New Meeting Needed for Master Plan Revision

How many borough residents are aware that a revision of our Master Plan, which outlines a vision for how and where to develop, has been discussed and set for a final vote on Thursday, December 17? How many are aware that the revision was discussed at a November 19 Planning Board meeting? My guess is, not very many since only one member of the public showed up to provide input that night.

Somehow, I don't think lack of interest or apathy is the problem. More likely, the borough's perennial lack of publicity for important events is at work again. Legally, the Planning Board fulfilled the minimum requirements to provide advance notice of its meeting to the public, with advertisements in the Home News Tribune and Star Ledger and a notice on the wall at Borough Hall.

But being open and transparent means doing more than the bare minimum required by law. Newspaper notices are written in their legal sections in very small letters and easily missed. Why didn't the Planning Board issue a press release to these papers, which would have gone into their community sections and reached far more people?

The borough just published its fall edition of the Quarterly. Why was there no article summarizing the proposed Master Plan revision and stating that a meeting on the revision would be held on November 19 at Borough Hall? Why did the borough never put notice of the Master Plan revision or this meeting--and a copy of the draft revision--on its web site? Are these things so difficult to do, or is it just that no one bothered? Or, given the large crowds that attended the meetings on the redevelopment plan, was publicity deliberately kept to a minimum so the administration could quietly amend our Master Plan with no one aware of what is being done until it is already a done deal?

Furthermore, the November 19 meeting was held within a week of the Thanksgiving holiday, a time when people are either planning vacations or family events and not paying as much attention to public affairs. That alone makes this date a poor choice, and the same applies to December 17. What is worse is the Planning Board's denial of a citizen's request for a second meeting to allow more time for public input and comments.

Copies of the Master Plan revision are available from the Borough Clerk. While borough officials refused to provide a digital version of the document, the citizen who attended the meeting did that work on his own, taking the time and effort to scan it into a Word document. That document is now posted on the Files page of my Friends of Laurel newsletter at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friends-of-laurel/files/ under the name Reexam of MasterPlan.doc. Unfortunately, Yahoo does not allow access to the files for those who are not subscribers to the newsletter. I have a copy of the Word document that I am happy to email to anyone who cannot access it via Yahoo. Just email me at laurel2000@gmail.com or laurelkornfeld@netzero.net and ask for a copy of the 2009 Master Plan revision.

Unfortunately, anyone who wants input into this document outlining the direction of development in our town is going to have to act quickly. According to the Planning Board chair, written public comments may be sent to the Planning Board at Borough Hall, but must arrive by the deadline of Monday, December 7.

For many people, reading the long document and writing comments will compete with shopping and holiday preparations. This is why we need a second meeting Planning Board meeting to solicit public input after giving citizens the time to read and absorb the whole document. I implore the Planning Board to reconsider its decision, hold a public session at its December 17 meeting--at which the Board is now scheduled to vote on adopting the document--and postpone the vote until its January meeting. What harm can possibly come from a one-month delay whose sole purpose is to make our government more open and transparent? If the mayor can postpone her resignation by nearly a year, certainly the Planning Board can postpone its vote for one month.

The borough knows how to do publicity when the mayor and council want it done. Not providing adequate publicity and advance knowledge about something as serious as the future of our town, in a document reviewed only once every seven years, is a tremendous disservice to every resident in the borough. Rushing to adopt a plan in a manner that cannot help but appear arranged to minimize public participation is a slap in the face to every business and resident of Highland Park.

The timing of this rushed process cannot help but raise questions. Mayor Frank, who announced her resignation in February, has still not resigned. Is this rush through of the Master Plan revision an attempt by a lame duck mayor to impose her vision on the town one last time as a parting gift?

Don't forget that the previous Master Plan revision is the one that selectively stated certain businesses don't belong in the downtown, the one that called for riverfront residential development on the Y property and townhouses on part of the Rite Aid property, the one that advocated formation of the BID and Redevelopment Agency, the one that allowed a change of zoning to permit four-story buildings on Raritan Avenue.

The Master Plan and any proposed revision is of major importance. All who can should obtain a copy, review it, and mail comments to the Planning Board at Borough Hall. In your comments, please add the request for an additional meeting so people can comment in person. Those who attend the December 17 meeting should repeat the request, as it is never too late for the Planning Board to hear the voice of the people and change its mind.

Is our government open and transparent? Saying so does not make it so. There is no point in talking the talk if we don't walk the walk. Where and how development occurs in Highland Park should be the decision of the people, not of a tiny group in a closed-door process.

Zoning laws are informed by the Master Plan. No one should be under any illusion that adoption of a Master Plan revision will not have a real, on-the-ground impact.

The Mayor's "Three Legs" Fallacy

Back around 2004, at the height of Mayor Frank's push for redevelopment, she repeatedly emphasized what she called her "three legs" of downtown revitalization--Main Street, the Business Improvement District (BID), and redevelopment. Redevelopment is long dead, and it is time for the BID, which never should have been created in the first place, to go as well.

