New Jersey’s finances are a long way from being set on solid ground — and it is unclear whether the state Legislature has the stomach to make the repairs necessary.
Of course, nonsense like this from a former governor who did so much to create the mess from which we are attempting to crawl really do not help.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here.
The Jamesburg Borough Council is considering closing its library.
The reasons, according to borough officials, are a collision between state library funding rules and a new state tax levy cap that limits what towns can spend.
As we’ll be reporting tomorrow, the council is considering placing a referendum on the November ballot that would ask voters whether the library should be closed, the idea being that eliminating the library and its mandated increases will give the borough more flexibility in crafting a budget.
I think Mayor Tony LaMantia and the Borough Council are fooling themselves. The problem is not the library or even the state cap levy law. The problem is the borough’s size and the fact that it is built out, that it tax base is stagnant and that costs in general are rising.
The way to fix it, borough officials constistently say, is for the state to ease of its requirements while also pumping more state money into Jamesburg. That approach, however, would do little more than allow Jamesburg to exist as a shell. Already, borough residents maybe facing life without a library. They have a barebones recreation program run by volunteers that offers a small fraction of the programs offered by their larger neighbors.
The issue, it would seem to me, is one of share services or — perish the thought — full municipal consolidation. While the mayor keeps making excuses to the contrary, Jamesburg residents would benefit from being part of a larger community, from the economies of scale it offers.
Consider this: According to state figures, Jamesburg spends about $22 a person on its library — compared with $78 for Monroe. Monroe and South Brunswick have massive recreation and senior programs; Jamesburg offers what it can.
Failing this, Jamesburg needs to explore either a shared library with Monroe or some kind of contractual arrangement under which the Monroe library would treat Jamesburg residents as if they lived in Monroe.
The library is an important resource — especially when you consider that Jamesburg kids attend Monroe Township High School. Closing the library will leave Jamesburg’s high school kids without the same resources available to their classmates.
There a lot of options out there. Closing the Jamesburg libary should be a last resort and even then I’m not sure it’s worth it.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here.
The state Senate is scheduled to consider a bill on Thursday that would abolish the death penalty in New Jersey. According toa story in The Philadelphia Inquirer:
The proposed legislation, scheduled to go before the committee on Thursday, would repeal the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole. Current death-row inmates would be resentenced to life imprisonment without parole in a maximum security prison.
It seems a sensible approach and should address some of the legitimate concerns raised by Assemblyman Bill Baroni (a Republican who represents South Brunswick, Cranbury, Jamesburg and Monroe). Mr. Baroni told me last month that poorly constructed legislation could open the door for death-row inamtes to appeal and potentially overturn their sentences because there would be no mechanism to commute them.
In case anyone is interested, here are my five reasons to oppose the death penalty:
1. Murder is murder no matter who pulls the trigger or sticks in the needle. When the state murders in a democracy, it does so with our implied consent making us complicit in the act. The death penalty, therefore, makes all of us murderers.
2. Premeditiated murder, according to Camus, is especially heinous; capital punishment is really just state-sanctioned, premeditated murder and vigilantism.
3. Death is permanent. There is no system that can be put in place that can safeguard against human error or bias, meaning that there always will remain a chance that the innocent will be put to death.
4. There is no system that can be put in place that can safeguard against human error or bias, meaning that there always will remain a chance that issues of race, class and gender will influence who gets sent to death and who faces life in prison.
5. It not about deterence, but about retaliation and retribution. — something that should be out of character for a civilized, democratic society. Just listen to supporters who consistently stoke fear and speak of it as “the ultimate punishment”; no one talks about the death penalty as a way to prevent crime and, if they did, there have been far too many studies offering evidence to the contrary.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog
E-mail me by clicking here.
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.
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.
Hank Kalet 