A Bill of Goods on Eminent Domain

A3257 is up tomorrow afternoon in the full Assembly. This is a bad bill that presents the appearance of reforming eminent domain but makes only a few minor changes. It does not follow the letter or spirit of the Public Advocate's report, which specifically addresses how eminent domain has been abused in NJ and its connection with pay to play.

You can read the Public Advocate's report and testimony to the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee about eminent domain at http://www.state.nj.us/publicadvocate/

If you want a bill that really protects homeowners and businesses from having their properties taken and given to private developers, please contact your Assembly members in opposition to this bill. Even if you contacted them before, call NOW. The Assembly Democrats can be reached at 609-292-7065, the Assembly Republicans at 609-292-5339, and the Governor's office at 609-292-6000. Tell them to to protect homes and small businesses by opposing A3257 until it stops eminent domain abuse by banning pay to play, provides a net increase in affordable housing, results in no involuntary displacement, eliminates the "underutilization" criteria for both homes and businesses, puts the burden on municipalities to prove an area is in need of redevelopment, and offers compensation that keeps property owners whole. (A3257 does none of the above).

YOU CAN EMAIL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AT: ASM (for male) ASW (for female) “THEIR LAST NAME” @NJLEG.ORG. You can also find contact information for Assembly members at
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/ In Highland Park, our Assembly members are Assemblyman Upendra Chivukula, whose office can be reached at (732) 247-3999 and Assemblyman Joseph Egan, whose office can be reached at (732) 249-4550. Be assured that legislators in our district take public messages on legislation very seriously.

It has been a year since the US Supreme Court ruled against Property Owners in the KELO case. The outrage of that decision has not diminished!

COME WALK AND RALLY WITH US!

FRIDAY - June 23rd - 6:30pm

There will be speakers followed by a protest walk along the redevelopment area built by K. Hovnanian, Matzel & Mumford and The Applied Group. Remember to bring your protest signs, but don’t worry, we will have plenty if you forget!

Location: 38 Ocean Terrace – Long Branch, NJ 07740
For additional information go to www.MTOTSA.com or contact Lori at MTOTSA@aol.com or
973-699-0375. There will be street parking on various streets in the area. There is also parking at Seven Presidents Park, one block north of the MTOTSA neighborhood. Garden State Parkway to exit 105 - Stay straight 4-5 miles and you will dead end right into the parking lot. If you walk with the ocean on your left hand side, Ocean Terrace will be the second street south of the park.

For more on what you can do to fight eminent domain abuse, visit the following sites:
http://www.MTOTSA.com
http://www.njeminentdomainabuse.com
http://www.castlecoalition.org/

At one of the hearings of the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee on A3257, which I and many opponents of eminent domain for private redevelopment attended, Committee Chair John Burzichelli said, "Eliminating eminent domain for private redevelopment is not an option in New Jersey." Why not? Maybe because he is a mayor and a developer, in addition to an Assemblyman, and like many public officials and their developer friends, benefits from its use. However, ultimately the people decide.
Show our elected officials we will not stop until eminent domain abuse stops!

Highland Park 2006 Municipal Budget Questions

Highland Park's proposed 2006 Municipal Budget raises many questions, most importantly, why it projects a property tax increase of nearly $1 million, why it does not include any line items for revenue received from the Fund for Highland Park in 2005 or projected revenues from the Fund in 2006, and why our debt service is so high.