The concept of a Business Improvement District sounds good until you realize it requires business and property owners to pay an additional tax--in this case $1,000 to $2,000 a year--for services the borough is already supposed to provide.

In articulating her "2020 vision" for downtown revitalization, Frank deliberately blurred the distinction between Main Street, a BID, redevelopment, and going green, each of which is actually a completely separate policy on its own. A town can be part of the state's Main Street program without having a BID, just as a town can encourage environmentally-friendly or "green" practices without redevelopment.

Many property and business owners at the time objected to being burdened with yet another tax. Former Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons, in response to their concern, expressed serious reservations about enacting the BID. That position and her opposition to redevelopment led to her forced resignation.

Five years later, the facts show that those who opposed the BID and its tax, which was since increased several times, who believed we only needed one "leg," namely Main Street, are being proven right.

Six property owners on Woodbridge and Raritan Avenues recently attended a Borough Council meeting asking that their properties be withdrawn from the BID, as they are not getting any benefit from the additional tax.

What is especially troubling is that these property owners sent a letter to the Borough Council with this request in September 2008 and never received a response. That's September 2008, not 2009--over a year ago. The lack of response finally prompted them to approach the council directly.

If the mayor had had her way, the BID would have been expanded to all businesses in town, not just those on Raritan and portions of Woodbridge Avenue and Route 27. To their credit, the BID Board turned down this proposal, emphasizing they did not have the resources to serve even current BID members, let alone additional ones.

Last month, one property owner told the council the only benefit he is getting from this additional tax is a flower pot.

None of this is surprising. Five years ago, Mayor Frank and Councilman Steve Nolan specifically stated they wanted rents on Raritan Avenue to "skyrocket," based on the theory that that would bring in more "upscale" businesses and drive out the "less desirable" ones. In other words, the ultimate goal was gentrification.

Frank even went as far as recruiting one or two property owners who also were political supporters of hers to attend a council meeting and lament their not being included in the BID. Yes, they expressed their dismay at being excluded from the "privilege" of having to pay an additional $1,000-$2,000 a year in taxes.

Citizens and business owners who complained that the BID essentially is a form of "taxation without representation" were given a response from the mayor in the form of a political spin saying that the BID really was just a way of the business and property owners deciding how to spend their own money. After all, the BID Board of Directors, which is also the Board of Main Street, is composed of one-third property owners, one-third business owners, and one-third residents, the mayor emphasized.

The obvious question then was, who elects these board members? It would be one thing if every BID participant had a vote. But that is not how the BID leadership is chosen. In fact, the process by which the leadership--those who decide how much to tax and how to spend the money--is selected has never been made clear to anyone. I asked the mayor how a hypothetical business owner interested in joining the Board might run for the office or put his/her name up for consideration. Of course, I received no specific answer, just vague posturing and repetition of how all the BID really is is property and business owners deciding how to spend their own money.

A look at the BID's Board membership over the years reveals a disturbing but not unexpected pattern: the majority of members are political supporters of Mayor Frank. In other words, they were handpicked by her to enact her vision for the town--hardly a group of business and property owners deciding how to spend their own money.

Furthermore, the BID Board subsequently declared they are not subject to the state Open Public Records Act or Open Public Meetings Act and therefore do not have to release their budgets to the public or hold open meetings. A Star Ledger reporter investigating complaints about the BID's closed processes about two years ago noted that Highland Park's BID is the only one out of many she researched that made such a claim. Every other Main Street and BID in New Jersey was happy to disclose this information.

Maybe all the secrecy comes from the BID Board not wanting to reveal how much money has been spent and continues to be spent on outsourcing services such as organization of the Street Fair and publication of the Main Street newsletter to politically connected firms that just happen to support the mayor.

The previous Main Street director was one of the primary supporters of this outsourcing. Not only did he alienate business owners with a very unfriendly attitude, clearly representing nothing more than the mayor's redevelopment agenda--he also rejected offers by volunteers to provide services such as the newsletter in favor of spending large amounts of money on PR firms instead. Our property and business owners have been effectively subsidizing private firms that thrive on their political connections--otherwise known as Pay to Play.

In all fairness, Main Street is not the problem. Having a Main Street program is very valuable to a walking town like ours, and the current director is doing an amazing job reaching out to local businesses and working with them. But Main Street can exist without a BID, as it did in its first years in Highland Park. By abolishing the BID, we can go back to the original vision of centering the program on volunteers and at the same time relieve this additional tax burden on our business and property owners.

More than exempt these property owners, the Borough Council should either abolish the BID or adopt a suggestion made in 2003 by former mayor and then mayoral candidate Jeff Orbach. He recommended the alternative of a Special Improvement District, or SID, in which participation would be voluntary. Those business and property owners who want to participate, including Frank's eager-to-be-taxed supporters would have the option of doing so while those who wanted to opt out would have that option available as well.

