Blog for Highland Park

Thank You, Councilman Bruce L. Kuczynski

2011-11-24T22:14:00.002-05:00

Eight months ago today, I was suddenly confronted by a wave of shock and sadness upon opening a newspaper and finding an obituary for a mentor who was close enough to me that I considered him a second father. Former Councilman Bruce L. Kuczynski, one of the most decent and honorable people I have ever known, one of the few holders of public office that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt would never be involved in even the slightest bit of corruption or unethical activity, died on Thursday, March 24, 2011, at age 67, of esophageal cancer.

His death came only three weeks after that of another close friend, community activist Leigh Davis, and the overwhelming sense of loss and sadness is the reason it has taken me the better part of a year to honor him with a tribute on this blog.

Public issues are very personal to me, and after the 1994 takeover of Congress by Newt Gingrich and religious-political extremists who sought to shred what was left of our social safety net, I wanted nothing more to do with the political world. That sentiment did not last very long, as I became determined to do whatever I could to oust this group in the 1996 elections. As a first step in that direction, I joined the re-election campaign of then Mayor James Polos in late 1995, hoping to make contacts that would help me get a campaign position in the next year’s national elections.

That is how I came to meet Bruce. He served as a Borough Councilman from 1993-2001, and from the beginning, I saw him as the antidote to Newt Gingrich. Where Gingrich was extreme, Bruce was level-headed. Where Gingrich was dedicated to helping only the wealthiest citizens, Bruce was committed to the well-being of everyone. Where Gingrich was exclusionary, Bruce included all who sought to participate in government. Where Gingrich was self-centered, Bruce’s first priority was always the community he served.

And I learned that “politician” and “good person” were not and are not, mutually exclusive, even here in New Jersey, so known for corruption that it was later referred to in a documentary as “the Soprano state.”

It was Bruce and the team of genuine, honorable companions on the Borough Council who first inspired me to consider serving in elected office.

In the spring of 2000, with a contested primary, I expressed my interest in running for council. Bruce and the late Council President Leon Cohen each were willing to step aside so I could pursue one of the two council seats. But when the party chair made it clear he preferred to run incumbents with strong records of public service, I had no problem stepping aside. When Leon got sick, I walked the town with Bruce, with my deepest wish being that I could get others to see him and Leon as I did. But it was not to be. A nor’easter blew in the night before the primary and stuck around all day, an apt metaphor for the political storm of anger that had taken over our town. When the day ended, the better candidates Bruce and Leon were defeated by a two to one margin.

Just a month later, Leon died of a sudden heart attack.

Bruce deserved so much better than that election, and the people of Highland Park knew it. For years, people of all political stripes commented about how he would make a terrific mayor for our borough. I dreamed of serving as a council person under his administration.

During the years of upheaval and controversy that followed, Bruce and I developed a strong friendship. He was always there to listen, to provide moral support, to give advice. Sometimes I would just show up at his house, to find him gardening outside or playing with his several cats indoors.

Every year, he grew a beautiful garden that provided much solace, and tended it with love. Yet no matter how busy he was, he always took the time to listen without judging and to offer whatever help he could.

In the later years of the last decade, he began traveling overseas a lot for his job, and reaching him became harder. But I never doubted his friendship. I also never knew that he was sick.

When Bruce left the Borough Council at the end of 2000, I read a public statement of tribute to him into the official minutes of a council meeting. More than ten years later, so much of what I said then is still true, which is why I choose to repeat it now.

“Once in a great while, somebody comes along who embodies the best in all of us, someone who gives selflessly for the greater good and devotes himself or herself wholeheartedly to serving the community. This type of person, not some overpaid celebrity or sports figure, represents the real essence of a role model. When people of this genuine good character come into our lives, I believe we need to acknowledge them and recognize the strength of their contributions.

…Bruce—there really aren’t any words that do justice in describing this kindhearted man and his myriad contributions to the borough these last seven years (1993-2000). He has been a champion of human rights, someone who always responded to public concerns, someone who took the time to listen to people and find answers to the concerns they raised. He is also a brilliant scientist and a Councilman who saved taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars through the many grants he brought to our Public Safety Department.

During this last year (2000), I have had the good fortune to develop a close friendship with Bruce. I can honestly say that I have never known a public servant with such strength of character, compassion, and dignity. I have never known a person, much less a politician, as forgiving and as honorable as Bruce Kuczynski.

In his poem “The Wasteland,” T.S. Eliot says, ‘What have we given…The awful daring of a moment’s surrender, which an age of prudence can never retract. By this and this only, we have existed…’ Giving of oneself, not just writing a check—this is the type of giving that Frank (Reff, former Councilman) and Bruce have done for Highland Park, giving moments, days, months, and years selflessly without expectation of anything in return. It is the kind of giving that cannot be undone by a budget cutter’s axe, a retirement, or the results of an election.

So I want to thank Frank and Bruce for touching countless lives in our borough and renewing my faith in people’s basic goodness and for inspiring so many, including me, to be better people…”

What better day than Thanksgiving to honor this man who gave so much to this community, who embodies all the best of what this country can be?

One holiday season, in the thick of all the political tumult, I gave Bruce a DVD of “It’s A Wonderful Life” because I felt that like Jimmy Stewart’s character, Bruce deserved to know how much of a difference he had made to so many, regardless of the 2000 primary election numbers.

Bruce Kuczynski touched many lives, and in doing so, he changed them for the better. Our community remains diminished by his loss, yet at the same time, we are so much better off for having had his gifts even if only for a short time.

Rest in peace, my mentor and friend.

An Open Letter to Mayor Bloomberg of New York City

2011-10-13T23:18:00.001-04:00

Dear Mayor Bloomberg,

This letter is an urgent, heartfelt plea imploring you to re-consider the scheduled “cleaning” of Zuccotti Park tomorrow morning, which in effect equates to the forcible removal of peaceful protestors who have been exercising their democratic right to assemble and organize in an effort to convey opposition to the current economic climate and advocate for social and political change.

Mr. Mayor, this, the people peacefully assembling in Zuccotti Park for nearly a month to live the courage of their convictions, is what democracy looks like.

Democracy isn’t always neat, pretty, or tidy. More often than not, it is messy, time-consuming, and inefficient. Yet it represents the best of who we are as Americans, the proud heritage our soldiers have fought for and died for over the past 235 years.

The First Amendment of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights specifically states that Congress, meaning government, “shall make no law abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Peaceful assembly is what we are about as a country. Along with freedom of speech, press, and religion, it constitutes the radical foundation on which our “experiment in democracy” was built back in the 18th century.

It was peaceful assembly through demonstrations, rallies, and sit-ins that ended slavery, successfully fought sweatshops and big business abuses 100 years ago, enabled the rise of labor unions, earned women and African-Americans the right to vote, defeated segregation, established civil rights as law, forced the end of the Vietnam War, and garnered support for health and environmental regulations that have saved countless lives. This is what democracy looks like.

In four weeks, the Occupy Wall Street movement has acted in the lofty tradition of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., refraining from violence while remaining steadfast in advocating for the suffering and struggling majority of Americans. Even now, protestors are working vigorously cleaning up the park, sweeping, mopping, and disposing of garbage. Actions speak louder than words, and these actions speak volumes. This is what democracy looks like.

Please, find a way to negotiate with these people to reach a compromise allowing the protest to co-exist with the City of New York. Give them a chance to clean the area regularly and thus serve the city and the community. This can be resolved peacefully as a win-win situation.

