In Defense of Rutgers

In Defense of Rutgers

I was listening to WFAN the other morning and there you had Boomer Esiason, a former star QB for the Bengals and the Jets, talking about how even though New York (New Jersey, really) has two first-place football teams, you wouldn't know it based on the media coverage.

There's something about this area that makes us supremely cynical and pessimistic, even when things are going well.

But this is not the case with Rutgers and, specifically, Rutgers football -- the Scarlet Knights. New Jersey has rallied behind the football team of the State University of New Jersey. New Jersey was, in fact, crying out for a good football program. Something we can hang our hats on when we say why we're proud to be New Jerseyans.

Now on gameday, there's unity and pride for school and sport. Undergrads, grads, and alumni are interacting in ways they never did.

But the Star-Ledger and some in the New Jersey Legislature are not having any of it. They point to impropriety, they point to scandal and corruption, they point to misappropriation of funds, and their arguments are weak at best, and destructive at worst.

Today, a group of dedicated fans, alumni, faculty, and staff, launched an information campaign to basically set the record straight about Rutgers. That group, assembled through Internet message boards and a Facebook group called I Got Rutgers' Back, of which the Bowie of Suburbia is a member.

The group, which organized only three weeks ago and raised upwards of $10,000 from over 200 individual donors in that time, is an indication of the hunger for a successful RU, both athletically and academically. But with RU's increased success, particularly since the Scarlet Knight's first bowl game in 2005 and now-fired RU Athletic Director and Political Fallguy Bob Mulcahy, the school and the athletic have fallen under increased scrutiny from the Ledger. And it ain't been good.

The group takes specific aim at the Ledger for a December 7 report, "Rutgers Football: A Game of Secrets", which claims that:

In the past five years, as Rutgers hiked tuition, eliminated six other varsity sports and canceled classes to cut costs, the university more than doubled annual spending on football, from $7.5 million to $15.6 million.

The obvious implication here is that is that money was moved from other areas to fund football, and that's patently untrue. The subsidy that RU actually provides football is less than it was five years ago, when the Knights went 4-7 in 2004. Increased spending has been offset 100% by increased revenue stemming from, what else? Increased quality of the Rutgers football program.

Further, the Star-Ledger distorted the findings of an Athletics Review Committee, heavily suggested impropriety in the November 20 report, "Report Says Rutgers Failed To Properly Oversee Athletics Department":

The Rutgers athletic department was allowed to become a virtually independent operation within the school - bending rules, answering to no one and spending freely.

That's the LEDE! If you were reading this with no prior knowledge, you would immediately conclude that this is a corrupt, back-room dealing, club. Only paragraphs later, the article acknowledges that the report found Mulcahy was not involved in any "wrongdoing," but that the University, in an accelerated attempt to improve the football program, moved too quickly and that oversight was lost. That's a legitimate gripe, but fortunately, that lack of oversight did not result in corruption, scandal, or mismanaged. In fact, the Athletics Review Committee audit found the program to be transparent, well run, and was producing dividends.

The report does call for:

• Establish a director of compliance/ethics
• Signatory authority for contracts
• Review and approval of sponsorship agreement policies and practices
• Review and approval of high-level employment contracts

Like I Got Rutgers' Back says "Athletics could have done bad things and nobody would have caught them, but fortunately they actually did great things."

Other areas of concern related to the Star-Ledger coverage included Coach Greg Schiano's alleged contract stipulation that offered an "out" if the stadium expansion were not completed (not true), and a Schiano salary subsidy from Nelligan, the school's sports marketing agency that was labeled as a "secret side deal." This kind of contract arrangement is so common in collegiate athletics.

The Ledger also characterizes the Rutgers Stadium expansion as mismanaged, and that bonds couldn't be sold as a result. Any superficial examination of large-scale development projects in the current economy -- institutional, medical, corporate, or otherwise -- would show just how difficult it is to get a project completed. But with all of that said, the first phase of the project was completed on time and on budget, the second phase as been scaled back in an acknowledgment of the economy, but will still provide increase revenue generators in the 11,500 additional seats

Star-Ledger should have known better, or if they did, they chose to avoid it, cynically looking for scandal.

Edison, NJ: A Lot of Dough for A Little Talk

For those of you who don't know, Edison, NJ, named after the esteemed inventor, is the fifth-largest municipality in the state with a population of roughly 100,000. It's a huge, sprawling expanse of a township, composed historically of pieces of older townships. As most things in New Jersey, it used to be miles of rolling hills and farmland and now it's mostly built out. There is no central downtown (an unincorporated section of Edison known as Clara Barton, comes close, but offers little in the way of a vibrant downtown), you can only drive from here to get there.

That said, Edison is a desirable place to live for its schools, proximity to transit and New York City, budding Indian population, and family-oriented communities.

Oh, and there was recently a revolution in local government there.

A Wha??!! Yes, a revolution. It was a big deal. Edison, along with New Brunswick and Perth Amboy, was one of a dying few localities in NJ's Middlesex County that was still run by an entrenched and corrupt Democratic machine. In 2005, Democrat Jun Choi, a former senior official at the state's Department of Education, beat Democrat George Spadoro -- a long-time mayor who was part of his party's political machine -- in the Democratic primary. It was huge. Two years later, Choi (who, at 34, was the youngest mayor ever to be elected in Edison) campaigned successfully to get elected his own slate of change candidates to Township Council.

