Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.

The wrong direction on Route 1

OK. Route 1 is now off the table.

At least that’s what Gary Toth, director of the Division of Project Planning and Development for the state Department of Transportation, told the South Brunswick Industrial Commission today.

Mr. Toth told the commission during its business luncheon (attended by our reporter Paul Koepp) that widening Route 1 in South Brunswick would cost between $300 million and $400 million — a pricetag that includes design, purchase of land, construction and reconfiguration of most Route 1 indtersections. Given the fiscal problems facing the state (massive debt, an underfunded pension system, flat revenues and an empty road fund), the state “does not have the resources.”

This is not exactly the news that South Brunswick officials or residents were hoping to hear. Local officials say they’re not done fighting for the widening, though it appears South Brunswick will need a whole lot of help if it is to convince the DOT to put the widening back on the table.

I am the first to admit that traffic along the seven-mile stretch in South Brunswick is not nearly as bad as in other areas, but that does not mean that it is not bad or that the lack of a third lane will not have longterm impact.

So what gives? The DOT is focusing on two new approaches: 1.) spending on less-expesnive mass transportation, like bus-rapid transit systems, rather than on new highways and roads; and 2.) refocusing land-use to bring locate new housing near new jobs.

Both approaches are consistent with the aims of environmental and traffic planning groups like the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, which for years has been critical of the state building its way out of congestion.

I am all for expanding mass-transit options, especially along Route 1, though I am a bit doubtful that we will be able to convince New Jerseyans to get out of their cars. And I’d argue that widening the highway is not creating new infrastructure, but improving existing infrastructure — something that fits in with the state’s new approach.

As for the second change, I’m afraid it sounds like one of those ideas conceived by planners and engineers that look good on paper (or on their computer screens) but are destined to fail when applied to the real world.

The idea is to encourage towns to limit commute times by encouraging a reconsideration of the mix of housing and commercial development. Currently, not enough housing is being built to accommodate the people working in the warehouses and offices being built — meaning that workers have to get in their cars and drive. That clogs roads, lengthens commutes and worsens the myriad problems tied to traffic congestion (air pollution, exhaust residue in the water supply, driver aggravation, less time with families, etc.). Creating the right mix would, according to the state, shorten commute times and make everyone happy.

Except it won’t. First, homeowners are not likely to buy into this approach. People live where they like, but work where they can. Many factors dictate where we choose to live: Home prices, property taxes, neighborhoods, school systems, recreational programs, proximity to other family, etc. Proximity to work is only one small factor — and one that is becoming smaller and smaller as jobs become more precarious in the age of layoffs.

Homeowners are not likely to sell their homes in Hamilton, for instance, because they work at Dow Jones in South Brunswick, or sell their homes in Kendall Park to be closer to their jobs in Edison — unless there are other compelling reasons to do so, especially if there is even the smallest of chances that their job could be eliminated.

And this assumes that municipalities in New Jersey will be clamoring to build more housing — which is not likely given that the state’s current tax structure rewards towns that build warehouses and offices and penalizes them for building housing (warehouses produce tax revenue without school costs, considered a net gain; houses with kids, which is what we are talking about, rarely generate enough taxes to offset the cost of schooling).

In New Jersey, it seems, everything is tied to tax reform. If we are to remove this counterproductive incentive system, we have to streamline local government and change the way we pay for services — in particular, the public schools — so that development becomes a question of jobs and housing and not tax revenue.

In the end, however, that leaves South Brunswick with the only four-lane section of Route 1 between the Lawrence split and Woodbridge. And while the road in South Brunswick is not nearly as congested as it is to the north and south, it seems counterintuitive to me to leave a potential bottleneck in place.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Reasons to be cheerfulabout clean elections

A Saturday story in the Portland Herald Press details a Maine report on its clean elections program that offers an example of why supporters of public financing in New Jersey are so hot to have the pilot program here work. The 14th legislative district, which includes Cranbury, Jamesburg, Monroe and South Brunswick, was chosen as one of three pilot districts this year. Assembly members Bill Baroni, a Republican, and Linda Greenstein, a Democrat, are co-sponsors of the clean-elections program and probably the Legislature’s biggest backers.

According to the Maine paper, the 11-year-old clean-elections law “has encouraged more people to seek office and boosted the number of challengers who take on incumbents.” The law has helped control “direct spending by legislative candidates, but not indirect campaign spending by special interests” because “political action committees and political parties are spending more to help or hurt candidates.”

This should not be a surprise — nor should it be used to damn the law. Interest group ads were a prominent feature of the last presidential race and have become a staple of races for all level of office. One option is for clean elections legislation to provide a boost in funds to candidates targeted by independent groups or those who run against candidates who opt out of the system.

The goal of public financing, however, is not just to reduce costs. Privately financed campaigns already cost the public a lot, though those costs are hard to quantify (pay-to-play contracts, corruption, access to legislators). Public financing breaks this connection, while also increasing participation.

“I think the most significant findings are that the act is encouraging first-time candidates to run for office” and allowing challengers to run competitive races, said Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the state ethics commission.

From 1990 through 2000, the number of general-election legislative candidates averaged 349, the report says. That number jumped to 391 candidates in 2004 and to 386 in 2006, as public financing became more popular.

Adopted by Maine voters in a 1996 referendum, the Clean Election Act first made public financing available in legislative races in 2000 and in gubernatorial campaigns in 2002. In last year’s general election, 81 percent of the candidates for the Legislature used the Clean Election Fund to pay for their races. So did three of the five gubernatorial candidates who were on the ballot in November.

