-year term in 2007 and her resignation came just shy of one year into that term.
Tagliarini, who filled a vacancy on the Township Council previously, will fill the vacancy and run for election in 2009.
"There was an identical situation some years ago when a councilman moved away and the same thing happened when they asked me to fill the term," Tagliarini explained. "At this point in time, I would like to get up to speed on the issues and workings of the council. However, in light of these economic times, I would like to make sure the council and the town are both operating as efficiently as possible."
Tagliarini said the fact that he is a Republican didn't seem to matter to the mayor.
"I think it is a credit to the council for looking across party lines," he said. "When the mayor called, I said 'I am not of your party's persuasion,' and he said that the council didn't care and that they would like to work with me regardless."
"We received what I believe were three names of people who are very qualified and are longtime residents of the township," Mayor David Sobel said in a Dec. 5 interview. "Fred, I have known for over 20 years. He has headed up the Little League baseball for years and now the Babe Ruth League, so he is very involved. He actually served for a year on the council in the mid-90s, and it may be interesting because he is a Republican." According to Aberdeen Township Manager Joseph Criscuolo, the Democratic County Committee of Aberdeen Township is the municipal party that selected Tagliarini as one of the potential candidates.
"They can choose anyone they wish just as long as that person is eligible to run for office in town, if they are over the age of 18 and have a current residence, and so on. The party can submit anyone they choose regardless of party affiliation."
Sobel also said that Tagliarini, who was sworn in at the Dec. 2 meeting, serves on the Planning Board and will also be the council's liaison, and an alternate will fill Tagliarini's spot on the Planning Board.
"He is just a great person, and I think in time, people who come to meetings will think so also," Sobel said.
Criscuolo confirmed Dec. 1 that the municipal party submitted the names of Tagliarini, Henry Arnold and Irwin Katz for the Township Council to succeed Gallo, who submitted her letter of resignation on Nov. 8.
"The municipal vacancy law allows [the Township Council] to take up to 30 days after the submission of the names," Criscuolo explained. "The council has through Dec. 18 to decide who to appoint to the council."
The law that Criscuolo referred to is NJSA 40A:16-11, and according to the New Jersey League of Municipalities Web site, the law provides that if the office of a governing body member who was the nominee of a political party becomes vacant, the municipal committee of that party has 15 days from the date of the vacancy to present three candidates for the office to the governing body.
The governing body then has 30 days to appoint one of the three to the position. If they fail to meet this deadline, the municipal committee that submitted the nominees, within 15 days, will appoint the successor to fill the vacancy.
Gallo, a Democrat, submitted a singlepage letter of resignation Nov. 8 that listed personal and health reasons for leaving.
In it, she wished Aberdeen Township "success in all its future endeavors" and intimated some sort of disagreement between her and the rest of the council.
"Over the past year we have certainly had our share of differences; however, recent developments have [caused] me to realize that my attempts to promote what I believe are the best [interests] of Aberdeen, are often at odds with my fellow council members," Gallo stated. "As a result of my strong commitment, my personal life and health have begun to suffer. I therefore no longer feel that I can fulfill my duties and responsibilities as a council member."
Speculation that Gallo would step down began after a contentious Sept. 2 Township Council meeting during which she posed numerous questions about the $15.3 million budget that was adopted despite her no vote.
At that time, Gallo said she was unsure if she would continue her term as councilwoman.
http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2008-12-11/front_page/007.html
Friday, January 14, 2011
Is Chris Estevez Plainfield's Newest Tea Party Member?
Lately, I have made it a policy of mine not to respond to negative comments that are made about me personally because normally individuals that make these remarks are "has-beens" with no life. Today I would like to comment on some of the remarks that Dan Damon put up on his blog the other day.
First let me say that I am happy and proud that I am able to keep my commitment to the people in Plainfield to make sure that Plainfield will not continuously be a dumping ground for the homeless and low-income when other municipalities in surrounding communities have NO PLAN for housing in their towns to deal with this issue. Unfotunately our country and state is in such a crisis that every day another family becomes homeless and winds up in Plainfield.