The whole world is watching New York City right now. Those in Zuccotti Park are not embarrassing the city; they are embodying the best of New York and the nation. They are giving new life to the words of poet Emma Lazarus, inscribed on the sacred symbol that greets those coming to New York, the Statue of Liberty.

In 1883, Lazarus wrote, "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This was the beacon that so many escaping from tyranny and oppression first saw as they set foot on American soil. It was the beacon my grandparents and the young girl who would become my mother saw when they arrived in New York in 1949, having survived the horrors of the Holocaust in Europe.

Those tired, those poor, those huddled masses are the people for whom these protestors stand. This is what democracy looks like.

If you go through with the “cleaning action” to evict these people advocating for jobs, health care, economic fairness, and a rising tide that lifts all boats, the world will see something very ugly in New York City tomorrow. Because this kind of government heavy-handedness is what fascism looks like.

Fascism is about rule by the strong over the weak. It is about social Darwinism, survival of the fittest and yes, unfettered capitalism. Fascism throws away those who cannot make it on their own. Fascism is the rule of bullies, whether by the power of the gun or the power of economics.

And that is not who we are.

One hundred years ago, 146 innocent people were killed in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire because people wrongly believed that unfettered capitalism is the American way. Life was second to profits in value. Today, the voices of those sacrificed in this tragedy and of those who risked their lives and took to the streets marching for safe working conditions in its wake are screaming to us from the ground. What have you done? Where are you?

In the final scene of the documentary “Shoah,” depicting the horrors of the Holocaust, the late Simon Wiesenthal placed a note in the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest site, reading “I am my brother’s keeper.”

The Occupy Wall Street movement is people saying we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. We want an equitable system with a strong social safety net, not a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. We want an America that recognizes that we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, as we are our planet’s keepers. This is what democracy looks like.

Please do not throw away the best of who we are as Americans and the best of what New York City is. Do not give the perpetrators of 9/11 a posthumous victory by wounding the democracy they hated in a way that they were unable to do. Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Government serves the people, not the other way around, and this “cleaning” action you seek to undertake does not serve the people. It serves a privileged few who hold onto power by force of economics.

It is not too late to change your mind. Please, consider everything that makes us Americans, everything we celebrate with pride each Fourth of July, and decide to work with this expression of grassroots democracy, whether or not you believe in what the protestors in Zuccotti Park are saying.

Because this is what democracy looks like.

Sincerely,

Laurel Kornfeld, writer/actress
Highland Park, NJ

Occupy Wall Street | September 17th | Forums, News and Updates

2011-08-18T22:09:00.000-04:00

Occupy Wall Street September 17th Forums, News and Updates

Support Bernie Sanders Serving on the "Super Committee"

2011-08-03T00:22:00.002-04:00

Gary Minkoff Needs YOUR Vote for HP Mayor: Councilman's Wife Organizes Against Him!!!

2011-06-06T21:07:00.007-04:00

Anyone who plans to stay home and not vote tomorrow, Tuesday, June 7, needs to know that the Democratic mayoral race is not uncontested anymore. Gary Minkoff, Democratic Mayoral candidate, needs your votes, our votes. This IS very much a contest--a contest resulting from subterfuge and deceit.

Unfortunately, those of us who thought the days of polarization and division have been left in the past are dead wrong. Why? Because Anne Sherber, the wife of a sitting Democratic council member, is waging a midnight last-minute write-in campaign against the party's mayoral candidate, Gary Minkoff. Talk about being underhanded!

While publicly professing support for the entire Democratic line, Line A, a hardcore group of Meryl Frank supporters is still working at extending her "tentacles" (Frank's own choice of words) into our community and sabotaging a candidate with a strong record of public service to this town, a soft-spoken decent man who is a uniter, not a divider--Mayoral candidate and current Borough Council member Gary Minkoff, who won the support of his own Democratic Municipal Party Committee and who is running with the support of current Mayor Steve Nolan.

Even worse, Sherber and her fellow conspirators, who want to bring back the days of Frank's divisiveness, are inappropriately using email lists designated for purposes such as child care or religious services to promote their secret write-in campaign.

The messages below were sent to these four groups: HPbackyardfriends@googlegroups.com , hpnjplaygroup@yahoogroups.com , gesher@yahoogroups.com , and hpminyan@yahoogroups.com , all inappropriately. The first two are non-partisan parents' play groups, which are geared toward parents who want to promote activities for their young children. The third is to a progressive Jewish school, and the fourth is to the Highland Park Minyan, an egalitarian religious group that has been holding religious services for about 25 years. In 1999, after the Minyan list was hijacked by Frank supporters to campaign and spread political messages, the Minyan leadership issued a new policy against any using the Minyan email list for any political communication, meaning these messages sent against Gary Minkoff by two individual Minyan members working with Sherber equal a violation of Minyan policy.

Here are the textsof the messages trying to divide our town and politically stab Gary Minkoff in the back. I plan on sending them to the chair of the Middlesex County Democratic Organization:

Message 1
From: Elizabeth Estes

Subject: [hpnjplaygroup] Write-IN Candidate for Mayor FW: Tomorrow's primary
To: "Playgroup" hpnjplaygroup@yahoogroups.com

Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 6:25 PM

Playgroup friends,

Just wanted you to know that Elsie Foster Dublin, who has served for years as Borough Council President for Highland Park, has decided to run as a write-in candidate for mayor.

There is more information in the posts below, in case you are interested.

You can also email elsie directly at Elsie Foster-Dublin fosterdublin@optonline.net

Elizabeth Estes

lizestes78@hotmail.com

Message 2
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:07:04 -0700

From: embs_08904@yahoo.com
Subject: Tomorrow's primary
To: HPbackyardfriends@googlegroups.com ; gesher@yahoogroups.com ; hpminyan@yahoogroups.com

Friends,

Below are 2 messages from friends who are supporting Elsie Foster-Dublin as a write-in candidate in tomorrow's primary election for Mayor of HP.

For what it's worth, Muffin and I have know Elsie for many years and have worked with her on many community endeavors---we will enthusiastically be writing her name in. Please pass this message along.....

Best,
Muffin and Ellen

Message 3
Highland Park friends,

Tomorrow, tuesday June 7, is the time to vote in the official primary elections. Polls will be open from 6am to 8pm. Check your sample ballot--my polling place for district 9 has changed temporarily from the congregation Ohav Emeth to RCHP.

I am writing to let you know that my dear friend Elsie Foster Dublin has decided to run a write-in campaign for mayor. As Ann Sherber notes in her email below, Elsie has dedicated 10 years of service on the borough council to making our town a great place to live. More than anyone I know, she has especially worked to create one Highland Park -- unifying the Woodbridge Avenue and Raritan Avenue sections of town. She worked 10 years to get the new traffic light on Woodbridge by Dubois Lane -- it's such a dangerous place. (Editor's note: The last reference should read "Duclos Lane"; the traffic light resulted from the collective efforts of all council members and administrators).

Elsie succeeded in placing HP banners on Woodbridge, the Welcome to HP sign, the solar-powered bus stops, TREES lining Woodbridge, just as they do Raritan Ave. She has worked tirelessly on our human rights commission. She worked hard on Governor Corzine's Immigration Panel and she provides hands-on help and support for our most disenfranchised residents--people with immigration problems.