Challenges abounded in Edison, from a campaign to build a new high school to how to redevelop a massive expanse along U.S. Route 1 that was the site to the local Ford plant. There was, and still is, promise in Edison under Choi's progressive leadership. Choi was among the first New Jersey officials to support President-elect Barack Obama, while most of NJ's old-guard Democrats fawned over Hillary Clinton (Clinton won NJ handily in the presidential primary), and set a bold agenda for the township.

There have been hiccups along the way, though. In summer 2006, an incident between an Indian man and the police set off a high level of racial tension. Choi sided with the police, though called for an investigation of the officer (who was later cleared) and was criticized for it. The PBA president called for Choi's resignation, but that call was largely dismissed by newspapers and residents alike as part of the "old Edison guard." One local paper actually called for the PBA president's resignation because of his actions

And while Choi has taken bold stances, he comes off as arrogant often times, in curt responses to questions over his style of governance, and the choices he makes in the name of progress. A local paper, The Home News Tribune, reports that the township's communications director, hired in 2006 with a handsome $65K yearly salary has enjoyed a 38 percent salary increase and now makes $90K a year -- an exorbitantly high wage for someone in the communications field that only oversees an assistant, and not a whole department.

In a time when the average Edison homeowner pays roughly $6,500 a year in taxes and New Jersey localities are under pressure to build state-mandated affordable housing, and are limited to only 4 percent annual budget increases as the Legislature lamely tries to address the state's misguided property tax system, Choi, a reformer in his own right, needs to make sure this doesn't happen. Further, he needs to steer clear of arrogantly defending it.

Hell, I'm an experienced editor. I will happily take that job for a mere $70K/year. Mayor Choi -- are you listening? While I'm not a resident, I live right near Edison.

Food Banks: Another NEO Casualty?

Last week, when a prominent and long-standing central New Jersey soup kitchen went to the newspapers as a last resort to inform the public that demand was up, donations were down, and that it would have to cut back on meals, the immediate response was overwhelming. Donations, totaling upwards of $7,000 poured in almost instantly, the full meal service was restored, and there was a happy ending just in time for the pre-Thanksgiving headlines. The support was touted as a “Thanksgiving Miracle.”

But what happens to places like Elijah’s Promise—that central Jersey soup kitchen—when it’s March, or August, or any other time when holiday spirit cannot be tapped? It’s just another characteristic of this New Economic Order. Americans are spending less, and have less disposable income. At the same time, not-for-profit organizations like Elijah’s Promise, face the daunting challenge of carrying out its mission with fewer dollars and more demand.

Of course, it goes without saying that this is not an isolated incident. While foundation support for nonprofits has yet to take a major toll, there is the looming threat of a sustained decline in charitable giving, putting the hurt on nonprofits everywhere.

Whereas not-for-profit services might decline with diminished funding, the demand for food banks increases in tough economic times. AP reports:

The Greater Chicago Food Depository, the city’s food bank, has seen a 33 percent increase in food pantry demand from July to September of 2008, compared to the same period last year, said spokesman Bob Dolgan, “Our network is strained right now,” Dolgan said. “Our most successful pantries … are having to turn people away.”

And to make matters even worse, those who were donors or volunteers at food banks in years past are now clients. Food, sadly, is one of the first “luxuries” to go—before gas and electricity, according to Paul Ash, the executive director of the San Francisco Food Bank, who appeared Wednesday on PBS’ NewsHour. Last year, his organization distributed more than 27 million pounds of food.

Ash explains:

Well, it bites worst at the end of the pay period, so just depending on how someone is paid. We always see more people showing up to a pantry if the distribution is in the last few days of the month, or the, you know, 13th, 14th, 15th of the month, just before someone can expect their paycheck.

Food is the one thing that you can just parse out your dollars very, very slowly. And so that’s why you end up running out of food toward the end of the middle of the month.

The other penalty there is you don’t buy the giant economy size. You have to buy the small size, so your dollar doesn’t go as far. So there;s a lot of penalties to living paycheck-to-paycheck and trying to stretch your dollars out for food.

The food stamps program, and other federal nutrition programs do not limit the number of participants, those programs do not offer sufficient support to feed a family for a month. As a result, more strain is placed on food banks, which suffer from falling donations.

No Choice But to Age In Place

Aging in place for some is the ultimate ideal. Elderly individuals, with their faculties in tact, and who are physically sound, stay in the houses where they raised their families, and remain in the communities where they have roots, paid taxes, and have an historic reference.

A community with a sound housing policy would ideally provide low- and moderate-income housing for aging seniors so that they can downsize, while remaining in their community. For residents of greater means, market rate senior housing, replete with wide doorways, limited services, and near town amenities is, or should, be an option.

But with the New York Times Saturday reporting that aging in place might, in fact, be a burden, this whole ideal is going out the window.

Welcome to the new economic order. With every passing day, as housing values plummet and the level of unsold houses approaches a one-year extent. Older Americans can no longer sell their houses to downsize—never mind downsizing within their own communities. They can’t downsize anywhere, presenting a potentially frightening prospect for people—stuck in their homes.