The last thing Highland Park needs is for commercial rents to "skyrocket." Even Westfield, which the mayor repeatedly invoked as a shining example of her vision, now is filled with vacant storefronts left by businesses who could no longer afford the higher rents. Highland Park is not a wealthy town. It is a mixed-income town, and many of the mom and pop shops are barely making it, especially in this difficult economy. Skyrocketing rents would inevitably send them packing.

We need only one "leg," Main Street, not the three Frank repeatedly advocated, to revitalize our downtown and engage citizens and businesses in doing so. It is time for the borough to take a good hard look at the economic facts on the ground and listen to the business and property owners affected by failed public policies.

So Wrong on So Many Levels

Highland Park residents should be ashamed of the tripe their tax dollars are supporting in the form of the Highland Park Quarterly, which reaches an all-time low in its Fall 2009 issue.

So much in this publication is wrong on so many levels, it is hard to know where to begin.

How about the events it chronicles, which go back to May of this year. Why is it that only a select few events of the last five months made it into this "community newspaper?" Readers are informed about a Kite Flying Day in May and a senior wedding conveniently officiated by the mayor, but no mention is given to a host of significant other developments that took place during this time. Where is the mention of the most successful People's Organization for Progress-Board of Health annual Health Fair? Why is there nothing on the new Community Gardens Project, which had people all over town growing their own gardens for the first time? Why is former Councilman Lou Pichinson's name left off the list of governing body members but no article published telling people about his recent resignation?

This summer, Highland Park lost two of our community's most active participants--Vickie White, former school board member and president of the Central Jersey People's Organization for Progress, and Harvey Brudner, former chair of the Highland Park Centennial Commission and president of the Joyce Kilmer Centennial Commission. Yet nowhere in the Quarterly is there even a word about these losses, not to mention a tribute to two very dedicated public servants.

Then we have the issue of the professional public relations firm, Jaffe Communications, whose owner was recruited to write and edit borough publications because at a meeting of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, he expressed his admiration for the way Mayor Frank came to power. He has been paid $2,500 for each issue of the Quarterly and is also paid separately for coordinating the Main Street newsletter.

Well, if a person is going to be paid to write, he or she should at least know how to write and how to proofread. If the Fall 2009 issue of the Quarterly is any indication, Jaffe can do neither. Here are some examples of the errors he displays in the Quarterly:

1. On the top right corner of Page 1, a photo is captioned, "Borrough officials, residents, and students gathered recently at the Highland Park Recreation Complex to celebrate the opening of a new turf field." No comment needed here.

2. The misleading article attributing Rite Aid's renovation to redevelopment suddenly quotes someone named "Nolan" on page 2 without introducing him or providing any background on him. It should have noted he is a former councilman and former member of the Redevelopment Agency.

3. On page 5, in an article mentioning Highland Park being designated a Fair Trade Town, the bottom paragraph in the third column states, "Members of the middle and high school band, orchestra, and choral recently sold Fair Trade coffee, tea, and chocolate as a fundraiser." Choral? Choral what? Isn't the correct word "choir" or "chorus?"

4. On page 5, in an article on three businesses celebrating their first anniversary in town, the bottom paragraph on the left reads, "She said Main Street organizations bring added resources to downtowns, such as small business training that provides tools to small business owners on how to market their business, facade upgrades, and signs, all of which attract customers." This is a very poorly worded sentence and is missing the necessary comma after "small business training," as this should be an incidental phrase set off by commas. Also, resources don't "provides"; they provide. A competent writer should know something about subject-verb agreement.

5. Our Superintendent of Schools apparently needs some lessons in comma usage as well. She says, "At the high school our focus remains on enriching our current programs to meet the special needs of our young people." Where is the comma required after a prepositional phrase begins a sentence? The statement should read, "At the high school, our focus remains..."

The Superintendent then continues with a run-on sentence, apparently not caught by Jaffe, reading, "Our fall sports teams have begun practicing on the turf field and we look forward to watching them compete in the new facility." Any English 101 student will tell you that turf field should be followed by a comma in front of the conjunction "and" to make this a correct sentence.

The Board of Education president does no better. "On behalf of the entire School Board I invite the community, not just the school community but the entire community, to participate in the many activities going on at our schools." How about inviting the Board of Education to a workshop explaining the basic concept that a sentence beginning with a phrase such as "On behalf of the entire School Board" should be followed by a comma?

Yet our esteemed Board president manages to put a comma where it doesn't belong in this sentence: "And, I highly recommend being in communication with other parents." Maybe some of those parents could tell her that the "and" starting her sentence should not have a comma following it.

There are far too many such errors in the Board president's report to chronicle them all. Here is one more: "An inspiring number of our graduates attend some of the most prodigious colleges and universities in the country." Prodigious means large in size. The word the Board president probably intended, which Jaffe never corrected, is "prestigious."

6. On page 12, an article announcing the Junior Cadet Police Academy states an application deadline of October 23. The Quarterly came out on October 28. What's wrong here?