I will be writing-in Elsie Foster Dublin's name on my ballot. I hope you will consider doing the same. If you feel strongly about Elsie as a candidate, you can help her run as an independent in November by signing her petition.

There is a copy of the petition on my front porch: 311 N. 4th Avenue. Please help get the word out about the write-in campaign. Also, if you live near a polling place, and would like a lawn sign, send me an email.

Instructions for Writing IN are on the sample ballot, go to the PERSONAL CHOICE column and press the button next to WRITE-IN across from the office you wish to write-in, then use the alphabetical keyboard to type in the name.

Thanks for your time and consideration,

Liz Estes

Message 4 (written by Sherber, wife of a sitting Democratic Borough Councilman)

---------- Forwarded message ----------

F

Hi all:

As you probably know, primary elections are being held this Tuesday. If you are registered to vote in Highland Park, you've already received your sample ballot.

I am writing to let you know that Elsie Foster Dublin has decided to run a write-in campaign for mayor. If you are disappointed by the candidate who is running on the Democratic line for mayor, as I am, I would like to suggest that you consider writing Elsie in as an alternative.

Elsie has served on the borough council for more than a decade and has deep connections with every part of our community. She has demonstrated over and over her passion for public service and Highland Park. I feel certain that she would be an excellent mayor.

Although Elsie is already on the ballot as a council person, I am asking you to write her name in for mayor. The instructions on how to write in a candidate are on your sample ballot. You can also ask a poll worker for help if you need it.

Thanks for your consideration.

best,
anne
250 Grant Avenue

Highland Park, New Jersey 08904
(732) 247-1740

What exactly disappoints these people about Gary Minkoff? No one on the Borough Council has worked harder in support of efforts to make our town green. Minkoff has served as liaison to many borough boards and commissions, and his years of service to our town are as long as Foster Dublin's. This is not in any way to disparage Foster Dublin. She is on the ballot, but as a candidate for Borough Council, not for mayor. I hope she has nothing to do with this last minute write-in effort against Gary Minkoff, who has worked side-by-side with her on the Borough Council since 2002 and deserves equal credit for all the accomplishments Sherber credits to Foster Dublin. To run on one ticket and then secretly plot to run against that ticket in November would not speak well about anyone's character or fitness for public office.

The organizers of this subterfuge already have lawn signs! Clearly, this is not a spur-of-the-moment effort but something planned well in advance by a group that will stop at nothing to hold on to power.

Maybe the disappointment is really in the genuine openness and transparency that have characterized borough government since January 2010, when Mayor Steve Nolan took office--an openness and transparency Minkoff is committed to continuing.

Or maybe it is a reaction by hardcore Frank supporters to having lost the iron grip they had on borough government and on the Democratic Committee before Frank's resignation as mayor.

Or could the objection be due to the fact that Minkoff is an Orthodox Jew, taking advantage of the fact that the primary occurs on the eve of a Jewish holiday?

What Highland Park least needs is a return to the days of closed government, exclusion of anyone who doesn't blindly follow one person, cults of personality, and subversion of our weak mayor/strong council form of government.

Tomorrow, in huge numbers, let us reject the politics of division and exclusion. Vote Line A all the way, from Barbara Buono for State Senator to Gary Minkoff for Highland Park Mayor to all the people running on Line A for Democratic Municipal Committee. Our town's future is at stake. This is not an election to sit out.

Polls are open 6 AM-8 PM.

Leigh Davis: A Champion for Justice

2011-05-06T17:37:00.005-04:00

Many people talk about our needing to be the change we want to see in the world, but very few actually live the part. For a brief time, Highland Park was fortunate to have Leigh “Prairie Fyre” Davis, a citizen for whom ecology and fairness were a way of life.

I had the good fortune to know Leigh from her work on the Board of Health Annual Health Fair, a project to provide screenings for blood pressure, blood sugar, vision, hearing, cholesterol, and other crucial services such as nutrition counseling, especially focusing on those residents who, due to lack of health insurance, might never receive these at all.

The Health Fair was only one of many community projects in which Leigh was involved, a list so long one wonders how she remembered her many public service commitments. She was a founding member of the Edible Gardens Project, through which individuals and organizations, including the Highland Park school system, learned about and started growing their own food through gardening via raised beds, sharing seeds and information at regular meetings. The project’s goal is for people to eat locally grown food, thereby lessening reliance on long distance transportation for fruits and vegetables from around the country and the world, reducing the emission of greenhouse gases that cause global climate change.

During the summer, Leigh would bring fresh produce from local gardens, vegetables and herbs, to the Senior/Youth Center every Saturday, where it was distributed, sometimes in conjunction with the Food Pantry. On those Saturdays when the Food Pantry was not open, she would still be there at the Center with fresh produce, which was distributed to people in nearby senior housing, patrons of the Food Pantry, and anyone else who wanted it.

Leigh wrote grants to fund the Edible Gardens Project and spent many hours active in her own home garden across the street from Highland Park High School. She also assisted high school students in watering their garden, even finding money to pay them during the summer. Last year, after the growing season ended, she held a dinner at the library honoring all participating students.

“Being green” has become a popular cliché politically, and politicians often attempt to cloak themselves in a green mantle. In most cases, that mantle is superficial. Leigh could easily see through such disguises, and when the former mayor proudly touted her renovation of the borough recreational facility at the high school with artificial turf, Leigh raised the alarm about the potential dangers posed by this turf. She did extensive research on the risks to students, noting that the turf can become as hot as 140 degrees F during the summer, and that abrasions from turf burn could potentially put students at risk from MRSA.

Last year, she did an extensive presentation to the Board of Health on the dangers of artificial turf and ways to mitigate these dangers until we can replace the turf with real grass. She distributed a detailed CD and handouts to all members and also shared these same concerns with the Board of Education and Borough Council. As a result of her efforts, signs will be posted at the recreation site advising those who use it on proper health precautions, and a water source and port-a-john will be available to all who use the site during the summer months.

She could be funny as well as serious, as she demonstrated in managing the protest mayoral “campaign” of A Ficus for Mayor, in which a group of activists protested the unopposed campaign of one candidate and its inherent undermining of democracy by running a ficus plant for the office in imitation of a Congressional “campaign” done several years earlier for similar reasons by Michael Moore.

Leigh worked on many projects with Sustainable Highland Park, the borough committee appointed to study and implement ways for residents and borough government to become more environmentally friendly, including energy audits of borough buildings and schools, to yield recommendations on reducing their carbon footprints. That is the focus of the group’s current project, “It’s In Our Power,” funded through a grant received by the borough through the group’s efforts.

“It’s In Our Power” will be a central focus of this year’s free Earth Fair/Health Fair, to be held at the Highland Park High School cafeteria and gym on Tuesday, May 10, from 6-9 PM.

This event is, for the second year in a row, being co-sponsored by Sustainable Highland Park along with the Board of Health. In February of this year, Leigh attended the first planning meeting of the committee on the Board of Health side.

Only one week later, I received a Facebook invite for a memorial that I assumed must be for soldiers killed in the Iraq war, as the war’s eighth anniversary approached. I cannot describe the shock and unreality when I clicked on the link and found out the memorial was for Leigh herself, who died suddenly on March 3, only days before her 53rd birthday.

This year’s Earth Fair/Health Fair will be dedicated to Leigh Davis and Vickie White, both of whom served as examples in promoting the health of our residents, community, and planet.

