Piv for Plainfield

Class First Van Pelt

Jim — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 20:59:59 +0000

Hello! I’m still around, but haven’t put up any new posts in a long time. My apologies, but the other Plainfield bloggers have been doing a fine job of letting us know as much as possible about what is really going on in our city government. Sadly, the situation in City Hall appears to be getting worse, not better.

The purpose of this post is to let you know that my wife, JOAN VAN PELT, is running for NJ GENERAL ASSEMBLY in the 22nd district, which includes Plainfield and ten other central NJ municipalities. Joan has joined with JEFFREY FIRST, a Middlesex Borough Councilman, to challenge Jerry Green and Linda Stender. The third member of their team is MICHAEL CLASS, also of Middlesex Borough, who is running for NJ STATE SENATE in the same district. To learn more about Joan and her teammates, please click here, or go to “ClassFirstVanPelt.com”. To read Joan’s blog, click here. For a breath of fresh air, and to give Plainfield and the rest of the 22nd district competent and intelligent representation in Trenton, please support the team of CLASS, FIRST, and VAN PELT. Here is a photo of the team (Mike, Jeff and Joan from left to right):

Since the purpose of my bog was to support my candidacy in two previous city elections, and I am not currently running for office, I will be shutting down this blog in a few weeks. I recommend that in the future you follow Joan and her teammates, as they discuss issues important to Plainfield and the rest of our legislative district.

Is it Time for Sharon to Go?

Jim — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:29:30 +0000

How much more can we take from this administration? It is time that all Plainfield voters wake up and pay attention to what is going on in city government. Unless there is a really good reason for terminating Ms. Taylor, the Mayor should change her position immediately. If she doesn’t, I feel that it is time to seriously look at a recall. I eagerly await hearing the Mayor’s side of the story. From my perspective Ms. Taylor has been doing a very good job as city administrator under very adverse conditions. Did she tell the mayor “you can’t do that” one too many times? Ironically, the deliverer of the pink slip was the one individual in city government who should have been terminated for his wrong-doing. Unless this situation can be reasonably resolved, the queen of the Queen City must go!

Congratulations, Rebecca

Jim — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:05:03 +0000

Congratulations to Rebecca Williams for winning the Plainfield City Council seat for wards 2 and 3. I am indeed excited to see her take her seat. She is intelligent, hard working, and independent. Most importantly, her heart is in the right place … with the people of Plainfield.

It was a clean campaign. Even if there were skeletons in either of our closets, and there were none, they would not have seen the light of day. Only the truth was spoken, which is unusual in an election campaign. The high point of the campaign for me was when, at the League of Women Voters forum, we were asked what differentiated us from our opponents, Rebecca quipped, “I have horn-rimmed glasses and Jim has wire-rimmed, and I have three dogs and Jim has one.”

Best of luck, Rebecca. I am confident that you will do an excellent job, and I look forward to being your needler as you guide Plainfield to a brighter future.

A Lost Opportunity for Plainfield?

Jim — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:56:12 +0000

The decision by Governor Christie to discontinue construction of the new rail tunnel under the Hudson River is a major blow to the future of Plainfield. The recently completed Rutgers study for the development of Plainfield along the NJ Transit corridor relied heavily on the assumption of improved future accessibility for commuters from Plainfield to New York City. Enhancing the attractiveness of Plainfield as a home for people who work NYC would generate a demand for housing conveniently located near the downtown Plainfield train station as well as the Netherwood station, and there are numerous sites where such apartment or condominium residences could be constructed. This would be an economic boost to the downtown as well as the rest of Plainfield. For more information on the tunnel, click here.

Does this decision ring a knell for Plainfield? It certainly does not look hopeful. However, there is such a development in the planning, namely the mixed residential and commercial development proposed for Second Street west of Park Avenue incorporating the present PNC bank building. I learned informally from councilor Cory Storch that the developer plans to proceed despite the loss of the tunnel. Keep in mind that the developer is asking for a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) consideration, which is essentially a tax reduction agreement. Such a concession could be in the best in the best interests of Plainfield, since some taxes are better than no taxes at all. However, without the tunnel the developer may insist on a tax break which is too much for the city to assume.

Another approach to Plainfield’s future, which would not rely heavily on the future rail tunnel, would be to attract light, green industry to the city. Admittedly this would not be an easy task, but the benefits would be substantial. Industrial development would increase the city’s tax base without generating a significant need for city services. It certainly should be included among future development plans.

