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.

Election? What Election?: The Star Ledger's Path to Mediocre Journalism

In today's article, "Highland Park's Path to A New Mayor," Star Ledger reporter Ryan Hutchins continues his once-excellent newspaper's downhill slide to mediocrity, sacrificing the traditional watchdog role and instead choosing to be little more than a venue for politicians' self promotion.

Today's article reaches a new low. Hutchins seems to have forgotten that in Highland Park, we hire our mayor through a general election. For a reporter, forgetting an election is not by any means a minor oversight!

The article can be found at http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/middlesex/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1242187610322760.xml&coll=1

Hutchins also reiterates at face value Mayor Frank's deceptive claim that she alone authored the state and federal family leave acts. He describes her smiling and saying at a council meeting that her administration accomplished a lot. Details? None given.

This administration has been controversial from day one. Did Hutchins even attempt to get a perspective from the opposition? It's not hard; there are plenty among the business owners on Raritan Avenue. How about the owner of Ubry's, a successful mechanic shop that for four-and-a-half years has posted a large sign in its front window reading, "Mayor Frank, please don't take our business" in response to his property being declared "in need of redevelopment" and therefore vulnerable to eminent domain?

Below is an email I sent to Hutchins expressing my dismay at his lackluster and biased reporting:

"Dear Mr. Hutchins,

I am writing to point out several inaccuracies in your article today regarding the current mayor of Highland Park and process of selecting a replacement.

Frank is not the author of the New Jersey Family Leave Act of 1989 and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. She is one of several hundred volunteers who worked on this bill. For ten years, she has deceptively portrayed herself as the single author of these bills to inflate her political experience and mislead the public of Highland Park. It is disappointing that you would print her words at face value and not check into the veracity of her statements or those of any politician before printing them as facts.

Second, in discussing Frank's term as mayor, you quote her citing her own accomplishments while failing to acknowledge the controversial nature of her term or the fact that there has been significant opposition to her controversial redevelopment policies for many years. Good journalism requires presenting both sides of an issue, and to do this, the responsible thing would be to seek an alternative opinion from her many active, vocal opponents.

Third, the choice of a new mayor is not solely partisan and up to the Municipal Democratic Committee. You failed to mention that whoever the party chooses will face an election in November. That means an independent or Republican could challenge the party's choice. The public of Highland Park deserve to know that they will have this choice, and you failed to provide this important information.

I have been one of many leading opponents of Frank for the past ten years, and I would be happy to speak with you to present the other side and/or to refer you to others, including business owners, who can present you with this very different perspective as well. Please feel free to check out my Blog for Highland Park, representing the voice of the opposition, at http://www.blogforhighlandpark.blogspot.com .
Thank you,

Laurel Kornfeld
2005 Democratic candidate for Highland Park Borough Council

When it comes to newspapers, the public also gets a vote--with our dollars. I encourage anyone disgusted with this sham that passes for reporting to write letters to the editor, call the Star Ledger's Middlesex County bureau, and consider cancelling their subscriptions to this newspaper. In this recession, why pay for a shabby product?

Housing Project for Veterans Deserves Community Support

A proposal by the Reformed Church of Highland Park's Affordable Housing Corporation to convert the vacant All Saints Episcopal Church on South Third Avenue to 11 housing units for struggling veterans deserves the full support of our town, its government, and its residents.

Yet the plan currently before the Zoning Board, which would create five studio apartments on the 83-year-old church's second floor, three apartments on its first floor, and three apartments in the basement, one of which would be a two-bedroom unit, is being fiercely opposed by about 40 neighboring residents. Why? The answer, at least the one opponents state publicly, is that conversion of the church into apartments, which would necessitate placing dormers on the building's roof, would "ruin the character of the building."

Opponents of the plan have gone so far as to apply to get the church registered on the state list of historic sites in their attempts to halt the project even though trustees of the housing corporation have committed to protecting the architectural integrity of the church along with its stained glass windows.