Leigh’s activities were not limited to environmental issues. At a time when our country seems to inexplicably be going backwards in terms of protecting our most vulnerable citizens, she swam against the current, serving on the board of A Better World Café, a café where patrons can either work for food prepared by students in the Culinary Project sponsored by Elijah’s Promise Soup Kitchen, or pay what they can and make up the rest with volunteer work. A Better World Café is organized through the Reformed Church of Highland Park.

She also took part in another Reformed Church project, “Bring Them Home,” through which Reverend Seth Kaper-Dale converted an old church to housing for veterans in need.

On the first Saturday of 2010, Leigh hosted a 1960s party complete with music and peace symbols, a celebration of not just a decade but of a timeless value system. It was a wonderful night I will personally never forget.

Along with Vickie White, Leigh took part in the New Orleans Freedom Ride after Hurricane Katrina, raising money, organizing, and doing actual physical work rebuilding New Orleans’ devastated lower ninth ward. Through this project, young residents from Highland Park, New Brunswick, and other local towns met the victims of the disaster and actually took part in rebuilding their neighborhoods.

At Leigh’s memorial service, friends and acquaintances spoke of her efforts on behalf of labor unions and civil rights. One remembered attending a memorial anniversary vigil at the site of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire with Leigh, a tragedy whose centennial was commemorated only weeks after Leigh died and done so with warnings that the lessons of that fire are being forgotten in today’s political climate of deregulation and government favoritism of big business at the expense of the people.

But Leigh was about so much more than a list of activities. She lived and breathed a new world, a new age in which many have long since lost faith. She understood the inevitable change that will come and sweep away an exploitive system that has plundered our planet and is quickly heading us to becoming a Third World country. And she saw beyond that coming crisis, to a new world with a bottom line of love for one another and for our planet, a world of local, community-based economics, of living in harmony with the Earth, a world where the ultimate value and worth are no longer based on profit, but on life.

Within the last year, Leigh began organizing a local barter network for exchanging items and services, including a "neighborhood university" where individuals could teach a subject or skill they know and then attend classes on other subjects by other people, all free, as first steps towards creating a world without money. Such a world has been a personal, deep-seated dream of mine since I started reading L. Frank Baum's Oz books at age 11. Actually knowing someone in our hometown who not only believed in such a society, but was willing to lay the groundwork for it, instilled in me a powerful sense of hope and promise.

When a new, transforming world begins manifesting itself in the 2020s and beyond, we will look back and understand the gift our community had in a woman who was so ahead of her time, someone who not only envisioned the future, but spent every day making it happen.

A year ago, friends of mine who are not political tried to convince me that it is more conducive to mental health for people to accept the world as it is, injustices and all, than to spend so much time and energy fighting those injustices. One wrote, “Personally, I think it's mentally healthier to accept what is, sometimes as bad as it is. The general consensus says you make lots of money and you are famous. Ok, fine. I personally think it's stupid but I accept that, that's what the majority view as what fame and success is about. Do I agree with it. Heck no. Do I think sports figures and actors/actresses should get paid millions and millions of dollars. Definitely not. But the reality of it is that they do get paid ridiculous salaries and I accept that as a fact.”

Leigh made a very different choice. She understood that accepting injustice means enabling it to continue. She understood that fighting injustice and unfairness may be the more difficult choice, but for the health of ourselves, our community, and our planet, it is the only choice. And she also knew that to change the world, we need thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and hundreds of millions of people to join together in making that choice every day of our lives.

Without her, we will all have to do more, but giving up is not an option. A verse from the anthem “Solidarity Forever,” a celebration of the power of labor unions, can be extended to encompass all who cannot just accept what is, who want and need something better.

“In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,
Greater than the might of atoms, magnified a thousand fold;
We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old
For the Union makes us strong.”

--written in 1915 by Ralph Chaplin

Some like to say the Golden Rule means "he who has the gold makes the rules." Others, like Leigh and Reverend Kaper Dale at Leigh’s memorial service, still believe in the real Golden Rule, of which Leigh posted versions from seven different religions on a wall in her home. "Put the poor first," Reverend Kaper Dale urged.

Which future will it be? The answer is in our power.

The Argument for Pluto: Why the Tiny Dwarf Is Still a Planet - Nicholas Jackson - Technology - The Atlantic

2010-12-16T18:40:00.000-05:00

The Argument for Pluto: Why the Tiny Dwarf Is Still a Planet - Nicholas Jackson - Technology - The Atlantic

BP Storm: Tulane Prof Oliver Houck Warned for Decades of Peril of Lax Energy Regulation

2010-06-14T13:02:00.000-04:00

BP Storm: Tulane Prof Oliver Houck Warned for Decades of Peril of Lax Energy Regulation

It is time to make the polluters pay for the damage they have done over decades.

The Livnot Lie: Still Pushing the Ex-Mayor

2010-05-06T23:15:00.008-04:00

Councilwoman Mittler, you made a huge mistake trying to insert ex-Mayor Meryl Frank into the rededication of the Highland Park Conservative Temple-Congregation Anshe Emeth.

Crediting Frank for "being there for us, emotionally, and as our mayor" is shameless campaigning and abuse of a religious event for political purposes.

Yes, Frank happened to be mayor at the time the temple fire occurred. That's where it ends. This woman is no Rudolph Giuliani bringing a devastated New York City together after the September 11 terrorist attacks. She did not provide emotional support to the community. She provided it to her followers, and it stopped there.

Even now, when Frank is five months out of office, the promotion of her to cult status with her followers' repeated refrain of "our mayor" shamelessly continues.

In the issue of The Jewish State dated May 7, 2010, this inappropriate political remark is quoted, along with the statement, "Whether you as a congregant live here or not, as a member of this shul, you are an honorary resident of Highland Park."

That statement is a lie. Under Frank and her cult-like supporters, it was never true for even all borough residents. The many Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who did not support her were always treated like outsiders. "You're either with me or against me," Frank repeatedly stated.

None of this is new. What is both new and troubling is this latest effort by both borough officials and members of the temple leadership to once again insert politics where it doesn't belong.

You see, what hasn't been told is that there is a dark, ugly side to the events that happened 1,351 days ago.

Developers Helen and Michael Kaplan are not the only children of Holocaust survivors in this town. Highland Park is home to many survivors and to their children and grandchildren. I happen to be one of these children of survivors. My parents were a school-age child and a baby when their families were forced into hiding and living as refugees during those dark years. All of my materal great-grandparents plus great aunts, great uncles, and their children are among the six million who didn't survive.

My parents came here seeking a new life, freedom, and the right to active participation in our democracy. That is why they proudly supported my community activities in Highland Park and poured their hearts and souls into my campaigns for public office. Just the fact that their child was free to seek a leadership position was something for which they were always grateful.

However, to some in the leadership of the temple, the fact that I opposed Frank damned me to the netherworld of an eternal outsider because no matter how much one did for the town, if one didn't support Frank, no good deeds went unpunished.

When I ran for council in 2002 and 2005, inappropriate campaigning for Frank's candidates, my opponents, was done shamelessly by temple leaders at inappropriate occasions. In spite of this, I have always had an attachment to the temple building, as I did to the YM-YWHA, so when, on a Thursday morning, while volunteering at the Highland Park Community Food Pantry, I heard that there had been a fire at the temple, I hurried to the scene as soon as the Pantry closed to offer my help, disregarding the fact that the 90-degree heat would play havoc with my hypoglycemia if I didn't eat first.