I. Under General Revenues:
1. On Page 4, Cable Franchise Fees are projected to nearly double, from $36,000 in 2005 to $70,348 in 2006. Please explain how we this is happening.
2. On Page 6, revenue from Uniform Construction Code fees is being increased from $120,000 in 2005 to $200,000 in 2006. Is this because of fee increases? By how much were the fees increased within the last year?
3. On Page 9 under Miscellaneous Revenues, Assistance to Firefighters is being decreased from $39,324 in 2005 to $2,623.88 in 2006. Why? Was this a one-time grant last year?
4. On Page 9 under Miscellaneous Revenues, the Clean Communities Program is scheduled to receive zero funding as compared with $11,482.01 in 2005? Why is this program being eliminated?
5. On Page 9 under Miscellaneous Revenues, revenue funding DEP Storm Water Regulations is being decreased from $10,207 in 2005 to $7,655 in 2006. Why?
6. On Page 9 under Miscellaneous Revenues, the Jersey Fresh Program, which funds the Farmers’ Market, is scheduled to receive zero funding as compared with $400 in 2005. Why is this program being eliminated, and who will fund the Farmer’s Market this year?
7. On Page 9a under Miscellaneous Revenues, we are receiving a $15,000 Smart Growth Go Green grant. What project is this funding?
8. On Page 9a under Miscellaneous Revenues, there are two separate line items for County Open Space, one for $250,000 and a second for $50,000, both for 2005 alone. Why are these separated and what did they fund?
9. On Page 9a under Miscellaneous Revenues, County CDBG revenue is being reduced from $85,000 in 2005 to $76,500 in 2006. Why?
10. On Page 11, the Amount to be Raised by Taxes for Support of the Municipal Budget is being increased from $7,308,927.57 to $8,278,378.19. This is a tax increase of almost $1 million or 18 tax points. How much of an increase would this translate to per average home?
11. Specifically, what is the amount of Extraordinary Aid we requested for 2006?
12. Why is there no revenue line for money from the Fund for Highland Park? In 2005, the borough received more than $20,000 from the Fund, so why does this not appear in the budget? How much revenue do you anticipate the borough receiving from the Fund in 2006, and why is there no line item in the budget for this?

II. Under Appropriations:
1. On Page 12, Salaries and Wages for Borough Administration are being increased from $113,850 in 2005 to $129,755 in 2006. Are these contractual increases, or do they include new positions created within the last year?
2. On Page 12, Other Expenses under Audit Services are being increased from $15,800 to $24,000. Why? Please explain what this expenditure is funding.
3. On Page 13, Salaries and Wages for Tax Collection are being increased from $50,770 to $63,465. Why such a large increase? Are we still paying Jessica Miller full salary and benefits? Are we still paying someone else to do her job while she is suspended with pay? Is this the reason for the increase in this line item?
4. On Page 14 under Buildings and Grounds, Salaries and Wages are being increased from $81,500 to $97,512.80. Again, this is a large increase. Is the increase due solely to contractual obligations, or does it reflect the creation of new positions within the last year?
5. On Page 15, why the reduction in Other Expenses for Municipal Court from $63,625 in 2005 to $9,525 in 2006?
6. On Page 15d, why are Other Expenses under Recreation being increased from $88,870 in 2005 to $103,845 in 2006. Where is the additional funding going?
7. On Page 15d, under Public Works, Salaries and Wages are being increased from $770,400 to $840,320.48. Why such a large increase? Is it due to contractual obligations or does it reflect the creation of any new positions within the last year?
8. On Page 15d, how is it we’re going from $0 on Salaries and Wages for Community and Economic Development to $90,000? Does this reflect the creation of a new position?
9. On Page 15d, under Community and Economic Development, why is the allocation for Other Expenses doubled, from $50,000 in 2005 to $104,000 in 2006? What is this funding?
10. On Page 16 under Inspection of Buildings, Code Enforcement, Salaries and Wages are increasing from $176,600 to $203,430. Is this due solely to contractual obligations or does it reflect the creation of any new positions within the last year?
11. On Page 17, the allocation for Street Lighting is being increased from $115,000 in 2005 to $130,000 in 2006. Why?
12. On Page 20a, the allocation for Garbage Collection for apartments is being increased from $190,000 in 2005 to $220,000 in 2006. Why?
13. On Page 20a, under LOSAP, Other Expenses are being increased from $18,000 in 2005 to $30,000 in 2006. Why?
14. On Page 25, the allocation for Matching Funds is being increased from $42,500 in 2005 to $50,000 in 2006. What are these matching funds for?
15. On Page 27, the allocation for Interest on Notes is being increased from $33,261.57 in 2005 to 115,400 in 2006. Why such a large increase?
16. On Page 27, the allocation for the Lease Agreement with MCIA is being increased from $41,960 to $106,650. Why? Please explain this.
17. On Page 30, the amount of Municipal Debt Service is increased from $1,007,301.57 in 2005 to $1,211,730 in 2006. Why this increase in debt service? We should be trying to keep debt service at or under $1 million.
18. On Page 39, lower right hand corner, under Proposed Use of Surplus, we go from an anticipated 2005 surplus of $1,080,000 to a remaining surplus of $670,303.64. Why such a large depletion of the surplus? Shouldn’t we be maintaining a larger surplus as a cushion for difficult times?