According to The Times:

Facilities that have watched their waiting lists wither and their occupancy rates fall in the last year are now scrambling to bring people through their doors. Some assisted-living centers have called in real estate agents to teach prospective residents about online advertising and how to clean and preen their homes for showings. Others have set up programs with banks to provide bridge loans to homeowners, or are discounting apartments and offering low-interest loans.

“It is part of the hidden problem of the recession,” said Larry Minnix, president of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.

Talk about aging in place. But in these cases, it’s not by choice.

Bag Here, Bag Now

In Amsterdam, at a Super de Boer, imagine my surprise when I had to pay for a grocery bag because I didn’t bring my own. In the U.S., I buy those biodegradable poop bags for my dog, so I don’t need the plastic grocery bags. I bring canvas to the store, etc. Yeah, I try to be “green” when I can. I think more and more people these days do.

But when I left the Super de Boer, I was amazed. I don’t live in an area, or a state, for that matter, that would employ such a progressive-minded initiative. I do know that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has been on a lengthy campaign to get people to recycle their plastic grocery bags, or bring their own from home, but like Europe, in an ever-shrewd way to use taxes (or fees, in this case) for the public good, Bloomberg is now proposing a bag fee. Joe Biden, eat your heart out—now here’s a tax that we can feel patriotic about.

According to The New York Times:

City officials estimate that the fee could generate $16 million a year, a figure that Mr. Bloomberg would no doubt appreciate, given the lingering and concussive effects of the global economic crisis on the citys economy.

The article continues:

If the proposal passes, New York City would follow the lead of many European countries and become one of the first places in the United States to assess a so-called plastic bag tax.

It’s a fantastic plan, and every city should engage in such bold plans, but does it go far enough? In New York City, cigarettes approach $8 per pack, and guess what? Smoking is way down. A study by the city’s health department in 2007 indicated a 20-percent decline in smoking since 2002. Why? A combination of strategic advertising, a smoking ban in public places like bars and restaurants, and that cig tax were all attributed to that decline.

New York City, in 2006, also banned artery-clogging artificial trans fats at all restaurants. Why? Because public health is in the utmost interest of any government (and not just public health that keeps a locality from getting sued, like bad sidewalks, etc.)

So what’s my point? There are always going to be the “keep your laws off my trans fat” people, but isn’t one of the roles of government to protect the citizenry, from both exogenous and endogenous forces? I think so. And here’s the other thing: the city’s real intent is to not make money from this fee. The intent is environmental: people would stop using plastic bags, and any subsequent revenue from a bag fee would dry up. Further, $16 million is a mere whiff of New York City’s $50 billion municipal budget. This ain’t about more money to line the pockets of the folks at City Hall.

But it’s always baby steps with these laws. The cig tax was slow to increase; no one noticed a flavor difference when their food lacked trans fats; and, alas, the bag tax is too small, and needs to hit the consumer. We’ve squandered three decades of environmental warnings, and these are issues our local governments can control. Just like implementing aggressive recycling plans, plastic grocery bags are things of the past we need our local governments to help to drive home that message.

The Times article notes that following Ireland’s implementing its 33-cent bag tax in 2002, plastic bag use dropped by 94 percent. Ninety-four percent. Now that’s the stuff!

The article quotes local grocery store owners saying that customers would be outraged by paying for bags. Perhaps, but how long would it take for a customer to start bringing a bag? Once? Twice? It wouldn’t take long.

We don’t have long. Bag here, bag now.

NJ Needs an Affordable Housing Tax. Period.

At least we’re talking about an affordable housing mandate (even if that talk is in its third decade).

OK, now that’s out of the way, the affordable-housing-as-mandate discussion in New Jersey is a mess.

In June, when the governor here signed into law a bill that would eliminate Regional Contribution Agreements—a tool used by some towns to wire funds covering their affordable housing obligations to nearby, typically poorer, urban, areas—it was viewed as a triumph by housing advocates because of its anticipated impact on helping to reintegrate neighborhoods, staving off so-called golden ghettos, and providing housing for lower-income residents in even the wealthiest of communities.

The Legislature also passed a measure that would levy a 2.5 percent fee on the assessed value for non-residential construction or improvements. Opponents say that fee is far too small, covering only a portion of a construction project’s affordable housing requirement, leaving the town to cover the rest of the cost.

So the state, with its 566 towns, could not fully come to terms. That’s why the New Jersey State League of Municipalities is challenging the bills, along with some 230 towns that have joined the fight. Conventional wisdom mostly said that any regulations put forth by the state’s Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) would be amended, but implemented at some point, but it now appears we could be sent back to the drawing board.

On September 15, The Star-Ledger reported that one town’s challenge—Medford Township—would challenge COAH’s rules with the state’s Council on Local Mandates—a powerful state agency whose rulings cannot be overturned by state courts. Medford’s Republican Mayor (yes, this is largely a partisan issue—he is running for state senate) and the township says COAH’s regulations could cost towns roughly $6 million statewide and then cites a 1995 amendment to the state constitution that bans certain unfunded state mandates, the Ledger reports.