Two thousand years ago, the Jewish sage Hillel, in a famous story, was asked by a man to teach him all of Judaism while the man stood on one foot. Hillel said, "that which is hateful to you, do not do onto others. The rest is all commentary."

On August 24, 2006, the rabbi of this temple did something hateful and inconceivable. When I offered my help, he responded, "you don't want to know what you can do" while at the same time begging Frank and Councilwoman Elsie Foster Dublin not to leave the site.

I have been a resident of Highland Park since 1969. My entire extended family lives here. Since 1999, I have run a free, non-partisan email newsletter as a public service to keep people in the loop about events going on in town.

So I said yes, I do want to know what I can do, knowing I could not only make a donation myself, but solicit donations from the 500 or so members of my newsletter.

And then came the hateful part. A rabbi, a supposed community leader, put politics above all else. "You can go away," he said. Those words have reverberated in my head for nearly four years.

This is not about me as an individual. It is about something hateful and obscene being done motivated solely by partisan politics. Apparently, to some temple leaders, one's help is wanted only if one supports Frank and her candidates.

So when the same rabbi says, "This is our story now. This is the story that has stamped itself on our lives," the statement is true for me too, but in a wholly different way.

No, I am no saint, and yes, I have engaged in negative campaigning. But when tragedy strikes, one expects politics to be put aside, as happened after September 11.

Jewish tradition teaches that another temple, the second great Temple in Jerusalem, was destroyed in the year 70 CE because of the senseless hatred rampant among the many Jewish factions in Israel at the time. That hate was so overwhelming that one group of zealots, in an effort to undermine an opposing faction, burned a storehouse of food that could have helped Jerusalem withstand a 21-year siege.

The same tradition says the Jerusalem Temple's eventual rebuilding will come from the exact opposite, "senseless love." Clearly, this community, Jewish and gentile, is not there yet.

In the months following August 24, 2006, I experienced tremendous personal suffering. It had nothing to do with election results. It had to do with being told by a religious leader of the community that I and my help weren't wanted. It became harder and harder to find motivation to continue volunteering in our community, plus the extreme stress wreaked havoc on my chronic digestive disorder.

If people's help is turned away because they hold opposing political views, the date might as well be August 24, 70 CE.

If I live to be 100 years old, I will never forget the obscenity of the way I was treated on that day.

Some good has come out of it. There is an old saying that "one doesn't have to suffer to be an artist, but it helps." I couldn't turn to most of the community beyond my family, so I turned to art, specifically, writing. Themes of hypocrisy, hatred, elitism, and valuing money over human life gradually coalesced into a 107-page play that I am now transforming into a novel.

It just so happens that one of my many other interests besides community service and politics is astronomy. In a bizarre twist of fate, four percent of the International Astronomical Union, in a highly controversial action, voted on that very same day, August 24, 2006, to strip Pluto of its planetary status. So Pluto and I were "dissed" in the same way on the same day, sealing an unusual bond forever between me and the little scorned planet. "The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone," as the Psalm says.

And this became the foundation of my play and novel-in-progress--the story of the underdog versus the elite. This is my story, forever stamped on my life. It is a strong reason why I fight so hard for the restoration of Pluto's planet status. That journey has taken me outside Highland Park to other communities that know human decency, most specifically, the club known as Amateur Astronomers, Inc. in Cranford, NJ. In terms of my volunteering, Highland Park's loss is Amateur Astronomers, Inc.'s gain.

Five months ago, this group was threatened with eviction from our observatory of 40+ years at Union County College. But an outpouring of support in the form of phone calls, letters, emails, etc., even one from the New Jersey Senate Majority leader, have forced the college's trustees to re-think their decision. As it stands now, our observatory--which has since become my "temple"--likely will face a reprieve.

If our club keeps the observatory, it will be a direct result of the outpouring of "senseless love."

I still love Highland Park even though I don't love all of its residents. That is why I want this town to practice real inclusion. It is why, if the Highland Park Conservative Temple-Congregation Anshe Emeth wants to truly rebuild, its leaders must drop the political favoritism and biases once and for all.

The temple has completed its physical rebuilding. Now it, and our town, need to focus on spiritual rebuilding. That is the true miracle waiting to happen, and it is one wholly dependent on human rather than on divine action.

My great-grandmother, who was murdered in Riga, Latvia, in November 1941, is quoted as having once warned her children to "be more fearful of the judgments of people than of the judgments of God." Of course, she was talking about gossip, hatred, and the type of ugliness that reared its head in Highland Park on August 24, 2006, not about the genocide that would eventually take her life.

So this is my plea to temple leaders: please, give up the partisanship. Meryl Frank is not a god. She is not even mayor any more. Please, let now be the start of the miracle of inclusion, of accepting the help of all who offer it, of "senseless love."

Meryl Frank's "Intoxicating" Sound and Fury

2010-01-08T17:38:00.017-05:00

And so it ends—not with the proverbial (and metaphorical) bang, but with a whimper.

To the end, ex-mayor Frank engages in the propaganda dissemination that so marked her ten years in office, still repeating the same lies denigrating the previous council, exaggerating her level of support in town and her so-called accomplishments in office, and hanging on to the nebulous claim that she built a movement for good government in Highland Park.

In a January 5, 2010 Home News Tribune article, Frank errs in her first sentence by describing her “first few days in office” as tumultuous. The reality is, her entire tenure in office was tumultuous, except for a brief hiatus in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Let’s start from the beginning, with the spin that the council “walked out” on her and tried to change the borough’s rules to strip the mayor of her power. Our borough system of government is one of weak mayor, strong council; it has been so since 1905. That means all appointments require council consent. The mayor does not vote except in the case of a tie, and the mayor’s position is largely ceremonial, limited to presiding over meetings. Frank’s first act in office was an attempt to subvert that system and appoint a borough attorney on her own, without council consent. This was blatantly illegal, and it is why the Borough Council chose to adjourn the meeting.

Frank’s decision to use this issue as a stage to make her look like a victim is why council members chose to leave in protest. Far more than 300 people were present at that meeting, and at least 100 followed the council members, counter to Frank’s claim that all of the audience stayed. Not only did a good number of us not stay; we were also joined by Congressman Frank Pallone, who was attending the event, and who made sure to spend time with both groups.

Is Frank proud that she nearly caused a riot on the day of her inauguration, that the Senior Center had to be surrounded by police, that pushing and shoving occurred in a frightening spectacle of mob mentality?

Appointments to positions such as borough attorney, planner, administrator, etc., are usually worked out in advance of the annual reorganization meeting. If there is no agreement among members of the governing body, the decision can be postponed to the next meeting in January. But Frank didn’t or more likely wouldn’t do this because she wanted a public spectacle.

More than that, what she wanted, well before taking office on January 5, 2000, was to oust all the incumbent council members and replace them with people loyal to her. In December 1999, via a mass email system organized by her campaign, she sent multiple messages for one purpose alone—to inflame the public against the council over non-issues. She turned a decision to cut a secretarial position for budget purposes into an act aimed deliberately against her. She sent mobs of screaming supporters to yell at council members about nonsensical topics, such as the building of a wall near the mayor’s office to create another office space, a purely logistical decision. “Tear down that wall!” her campaign supporters shouted, ironically, it turns out, since she had the wall rebuilt several years later after the council complied with her wishes and removed it.