III. Water and Sewer
1. On Page 31, the Miscellaneous allocation to Dedicated Revenues from the Water and Sewer Utility Budget is being increased from $30,200 in 2005 to $42,345 in 2006. Why? Does this reflect the recent water and sewer increase the Council passed?
2. On Page 32, under Debt Service, why is the appropriation for DEP Waste Water Loan Repayment increased from $450,000 to $749,783? Why such a large increase?

IV. Capital Budget
1. On Page 40b, $500,000 is proposed for Public Safety Building Expansion, with $475,000 of that authorized as debt. Specifically, what is involved in this expansion?
2. On Page 40b, $746,000 is being proposed for Road Work, with $693,200 of that authorized as debt. What does the road work entail, and which and how many roads are being done?
3. On Page 40b, $50,000 is proposed for Borough Hall Renovations, Floors and Other, with $47,000 of that authorized as debt. What specific renovations are being done and are they really necessary?

Main Street Highland Park 2006 Budget Questions

The 2006 budget proposed by Main Street Highland Park needs a great deal of explanation. Below are some of key questions, with page numbers from the budget document. An overriding concern is, why is Main Street moving from using volunteers to privatizing everything? First it was the Street Fair, then the Main Street newsletter, and now we have the hiring of an Event Planner. The Main Street program is supposed to be by local residents and businesses and for local residents and businesses. Instead, we in Highland Park have a movement by the Main Street leadership toward patronage and wasteful spending of commercial property owners' hard -earned tax dollars on program and events that should be run at the grassroots level.

(Page 1) Why was the BID assessment increased by $5,000, from $150,000 to $155,000? What is the average commercial property owner’s BID assessment per year under the new rate?
$18,500 is budgeted for potential relocation of the Main Street office. What specific costs is this meant to cover (down payment, rent, etc.)?
Administrative/Project Support allocation is being doubled from $15,000 in 2005 to $30,000 in 2006? Why? How many people are currently employed by Main Street and at what salaries? How does this compare with the number of people employed by Main Street in 2005? If more staff was hired, why?
$1,000 is budgeted for conference travel. Is this for Board members or for Graham Copeland? Is it for travel to the National Main Streets conference?
The allocation for Program Expense: Design is being increased from $87,500 in 2005 to $98,000 in 2006. Why? What does the additional cost cover?
The allocation for Program Expense: Organization is being increased by a huge amount, from $8,750 in 2005 to $26,300. Why such a huge increase? Where is this money going?
(Page 2) Under Design, $12,000 is earmarked as “to be done by borough.” What is this for, and is it being funded by grants or through the municipal budget?
Under Economic Revitalization, the allocation for Business Opportunity Resource Package is more than doubled, from $900 in 2005 to $2,000 in 2006. Why? Where is this money going?
Under Economic Revitalization, the allocation for Web Enablement of Local Businesses is being more than doubled, from $2,000 in 2005 to $5,000 in 2006. Why? Where is this money going?
Under Organization, the allocation for the list serve is being increased by a huge amount, from $200 in 2005 to $1,150 in 2006. Why such a huge increase?
Under Organization, expenditure for the newsletter is being increased from $5,200 in 2005 to $7,500. Why? Why was the newsletter outsourced to a private PR firm instead of continued as a volunteer project?
Under Organization, $10,000 is allocated to Jaffe Communications for “General PR,” with no itemization of specific costs (there was no such expenditure in 2005). What does “General PR” entail? Why do we need a private firm to do it instead of volunteers? This is a lot of money to spend on PR.
Under Promotions, the allocation for Autumn in the Park is being increased from $3,600 to $5,100. Why?
Under Promotions, the allocation for the Arts Festival is being increased by a huge amount, from $3,600 in 2005 to $12,500 in 2006. Why are we increasing spending this much for a one-day festival that was successfully organized by volunteers last year? What specific costs does this amount cover?
Under Promotions, the allocation for Street Events is being increased from $1,000 in 2005 to $5,000 in 2006. Why such a huge increase, and what specifically is it funding?
Under Promotions, $10,000 is being allocated for an Event Planner (there was no such expenditure in 2005). I understand this is for the Arts Festival. Why do we need to pay a private event planner such a huge amount, especially when we are already allocating $12,500 for this event? Why is this expense needed at all when volunteers successfully planned the event in 2005?