This is more than a legal dance—it’s tactical maneuvering that could successfully curtail the implementation of sound affordable housing policy in a state the desperately needs it. While it’s unclear how the Local Mandates council will rule, one thing is clear: the Legislature needs to step it up a notch by:

• Creating a value-added tax, like a gas tax that would be used strictly for infrastructure. Gov. Jon Corzine is still pushing his asset monetization plan that would increase toll costs on some of the state’s busiest thoroughfares, but that’s largely a regressive tax for those commuters who have to drive long distances.
  
• We need to move away from the property-tax-based funding for social mandates that benefit everyone (yes, even you there, living on the horse farm in bucolic northwest New Jersey). The implementation of an affordable housing policy that works and is reasonable can be funded by more than just property owners.
  
• The developer’s fee—the aforementioned 2.5 percent fee—and the municipal mandate system of funding affordable housing is ludicrous. This is important because it could very well thwart all economic growth in New Jersey with ratable-generating enterprise moving over to places like Pennsylvania (no offense, Pennsylvania—I’m there often—great commonwealth. We love ya’.)
  

It’s encouraging that the state legislature here understands the importance of providing affordable housing, but after decades of wrangling, we need to think clearly here, and do what’s got to be done.

The GOParadox

Despite everything, the Republican Party's playbook still revolves around calling the Democratic platform, Democrats themselves, and even their professions as weak, cowardly, effete, tame, and impotent. No matter that the Republican party INCREASED the size of government in the last eight years, increased spending, increased the deficit, distracted the entire globe with its ill-designed version of a terror war (terror war was necessary, but not this one), has tried to use wedge issues like same-sex marriage and abortion to divide the country.

You didn't hear a lick of the Republican-esque vitriol at the Democratic convention. Almost everyone who spoke went out of their way to honor McCain's service to the country. In 2004, Republicans refuted, avoided, and even dispatched deep-pocketed thugs to discredit John Kerry's service to the country. Republicans have not put "country first" in years, and they're certainly not doing it this year. John McCain's address Thursday night was the most disingenuous, dishonest, misleading 45 minutes I have seen during this election cycle.

Sarah Palin's address, on the other hand was the most honest, accurate depiction of the state of the Republican Party I had seen in years: angry, bitter, vitriolic, sarcastic, dismissive. The only disingenuous aspect of that address was its "toughness": her speech was, in fact, weak, cowardly, effete, tame, and impotent because it simply set out to impose a false sense of impending doom, and to rattle the GOP base by puffing themselves up while putting down more than half the country.

The Best Biden He Can Be

The test message never came: the media, once again, by way of stakeout, pestered its way to this scoop. After 1 a.m. Saturday morning, and after leaks throughout Friday evening indicated that Barack Obama’s vice presidential finalists were being slowly disqualified from the veepstakes, it’s now being reported that Obama will run with six-term Delaware Democratic Sen. Joe Biden.

Obama’s choosing Biden will present all of the positive and negative effects that the punditocracy can muster up, but picking Biden is certainly more than simply running with a Washington fixture with a quick wit and a progressive bent. He has more foreign policy experience than John McCain, and that’s what we’re going to hear in the coming days.

But what about at home? Biden’s 1994 crime bill was lauded as putting more police on the streets resulting in a reduction in violence nationwide. In 2007, the senator introduced a reauthorization of many of the original elements of the 1994 bill, including the reauthorization of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; adding 1,000 FBI agents to focus on traditional crime (Biden has argued a drop in FBI resources since 9/11); creating a national commission on crime intervention and prevention strategies; a proposed reduction in recidivism; and not to mention the renewing of the assault weapons ban while closing the gun show loophole.

So while we’re going to hear a lot about a foreign policy balance on the Democratic ticket, let’s ask ourselves what this ticket, with Obama’s community organizing background, can do for American communities?

What Shall We Do? What Shall We Do With All These Useless Houses?

John McCain could have dismissed his inability to recall how many houses he has as a senior moment, but that would have pointed to his age.

So there wasn’t any way for John McMansion to dig out of this one, but one thing is clear: the McCains have more houses than you or I do, and his inability to count them is not due to a simple forgetful moment, but because of a legitimate clarity issue in how to count separate houses on one estate, what is owned by the senator and what is owned by the financially reticent Mrs. McCain, and how many condos they fused into one giant McCondo-seum.

Fortunately, most of us are privileged enough that we will never, ever have to deal with such pesky clarity issues.

McCain’s staff says he has four houses, but then the watchdogs are saying that he has at least seven. Then again, Huffington Post cites an assessment by Progressive Accountability that says they have 10, with a combined value upwards of $14 million! I’ll tell you, nothing makes me feel more in touch with a presidential candidate than when I compare his or her financial holdings, to my personal financial worth. Now McCain says that I won’t be rich until I reach the $5 million threshold? Man, I have a long way to go.

Barack Obama, who has taken a hit in the polls that pundits say worsened while he was catching rays during the Russia/Georgia conflict, has launched something of a populist attack against McCain to a point where it could push back the much-anticipated text message that I’m supposed to get telling me of Obama’s veep pick. Why would anyone want to hurry the announcement of the potential second-in-command of the Free World when there is political gold to be unearthed from this prospector’s mother load?

Politico quoted Obama on a campaign stop in Virginia where McCain was painted as out of touch:

"Somebody asked John McCain, ‘How many houses do you have? And he said, I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff. True quote: I’m not sure, Ill have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff and he said, at least four. At least four! ...