At one of those December 1999 meetings, her supporters made their intentions very clear. “First we’ll get two, then two more, then two more,” one was heard saying, regarding an organized plan to oust all members of the existing council. The problem is that instead of waiting for elections to come around, Frank deliberately incited her supporters to embark on a slanderous campaign against the council that essentially involved a lot of yelling and screaming over nothing.

Once she took office as mayor, Frank continued to send her inflammatory emails before every council meeting, urging her supporters to harangue the council. Her mayor’s reports were designed to stir the pot, again taking the most mundane of issues and lacing them with paranoia to vilify the council. At one point, when a council member criticized one of the PTOs—her base of support—for leaving the Senior Center in a mess after an event, she twisted his comment to make him appear to be disparaging the borough’s schools, which he most certainly was not doing.

Then there were the repeated appearances on WCTC, and the co-opting of reporters, whom she turned into her own PR agents. The first principle of propaganda is “a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.” Frank proved herself adept at putting that principle into action. For example, she falsely claimed the council refused to work with her on finance and budget issues. Having spent time at Borough Hall myself, I know that statement is false because I was there when the late Council President Leon Cohen offered to sit down and discuss budget issues with her “any time.”

Of course, in the current Home News Tribune article, Frank fails to mention the rallies and demonstrations against her redevelopment plan that were held in 2004 and 2005. She brought people together all right—united in efforts to oppose forcing any business to move via the use of eminent domain for redevelopment. She says, “the best training for a mayor is listening?” Funny, she didn’t seem to listen to the many people who wanted a referendum on outlawing eminent domain for redevelopment or those who complained to her that they couldn’t afford her tax increases. Her listening was always selective.

She says the downtown had a few empty stores and cracked sidewalks when she took office. It still does. Stores have come and gone, as they did long before she came onto the scene and as they will long after her tenure in office. Small businesses have a difficult time surviving in Highland Park, and her additional $1,000-$2,000 a year BID tax does not make things any easier for them. We still have cracked sidewalks and roads all over town in terrible condition. We lost valuable assets to this town including Chapter One Café, Pyramid Books, Victoria’s Resale Boutique, Dresses for Less, the bicycle shop, and most significantly, the YM-YWHA. Yes, we did get Main Street, but we lost the Chamber of Commerce. So at best, Frank leaves the downtown breaking even.

Party chair Bruce Morgan claims Frank united different causes of the community and brought people of different races and age groups together. A look at borough history shows that active grassroots efforts toward these goals were in place long before Frank ever took office, from the 1970s fight to end de facto segregation in our public schools to 1990s forums and workshops against racism and economic inequality. They were led not by elected officials but by citizen leaders like the late Vickie White.

Frank even made up her own revisionist history. Following a forum on human rights in December 1999, informal conversation turned to the upcoming millennium celebrations. The mayor-elect made an erroneous statement attributing the celebration of New Year's Day to "the circumcision of Jesus." As someone with a special interest in the millennium, who also studied Middle East Studies, I knew this was a fallacy, as the Roman calendar had begun on January 1, the date new consuls took office, as far back as 153 BCE. Julius Caesar kept this date when he reformed the calendar in 46 BCE. When I presented her with this information, she refused to admit she was wrong. I guess it had already gotten to the point where if I said "tomayto," she said "tomahto," and didn't want to be confused with the facts.

The only people Frank brought together were those who consented without question to making her the center of the Highland Park universe. Even her group pictures with the council illustrate this. All of Frank’s choices for council members happened to be tall, in contrast with Frank, who is 5’1”. In photographs taken with the council, she positions herself in the center, surrounded by much taller council members, evoking an image of the sun surrounded by its orbiting planets.

Two weeks after taking office, President Barack Obama acknowledged he made a mistake in one of his nominations for a Cabinet position. In ten years, Frank never once said the words, “I made a mistake.” Obama could do in two weeks what Frank couldn’t do in a decade.

At some point in discussions with her supporters, logic broke down entirely. No one could explain exactly why she was the answer to all of the town’s problems, or even articulate any specifics of her claims that the previous council was “corrupt.” Frank drew a line in the sand with her statement, “you’re either with me, or you’re against me”—ironically, the very words used by Stalin. And if you were against Frank, no amount of service or volunteerism for the town made any difference—you were persona non grata. Frank’s cult of personality in a strange way echoed fundamentalist religious strains who preach that only faith in the savior can earn one divine grace, that good deeds without such faith are as worthless as "filthy rags." In Frank’s case, that faith had to be in her.

Those who weren’t for her, and even those who supported her only to have her turn on them, were demonized and discarded like garbage. She viciously turned on one former supporter, blindsiding her by organizing a slate against her when she came up for re-election on the Board of Education. She slandered former borough officials, even falsely accusing one of stealing from the Democratic Party. And she made statements embarrassing to all women, such as attributing my support for the previous mayor to my having "a crush" on him (totally false), outrageously claiming the council “wouldn’t treat me this way if I had a penis,” and, in an true-to-life re-creation of middle school pettiness, making statements like “how will Laurel ever get a boyfriend?”

And while she unilaterally declared Highland Park the state’s first green community—even when other towns were taking the same or stronger environmental initiatives—what did she really accomplish in this area—solar panels on the roof of Borough Hall that don’t work? Or is it artificial turf on the high school athletic fields? Buck Woods has not been preserved and is still owned by developer Jack Morris. Below Buck Woods, the borough Meadows, or former landfill, which Highland Park owns, is still zoned residential even though citizens on numerous occasions asked that it be rezoned for conservation. The Environmental Education Center sits on contaminated land, severely restricting its use. Under her leadership, the Master Plan adopted in 2003 recommended rezoning the YM-YWHA property as riverfront residential, a change from its historical zoning as quasi-public. If and when a condominium development goes up there, we’ll know who to hold responsible.

When Parker Homes decided to build an assisted living facility off of River Road, Frank argued heavily for preservation of a cottage on the site but did nothing to save any of the 500 mature trees cut down. Frank also increased the maximum building height for Raritan Avenue from three to four stories, a change that could increase traffic congestion and destroy the character of our small town.

Open and transparent government? Where are the online meeting agendas and minutes Frank promised? Why was she the first mayor to restrict each individual's public comment to five minutes when none had done so before? Why are no public records available in digital form? Why has the Democratic Committee not held a single open meeting in ten years?

Highland Park starts the new decade in pretty much the same shape as it started the previous one.

Frank’s one true statement in the recent article is her admission that she found power “intoxicating.” Yet whatever power and authority she thought she had were mostly an illusion, not just because the mayor’s position in our form of government is largely symbolic, but also because she was unable to enact her vision for the town and unable to use that vision, which inappropriately blurred the two very different issues of going green and redevelopment, to propel her to some form of political stardom.

Her proud “2020 Vision,” conveniently released two months before her 2003 primary, called for a five-year plan, a ten-year plan, and a 50-year plan for the downtown. The latter proposed extreme measures such as closing off one end of Dennison Street entirely and enacting metered parking. More than five years have passed since 2003, and where is her vision?

The answer is it is not here because it is wrong for this town. 2007 and the controversial primary that year marked a turning point, the beginning of the end for “2020” and the gentrification project Frank calls redevelopment. So much depended on revenue from the cell tower to fund the arts center supposed to be the pinnacle of her vision. The opposition may not have won the actual election that year, but we won where it counts. We turned her “victory” into a Pyrrhic victory—one that comes at too high a price. Anyone who doubts that should just ask themselves, whose vision prevails in the downtown today?