For the record, our city services more of these families here in the western part of the county than any other. Therefore, I made it a point that in my bill every municipality will have to be responsible for putting together a plan that deals with helping EVERYONE regardless of if they are homeless or first-time homebuyers. I have made this commitment to Plainfield, Union county and the State of NJ. I am proud to say that no matter what the outcome of the affordable housing issue happens to be, I will not back away from what I feel is only fair.
The sad fact is that currently we have over 1200 homeless families in Union county, with 400 being children. This is not fair.
I am proud of the fact that every Democratic legislator in the Assembly Democratic caucus has given me their support, I further have the support of many major organizations on this bill. I have spent over a year discussing the affordable housing issue with all organizations involved in the housing industry. I have asked for their input and the feedback has been great.
Because of my experience in the City of Plainfield over the years, I have been able to experience first hand the manner in which other municipalities have walked away from their responsibilities. So again, I want to thank the people of Plainfield in the 22nd Legislative District that have believed in me and stuck with me in this particular issue. The fight has just started because in this day and age; in this country no family should be homeless and no child should have to worry about where they are going to get their next meal.
p.s. Dan I am sorry that you received false information regarding a statement that I made about the Hispanic community because I work very well with every Hispanic representative in both houses in the State of NJ.
Last week I was invited to attend a meeting with Senator Ron Rice here in Plainfield. During this meeting I discussed that I work well with Assemblywoman Nellie Pou when it comes down to issues with Hispanics and the Black community. Yet and still here in the city of Plainfield I have not been successful with working with Chris Estevez who represents himself as one of the Hispanic leaders in Plainfield. Mr. Estevez represents one of the Unions in the state of New Jersey and is supposedly a spokesman for the Hispanic community on the state level. Lately Chris Estevez has started to act and talk like a Tea Party member. Frankly, he and I have no type of relationship on anything. He has been very critical and narrow minded regarding any movement that I have made within the city. For him to tell Dan that I have a problem with the Hispanic community is not true. The correct statement is that I have a problem with Chris Estevez not the Hispanic community. It is obvious that I am not alone as the voters in the city of Plainfield have a problem with him as well, because anytime a “community leader” runs for office and out of 20,000 registered voters in the city of Plainfield this “leader” is barely capable of getting approximately 500 votes.... well you do the math. The math I have done shows that the people are not happy with his conduct as an elected official and he was not reelected. For this reason, I choose not to get caught up with him or his games. So for the record I spoke about him and not the Hispanic community.
Dan from now own pick up the phone before you print false information from someone else. I have no problem taking your call and I certainly have no problem telling you the truth about what I said.
First let me say that I am happy and proud that I am able to keep my commitment to the people in Plainfield to make sure that Plainfield will not continuously be a dumping ground for the homeless and low-income when other municipalities in surrounding communities have NO PLAN for housing in their towns to deal with this issue. Unfotunately our country and state is in such a crisis that every day another family becomes homeless and winds up in Plainfield.
For the record, our city services more of these families here in the western part of the county than any other. Therefore, I made it a point that in my bill every municipality will have to be responsible for putting together a plan that deals with helping EVERYONE regardless of if they are homeless or first-time homebuyers. I have made this commitment to Plainfield, Union county and the State of NJ. I am proud to say that no matter what the outcome of the affordable housing issue happens to be, I will not back away from what I feel is only fair.
The sad fact is that currently we have over 1200 homeless families in Union county, with 400 being children. This is not fair.
I am proud of the fact that every Democratic legislator in the Assembly Democratic caucus has given me their support, I further have the support of many major organizations on this bill. I have spent over a year discussing the affordable housing issue with all organizations involved in the housing industry. I have asked for their input and the feedback has been great.