Let’s hope the New Jersey pilot works and that clean elections can be expanded to the entire Legislature next time out.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Subpoenas by the letter

Interesting post from Wally Edge on Politics NJ today that reminds us that Democrats are not the only ones who know how to use their office to take care of their own:

The Record‘s story this morning on the federal probe of legislators who received some personal benefit from state budget items suggests that only Democrats are being targeted. According to The Record, there are some similarities between State Senator Joseph Coniglio and Assemblyman Brian Stack, both Democrats who have received subpoenas, and two Republican legislators who have not: State Senator Robert Singer and Assemblyman David Wolfe.

Like Coniglio, Singer works for a hospital — he is with the St. Barnabas Health Care System, which runs two facilities in Ocean County — that has received “Christmas Tree” grants. And Wolfe, like Stack, has a wife who works for a non-profit organization that has received funding from the state; Carol Wolfe’s organization, Homes Now, received $500,000 from the state in 1999 to build a women’s shelter in their hometown, Brick. Carol Wolfe founded the group in 1997, but did not receive a salary until 2001.

While the statute of limitations for most non-capital federal offenses is five years but federal prosecutors can look back further in some cases. In the Jack Abramoff corruption case, they went as far back as 1997 to detail offenses he ultimately pled guilty to.

This brings into focus something that the GOP is unwilling to address, i.e., the party’s own complicity in the “Christmas Tree” program. While sites like Red Generation and Enlighten NJ like to use the flow of subpoenas around the state as an indictment of Democrats, the reality is that Republicans have been willing collaborators.

The difference right now between the Democrats and Republicans has far more to do with power than with anything endemic within the New Jersey Democratic soul.

“I don’t think the Christmas tree was planted in 2004,” said Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, D-Englewood.

Most of the subpoenas served on lawmakers and their aides in recent months seek records starting in 2004. That could be for a number of reasons, including the fact that the probe began with a senator who became chairman of the Budget Committee that year. But it also happens to be the year Democrats took full control of the Legislature. That has some wondering whether Republicans would be getting more of the subpoenas if investigators looked back a bit further.

In the context of the U.S. Attorney’s probe and the apparent politicization of the federal Department of Justice, it is a fair question to ask.

That said, the most important thing that can come out of this mess is reformation of the process, an opening up of the budget to ensure that these last-second grants are given the kind of scrutiny they deserve. At least some of the money in question was for legitimate programming, but all of it now is tainted by the actions of a handful of elected officials.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Leases take their tolls

This week’s cover story in Business Week offers a primer on the benefits and extensive pitfalls of leasing out public infrastructure — a primer that should give Gov. Jon Corzine and the state Legislature more than pause as they wade into the deep end of the pool on the issue.

In the past year, banks and private investment firms have fallen in love with public infrastructure. They’re smitten by the rich cash flows that roads, bridges, airports, parking garages, and shipping ports generate—and the monopolistic advantages that keep those cash flows as steady as a beating heart. Firms are so enamored, in fact, that they’re beginning to consider infrastructure a brand new asset class in itself.

With state and local leaders scrambling for cash to solve short-term fiscal problems, the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented burst of buying and selling. All told, some $100 billion worth of public property could change hands in the next two years, up from less than $7 billion over the past two years; a lease for the Pennsylvania Turnpike could go for more than $30 billion all by itself. “There’s a lot of value trapped in these assets,” says Mark Florian, head of North American infrastructure banking at Goldman, Sachs & Co (GS ).

There are some advantages to private control of roads, utilities, lotteries, parking garages, water systems, airports, and other properties. To pay for upkeep, private firms can raise rates at the tollbooth without fear of being penalized in the voting booth. Privateers are also freer to experiment with ideas like peak pricing, a market-based approach to relieving traffic jams. And governments are making use of the cash they’re pulling in—balancing budgets, retiring debt, investing in social programs, and on and on.

But are investors getting an even better deal? It’s a question with major policy implications as governments relinquish control of major public assets for years to come. The aggressive toll hikes embedded in deals all but guarantee pain for lower-income citizens—and enormous profits for the buyers. For example, the investors in the $3.8 billion deal for the Indiana Toll Road, struck in 2006, could break even in year 15 of the 75-year lease, on the way to reaping as much as $21 billion in profits, estimates Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER ) What’s more, some public interest groups complain that the revenue from the higher tolls inflicted on all citizens will benefit only a handful of private investors, not the commonweal (see BusinessWeek.com, 4/27/07, “A Golden Gate for Investors”).

There’s also reason to worry about the quality of service on deals that can span 100 years. The newly private toll roads are being managed well now, but owners could sell them to other parties that might not operate them as capably in the future. Already, the experience outside of toll roads has been mixed: The Atlanta city water system, for example, was so poorly managed by private owners that the government reclaimed it.

The issue is far from settled, though it seems foolish of supporters (like Philadelphia mayoral candidate Chaka Fattah this morning on WHYY radio) to crow about the benefits without acknowledging the potential problems.

The thing that strikes me about the discussion is that privatization is being pitched as a creative solution to public financing problem and that so-called liberals like Fattah and Gov. Corzine seem willing to play the game. The problems they are hoping to address — broken budgets and a lack of money for social programs — are very real, of course, but the solution is shortsighted and does not address the root causes of the problem.

In fact, privatizing only exacerbates it because the chief problem is and has been privatization and the demonization of government. We have been engaged in a decades-long downward spiral in which the word taxes and the notion of government as protector of the citizenry has been denigrated. This has led to a starvation of public resources and a group of weak-kneed elected officials at the state level unwilling to raise taxes or talk straight about service levels and who rely on borrowing to pay for what is offered.

Add to this the inability or unwillingness of Congress to fund what is needed (either directly, or through grants to states and local governments) and you have a mess.

“Asset monetarization,” to use Corzine’s term, will remain an attractive approach for governors and legislators around the country until we repair the damage done over the last three decades.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.