Is this opposition really due to historic concerns, or are those stated concerns masking something much uglier--the old Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) mentality, defined by people's supposed desire to do good as long as there is no negative impact, whether real or perceived, to their neighborhood?

According to the project proposal, veterans would be moved in only after spending up to four months in Veterans' Administration (VA) supervised residential treatment for vocational training plus another one to two years in transitional housing. These will be veterans with minimal physical or emotional handicaps, and the housing corporation plans to partner with the Behavioral Health Care of UMDNJ in Piscataway to assure that any supportive services needed will be provided.

The plan also calls for an office in the building for Greenfaith, a 16-year-old interfaith environmental group. How can any of this be anything but a win for a town that has pledged itself to economic, environmental, and social sustainability?

Interestingly, opponents of the project object to its requirement of variances for slightly higher housing density and more parking spaces than allowed by borough ordinance for this area. Yet some of these people are the same ones who actively supported higher density housing as proposed by the mayor in other parts of town--on Raritan Avenue, Cleveland Avenue, and South Adelaide Avenue--as part of the now defunct redevelopment plan.

That means their objection is not to higher density in and of itself. And if the housing corporation has already given their word that the historic character of the building will be respected and maintained, what is really the issue at hand? Why such strong objections?

Whether we support or oppose any individual war or military incursion, these veterans are people who put their lives and health on the line every day for us, to protect our freedom. They deserve nothing but the best society and every community can provide. Yet 3,500 veterans in New Jersey are homeless, and veterans' services across the country are grossly inadequate.

In 1988, when working on the Dukakis campaign, I was ecstatic when one month before the election, I was given a ticket to attend a speech Michael Dukakis was giving in Boston's famous Fanuel Hall, the birthplace of the American Revolution. It turns out the theme of the event was veterans and the gross neglect of veterans under the Reagan Administration. Listening to the horror stories of men and women who had served this country and come back to be abandoned to its streets, feeling the deep-seated pain and betrayal experienced by those who risked their lives for our freedom quickly brought me from excitement to tears. This was so wrong. And it still is.

Here in Highland Park, we have a lot of people who like to consider themselves "liberals" or "progressives." Unfortunately, for some of these people, these words serve more as labels and status symbols than real, genuine convictions. Sure, they support helping disadvantaged kids in New Brunswick--as long as their kids don't have to go to school with them. Yes, they're all for helping the poor in Newark, Camden, and Washington, D.C. Just don't ask them to bring any of "those people" next door because God forbid, at least in their minds if not in reality, that would drive down their property values.

One cannot help asking, how many of those actively opposing this project ever served in the US Armed Forces? How many of them ever put their lives on the line for the freedom to speak and write about everything from this local project to the wars in which these veterans have fought? My guess, thought it could be wrong, is few to none.

Not that apartments for veterans would do actual harm to property values. Some of the same people expressed similar concerns about an earlier housing project the housing corporation successfully built, an addition of six apartment buildings to the Reformed Church to house women ages 18-21 aging out of foster care. That project, titled Irayna Court, not only had no negative effect on the town; it stands as an example of what a small community of compassionate people can do for those most in need.

Real progressives operate from compassion. Real progressives put human life first, certainly before any monetary concerns. Real progressives understand that a community that looks out for its own people is the most desirable, most benefic, most valuable community in the world.

The pseudo-progressives have vowed to continue their opposition at the next Zoning Board meeting, which will take place on Monday, March 23 at 7:30 PM in Borough Hall. This time, let's have an equally strong contingent show up on the veterans' behalf. After all, they fought for us, and not just with words in a town hall. Fighting for their getting decent services and homes is the least we can do to thank them.

Journalism Involves Telling Both Sides

It is common knowledge that journalists are supposed to be objective when covering politics and controversial situations. That is why an article by Tom Hayden about Mayor Frank that appeared in The Star Ledger on February 28, 2009 comes off as so strikingly inappropriate. From reading the article, one would think Haydon thought he was writing a press release promoting Frank. His portrayal practically celebrates her highly controversial first mayoral race, accepts her statements at face value and blindly repeats them, quotes only her supporters, and does not even acknowledge that there is an entire other side to her term in office. This kind of journalism that does nothing more than promote individual politicians is a disservice to the public, which has a right to know all sides of any issue, especially when controversy is involved. Haydon should have at least quoted some of Frank's critics, questioned her claims, and provided an objective overview of her administration. Unfortunately, he did not do that.