The Countdown Begins

One year more.

"One day more. Another day, another destiny..." That is the song sung by revolutionaries in the musical "Les Miserables" on the eve of their brave strike against tyranny. In Highland Park, it's now officially one year more--one year more until we bring much needed regime change to this borough.

June 5, 2007 is the day of Highland Park's primary for mayor, 2 council seats, and every seat on the Democratic Municipal Committee. June 5, 2007 is the day we restore genuine open government and transparency to this borough. It is the day we elect public servants who aren't afraid of the Open Public Records Act or of politically connected developers or of the healthy dissent that comes with being a democracy. June 5, 2007 is the day we elect new leadership that doesn't just talk the talk of inclusion but walks the walk. June 5, 2007 is the day we elect government officials who will protect the interests of our low income residents, of our seniors, of every single local business, of all who have been wrongly excluded from having their rightful voices in government. June 5, 2007 is the day Highland Park definitively says no to any use of eminent domain in this town to take homes or business properties from anyone and hand them over to private developers.

All over the state and the country, the tide is starting to turn. Governor Jon Corzine's appointed Public Advocate released a report that, while stopping short of a moratorium on eminent domain for private development, recognizes the current situation is broken and makes solid recommendations for repairing it. Among his arguments are the recognition of the "underutilization" and "consistent with Smart Growth" criteria for designating properties "in need of redevelopment" as unconstitutional. Those criteria were used in Highland Park's redevelopment study to blight many properties. For the Public Advocate to recognize them as unconstitutional is a huge step in the right direction.

Then there are the many bills introduced in New Jersey and nationwide, ranging from a complete moratorium on any use of eminent domain for redevelopment to significant reforms that will make it much harder for government to partner with developers to take people's hard earned homes and businesses.

But the turning tide goes beyond eminent domain reform. It manifests in the movement to GRIP or get rid of incumbent politicians, in the shedding of light on rampant corruption, especially here in New Jersey and the recognition that our political system needs serious reform. Politicians who have abused the public trust for years are finally being made to answer for their deeds, and constituents are waking up and realizing that democracy means representation for the people, not for politically connected developers, oil companies, and their friends.

And people are waking up to the danger of the growing gap between this country's haves and have nots, the policies that created that gap, and the urgent need to reverse them as rapidly as possible. It is a national issue but also a local issue. Here in Highland Park, it will translate into a movement that rejects gentrification, meaning the effort to turn our town into a wealthy, upscale community at the expense of small businesses and lower income residents.

On June 5, 2007, the people in Highland Park will elect leaders who find room for all who want to serve our town regardless of their political loyalties. We will elect people who will reject giving hard-earned taxpayers' money to consultants and event planners and go back to sponsoring public events run by volunteers invested in the community. We will elect people who will throw out the faulty redevelopment study and plan and replace it with a fair revitalization effort that welcomes every resident and every business as an integral part of our borough.

If these goals hit home, if they match your vision, we welcome you to join us in building a movement for change. There is one year to go, and everyone and every effort is needed to make this effort succeed.

The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

June 5, 2007. One year more.