At its core, the problem was that people chose to put their faith in a person instead of in themselves and their own power. No one person, not even Barack Obama, can “save” us from the difficult problems we face. Choosing to not attend council meetings because “Frank will take care of things; it’s her job” is not democracy. Cheering and shouting the name of a politician the way people do for their teams at a football game are not democracy. Real democracy is acknowledging, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and not abdicating our independent thinking by placing power in the hands of any individual. Real democracy is following the example of George Washington, who was offered the crown and turned it down, on the principle of “in America, the law is king.”

At the end of it all, Frank’s reign was little more than a lot of sound and fury without much substance, very much like Shakespeare's description at the end of MacBeth:

“Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow (and 2020)
creeps in its petty pace from day to day
to the last syllable of recorded time.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death (political death in this case).

Out, out brief candle!
Life is but a walking shadow,
a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
and then is heard no more.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

Sic transit gloria Meryl (so passes the glory of Meryl).

Merylisms

2010-01-07T01:14:00.006-05:00

Decade in review columns have abounded in newspapers and online over the past few weeks as one decade ended and another one began. Here in Highland Park, Mayor Meryl Frank has formally and finally resigned, ten months after making her announcement. During her years in office, she made a few memorable comments--memorable because they reveal a person who bragged about how rich she was and viewed herself as the center of the universe, memorable in some cases because they were just plain ridiculous. So here are the highlights, with the most outrageous ones in bold for emphasis:

“They (the Borough Council) wouldn’t treat me this way if I had a penis.” January 2000

“Why didn’t they run you? Why did they run a sick old man instead?” July 2000, regarding the previous Democratic Committee’s support for budget genius Leon Cohen

“My husband negotiates million dollar contracts for PSE&G” May 2001

“We have to compute the economic value of 13 votes.” May 2001 in response to school budget defeat and question of cuts council will impose

“Why don’t you just fire her?” Summer 2001, to my employer

“You’re either with me or against me.” January 2002 to me, regarding Board of Health reappointment

“You didn’t do that well.” January 2002, regarding my 2001 Democratic Committee race, in which I received 78 votes to my opponent’s 106

“You were used,” January 2002, regarding my support for her opponents in 1999.

“We’re the establishment now.” 2002

“Jewish women who go to the synagogue every Saturday don’t want to shop at a store called “For Less.” 2002, to owner of Dresses for Less

“Why are you all alone? Why is no one with you?” June 2002, two days before Democratic primary in which I received 40 percent of the vote.

“It’s a beautiful building.” August 2002, regarding the old Senior Center on Raritan Avenue

“Those were my professionals, and I had to take their word for what they said.” Autumn 2002 in a court deposition on eminent domain taking of former limousine lot

"We’re not suburban. We’re urban." April 2003

“It’s not a tax—it’s an assessment,” 2004, regarding the BID

“You didn’t vote for me.” December 2004, to a business owner who objected to his business being cut out of an architect’s design for the block.

“In some cases, there are some (businesses) that clearly don’t belong.” December 2004

“It was a no brainer” December 2004, regarding which Raritan Avenue properties should be deemed blighted.

“We have a damn good reputation. I do for keeping my word.” December 2004

“We do not take money from developers.” December 2004 Frank’s ELEC reports show contributions from several major developers

“It’s either my way or no bank.” 2005 to a meeting of Commerce Bank executives looking to build a branch in town

“It’s just boys and their toys.” Spring 2006, regarding arrest of three teenage boys including her son for shooting a BB gun on Raritan Avenue in broad daylight.

"I don’t believe that everything needs to go on a referendum before the public. This is a complicated issue. We were voted into these offices to make these decisions." November 2006, after being asked to hold a public referendum on the use of eminent domain for redevelopment.

“I can’t imagine that this group, that our Planning Board or that this community wants to move in another direction. They haven’t shown us that they’re interested. We have no objectors. None of the property owners are objecting to this.” December 2006, regarding redevelopment. Several property owners took legal action objecting to their properties being placed in a redevelopment zone.

“We have a redevelopment plan with, yes, at the very, very end of a process, if under dire circumstances, the use of eminent domain, which we really will probably never use.” December 2006

“This is a complicated issue. We were voted into these offices to make these decisions. If they (the public) had access to the same information, I believe they would come up with the same conclusion.” December 2006, on redevelopment

“That’s a violation! That’s a violation!” Winter 2007, jumping up and down with glee in front of a Woodbridge automotive business.

“My friends have Rolodexes they can access with people who will give enormous sums of money.” February 2007

“I swear on my children’s lives, I knew nothing about the cell tower.” March 2007, after having signed a contract on the tower one year earlier

“It’s sort of like being prostitutes who sell their bodies. Mayors sell themselves for the good of the people.” April 2007

“They’ll ruin the schools,” Spring 2007, said about Frank’s opponents in the mayoral/council race.

“Higher density is a principle of smart growth.” Repeated numerous times between 2002 and 2008.

“I kept a tantrum voice of calm when my opponent became combative in debates.” August 2008

“If you can’t afford it, then move. You could get a lot of money for your house.” Said to at least three different residents between 2002 and 2008 in response to complaints about high property taxes.

And finally, my all-time favorite: “Don’t you understand? She could actually win!” June 2002, to a supporter of mine two days before the Borough Council Democratic primary.

Regarding that last quote, thanks for the compliment.

Highland Park Democratic Committee's Decade of Disgrace

2009-12-28T15:31:00.008-05:00

In its last two screening processes, one held in October to fill a Borough Council vacancy, and the other held this month to replace Mayor Frank, the Highland Park Democratic Committee has unequivocally shown its determination to retain its closed processes and reckless disregard for its bylaws to the very end of the decade.

This is in no way a criticism of the individuals nominated for these positions by the Democratic Committee. It is solely directed at the Committee's leadership, which has recklessly disregarded the law time and time again over ten years, and at the small clique that keeps this leadership in power.

When Councilman Lou Pichinson resigned in October, the Democratic Committee, as usual, was supposed to hold a screening, or interview of interested candidates, and then choose three to recommend to the Borough Council. The Council would then select either one of the three people named or someone else entirely.

Screenings are supposed to receive advance publicity so anyone interested can come forward and present themselves. The October 2009 screening had no such publicity. On a Friday afternoon, October 9, the evening of which began a two-day Jewish holiday where many observers do not use electricity, Democratic Committee leaders sent a 5 PM email changing the scheduled meeting date from the following Monday, October 12, to Sunday, October 11, one hour after the Jewish holiday ended. This means even Committee members observing the holiday were very unlikely to find out about the inconvenient change of meeting date. It also means there was zero advance publicity to recruit interested candidates.

Furthermore, several Committee members who just happen to not be Frank supporters never received the email announcing the Sunday night meeting. Somehow, their names were misspelled in the email message sent to all Committee members--not the first time this happened--so they never received the message at all. The result was that the Sunday night meeting was attended by only 12 out of 26 members--two short of a quorum. Without a quorum, the Committee is not permitted to take any official action. Yet they did so anyway, ignoring state statute and their own bylaws.

This month, the Committee held a screening for the mayor's position and once again, there was no advance publicity. The only public notice was a brief in The Home News Tribune on the same day as the screening. This is insufficient advance time for those who might be interested to re-arrange their schedules.