And there most certainly is another side. Far from being the dynamic, accomplished mayor he portrays, Frank used this town as a stepping stone in her quest for higher elective office and spent more time cultivating relationships with politicians outside of Highland Park than serving our community. Our Y is gone; the Corner Confectionary is gone; the roads and sidewalks are in terrible shape; the Police and Fire Departments and First Aid Squad never got the equipment they need and were promised; the grant money we got from the state all went toward politically connected architectural firms and planners for what turned out to be a dead end redevelopment plan, and now the state has no more money to give. The truth is that Frank has left this town in shambles, and the public has the right to know. That is why I sent the letter below to Tom Hayden and am now choosing to share it with everyone.

Dear Mr. Haydon,

I am a writer and politician in Highland Park who has also "built strong political connections" over the past 20 years and additionally have been a de facto leader of the political opposition to Mayor Frank since she first ran for office in 1999. I am writing regarding your article of February 28, 2009, which contains several inaccuracies regarding Frank and does not tell the whole story of her tenure in office, which has been extremely controversial.

First, Frank did not "author" the New Jersey Family Leave Act of 1989 or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Yes, she took part in crafting them, but she was one of thousands of volunteers who worked on this project. She has consistently misled the public and the press by misrepresenting the situation and acting as though she singlehandedly spearheaded this work. That is absolutely not the case. For her to claim this as solely her accomplishment devalues the efforts of other volunteers across the state and country who worked equally hard on these bills.

Frank's 1999 campaign was exceedingly negative and severely divided the community. Many of the people, especially women, who initially supported her changed their minds within a few years when they realized that she ran the town like a dictator. Our system is supposed to be weak mayor-strong council, and she undermined that completely. She also deliberately targeted long term hard working council members when she first took over as mayor with lies and defamatory statements in an effort to get them to resign and replace them with her loyalists, many of whom had no qualifications for the council positions at all.

I ran against her council candidates in 2002 and 2005 and came within a hair's breadth of winning. I too, ran off the party line in Democratic primaries, and my supporters consisted largely of lower income residents and disenfranchised members of the community unhappy with Frank's reckless spending and astronomical tax increases. On several occasions, she responded to people who said they couldn't afford her taxes by saying, "then move. You could get a lot of money for your house."

During my campaigns, she spread vicious and false rumors about me including accusing me of being a racist and of attempting to overturn an election. She filed false police reports claiming I threatened her, which I never did, and complaining that I was copying her hair and wardrobe. After each election, she and her machine lied about the results in repeated letters to the editor in an attempt to marginalize me and my supporters and twist the results of the elections. She also attempted to get both me and my 2005 running mate fired from our jobs by approaching our employers and asking them to fire us. Thankfully, neither listened to her.

Frank pushed a redeveopment plan that generated tremendous controversy, as she refused to rule out the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. She told the owners of several blue collar businesses (a mechanic shop, a used car lot co-owned by my brother, and a gun and boat shop) that their businesses did not belong in the downtown. The redevelopment push was done in backroom deals with little to no transparency. In 2005, business owners held several public protests against her redevelopment plan. They were ultimately successful, and every redevelopment project she had initiated and supported was stopped. When one councilwoman, Carolyn Timmons, decided she could not support redevelopment due to the possible use of eminent domain, Frank forced her to resign her council position and went behind her back to get her fired from her county position.

In 2007, Frank lied about a huge cell tower placed in the center of town, claiming Verizon misled her. The opposition found a dated copy of the contract, and it was clear she was lying. This year, she pushed for artificial turf being placed at the high school football field. When confronted with the fact that this turf could be toxic and contains the remains of recycled tires, she claimed that the county grant that funded the project demanded the use of artificial turf. However, this was a lie, as the county Parks Superintendent assured concerned citizens that artificial turf was never a requirement for the project.