"If you’re like me and you’ve got one house—or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so that they dont lose their home—you might have a different perspective. By the way, the answer is: John McCain has seven homes. So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain’s world and what people are going through every single day here in America."



To be sure, it’s difficult these days to relate personally with our presidential candidates. These folks generally live in a world that most Americans will never experience. So with that, the “I just want to have a beer with my president” argument off the table.

The questions we need to ask is, with millions of Americans facing foreclosure and with the concept of a sturdy fixed-rate mortgage to some Americans as foreign as that of your spouse being worth $100 million after inheriting a beer distributorship, is McCain in touch with everyday economic issues? How big of a tax deduction are the McCains getting from owning all of these houses? At what point do we call someone “out of touch” with the common man? Is it when he or she needs two hands to count his or her houses, or when he or she can’t count at all?

Bottled Hot Water

Drilling For Finances From Tax-Exempt, Non-Profits?

It's tight here in New Jersey.

It's crowded. With 8.7 million people, we are 11th in the country in population, but first in population density in the Union with over 1,100 people per square mile. We're also wealthy -- 2nd in the country -- but you wouldn't necessarily know it by looking at those areas that make us the most densely-populated state in the country.

The Garden State, as it so happens, also as the highest imbalance of any state in the country in terms of what it gives and receives to and from the federal government. According the the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, the Garden State gets back just less than two-thirds of every dollar it sends to Washington.

So there are demands here. There are spatial demands, housing demands, demands for resources, infrastructure, you name it. As such, New Jersey is often at the vanguard in dealing with all kinds of issues facing the nation. The state hits a major stumbling block, however, when it comes to property taxes.

In New Jersey, where we rely on a property-tax-based system to largely fund our public schools and governments, rising municipal costs are taxing people out of towns. The state has mandated a four percent cap on municipal budget increases, and as home values are reassessed and towns are revaluated, property tax rates will adjust -- either up or down. But obviously the worst-case scenario is an increase, so that's what we'll examine.

In 2006, the average tax bill of the wealthy Township of Montclair was $13,547, and that was based on an average home assessment of $252,742. According to NJ.com's "New Jersey by the Numbers," if you equalize that assessment for comparisons with other towns, that $13,547 bill applies to a house worth $624,207. So often is the case that you have a homeowner who can no longer afford the tax-related costs to their homes, even if they were smart and took out a 30-year fixed mortgage.

So what to do? We've increased taxes on the highways, per Gov. Jon Corzine's asset monetization plan to raise tolls on select highways and increase the state sales tax to 7 percent. Both of these can be regarded as regressive as they pose a greater burden on the poor.

So what next? With the New Jersey Legislature in constant "hold on" mode when it comes to the long-anticipated "property tax convention," towns, facing affordable housing development mandates, and approaching complete build-out with little area left to develop tax-ratables, are looking at those who, by law, do not have to pay taxes.

According to the New Jersey Policy Perspective, the assessed value of all property -- buildings and land -- in New Jersey in 2000 was $648.5 billion, and of that, 13.5 percent paid no property tax. Under law, that 13.5 percent was tax exempt. This tax-exempt property is largely composed of public, private and religious schools, state, county, and municipal buildings, churches and charitable institutions, hospitals, and cemeteries. Other partial exemptions include those for water and sewage facilities, urban enterprise zones.

New Jersey's Princeton Borough, a 1.1-square-mile, 12,000-resident municipality lies right smack in the middle of the state, and is a pretty good example of "if it can go wrong, it will." Princeton Borough is a donut-hole municipality -- a town that is physically surrounded by another town, in this case, Princeton Township. Both towns consider "downtown" (Princeton Borough) its downtown, share a school district, a municipal library, and more than a dozen other municipal agencies. In fact, the only agencies the two towns do not share are administration (government), public works, and police.

However, as you might have guessed, Princeton is home to Princeton University, and, alas, most of Princeton University's tax-exempt land lies in tiny Princeton Borough, which is already strapped for cash. About 50 percent of the Borough is tax exempt.

The Borough's annual operating budget is roughly $23 million, and Princeton University, which is the largest employer in the Princetons, and pays the most in what is taxed -- sewers, buildings with full, or partial, tax levies, etc. -- holds an agreement to give about $1 million a year in voluntary municipal funds, used however the Borough sees fit. Princeton University also funds other community projects, adding value to the town-gown relations.

There has long been a tension between the local government and PU regarding these in-lieu finances, but this year, the local Democratic Party has upped the ante, gathering signatures as part of a petition asking if PU pays its fair share.

The petition contends that a resident's property tax levy would drop a whopping 24 percent in the Borough. The average resident there pays in the $13,000 range per year in property taxes. The Democratic Party there is lobbying for local officials to support efforts to negotiate a fairer payment from Princeton University. PU currently pays tax on its commercial property, and maintains voluntary tax roll inclusion for grad and faculty housing where schoolchildren might live, and pay its "fair share" of all taxpayer-supported services.

The petition does not call for the removal of federally authorized tax-exempt status -- granted to all nonprofit educational institutions

According to a report in The Times of Trenton, the university's tax payments in 2006 amounted for about 8.5 percent of the $9.5 million in municipal taxes the borough collected from all taxpayers in 2006. According to the story in the Times, "when school and county taxes are included in the calculation, there was a $27.9 million gap between the $7.1 million in property taxes the university paid in 2006 and what it would have paid if all its property in the Princetons were taxed."