Because of my experience in the City of Plainfield over the years, I have been able to experience first hand the manner in which other municipalities have walked away from their responsibilities. So again, I want to thank the people of Plainfield in the 22nd Legislative District that have believed in me and stuck with me in this particular issue. The fight has just started because in this day and age; in this country no family should be homeless and no child should have to worry about where they are going to get their next meal.
p.s. Dan I am sorry that you received false information regarding a statement that I made about the Hispanic community because I work very well with every Hispanic representative in both houses in the State of NJ.
Last week I was invited to attend a meeting with Senator Ron Rice here in Plainfield. During this meeting I discussed that I work well with Assemblywoman Nellie Pou when it comes down to issues with Hispanics and the Black community. Yet and still here in the city of Plainfield I have not been successful with working with Chris Estevez who represents himself as one of the Hispanic leaders in Plainfield. Mr. Estevez represents one of the Unions in the state of New Jersey and is supposedly a spokesman for the Hispanic community on the state level. Lately Chris Estevez has started to act and talk like a Tea Party member. Frankly, he and I have no type of relationship on anything. He has been very critical and narrow minded regarding any movement that I have made within the city. For him to tell Dan that I have a problem with the Hispanic community is not true. The correct statement is that I have a problem with Chris Estevez not the Hispanic community. It is obvious that I am not alone as the voters in the city of Plainfield have a problem with him as well, because anytime a “community leader” runs for office and out of 20,000 registered voters in the city of Plainfield this “leader” is barely capable of getting approximately 500 votes.... well you do the math. The math I have done shows that the people are not happy with his conduct as an elected official and he was not reelected. For this reason, I choose not to get caught up with him or his games. So for the record I spoke about him and not the Hispanic community.
Dan from now own pick up the phone before you print false information from someone else. I have no problem taking your call and I certainly have no problem telling you the truth about what I said.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
What is the state of the State?
The Governor wants to stay the course, but we can't afford a course that involves higher property taxes and high unemployment for working class New Jerseyans.
Speeches and YouTube moments are nice, but the reality is that Gov. Christie's first year was a tough year for working class residents.
2011 CANNOT BE THE SAME.
Our State remains distressed:
PROPERTY TAXES
• Under Gov. Christie, hard-working New Jersey Families have endured painful property tax increases.
• Anyone who has seen their property tax bill knows the Governor pushed whatever he could onto the shoulders of working class families.
• The rich got a free ride while senior citizens saw their property tax relief slashed.
EDUCATION
• The Governor spent the past year undermining schools, cutting aid and scapegoating dedicated teachers.
• Property taxes and class sizes increased, meaning residents paid more for less.
UNEMPLOYMENT
• Unemployment remained above 9 percent as the Governor paid little attention to the economy.
• The unemployed deserve more than being called “these people” and hearing Republicans admit that they have no job plan.
WOMEN’S HEALTHCARE
• Working class women saw their health care slashed as Republicans chose ideology over doing what was right.
BACK TO WORK NJ & COOPERATION
• Hopefully the Governor in the year ahead will be more willing to protect New Jersey families, children, women’s healthcare and senior citizens.
• The Governor can change course by signing the 30 Back to Work NJ bills on his desk that will create jobs and economic development.
• It’s time the Governor put the theatrics aside and worked with Democrats to create jobs, improve our economy and get things done that matter to working families.
Speeches and YouTube moments are nice, but the reality is that Gov. Christie's first year was a tough year for working class residents.
2011 CANNOT BE THE SAME.
Our State remains distressed:
PROPERTY TAXES
• Under Gov. Christie, hard-working New Jersey Families have endured painful property tax increases.
• Anyone who has seen their property tax bill knows the Governor pushed whatever he could onto the shoulders of working class families.
• The rich got a free ride while senior citizens saw their property tax relief slashed.
EDUCATION
• The Governor spent the past year undermining schools, cutting aid and scapegoating dedicated teachers.
• Property taxes and class sizes increased, meaning residents paid more for less.
UNEMPLOYMENT
• Unemployment remained above 9 percent as the Governor paid little attention to the economy.
• The unemployed deserve more than being called “these people” and hearing Republicans admit that they have no job plan.
WOMEN’S HEALTHCARE
• Working class women saw their health care slashed as Republicans chose ideology over doing what was right.