Some may argue that minor grammar mistakes are insignificant, but given the amount of money being spent on this paper and the fact that the bulk of the errors occur in the schools' section, this very well can be considered a legitimate concern.

But the worst of all are the politically biased statements and subtle promotion of particular candidates and businesses. A week before the gubernatorial election, Mayor Frank tries to sneak in a promotional for Governor Corzine with this statement in the article on road improvements: "With these extra funds, thanks to Governor Corzine and Steve Dilts, we can fix more of our roads and make Highland Park an even better place to live."

Well, Corzine has been in office for four years and Frank for nine, yet many of our roads and sidewalks are in terrible condition.

Then there is the "Heal the World" Mayor's Message, which once again repeats her self-proclaimed designation of Highland Park as "New Jersey's first green community." How ironic this is in a paper with repeated references to the installation of artificial turf at the Highland Park Recreation Complex. Artificial turf, or plastic grass, contains lead chromate and involves safety hazards to users from exposure. In June 2008, the New Jersey Department of Health shut down six synthetic fields due to high lead levels. Artificial turf has a base layer of crumb rubber infill, which is made from used tires and is considered hazardous waste in several states.

When confronted with the less than green reality of the artificial turf, Mayor Frank out and out lied by saying the county required its use in the grant funding the field restoration. County officials subsequently contacted by reporters denied that any such requirement was attached to the grant.

Is Highland Park New Jersey's first green community just because the mayor says so, even if other towns are doing much more to actively promote green living? Decide for yourself. Some advice: read the Highland Park Mirror's series at http://www.highlandparkmirror.com/hpmfts.html on Highland Park's artificial turf before making the decision.

Mayor Frank says "we are proud of our leadership." Does that mean she is proud of herself? "You can be good and green too," says her condescending, third-grade level mayor's message. How can we be good and green? The answer is by patronizing a set of listed businesses, all owned by Frank supporters.

Among those businesses is no less than Centerpiece, which the mayor herself owns. She says, "Some more favorites are gorgeous red, purple, blue, green, or yellow recycled glass salad bowls at Centerpiece..." What this means is the mayor is spending taxpayer dollars to promote her own business in the borough newsletter. Is this even legal? Even if the answer is yes, it most certainly is in poor taste.

Finally, the Quarterly is not, as is falsely stated on page 3, "Highland Park's official newspaper." A town's "official" newspaper is the one it designates by ordinance to publish all of its advertising. In our case, that would be The Home News Tribune. Calling a government newspaper by this legal term is misleading and just plain wrong.

This issue of the Quarterly would truly be a "comedy of errors" if only our hard-earned dollars weren't funding it.

Rite Aid Is Perfect Example of Why We DON'T Need Redevelopment

While the recession continues along with job losses and foreclosures, the borough continues to spend taxpayer dollars on disseminating its propaganda and lining the pockets of Mayor Frank's good friend and political supporter Jonathan Jaffe. Too bad that for all this money, the Fall 2009 Quarterly gets it all wrong on Rite Aid and redevelopment.

A front-page article discussing Rite Aid's recent facade improvement is titled, "Rite Aid is Perfect Example of Effect of Redevelopment." That title is a perfect example of political spin. The reality is that Rite Aid's renovation was done in spite of, not because of, the borough's controversial redevelopment plan.

The Rite Aid property was placed in the 2004 redevelopment plan against the wishes of the property owners. Plans for the site included construction of two condominium buildings on South Fourth Avenue along what is part of the Rite Aid parking lot.

According to the Quarterly article, Rite Aid expressed the desire to renovate its building as far back as the early 1990s. This is interesting. The Redevelopment Agency was not founded until 2004. That means the owners sought to renovate under the existing system and not through a redevelopment agency or process. Also, Rite Aid was not in the building in the early 1990s. At that time, the pharmacy was still Drug Fair, owned by the property owner who later sold the business to the chain.

So how can Rite Aid's improvements be traced back to the Redevelopment Agency if those desires were sought and pursued long before the agency came into existence?

It turns out that the borough's adoption of the redevelopment plan actually delayed Rite Aid's renovation. The property was designated as being in need of redevelopment, in other words, as blighted, against the will of the property owner. As the Quarterly itself noted, the owners had already expressed their desire to renovate. Why then was there a need to blight their property and make it vulnerable to a taking by eminent domain?

The renovations, which are a tremendous improvement, were done as the result of a court settlement. The issue was in court because the property owners contested being placed in "an area in need of redevelopment." Such a designation was unneeded since they had already committed to renovating the property. Yet the property owner had to spend money on lawyers and legal fees to fight the town on this designation, delaying the improvements by several years.