In any case, the tunnel would be a boon not only to Plainfield, but to all of central and northern New Jersey, and I am pleased to see that many officials are urging the governor to reconsider his decision. The price tag of the tunnel is staggeringly high, but in the long term the benefits will far outweigh this cost. I personally would be willing to endure an increase in the gasoline tax to make it happen. I urge all my readers who support the tunnel to make their thoughts known to the governor. All New Jersey residents should share the burden to make the state’s future brighter.

ShotSpotter Community Meeting

Jim — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:53:55 +0000

Yesterday afternoon a grass roots citizens’ meeting took place at Clinton School billed as the “SHOTSPOTTER TECHNOLOGY TOWN HALL MEETING”. It was organized by the West End Heights Homeowners association and consisted of a discussion by a panel of several private citizens and City Council members. Councilors Mapp, Carter and Rivers were present, and Councilor Storch sent regrets that he could not attend due to a family emergency. About thirty to forty concerned residents were in the audience, and they provided an abundance of input. More people may have attended if there were not a memorial service being held at the same time at the Salvation Army building for recently slain Plainfield taxi driver Isidro Leonardo. Also, publicity for the meeting was limited.

The overall consensus appeared to be that the city should not acquire the Shotspotter system because of its high price compared to the perceived minimal effect it would have as a deterrent to gun related crime. The meeting instead focused mostly on eliminating the root cause of gang activity. Here are some of the proposals put forth:

Get as many handguns off the streets as possible, in part through a handgun buy-back program operated by the city. The cost of this would be minimal, and it was felt that this has been at least somewhat successful in other communities.
Eliminate gathering places for illegal activities. This ranged from the obvious of making sure abandoned properties are secured to the simple idea of removing spots of dense vegetation where gang members can hang out undetected.
Strengthen the block association system including reducing the hesitation of private citizens to contact the police when they observe something suspicious. One west-side resident stated that he was himself a shot spotter: he has ears, a telephone, and he doesn’t cost anything.
Provide many more opportunities for youth activities and safe havens during afterschool hours, weekends, and in the summer.

To me, this last point is the most important. Some meeting participants lamented the loss of previous city programs for youth. Increased job opportunities for youth were also discussed. Others stressed the importance of the mentoring opportunities that go along with such programs. This appears to be a monumental undertaking, but which is vital to the future of Plainfield. There are some things that city government can do such as focusing the Department of Recreation on the problem. Also, increased funding is needed for the library to increase its hours of operation. However, the real impact will need to come from the volunteer community. Plainfield’s houses of worship, other organizations and private citizens need to be encouraged to provide both people and activity space. The bottom line is to show vulnerable kids that people care about them and want to help them build a future not dependent on gang participation.

As for the Shotspotter system, I believe that it should be kept in mind. Perhaps better economic conditions, grant availability, and a lower price tag will make it more affordable in the future, but for now it is not the way to go.

Gang Violence Continues: Time for a Truce?

Jim — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:16:18 +0000

In this morning’s edition of the Courier News (August 16, 2010), the lead article concerning the possibility of curfews in Plainfield included a photograph of a city street sign warning “Slow, Children at Play” with a bullet hole in it. Is this becoming the new city emblem? Let us hope not. However, Dan Damon’s most recent post on his Plainfield Today blog (click here) reports about two recent rounds of shootings early one morning at the Elmwood Gardens housing complex.

Apparently the city’s two recent initiatives are not working very well. The weekly door-to-door visitations by concerned private citizens have hopefully raised awareness of parents of children at risk for gang involvement, but it is not surprising that the high-profile round-up of 40 suspects last week neither got a significant number of gang members off the streets nor acted as a deterrent for gang violence. The individuals taken into custody were largely, if not all, people having outstanding warrants against them. One wonders why these scofflaws were not taken into custody sooner. Their whereabouts were no doubt known to the police for some time since they “jumped bail”, but they apparently were not tracked down in a timely fashion. A sweep of a large number of suspects always makes for sensational press and an enhanced image for the city administration by showing that something is being done about the problem, but it actually doesn’t serve the public very well. In Plainfield’s case it just reinforces the negative image that the city has in the mind of those living in surrounding communities.

The use of a curfew to combat gang violence was discussed at the City Council meeting on Monday, August 9, but the conclusion was that a curfew that does not impinge on people’s basic rights is probably impossible to craft. AS far as I know, no government body has been successful in enacting a curfew, other than in a state of emergency, which does not violate the U.S. Constitution. The Courier News article discusses this problem at greater length.