BACK TO WORK NJ & COOPERATION
• Hopefully the Governor in the year ahead will be more willing to protect New Jersey families, children, women’s healthcare and senior citizens.
• The Governor can change course by signing the 30 Back to Work NJ bills on his desk that will create jobs and economic development.
• It’s time the Governor put the theatrics aside and worked with Democrats to create jobs, improve our economy and get things done that matter to working families.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Great News for Housing Reform in OUR State
One year ago I undertook the task of housing reform in the State of NJ. The old process was not working. On Monday, January 10, 2011 the Assembly and the Senate passed legislation that marks the begining of this reform. I am proud of this bill and the support that I have received from my colleagues.
Bill to abolish COAH, revamp New Jersey housing laws wins final Legislative approval
Published: Monday, January 10, 2011, 8:17 PM
www.nj.com
Legislation Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green, Assemblywoman Mila M. Jasey and Assemblyman Albert Coutinho sponsored to abolish the state Council on Affordable Housing, eliminate a commercial development fee and streamline New Jersey’s housing laws was granted final legislative approval by both houses on Monday.
Bill S-1, which has been substituted for Assembly version A-3447, incorporates recent amendments made by the Assembly to better meet the state’s affordable housing goals in a constitutional manner, as determined by the bipartisan Office of Legislative Services.
The bill was approved in the Assembly by a vote of 45-32.
The bill would abolish COAH and its bureacracy, eliminate the 2.5 percent fee on commercial development to help pay for affordable housing development and provide major housing obligation reductions for municipalities throughout New Jersey.
“New Jersey will finally have a viable housing plan for its hard-working families that is also good for business and workable for mayors,” said Green (D-Middlesex/Somerset/Union). “This bill gives towns relief from COAH’s unreasonable demands, offers businesses a much-needed break and clears the way for housing for lower-income New Jerseyans to finally actually be built in our state. It is a sound and reasonable approach that bodes well for New Jersey’s future.”
“This new alternative takes into account the needs of everyone in this state while also clearing the way for economic growth and development,” said Jasey (D-Essex).
“Our hard-working families deserve to know that housing they can afford will be built, our mayors need certainty and the flexibility to control their development and our businesses need relief from the development fee. This bill accomplishes all those goals to everyone’s benefit. It represents a new day in our effort to make New Jersey more affordable.”
“This new approach will bring an end to the constant wasting of taxpayer money on numerous lawsuits and court challenges, saving taxpayer money and allowing us to better focus resources on issues like public safety, health care, education economic growth and job creation,” said Coutinho (D-Essex). “Clearly, we’re all be better off by implementing this clear and intelligible system that actually will encourage both low- and moderate-income housing and economic growth. That’s good news for New Jersey families and businesses.”
The bill formed from input from housing advocates, mayors and businesses would:
• Abolish the state Council on Affordable Housing, or COAH.
• Provide a major decrease in municipal housing obligations compared to the ones required by COAH.
• Exempt 71 municipalities from housing obligations. These municipalities have more than 50 percent of their children participating in free or reduced school lunch programs.
• Require municipalities with 20 to 50 percent of their children on free and reduce lunch to ensure 8 percent of their housing is for low- and moderate-income families.
• Require municipalities with less than 20 percent of their children on free and reduced lunch to ensure 10 percent of their housing is for low- and moderate-income families.
• Eliminate the 2.5 percent fee on commercial development.
• Subject residential development that does not include low- and moderate-income housing to a 1.5 percent development fee.
“This simple system that maximizes the ability of the free market to produce a wide variety and choice of homes will most effectively provide housing for the low- and moderate-income residents of New Jersey,” Green said.
“We’re giving municipalities clear and realistic standards and relief to those that already have a healthy housing mix. This is a smarter approach that will mean a better New Jersey for residents and businesses alike.”