In the end, the renovations were agreed to as part of a settlement that took the Rite Aid property out of the redevelopment zone. The borough also made the concession of taking out the condominium requirement. Therefore, former Councilman Steve Nolan's claim that the Rite Aid renovation is "a good example of how redevelopment can spur private landowners to be full partners in our downtown" is false and highly misleading. Rite Aid's owners did not want to be in a redevelopment zone. Nolan is also wrong in describing the renovation as "the Rite Aid redevelopment project," as it was never a redevelopment project at all.

The owners' desire and subsequent follow through in renovating their property is direct proof that redevelopment is not needed to spur landowners to improve their properties. Instead, redevelopment, specifically being placed in a redevelopment zone, can be considered a form of blackmail--the threat of eminent domain being placed on a business to motivate that business to take action out of fear of losing their property altogether.

Redevelopment agencies eat up taxpayers' money with paid consultants and the hiring of architectural, legal, and planning firms, none of which are needed. In the five years that Highland Park's Redevelopment Agency has existed, not a single redevelopment project has been done. Yet the agency takes credit for renovations funded and completed by private business owners through their own motivation and at their own expense.

Once again, we see the proof that sensitive revitalization, which involves no Redevelopment Agency and no threat of eminent domain, is the right way to go in improving our downtown. Those of us who campaigned on this premise back in 2005 and 2007 are once again vindicated by the reality on the ground.

That is a real victory for both the people and businesses of this town.

Eminent Domain Victory: It's Not Just for Long Branch

Property owners in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, and Seaview Avenue area (MTOTSA neighborhood) in Long Branch, NJ, where a major rally against eminent domain abuse was held in June 2006, are free at last. In a decisive and final victory, they have won the right to keep their homes and their neighborhoods.

In mid-September, the municipal government and the developer involved reached an agreement with the homeowners in which all eminent domain actions were formally withdrawn. The city will be barred from any future efforts to take these homes via eminent domain under any current or future redevelopment plan.

This was a long battle, and it is a major victory. This neighborhood of longtime residents who barbecue together and regularly spend time on one another's front porches has literally been through hell. Unfortunately, many senior citizens, including World War II veterans, who had lived there for decades did not live to see this day, having died fighting for the right to keep their homes.

Under the agreement, the city has also agreed to reimburse the homeowners for a portion of their attorneys' fees and provide the homeowners with the tax abatements that had originally been promised to the developer who had planned to tear down their homes and build expensive condominium complexes. Additionally, the developer has agreed to rebuild and/or repair abandoned homes that were initially purchased under the redevelopment plan.

The beginning of the end of Long Branch's redevelopment and eminent domain abuse came in August 2008, when a three-judge panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division unanimously reversed the horrendous 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson, permitting condemnation of the properties. When the case was sent back to trial court, the city agreed to abandon its eminent domain actions and began negotiating a resolution of the matter with the affected homeowners.

The Long Branch case was one of the most publicized and prominent of the eminent domain abuse cases in New Jersey. That is why this victory goes far beyond Long Branch, why it is a victory for every homeowner and every business owner ever targeted by eminent domain for the purpose of economic redevelopment. As the 2008 decision was the beginning of the end for Long Branch's efforts, this victory is the beginning of the end of eminent domain abuse in New Jersey. And it is a shining example of how we the people can fight City Hall; not only can we fight, but we can win!

In the fight against eminent domain abuse, we still have quite a way to go. While 43 states have reformed their eminent domain laws in response to the 2005 Supreme Court Kelo decision, New Jersey's legislature has done absolutely nothing to protect home and property owners from this travesty. Legislative hearings on several bills were held; Governor Corzine's Public Advocate even actively advocated reform measures, yet nothing has been done. It is only in the state Supreme Courts that progress has been made to curtail the taking of homes and businesses for economic redevelopment.

Redevelopment may be dormant and for now, even dead in Highland Park, but make no mistake--our residents and business owners have very little legal protection should the governing body decide to revive redevelopment efforts. That is why we need to continue to lobby the state legislature for reform that protects all who want to keep their property the same way the Long Branch agreement protects the residents of one particular neighborhood.

The good news is, these battles can be won. Every victory along the way is a step toward the big victory. And every victory is a reminder that real power is not in City Hall, not in the State House, and certainly not with wealthy developers. Real power is within each one of us, and that is why, when this battle is finally over, we will prevail.

Long Live Vickie White

"True Leadership. True Vision." This was the slogan that Vickie White created for my 2002 Borough Council race. For her, these words were a way of life.

On July 1, 2009, I and many others in Highland Park, in New Jersey, and beyond, even to New Orleans' ninth ward, were stunned and devastated to hear of Vickie's sudden death caused by a pulmonary embolism.

Vickie is the last person I would have expected to lose any time soon. She was vibrant, energetic, courageous, full of life, full of passion, an indefatigable champion of the people. She was a fighter on behalf of the poor, the victims of injustice, the oppressed, children, those forgotten by the people in power.

I first got to know Vickie when she took part in organizing Bridge Builders here in Highland Park as a response to several racial incidents that occurred in 2001.