What the public does not know is whether the rash of shootings is due to the actions of two specific rival gangs, but the police should know this. If in fact two specific gangs can be identified, would it be unreasonable to suggest that someone try to negotiate a truce? At the recent Project Hope forum on gangs (click here) we learned that gangs, for all their illegal activities, function by specific rules and standards, and gang members should respect a truce agreed to by their leaders. To me, the obvious negotiator would be the Mayor. However, if she is uncomfortable about doing this, perhaps a respected member of the clergy would step up. Maybe Al Sharpton would be willing to do it.

The Gang Forum: Hoopla or Serious Business?

Jim — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:55:38 +0000

In some respects the Mayor’s Forum on Gang Violence, held this past Sunday evening (Aug. 1, 2020) could have been a Hooray-for-Sharon show. She was characterized as a “courageous sister” and a “warrior sister” by radio personality Gary Bird. And then there was the cameo appearance by the Rev. Al Sharpton. However, with a audience of around 500 it was a good opportunity to get some valuable information out to the community. Much was understandably a repetition of the Project Hope Forum held two months ago at the Unitarian Church (click here), but it was worth repeating to a much larger crowd.

One new approach to combating gang violence that was introduced at the meeting was some interesting new technology offered by the firm ShotSpotter, technology that can detect gunshots and send a location almost instantly to a police cruiser’s computer. (For a detailed description of this system, click here). Response time could be as fast as two minutes or less, and no shots would go unreported. This could save lives, but in my estimation its potential as a deterrent is limited. Gang members tend not to think about, let alone fear, the possibility of being arrested and sent to prison as a result of their violent actions. We learned this at the Project Hope Forum. ShotSpotter representatives cited a minimum 10% reduction in violent crime during the first year of implementation in other municipalities, but they cannot establish any valid correlation. It is possible that the crime rate decrease could have been coincidental or due to other factors, and we need to know the corresponding crime rate trendx over the same period of time in similar municipalities not having the ShotSpotter system. Keep in mind, the ShotSpotter representatives are looking to sell something, just like car or appliance salesmen. The price tag is hefty, possibly $750,000, for the most problematic area of Plainfield, and city officials should carefully examine the technology and take a close look at the claimed results in other New Jersey cities. Also, it would be well for them to search diligently for grant funding to lower the cost to the city’s taxpayers should they decide to acquire the system.

So what is the answer to my original question? Mostly the forum was valuable in that it spread awareness of gang violence to a rather wide audience. Perhaps a few kids may be diverted from gang membership through increased knowledge and efforts of their parents. Let’s hope so. In terms of new, concrete actions from the administration, only the consideration of the ShotSpotter technology was evident. Also, the forum was indeed a bit of hoopla, as we can always expect from our mayor. After all, the next mayoral election is only three years away.

Still No CFO

Jim — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:38:56 +0000

It was supposed to be over. It was intended that Plainfield would have a permanent, fulltime Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at the end of last night’s City Council meeting. This special meeting had been called as a result of the mayor’s surprise announcement at the July 19^th regular council meeting that she had identified a qualified, but at that time unnamed, candidate for council approval.

The special meeting was held to call the mayor’s bluff, but she did deliver a body, namely William Scherer of Manalapan, who is a politically active Monmouth County Democrat, for the council to interview and approve. However, after a two-hour executive session (with the public meeting commencing at 10 PM), the council voted to table the motion for his approval. Only Councilor William Reid voted against tabling, and councilor Linda Carter was conspicuously absent. Council President Annie McWilliams explained that many on council were concerned about Mr. Scherer’s lack of actual experience as a CFO and indicated that Plainfield needs a highly qualified CFO to straighten out the city’s long-neglected financial affairs. She stated that the mayor needs to supply additional information about the candidate. However, the mayor was not present last night, neither for the executive session nor the public meeting. Are any of us surprised by her absence?

At the July 19^th regular council meeting a long-debated resolution was passed by the council asking the NJ Division of Local Government Services to appoint a temporary fulltime CFO, which was amended to state that the resolution would not be sent until after the July 25^th special meeting, giving the mayor one last chance. Apparently she blew it. The Division of Local Government Services will now explicitly be made aware of the council’s concerns regarding the long vacancy of the Plainfield CFO position. In my opinion this is good, because the overall sad state of Plainfield municipal government needs to be brought to the attention of state authorities. Where else can we go, since our general electorate is unaware of the problems or unwilling to deal with them at the voting booth?