Housing and Community Development Network
The Honorable Jerry Green
17 Watchung Avenue
Plainfield, NJ 07060
Dear Chairman Green,
On behalf of the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey’s 150 community economic development members and 100 associate members who support the creation of jobs and homes that New Jersey residents can afford, we thank and congratulate you on the passage of Assembly Bill 3447/Senate Bill 1. We commend you for your tenacity and leadership on this issue, and appreciate all that you did to ensure that reforms to our state’s housing policies help restart our economy and meet our state’s Constitutional standards.
We are proud to have been a part of the collaborative effort between legislative leaders and stakeholders. After more than a year, we have a final product that, while not perfect, moves New Jersey in the right direction. The most important aspect of this legislation is that it will allow for the creation of starter homes and family rentals that New Jersey needs. It will be an economic engine that puts our residents to work building those homes. Our state’s hard-working families and seniors deserve a policy that creates homes and jobs.
Once again, we applaud your leadership and that of the other Assembly members who worked so diligently on this issue. We will continue to encourage the Governor to give New Jersey a housing policy that moves us forward, not backwards.
We look forward to continuing to work with you on ways to restore New Jersey’s housing market and secure equitable revitalization in our communities.
All the best,
Staci A. Berger, Director of Advocacy & Policy
Housing & Community Development Network of NJ
145 W. Hanover Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08618
www.hcdnnj.org
17 Watchung Avenue
Plainfield, NJ 07060
Dear Chairman Green,
On behalf of the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey’s 150 community economic development members and 100 associate members who support the creation of jobs and homes that New Jersey residents can afford, we thank and congratulate you on the passage of Assembly Bill 3447/Senate Bill 1. We commend you for your tenacity and leadership on this issue, and appreciate all that you did to ensure that reforms to our state’s housing policies help restart our economy and meet our state’s Constitutional standards.
We are proud to have been a part of the collaborative effort between legislative leaders and stakeholders. After more than a year, we have a final product that, while not perfect, moves New Jersey in the right direction. The most important aspect of this legislation is that it will allow for the creation of starter homes and family rentals that New Jersey needs. It will be an economic engine that puts our residents to work building those homes. Our state’s hard-working families and seniors deserve a policy that creates homes and jobs.
Once again, we applaud your leadership and that of the other Assembly members who worked so diligently on this issue. We will continue to encourage the Governor to give New Jersey a housing policy that moves us forward, not backwards.
We look forward to continuing to work with you on ways to restore New Jersey’s housing market and secure equitable revitalization in our communities.
All the best,
Staci A. Berger, Director of Advocacy & Policy
Housing & Community Development Network of NJ
145 W. Hanover Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08618
www.hcdnnj.org
Friday, January 7, 2011
OLIVER, CRYAN, MORIARTY, GREEN & WATSON COLEMAN ‘BACK TO WORK NJ’ BILL TO CREATE JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH GETS ASSEMBLY APPROVAL
(TRENTON) – Legislation sponsored by Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver, Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Cryan, Assemblyman Paul Moriarty, Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green and Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman to create the Back to Work NJ program to stimulate job growth by allowing unemployed New Jerseyans to receive workplace training from a potential employer was approved Thursday by the Assembly.
(TRENTON) – Legislation sponsored by Assembly Speaker Sheila Y. Oliver, Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Cryan, Assemblyman Paul Moriarty, Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Jerry Green and Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman to create the Back to Work NJ program to stimulate job growth by allowing unemployed New Jerseyans to receive workplace training from a potential employer was approved Thursday by the Assembly.
The bill (A-3584) is a centerpiece of the Democratic legislative effort to create jobs and reinvigorate New Jersey’s economy.
“This innovative program will allow out-of-work New Jerseyans to develop the new skills they need and keep them tethered to the workforce even in the face of unemployment,” said Oliver (D-Essex/Passaic). “It’s just the kind of program we need to tackle this recession and help workers and businesses alike to jumpstart our economy and move our state forward.”
The sponsors noted the “Back to Work NJ” program can also be viewed as an economic development tool for businesses.
The sponsors noted the “Back to Work NJ” program can also be viewed as an economic development tool for businesses.