The state legislature has so effectively slept on working with localities in creating a sensible solution to rising property taxes that towns are now taking it upon themselves to drill for oil, er, money in local reserves, rather, $15 billion university endowments, that had been largely untapped, not counting the annual contributions, agreements, and institutional presence. As is the case with so many institution-based towns, the existence of the town is based squarely on the existence of the institution -- is there a formula that quantifies that value?

Other heavily-endowed private institutions like Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. have devised long-term in-lieu-of-tax deals with their municipal hosts. In 2005, Harvard and Cambridge came to terms on a deal that would bring the city more than $60 million over the next 20 years.

But Cambridge, with more than 100,000 people, is the fifth-largest city in Massachusetts, has a far higher annual city operating expense budget, and has far more tax-ratable property than Princeton ever could. So, in effect, it's incomparable.

Just another example of New Jersey being the science laboratory for social progress, but with so much at stake, this issue is far too big for a couple hundred local residents to swallow. The legislature must step in, and step in soon, to find broad-based creative ways to amend what is quickly turning into a statewide property tax crisis.

The Mess In Texas (Houston: We Have a Recycling Problem)

The New York Times reports that of the nation’s 30 largest cities, Houston, the fourth largest city behind New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, comes in dead last in recycling, turning over a shameful 2.6 percent of its total waste. The Times cites a study conducted this year by my new favorite news source, Waste News, that puts New York City—roughly four times the size of Houston—at the top of the big city recycling list with a 34 percent ranking.

The Times report goes on to say:

But city officials say real progress will be hard to come by. Landfill costs here are cheap. The citys sprawling, no-zoning layout makes collection expensive, and there is little public support for the kind of effort it takes to sort glass, paper and plastics. And there appears to be even less for placing fees on excess trash.

Houston Mayor Bill White appears to pride the his townsfolk’s rejection of the recycling “trend.”

We have an independent streak that rebels against mandates or anything that seems trendy or hyped up. Houstonians are skeptical of anything that appears to be oversold or exaggerated.

And Mayor White supports increased recycling efforts! Of course, there’s hope. White says that Houstonians are amenable to change: “Houstonians can change, and change fast. Thanks for the comforting words, Mr. Mayor.

But how fast is fast? (Vice) President Al Gore’s challenge of achieving 100 percent domestic clean energy within 10 years is visionary, and necessary. The planet has been backed into an eco-corner.

But a comprehensive recycling plan is not only not visionary, it’s doable, and so old school that it’s shocking the city has lagged so far behind. The fact that Houston has so shirked its responsibilities when it comes to responsible waste collection is far more ethically unsound than Ted Stevens’ taking feng shui advice from oil companies.

The Times quotes a local chef who was turned away from a city recycling depot. Why? She had too much recycling material!

They said my truck was too full. There are cultures that just dont get it, and, unfortunately, Houston is one of them.

Recycling is the absolute least we can do as a society in resource reduction for sustainable living. The eco-mantra “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” is not crafted for cadence, rather, its words are listed in order of importance.

Houston’s recycling rates are appalling because the complexities of the planet’s environmental strife are so great, that recycling, the low-rent, feel-good, easiest possible way to take part in the environmental movement, should be rote for big city governments. You don’t need a ten-gallon hat’s worth of eco-knowledge to know that.

We now know that there is a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months, increasing the melting pressure on Greenland. Hold this up next to the fact that of Houston’s 340,000 households, fewer than half have recycling bins, with roughly 25,000 households on the waiting list for bins and you see that we must urge our local governments and look at the big and small pictures, including the implementation of regular curbside programs that handle recycling.

According to the EPA, in 1999, recycling and composting activities kept about 64 million tons of material from ending up in landfills and incinerators. The country’s current recycling rate, about 32.5 percent, has doubled over the past 15 years.

Further, only one curbside recycling program existed nationwide 20 years ago, but by 2006, about 8,660 curbside programs had sprouted up across the nation. As of 2005, about 500 materials recovery facilities had been established to process the collected materials.

So where’s Houston? With only a fraction of the households of New York City: 162,000 as compared to NYC’s 3.2 million, Houston’s program is not mandatory, as opposed to New York’s mandated program. Also, just a detail of note, all of New York’s city vehicles that hand recycling operate off alternative fuels. Houston’s do not.

All throughout New Jersey, smaller towns are working with consultants in finding ways to devise a sustainability plan conserve energy, reduce carbon footprint, and subsequently save money in the long term by way of resource reduction. Highland Park, Princeton, Montclair are just to name a few. And they are light years beyond recycling, conducting green community audits, and addressing transportation needs to reduce car traffic and pollution.

Governments need to be pressured to devise plans that have long-term environmental and financial benefits, and Houston, thanks to the Waste News, appears to have a long, long way to go.

By the way, the Times reports that Houston cannot afford more recycling bins for residents who don’t have one. Natch.

In New Jersey’s Hub City, A Push to Change Government Gets Big Government Resistance

Editor's note: This piece was originally posted by the author at the blog site, www.rooflines.org

__

In the 1970s, New Brunswick, NJ was struggling.