Many people in this town have built strong political connections, myself included. Because I openly fought her and confronted her about her repeated lies, Frank attempted to sabotage my political relationships and spread false, vicious rumors accusing me of being mentally ill. I have worked with Democracy for America on the 2004 Kerry campaign, testified before the State Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee on eminent domain abuse as a representative of the NJ Coalition to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse, was appointed by former Governor Richard Codey to the state Natural Areas Council, and am also a member of both the Democratic National Committee Women's Leadership Forum and of the Bipartisan Commission on the Appointment of Women. Yet Frank has refused to acknowledge any of my service to the town and my extensive political connections on the state and national levels.

This town is still very heavily divided politically, and Frank's supporters are largely wealthy upper class PTO parents who have no sense of the impact of the tax burden on most of our population. The campaigns I put together were far more grassroots than hers ever were, as they truly empowered the poor, the disabled, and the disenfrachised. Yet Frank pretends these campaigns never happened and that she never had any opposition.

She also recently ordered the Police Department to give over 600 tickets to people for failure to shovel their walks after a snowstorm in spite of the fact that many did shovel. Her relationship with the Police Department, Fire Department, and First Aid Squad is completely hostile. I urge you to contact representatives of these groups to hear this other side of the story.

Debbie Walsh has been a supporter of Frank's from the beginning, so it is not surprising that she would say the things she did. However, Walsh also misused her position as Director of the Center for the American Woman and Politics, which is supposed to be bi-partisan. At the 2000 and 2001 Ready to Run seminars, for which I paid over $100 each, Walsh objected to my discussing my struggle with Frank during public sessions in which every participant discussed their political battles. Apparently, criticizing incumbent politicians is okay to her, but criticizing Frank is not.

Frank leaves this town with a huge budget mess, broken streets and roads, a football field of artificial turf, a constant turnover of borough employees, and nothing positive to show for her nine years in office. The vision she so heavily promoted of Highland Park 2020, her redevelopment plan, is dead, as such a blatant example of social engineering should be. I can assure you that many residents, including members of the Police and Fire Department and First Aid Squad are happy to see her go.

To find out more about the other side of Frank's administration, please visit my blog at http://www.blogforhighlandpark.blogspot.com . As a journalist myself, I believe the public has the right to know both sides of the story, and unfortunately, your article told only one of those. I would be happy to speak with you further at any time to share this other side.

Sincerely,
Laurel Kornfeld

Ticket to Ride

Remember how when she first took office, Mayor Frank kept emphasizing that Highland Park cannot go running to Trenton with our hand out for assistance, how we need our borough to become economically self-sufficient?

Well, not only has that not happened; now, the state is coming up empty-handed, and the borough has turned to the taxpayers in what looks a lot like a desperate attempt to raise enough money to plug a huge budget hole. The means for doing this--a ticket blitz.

About a week after a minor January snowstorm, approximately 500 residents and business owners were mailed tickets for failing to shovel their sidewalks. Now, it's reasonable to assume that some of them really had not shoveled and deserved the tickets. But 500?

Many of those who found a ticket when opening their mail had indeed shoveled their walks, and had done so to meet the borough's ordinance requiring that 40 inches of sidewalk be cleaned so that people using wheelchairs have enough room to maneuver. In fact, some people received two or even three tickets in the mail for the same violation!

And isn't it interesting that a large proportion of those who received tickets are homeowners and businesses who publicly opposed this mayor--including my family, my 2005 running mate, and various people who donated money to our campaigns (campaign donations are a matter of public record).

The mailing of tickets a week after the supposed violations has to raise eyebrows. It makes sense that police officers patrolling the town would come to the doors of home and business owners who hadn't shoveled to give them a summons. But mailing tickets a week later--at which point a lot of the snow had melted, making it impossible for anyone to prove he or she shoveled seven days earlier (unless that person had taken a photo of the shoveled walk with the date stamped on it) strongly suggests that something fishy is going on here.