Vickie served on the Highland Park Board of Education for ten years, from 1994-2004, in the later years as its president, and attained the rank of Master Board Member in 2001.

She also served on the Highland Park Board of Health from 1993-1996. Although I never had the chance of serving on the board with her, as I was first appointed in 1998, Vickie and Southside Pride, the group she had formed to advocate for residents of Highland Park's south side and for people of color, played a central role in co-sponsoring the annual Health Fair beginning in 2001. About two years ago, the Central New Jersey People's Organization for Progress, under Vickie's leadership, took over co-sponsoring the Health Fair with the board, a fair to provide needed health services and education to those who might otherwise not have access to them.

Unlike so many in the public arena, Vickie didn't just talk the talk; she walked the walk. Often, that included literal walking, in the Million Women's March, the military recruitment and anti-war protests, and in the March 2009 International Working Women's Day Coalition held in New York City's Union Square. The rallying cry of this demonstration was "Bail Out Women and Our Communities, Not the Banks."

In 2006, Vickie organized the 21st Century Freedom Ride to New Orleans. Twelve adults and twelve high school students did real work to help rebuild New Orleans' Ninth Ward, which had sustained the most damage from flooding by Hurricane Katrina one year earlier. The group met with students living in the ninth ward and later shared their experiences with the media and with other student and community groups.

She ran a Children's Defense Fund Freedom School here in Highland Park, a five-week literacy program open to all in grades 1-12 focusing on African-American literature, in 2004-2005.

Vickie often traveled far in her fight for social justice. She attended the Rosa Parks Memorial in Washington, D.C. and organized a bus trip this year from Highland Park to President Obama's inauguration. She played a leading role in the Peace and Justice Coalition, composed of 120 organizations, that sponsored Peace Conferences at Rutgers Law School, an anti-war rally at Essex County College, and the largest black-led peace march ever in 2007. She was active with New Jersey's People's Organization for Progress (POP) for almost ten years, serving on many committees and eventually becoming chair of POP Central Jersey.

This list was never meant to be comprehensive in detailing Vickie's activities. That would take an entire book. The point is that in a time and place of so much empty rhetoric, Vickie took action, led real efforts that made real, lasting changes in people's lives. Her actions put so many of our politicians to shame.

Within the last year, Vickie took interest in the development of green jobs, participating in the Second Annual "Good Jobs, Green Jobs Conference" in Washington, D.C. and in the Edible Gardens Project, whose goal is to involve young people in environmental justice, green jobs, and training.

On a personal level, I remember attending a Trenton rally against police brutality with her in 2002 and how she announced that while there was not a single elected official present, there was a candidate for public office there, which was me. She walked Highland Park's sixth district with me and introduced me to its residents. On the night of the election, she left an inspiring message on my answering machine about how proud she was of my achievement even though I didn't win. The reality is, I am the one who was and is proud to have known and worked with Vickie, a citizen of the world who did so much for so many in such a short time.

Vickie chose to take care of her nieces and nephews and viewed them as her children. She was their support, their advocate, their guide, not because she was obligated to do so, but because she wanted to do so.

A regular attendee of my annual birthday parties, Vickie always expressed interest in the wellbeing of my two nephews, marveling at how quickly they grew, from infants to walking and talking little boys.

Without her, efforts for social justice need that much more from us. POP-Central Jersey is organizing the Vickie White People's Legacy Project, which will provide a chance for family, friends, and colleagues to share and record their recollections of Vickie, her life, and her work. Anyone who wants to participate in this Legacy Project is encouraged to contact POP-Central NJ at (732) 763-1134 or email popcentraljersey@gmail.com .

On May 6 of this year, at the annual Health Fair, Vickie and I had what we never imagined would be our last conversation. She understood my own passion for activism and my indignation at injustice, which I have not hesitated to express, especially in the local political arena. At times, that passion has led me to exercise less than ideal judgment during debates and arguments with people who supported my political opponents. Vickie had seen so much more injustice, unfairness, exclusion, and oppression than I have seen or experienced, yet she knew how to transcend anger, very much the way the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. did. Her last words to me, spoken on that night, were to let go of anger and outrage over political slights during the last ten years.

The cause of Power to the People will live on, but all who have taken part in it are so profoundly diminshed by her loss.

Not representing any group or person but myself, I ask that the Borough of Highland Park posthumously award Vickie the Martin Luther King, Jr. Award and the title of Volunteer of the Decade for the first decade of the 21st century.

For us, the survivors, the most appropriate remembrance is in the words of the fourth verse of "Lift Every Voice and Sing," known as the black national anthem.

"Let us move onward still,
keep our resolve until
we achieve unity for all mankind.
Look to the rising sun;
new work each day is begun;
daily we strive,
'till we true freedom find.
Save our hopes,
that we so long and so dearly did cherish,
lest our hearts,
weary with cruel disillusion
should perish.
Stretch forth a loving hand,
You who in power stand.
Lose not our faith;
lose not our native land."

Godspeed, my friend.