Like other New Jersey cities experiencing the hangover of race riots of the 1960s, the schools were in decline, white flight began to set in, and all of a sudden, the Hub City, as it’s called, that was home to the world headquarters of pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson and Rutgers University was in serious trouble.

But there had always been hope. In the summer of 1967, as peace was shattered throughout cities in the Garden State, New Brunswick held fast, no blood was shed, and the peace was preserved. Then-mayor Patricia Sheehan, a 33-year-old widow and mother of three actually went out on patrol with the police, appeared with local clergy, and made it known—in person—that whatever happened in New Brunswick, her incumbency, part of a so-called “New Five” ousting 27 years of a previous administration, would watch over the city.

That resilience and sense of hope was instilled in the residents, and in 1975, New Brunswick Tomorrow, a partnership of public and private sectors, was organized. The following year, The New Brunswick Development Corporation, a private, non-profit organization designed to serve as New Brunswick Tomorrow’s implementation partner for economic development (and is still the city’s ostensible redevelopment arm), was created, and a city was on the move again.

Johnson & Johnson announced it would stay in New Brunswick in 1978, housing its headquarters in an I.M. Pei-designed campus, near the Rutgers University campus in a run down segment of the downtown.

While it can be argued that, once upon a time, concerned residents needed needed bold, do-it-itself government initiative to revive the city, the residents, as is the case in any locality, have always been the lifeblood, though city government did not always reflect that. There had already been a problem with the extreme transience of this community of 50,000 residents, whose tens of thousands of students passed through with few staying to raise their families in the city, and the changing immigrant population—for example, a once Hungarian neighborhood is now a vibrant Hispanic area—is changing the face of the city.

New Brunswick, being in the geographic center of the state, was, for a long time, at the center of New Jersey’s infamous corrupt Democratic Machine. Mayor John Lynch, who served as mayor from 1979 to 1991 and is the immediate predecessor of the current Mayor James Cahill, is currently serving a three-year jail term immediately preceding the current mayor.

To be sure, not all are corrupt, but there are so many tributaries that link New Brunswick government to the larger state Democratic Machine (the municipal attorney, William Hamilton, a junior grade Navy lieutenant before receiving his JD from Georgetown in the early sixties, and an overall decent man, was briefly the Speaker of the State Assembly in the 1970s) that it could take up an entirely separate article.

But back to Mayor Sheehan, who marched with police under the threat of race riots in the 1960s. Her daughter, Elizabeth “Betsy” Sheehan Garlatti, is currently the New Brunswick City Council president. Garlatti, the director of Finance & Research at the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education, was appointed—as is often the case in machine politics—to a vacant city council seat in 2004 and has since won reelection by way of the 3,000 or so party insiders and municipal employees who actually vote in New Brunswick.

Because the Democratic Party has effectively shut out the primary process, various residents have run hopeful campaigns on an independent ticket, but have always failed miserably. Forget about Republicans. They hardly exist here.

One way Council has been able to hold power is by way of the at-large Council system that was established in the 1970s. New Brunswick is divided into wards, but none has direct ward representation.

This is nothing new, of course, in so many local governments, but a recent grass-roots push to change that government structure has begun to garner some attention.

A group, Empower Our Neighborhoods, last month filed a petition with the city clerk’s office to advocate for a ballot question that would change the current form of municipal government from an at-large system to a ward-based system, as well as increasing the number of seats on Council from five to eight.

But as is the case in cities where government is threatened, on July 2, the New Brunswick City Council passed a counteracting ordinance to push the citizens’ initiative off the ballot, and replacing it with a Council-crafted initiative that calls for creating a study that would examine the need to change government.

Knowing that they have at least 3,000 votes, and that Rutgers University students rarely vote, Council would entertain this question, it would fail, and Council could claim that it reached out to the community, and the community decided that it did not want to change government.

A legal battle could ensue that would determine whether the community or the City Council had first initiated a legal proceeding on that ballot question, but experts at Rutgers’ Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy appear to think Empower Our Neighborhoods is in the right.

Attending a New Brunswick City Council meeting is interesting. Based on what you’ve just read, you might think this is a contemptuous lot, but it’s not. They are good people who will speak to you after meetings, but seem averse to criticism, particularly when they stock Council chambers with municipal employees to attend the public meetings. At least two are dual office holders (Council Vice President Joseph V. Egan is a long-time state Assemblyman and Blanquita Valenti serves on the county governing body), and one, the aforementioned Garlatti, has bloodlines in city government.

All but one were born and raised in New Brunswick, and the one that wasn’t—Valenti—came to New Brunswick in 1956 from Puerto Rico and in 1971 became the first Hispanic appointed to the New Brunswick Board of Education.