“An employer that may not be able to take on an additional salary but expects to be able to soon would be able to hire a person through this program, provide them their training over the course of a few weeks and maybe bring the employee on full-time,” said Cryan (D-Union). “This is a program that truly both creates jobs and sparks economic growth.”
"We need innovative programs like this to help workers and businesses emerge strong from this economy," said Moriarty (D-Gloucester/Camden). "This program is so exciting because it gives working class New Jerseyans an opportunity to get hands-on training that can improve their job skills and make themselves more attractive to potential employers. That's especially vital in this economy."
The legislation is based on the successful Georgia Work$ program.
Georgia Work$ is a Georgia Department of Labor initiative that allows unemployed job seekers who have registered for services to receive workplace training from a potential employer for a maximum of 24 hours per week for up to six weeks.
Georgia Work$ is a Georgia Department of Labor initiative that allows unemployed job seekers who have registered for services to receive workplace training from a potential employer for a maximum of 24 hours per week for up to six weeks.
In Georgia, 36 percent of participants are hired within the first six weeks Beyond that, 6 percent found jobs in the next 90 days.
More than 11,000 different Georgia employers have participated.
“We know this approach works,” said Green (D-Union/Middlesex/Somerset). “It benefits everyone, giving employers an opportunity to properly train potential employees and giving workers that chance to decide if the job is a good fit for them. If so, both workers and employees get off to a great start.”
Under the bill, the program would be established within the Division of Unemployment and Temporary Disability Insurance to allow an eligible participant who is receiving unemployment insurance benefits to receive workplace training from an eligible employer.
“This is exactly the type of hands-on, practical approach we need,” said Watson Coleman (D-Mercer). “By providing training in key industries, unemployed residents can hopefully find real, lasting employment.”
The bill provides that an eligible participant in the program may receive workplace training from an eligible employer for a maximum of 24 hours per week for up to six weeks. The bill provides to an eligible participant, based upon his or her needs, up to $100 per week to help defray training related costs, including, but not limited to, transportation, clothing and child care.
The bill also requires that participation in the program be voluntary for all eligible participants and eligible employers. Finally, the bill appropriates $10 million to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
Of this amount appropriated, a sum not to exceed 2 percent of the appropriation is allocated to the department for costs associated with the administration of the program. The remainder of the appropriation is allocated among eligible participants of the program for the purposes of defraying the costs of workplace training.
The sponsors said the program itself should save the state millions of dollars in unemployment trust fund money by getting unemployed people back in paying jobs faster than they otherwise would have without the program.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Op/Ed Letter Concerning Affordable Housing Legislation (A3447/S1)
The article below is an Op/Ed letter, courtesy of Rev. R. Lenton Buffalo, President of the New Jersey Regional Coalition. This letter can be found in the Daily Record (Morris County), Trenton Times, and Press of Atlantic City. The letter was circulated between the dates of 12/27/10 - 12/31/10.
Making Lemonade from a Lemon -- New Housing Legislation Deserves Support
While it’s not perfect, Assembly Majority Leader Joe Cryan and Senate President Steve Sweeney deserve compliments and gratitude for turning a near disaster for fair housing into a very positive framework for a more progressive and fair system for affordable housing in New Jersey.
Assembly Bill 3447, which passed the Assembly earlier this month and is expected to be voted on in the Senate in the coming weeks, is a far cry from the original bill. That bill, known as S1, would have hurt both the poor and middle class communities and thrust us back to the dark days before former Speaker Joe Roberts and the New Jersey Regional Coalition spearheaded A-500. That legislation, passed in 2008, abolished the distasteful practice of Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs), in which wealthy towns could sell their housing obligations to distressed cities and older suburbs, a practice which would have been revived by S1 but that has thankfully been left out of A3447.
The new bill reflects significant input from our organization, a faith-based, grassroots coalition of groups from throughout New Jersey, and our allies. We thank our legislative leaders for listening to and adopting so many of our suggestions and recommendations. For example, this bill, A3447, for the first time, recognizes the different types of communities in our state and gives consideration based on a town’s low-income demographics and not just its housing stock. It begins to reward and encourage diversity rather than punishing it. We are very pleased that RCAs (or buy-outs and opt outs of any kind) have been removed from the bill and that affordable housing requirements are much more fair and equitable than in the earlier versions.