June, July, August, or September???

When Mayor Frank first announced in March of this year that she was going to resign to take a job as US representative to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, she did not set a date for her resignation even though she began the latter job on March 2. A few days after the initial announcement, Frank said she would resign in June, allowing three months to facilitate "a smooth transition."

But unlike former Governor Jim McGreevey, who in his resignation speech set a specific date for leaving office, Frank never did so. In fact, as June approached, she changed her resignation date to July. Subsquently, she said she would resign when the borough's 2009 budget is adopted on final reading.

That could very well postpone her resignation until August. Last year, political conflict over the state budget resulted in that budget being adopted later than the June 30 state-mandated deadline. This led to a delay in the allocation of state aid for municipalities. Since municipalities do not adopt their budgets until they have a definite number regarding the amount of state aid to be received that year, last year, most municipalities on calendar year budgets, including Highland Park, did not adopt a final budget until August. Home and property owners had to be given extensions on their tax bills because of this delay.

Many may ask, what difference does Frank's resignation date make? The answer is, it could make a huge difference. It could mean the difference between the borough holding a special election this November to replace her versus having to wait a year for that election with a mayor chosen not by the people but solely by the 26 members of the Municipal Democratic Committee.

According to state law, if a municipal elected official resigns 51 days or more before the day of the General Election (this year, that date is November 3, 2009), a special election must be held to fill that vacancy. In other words, the Municipal Democratic Committee can choose the person they want to replace Frank, but that person would still have to run for election in November, and anyone else interested in the mayor's position would have the option of running against the party candidate as an independent.

However, if Frank resigns later than 51 days before the General Election, state law mandates the special mayoral election be postponed until the next November (2010 in this case). That means whoever is selected by the Municipal Democratic Committee--someone likely to have Frank's stamp of approval--would have an entire year to serve as mayor before facing an electoral challenge.

Fifty-one days before Election Day comes out to be Sunday, September 13. Because that falls on a weekend, Frank must submit her formal resignation by Friday, September 11; if she fails to do so, there will be no special election until November 2010, and Highland Park residents will be forced to go an entire year with a mayor we didn't elect.

Many politicians around the state have, in the past, manipulated the calendar and deadlines to give their allies an additional year in power and thereby circumvent the will of the public. It is absolutely essential that this not be allowed to happen in Highland Park.

If the final budget is not adopted until August, the following scenario is very plausible: the mayor could claim that too many council members were away on vacation in August as a justification for postponing her resignation until September. At that point, there is little time left. If a council meeting lacks a quorum or must be postponed in those first 11 September days, the voters lose the chance to select our next mayor for another year.

What is scary right now is that few people are even aware that we will have to hold a special election for mayor. The Star Ledger, as stated in an earlier post, erroneously reported that the next mayor will be chosen solely from a pool of three names to be considered by the Municipal Democratic Committee. That may very well be what Frank and her supporters want the public to believe. But it is not the truth.

With or without a stamp of approval from the Municipal Democratic Committee, any borough resident who is a citizen and 18 or older can seek election as Highland Park's next mayor. Potential candidates must obtain petitions from the Middlesex County Clerk's office and are required to obtain the signatures of 50 registered voters in town. Those voters can be of any party affiliation. These petitions must be submitted to the Middlesex County Clerk's office by 4 PM on Friday, September 11.

This is a golden opportunity for anyone interested in serving our borough and bringing new leadership to this community. Members of the public have the right to know that this opportunity will exist.

If you or anyone you know is interested in running for mayor, don't wait for a resignation announcement because if it comes at the last minute, you won't have enough time to get the required petition signatures. Instead, get a copy of the petition now and start gathering the signatures, with the assumption that we will have a special election for mayor. The County Clerk's office has vouched that doing this is perfectly legal.

At the same time, it is important for as many citizens as possible to publicly demand that Frank resign before the September 11 deadline and give the people of our community the chance to choose our next mayor. We must make it clear that deliberately manipulating deadlines to assure another year of political control is a disservice to the public and to democracy and will not be tolerated.

NJ Democrats: Vote Carl Bergmanson for Governor and End "Octo-Dipping"

How many New Jersey Democrats realize we have a choice for governor in the June 2 primary? The mainstream media certainly has not conveyed this vital piece of information. That is hardly surprising since Carl Bergmanson, the Democrat challenging Governor Jon Corzine for the gubernatorial nomination, is a reform-minded independent thinker whose campaign is struggling financially, the same way many of us are during this recession, and not a walking human ATM like his opponent.

A former mayor of Glen Ridge, NJ, Bergmanson has been "permitted" to take part in the race only because he has absolutely no ties to the New Jersey Democratic machine, which looks after its special interest friends like developers far more than after the averge working people. Anyone reliant on this party machine for a political career, such as the Perth Amboy councilman who had wanted to challenge Corzine, need only state such intention before the party bigwigs descend on them to talk them out of running for the sake of "party unity." Let's not forget that former Governor Richard Codey wanted to challenge Corzine for the nomination four years ago but was bullied financially out of the race.