Ever since the calendar year started, there appear to have been ticket blitzes everywhere around New Jersey for supposed traffic violations. One has to question: in communications with local mayors and council members desperate for state aid, did state officials respond by advising them to seek additional revenue through writing tickets? State officials communicate regularly with municipal ones both at formal events and informally, so it is not unlikely that the heavily in debt state of New Jersey recommended municipal officials turn to the taxpayers for additional revenue.

Also troubling are some of the anecdotes being circulated around town regarding the ticket blitz and people's subsequent experiences fighting tickets in court. Several police officers supposedly told residents that the ticket blitz was conducted expressly as an order from the mayor and urged the people they were ticketing to fight the summonses in court. It is important to note that the mayor is not permitted to dictate orders to the Police Department. If such a directive was given, it was an abuse of power.

And it is well known that there is no love lost between the mayor and the Police Department, with the PBA having endorsed challenger Nancy Wolf in the 2007 mayoral campaign. So it would make sense for the mayor to make the cops look like the "bad guys" and disavow any connection to these tickets, denying she ever gave any order and hiding behind the old line, "they were just doing their job."

When those who chose to fight the tickets went to court, they were advised by the judge upfront to pay the fines because there was no way they would win. That sounds like he had made up his mind before even hearing any evidence in any of the cases! Furthermore, all those in court for snow tickets were told that their cases would be addressed last, only after every single motor vehicle violation was adjudicated. Again, we have another ploy--make people wait for hours until they get so tired they give up and pay the fine or force them to come back to court on another day and do it all over again. That is the same tactic used by the mayor and council when they had to deal with an angry public in any controversial situation.

The good news is that several newspapers have picked up the story, complete with statements by many who swear they shoveled their walks and were ticketed anyway. The best antidote for this type of abuse of power is bringing awareness of it into the light of day.

Because, now, the people are watching. The next time it snows, be prepared to see people out with cameras taking pictures of their shoveled walks the minute they finish cleaning them.

This is one snow job that won't be happening again.

Meet Susette Kelo in New York this Wednesday

This message is from the Institute for Justice, which has been in the forefront of the fight against eminent domain abuse for years. Susette Kelo, whose case resulted in the infamous Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court decision permitting the use of eminent domain for redevelopment, will be holding a book forum with author Jeff Benedict, who documents her story in Little Pink House: A True Story of Courage and Defiance.

"Susette Kelo is the person behind the infamous U.S. Supreme Court eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London. Susette’s little pink house—along with the homes of her neighbors—were taken from them as a result of that 2005 decision. New London promised to put a glitzy new private development project on her land, but now, nearly four years after the ruling and $78 million in taxpayer money spent, literally nothing has been built on the land; it remains vacant, the neighborhood bulldozed.

Susette and author Jeff Benedict will hold a book forum at Columbia University on Jeff's new book, Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage. The book is available for purchase from Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Pink-House-Defiance-Courage/dp/0446508624. Be sure to check out the Wall Street Journal's review of this terrific book in its January 26, 2009 edition here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123293428423414379.html
The review is titled 'Evicted but not without A Fight: The Government Took Her Home. The Supreme Court Approved.'"

Book Forum
Hosted by the Federalist Society
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2009
4:30pm - 6pm
Columbia University School of Law
William & June Warren Hall
Amsterdam Avenue & W. 115th Street
(Entrance on Amsterdam Avenue between 115th & 116th)
Room L107 (on lower level)
New York, NY

While the specter of redevelopment has significantly diminished here in Highland Park, due to citizen action against eminent domain abuse and the subsequent recession, make no mistake: we have no legal protections for businesses or properties if local government ever decides to resurrect redevelopment. In spite of many Assembly and State Senate proposals, no law has been passed in NJ to protect property owners from eminent domain abuse.

The fight against eminent domain abuse for redevelopment is far from over. This is a golden opportunity to hear from someone on the front lines of this struggle.