As with any legislation, there is room for improvement, and we look forward to working on further reform in the future. But this bill is a strong one that deserves our elected officials’ support now. Legislative leaders have skillfully managed competing pressures and carefully considered legitimate issues and interests in a year long process. Many legislators played critical roles in sorting through this complex issue — including Housing Committee Chair Jerry Green, Vice Chair Mila Jasey, Assemblyman Al Coutinho, Senator Donald Norcross and, of course, Speaker Sheila Oliver. In the end, their bias was with the people of New Jersey — providing stability for middle class communities and opportunity for low-income families.
We need action on this issue that has been endlessly debated, and hope that the Senate will vote to approve it and Gov. Christie will sign it without further delay. We look forward to continued collaboration with our elected officials and allies to build ONE New Jersey.
Reverend R. Lenton Buffalo Jr.
President, New Jersey Regional Coalition
www.njregionalequity.org
Making Lemonade from a Lemon -- New Housing Legislation Deserves Support
While it’s not perfect, Assembly Majority Leader Joe Cryan and Senate President Steve Sweeney deserve compliments and gratitude for turning a near disaster for fair housing into a very positive framework for a more progressive and fair system for affordable housing in New Jersey.
Assembly Bill 3447, which passed the Assembly earlier this month and is expected to be voted on in the Senate in the coming weeks, is a far cry from the original bill. That bill, known as S1, would have hurt both the poor and middle class communities and thrust us back to the dark days before former Speaker Joe Roberts and the New Jersey Regional Coalition spearheaded A-500. That legislation, passed in 2008, abolished the distasteful practice of Regional Contribution Agreements (RCAs), in which wealthy towns could sell their housing obligations to distressed cities and older suburbs, a practice which would have been revived by S1 but that has thankfully been left out of A3447.
The new bill reflects significant input from our organization, a faith-based, grassroots coalition of groups from throughout New Jersey, and our allies. We thank our legislative leaders for listening to and adopting so many of our suggestions and recommendations. For example, this bill, A3447, for the first time, recognizes the different types of communities in our state and gives consideration based on a town’s low-income demographics and not just its housing stock. It begins to reward and encourage diversity rather than punishing it. We are very pleased that RCAs (or buy-outs and opt outs of any kind) have been removed from the bill and that affordable housing requirements are much more fair and equitable than in the earlier versions.
As with any legislation, there is room for improvement, and we look forward to working on further reform in the future. But this bill is a strong one that deserves our elected officials’ support now. Legislative leaders have skillfully managed competing pressures and carefully considered legitimate issues and interests in a year long process. Many legislators played critical roles in sorting through this complex issue — including Housing Committee Chair Jerry Green, Vice Chair Mila Jasey, Assemblyman Al Coutinho, Senator Donald Norcross and, of course, Speaker Sheila Oliver. In the end, their bias was with the people of New Jersey — providing stability for middle class communities and opportunity for low-income families.
We need action on this issue that has been endlessly debated, and hope that the Senate will vote to approve it and Gov. Christie will sign it without further delay. We look forward to continued collaboration with our elected officials and allies to build ONE New Jersey.
Reverend R. Lenton Buffalo Jr.
President, New Jersey Regional Coalition
www.njregionalequity.org
Happy New Year to All!
I want to take this opportunity to welcome the new Council members for the towns of Scotch Plains and North Plainfield. On January 1, 2011 both towns held their reorganization meetings. I had the pleasure of administering the oath of office to Scotch Plains Councilman, Kevin Glover. Both reorganization meetings were attended by officials representing the municipalities, the counties and the State. This was a great day for the cities of Scotch Plains and North Plainfield. I am taking this opportunity to share pictures from the events.
All the best to you,
Jerry Green
All the best to you,
Jerry Green
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)