These are community folks, no doubt about it, and their commitment to the city was never in doubt (though there are plenty of people who make strong cases to the contrary). This is not evil empire stuff: it’s simply a case of a city government that has apparently lost its way, forgetting about the fundamentals that make a city tick, like when Garlatti, and incumbents Jimmie Cook and Robert Recine cited scheduling conflicts for not being able to participate in a pre-primary forum co-sponsored by Empower Our Neighborhoods and the local NAACP chapter. New Brunswick has undergone an unbelievable downtown renaissance in the past 10 years, with an arts, culture, and culinary scene that is unparalleled in the state, but the schools still suffer (it’s an Abbott district), the residential neighborhoods near town are largely unsuitable for quiet, secure family living because of the rampant off-campus student housing situation. Absentee landlords let their properties deteriorate, broken glass, drug dealing, and homeless in neighborhood parks is the norm. Again, not surprising for so many cities, as isn’t the government’s resistance to this grass-roots effort, if not frustrating—but that doesn’t make it acceptable. If the folks at Empower win this battle, it would go to show that a once-impenetrable system can be changed, and that, just like Mayor Sheehan displayed during her courageous outreach efforts in the 1960s, residents are indeed the lifeblood of any locality.

It’s an Affordable Housing Victory, But How Do We Win Over the Towns?

Let's get one thing clear: at least in New Jersey, we're _having_ the affordable-housing-as-mandate discussion. The fact that so many taxpayers, elected officials, and housing advocates in the Garden State are committed to implementing some sort of affordable housing set-aside as development and jobs increase is a good thing.

That said, it's time to realize that a uniform housing rule might not be the way to go.

On Thursday, Gov. Jon Corzine "signed into law":http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/gov_jon_corzine_signed_legisla.html legislation that is being touted by proponents of the bill as a major step forward in ensuring that representation from all income brackets can be part of the same community.

In addition to creating an affordable housing trust fund, the new law also eliminates RCAs, or Regional Contribution Agreements, which are typically used by wealthier localities who send their affordable-housing requirements by way of a financial contribution, to, most often, a nearby poorer community. Naturally, critics of RCAs claim that all towns, not just rich ones, have moral obligations to supply affordable housing within their borders.

The RCA elimination is a hallmark of the incumbency of Democratic Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts Jr., and the bill signing took place in Mount Laurel Township -- the namesake of the original landmark lawsuit that resulted in a State Supreme Court ruling requiring all towns to provide affordable housing. What made the event all the more symbolic was that Corzine & Co. brandished their signing pens at the Ethel Lawrence Homes, named after one of Mount Laurel's original litigants.

In order to finance affordable housing, the bill also mandates a 2.5 percent commercial developer fee that is gauged by the value of new construction. The fee is expected to raise about $80 million per year and has the support of the New Jersey Builders Association, a trade association. The group has also endorsed Corzine's plan to increase affordable housing and apartments by 100,000 units by 2018.

At the bill signing, Roberts touted the amendments:

bq. New Jersey's affordable housing laws have failed to live up to the promise of providing home for low- and moderate-income residents while having the insidious side effect of concentrating poverty in our inner cities. [T]he state's almost barren affordable housing landscape from one of lost opportunities to one of hope and promise for thousands of families.

As Rooflines contributor "John Atlas writes":http://www.rooflines.org/1032/new_jersey_regional_coalition_wins_affordable_housing_victory, RCAs have commonly been charged with concentrating poverty in the inner city and with perpetuating segregation. This is mostly indisputable, but towns are still trying to wrap their brains around the new bill. In New Jersey, where home rule is, sadly, still the rule, some localities are balking.

New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing, or COAH, an arm of the State Department of Community Affairs in June enacted its latest regulations as part of the ongoing Mount Laurel agreement. In those regulations, developers must provide one affordable unit for every four market-rate units built. Further, for commercial development, one affordable unit must be built for every 16 new jobs created by commercial development.

Towns notwithstanding, academic institutions and hospitals are not very pleased with the latter regulation.

But by way of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, "161 towns have thus far contributed more than $80,000 to help finance a legal challenge":http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-11/121618294437120.xml&coll=1 against COAH's rules.

The challenge is not directly related to the bill Corzine signed last week, but it does point to a fundamental difference in philosophy between the Legislature and more than 20 percent of the state's 566 (or 567 depending on who's counting) municipalities. Opponents of the latest affordable-housing rules worry that costs associated with housing requirements would be levied upon the taxpayer. A League lawyer told _The Star-Ledger_ that COAH's calculations were "fatally flawed," and that they should be "thrown out," citing worries that towns would be forced to pay for affordable housing. Under the regulations, towns would have to make sure developers comply.

Moreover, there is the matter of workforce housing. If these mandates were only for workforce housing, that would be a different story, but the affordable housing law requires towns to market affordable housing affirmatively -- meaning _anyone_ who qualifies is eligible for the housing -- not just people who work or have lived in the town for a generation -- but also people who qualify from elsewhere. We should be meeting our local needs first, and then market housing affirmatively. Have a waiting list, have a local town preference, and then move forward.

Now what about ethnic and racial diversity? It's immensely important, but poorer people -- no matter the ethnicity -- who work within the community should have the preference for local affordable housing. It makes sense environmentally, it makes sound transportation sense, it makes sound smart growth sense.

While the League's complaint will not be heard until the fall, I maintain that the state legislators and other proponents of COAH and the recent Corzine bill should travel the state, recognizing these concerns, while explaining the vast social and long-term economic benefit of housing low-income and working-class residents close to where they work.

Just like Corzine and Roberts held a symbolic bill-signing in Mount Laurel to make clear the importance of the housing bill, they need to, at the very least, make clear why this is important for residents who worry -- like the blue-collar workers who can't afford to live near their places of employment -- that they too will be taxed out of their neighborhoods.