Also on last night’s agenda was a resolution to approve someone for the position of Director of Administration and Finance, a position which has now been vacant for seventh months. Having a well-qualified person in this position is also critical to the efficient operation of city government and ultimately the saving of taxpayer’s dollars. At the July 19^th meeting the mayor indicated that she had also identified an unnamed candidate for this position, but the resolution she introduced last night had a blank space where the candidate’s name and address were to appear. A copy of the resolution, including the signature of the City Clerk, is shown below. The resolution was withdrawn last night, but the mayor should have never introduced it. As I have stated before on this blog: THIS IS NO WAY TO RUN CITY GOVERNMENT. It is indeed the time for state government to take a close look at Plainfield and take over its operation if necessary. The council appears to be doing all that it can to correct the situation, but its legal authority is limited.

Pay-to-Play in Plainfield

Jim — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:23:22 +0000

Dan Damon’s recent blog post on the subject of pay-to-play is very interesting. It is a must-read for all citizens concerned about good government. (Click here to read it.) In my mind an improvement would be to have two sets of standards, one for state candidates and one for municipal. The amount of pay-to-play money can be considerably different at these two levels. The NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) regulations are probably adequate for state elections where contributions of $300 or less, even with multiplying them by funneling funds through friends, relatives, and employees, do not carry a large influence on how our elected officials make decisions and spend our tax dollars, but like Dan, I do not wish to see the individual contribution reporting threshold raised from $300 to $1000.
However, at the municipal level smaller contributions can be more effective for seeking to buy influence from our elected officials. Also, the listing of contributions above the $300 is not necessarily a deterrent to pay-to-play activities. The Mayor of Plainfield has recently provided a good example of this. In her NJ ELEC report for the first quarter of 2010 she listed two contributions of $2,600 each, one from the engineering firm of Remington and Vernick and one from Caig (sic) Remington, both of Haddonfield, NJ, for at total of $5,200. The NJ ELEC total contribution limit for individuals or organizations is $2,600. (To see the report, click here.) About a month ago, at the mayor’s request, City Council approved a contract with Remington and Vernick in the amount of $88,700 for engineering services related to the repaving of 1/3 mile of Watchung Avenue. Obviously the mayor is not concerned with the apparent connection between these two events. It is also interesting that in the same NJ ELEC report she lists over $20,000 of anonymous contributions (each $300 or less) for the first quarter of 2010. It seems that she made quite a haul from her re-election ball at $150 per ticket. Was the ticket price set with the NJ ELEC individual reporting threshold in mind?
My proposal with respect to pay-to-play shenanigans in Plainfield is to enact a municipal ordinance much tougher than the NJ ELEC regulations. Every contribution above $25 should be reported publicly. This would be well below the state threshold of $300. Moreover, total contributions from any individual or organization to any one campaign should be limited to $250 instead of the state limit of $2,600. I doubt, however, that City Council would be willing to pass such legislation. After all, most of them probably want to be re-elected, too.

The Transitional Aid to Localities Program

Jim — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:57:01 +0000

In her Plaintalker II blog, Bernice Paglia did us the service of reporting on the state’s Transitional Aid to Localities program. This program replaces the old extraordinary aid program. Readers will recall that most recently the administration applied for $3.5 million in extraordinary aid , but was awarded only $250,000. The award came along with a Memorandum of Understanding containing a long list of financially irresponsible practices which the city was required to abandon to receive future aid. No doubt the severe cut in the amount of money awarded was due to the administration’s inability to demonstrate sound financial judgment. One of the minor, but more telling, practices of our mayor mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding was providing free food and other partying at city expense. The total bill for this has not been sizable compared to other city spending, but the practice showed the insensitivity our mayor has for the taxpayers hard-earned money.

One of the requirements of the new program is stated as follows: “The program requires labor cost reductions and changes in service delivery as preconditions for receipt of aid.” The labor cost is particularly troubling for Plainfield since the administration has never shown a desire to bargain hard with the city unions despite this being an area where substantial savings can be achieved. For our mayor’s part, displeasing the unions could cost her votes should she choose to run for a third term. It will be interesting to see how much money the city actually gets from the state under the new program, and it would be foolish and irresponsible to include space for it in the upcoming SFY 2010-2011 municipal budget. Remember: It’s all about taxes.