This is not democracy.

Bergmanson could not be talked out of running because he owes nothing to this party machine.

It's time to assess Governor Corzine's record in office. In the corporate world, those who do not perform their jobs up to standard are fired. Corzine has failed to deliver on multiple promises, which is why it is time for him to go.

In his 2005 campaign, Corzine promised property tax relief. He pledged to increase property tax rebates 40 percent in four years. He advocated a constitutional convention to address the property tax crisis and unfairness in how we fund public schools.

The "40 in 4" plan evaporated almost immediately. Corzine actually eliminated property tax rebates completely for many, and seriously reduced them for many more.

The constitutional convention was never held. It seems the governor has experienced selective amnesia about his promises, as he did about driving the speed limit and wearing a seatbelt two years ago.

Ninety-eight proposals on property tax reform and countless meetings led to zero change. Now, the governor is using the old trick of providing homeowners with a rebate in 2009, conveniently in September or October, right before the election, while already having eliminated them from the 2010 budget.

Even worse, Corzine has proposed eliminating the property tax deduction on the state income tax, effectively forcing New Jersey homeowners to pay income taxes on their property taxes, which are already the highest in the nation!

And just like a certain mayor in Highland Park, Corzine promised "the most open and transparent government in New Jersey history" only to prove these more empty words, as the administration will not even release budget data to the state Assembly without having to be taken to court.

The governor did fulfill one promise--restoration of the Department of the Public Advocate. However, he ignored the recommendations of his own appointee, Public Advocate Ronald Chen, who pushed for new laws eliminating the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment.

So what will Carl Bergmanson do differently? For one, he plans to actually pursue the constitutional convention to address property taxes. When it comes to state mandates on municipalities, he will either fully fund them, in accordance with the "state mandate, state pay" law, or eliminate them entirely.

Bergmanson favors Initiative and Referendum, a procedure in which citizens vote directly on major issues, such as eminent domain reform. As for much-needed campaign finance reform, since the US Supreme Court has ruled against attempts to limit campaign contributions, Bergmanson proposes to tax these contributions on a graduated basis. If we can tax luxury items, why not tax campaign contributions?

One of Corzine's biggest failures is his promise to end "the old way of doing things in Trenton," namely corruption. Not only has he retained countless McGreevey political appointees; he has kept intact the government structure that rewards big campaign contributors with high-paid jobs for which they are not qualified.

In 2003, while completing the Main Street New Jersey Downtown Revitalization program, I had the chance to converse with employees of the Department of Community Services. Natually, being me, I tried to stir up a revolt by recommending these employees apply for top department positions such as Deputy Commissioner. That position had just been given to a former Highland Park councilwoman who had not completed a single term and had never worked for the Department of Community Affairs.

"Those are political appointments," several employees responded, laughing at even the idea that they should go for these jobs in spite of their being more qualified than the political appointee who was getting an $80,000 salary subsidized by our tax dollars.

This is where Bergmanson can and will offer real change. He is committed to ending "double dipping," which allows members of the state legislature, who are considered "part time" workers, to hold another full time government job, which in itself creates multiple conflicts of interest.

Even more importantly, Bergmanson will push each state department to reduce its budget by up to 20 percent to bring state spending under control. However, and this is the crucial point, he will begin the cuts at the top rather than the bottom of each department, eliminating thousands of high-paid patronage positions rather than the regular employees, like those I spoke with in 2003, who do the real work of serving the public, many of whom fall on the lowest ends of the pay scale.

Before voting, every New Jersey Democrat should take a look at this site: http://php.app.com/NJpublicemployees/results2.php . What you find out may very well leave you outraged. Over 3,000 people in New Jersey currently hold multiple state jobs. Many, as can be seen in the list on this page, hold seven, eight and nine state jobs all at one time, with total incomes of $300,000. They are getting pensions for every one of these jobs. I tried to count the number of people with eight or more jobs and soon realized it would take hours.

But I did come up with an appropriate name for the phenomenon of people holding eight government jobs subsidized by taxpayer dollars: "octo-dipping."

Every single one of these salaries comes from our tax dollars. Yet Corzine and other machine politicians, when making cuts, choose to "spread the pain" through targeting Medicare, property tax rebates, and toll increases. New Jersey is bankrupt not because we spend too much on social programs, but because of the depth of political corruption at all levels. As one bumper sticker says, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

New Jersey Democrats, it's time to pay attention. Research these facts for yourselves. We need to admit that the fox is not the best choice to mind the henhouse.

To volunteer or donate to Carl Bergmanson's campaign, visit http://www.bergmansonforgovernor.com/ . Then, on Tuesday, June 2, say no more to party machines and vote Carl Bergmanson for governor in the Democratic primary. The polls are open 6 AM-8 PM. Voters who never voted in a primary are considered undeclared and may vote in the Democratic primary.