The Committee then proceeded to name only one candidate, former Councilman Stephen Nolan, instead of the three required by law--in spite of the fact that at least one other candidate was interviewed at the meeting.

When Mayor Frank finally chose a date for her resignation, instead of sending a press release to the media, she sent an email to members of the Democratic Committee. This is unheard of and brings home the fact that from the beginning, she has treated the party Committee as her own personal political organization. This is in stark contract to Democratic mayors of other towns, who have stated publicly that they never interfere in party committee business.

As is often the case, I received phone calls from several reporters the next day, all of whom complained that the Committee leadership refused them entrance into the meeting and refused to give any comment on the proceedings. They were quite put off by this, and noted that in every other town they cover, Democratic Municipal Committees always hold open meetings and rarely refuse to give any comment to the press.

I enlightened them by noting that the Highland Park Democratic Committee now has the dubious honor of having gone an entire decade without holding a single open meeting. Committee leaders have even shut elected members out of the decision making process, at times conducting votes about candidate selection over the phone, never holding a meeting at all and only calling selected Committee members known to be loyal to Mayor Frank.

The central goal in journalism and in democracy is the public right to know. While various media outlets are presenting "The Decade in Review," I decided to enlighten Highland Park voters with a chronology of the Highland Park Democratic Committee's Decade of Disgrace to Democracy, replete with backroom deals, closed meetings, and complete lack of transparency.

July 6, 2000: Utilizing pressure from a state-level party boss who was later sent to federal prison on corruption charges, Mayor Frank forced a majority of the incumbent Democratic Committee members to resign, leaving the Committee without a quorum. With pressure from the same party boss, she then argued that since the Committee had no quorum, state and county leaders had the right to fill all the vacancies. Of course, she insisted those vacancies be filled with a specific list of people she had compiled, all of whom had volunteered on her campaign. When several of the remaining Committee members objected to these strongarm tactics, they were told by a higher level Democratic Party official that if they resisted, he would "fight you with an army of lawyers."

While the forced resignations should never have happened, the right thing to do if there are too many vacancies to make a quorum is to hold a special election. That is what should have been done in 2000 but never took place. Frank's supporters were handed incumbency through bullying tactics rather than by vote of the people.

The day after this meeting, I confronted Mayor Frank at Borough Hall about the undemocratic nature of the proceedings. Her response was to attack the previous Democratic chair and Committee while at the same time slandering Council President Leon Cohen. "Why didn't they run you?" she asked of the Democratic Committee's choice in the spring of 2000, before she forced her takeover. "Why did they run a sick old man instead?" I was shocked by her characterization of Cohen, a brilliant man when it came to budgets and a dedicated Councilman, as "a sick old man," and planned to confront her publicly about this statement at the next Council meeting. Unfortunately, Cohen died suddenly the next day.

Mid-July 2000: After Cohen's sudden death, the newly-formed Committee held a screening to fill the vacancy, with no advance publicity whatsoever.

Fall 2000: Mayor Frank inappropriately and repeatedly referred to the Democratic Committee as "my Democratic Committee" and to herself as "the titular head of the Democratic Party." At one point, she made this statement to the daughter of vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman.

2001-2002: The Democratic Committee inappropriately held its meetings at the office of Mayor Frank's husband's energy consulting firm, Gabel Associates. Not only did this amount to a clear assertion of "this is my turf" by the mayor; it also meant screenings and meetings were held in a place that was not handicapped accessible. The building has no ramps or elevators; holding meetings there essentially meant "no people who use wheelchairs need apply."

2000-2002: Mayor Frank, who is not a Committee member, not only sat in on all Committee meetings, but made accusations against incumbent Council members screening for party support, further biasing Committee members. In 2001, she urged Committee members to not support the two incumbents who preceded her in office, citing not their records but that they didn't put up her signs during the 1999 mayoral election. In July 2002, one month after receiving a respectable 40 percent of the vote in a Democratic Council primary, I screened for a Council vacancy. At that screening, Frank was so vociferous in her accusations against me, replete with fabricated incidents she claimed took place during the campaign, incidents in which she attempted to portray me and my supporters as racists, that several Committee members objected to her actions during the meeting. The Committee later voted to ban Frank from attending any future candidate screenings.

April 2001: In a clear conflict of interest, the spouse of a Committee member was given the party's support to run for Council. The Committee member in question should have recused herself from the vote, but she did not do so, and no one in the party leadership objected to her voting.

November 2001: After the Democratic Committee refused to support two very qualified incumbents, I led an impromptu write-in campaign for them in the uncontested general election. It was solely a protest. Yet after the election, the party chair expressed his outrage livid that the write-in candidates had received over 60 votes.

April 2002: The Democratic Committee held a screening only one hour after Passover ended, which that year was also during the Christian Holy Week, an extremely inconvenient time that practically assured a very low number of people would be able to attend. This was in spite of the fact that the screening could have been conducted any time over the last two months.

March 2003: Frank's chosen representative in her own district, the 8th, was forced to resign after writing an extremely controversial letter in The Home News Tribune, in which he explicitly stated he hoped Iraq triumphed in the war and that that triumph would result in the breaking up of the United States. His letter ended up being discussed statewide on NJ101.5 by the Jersey Guys.

Repeated complaints about screenings being held at Frank's husband's office led to the screenings being moved to the YM-YWHA in 2003 and then to Charlie Brown's restaurant after the Y closed in 2007.

December 2003: As an active Democrat, I spent several months attempting to work out some sort of reconciliation with the Committee in anticipation of the 2004 presidential election. Six months after asking the Committee to find a volunteer role for me other than that of an elected Committee member, the party chair said to my face, "we can't include everybody." When I publicly noted this telling comment in an April 2005 Home News Tribune op-ed column, the party chair responded with a column of his own filled with personal attacks against me, including the false charge that I asked him to overturn an election and give me a Committee seat--something I never did or would even think of doing.

December 2004: Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons voted against establishing a redevelopment agency, as she did not want anyone's property made vulnerable to potential use of eminent domain. She also voted against setting up a Business Improvement District (BID) after talking to many business owners and determining the additional tax would be burdensome to them. In response, she was told by Committee leaders that she would not receive the party's support to run for another term the following year. It seems the party chair either assumed he could read Committee members' minds three months in advance or felt certain he could control the decision they would make.

June 2005: Mayor Frank and her supporters attempted to subvert an election by repeatedly harassing a husband and wife whom we had recruited to challenge the incumbent Democratic Committee members in the 5th district. Committee members are supposed to be chosen via the election process. Yet Frank and her followers laid guilt on the two challengers, telling them "we already have people for those positions," a misleading statement that runs in direct contradiction of the democratic process. These two candidates were harassed so many times that they finally agreed to sign a postcard endorsing the incumbents without even reading what the postcard said. Within two years, they left town altogether.

June 2005: After the incumbent Committeeman in the 11th district was defeated by a challenger, the Committee immediately submitted his name to fill a vacant Council seat. Subsequent incumbents who lost their Committee races had positions created for them and were admitted to Committee meetings even while the general public was not.

September 2005: After Councilman Nolan resigned, the Committee held a screening, again to fulfill the statute of naming three potential replacements to the Borough Council. In spite of the fact that three people screened, only two names were submitted. I was the third person who screened and as usual, gave an informed presentation to the Committee. They chose to violate the law and name only two rather than even submit my name as one of the three or submit the name of someone else who didn't screen. This was the last of multiple screenings I took part in, as it brought home the futility of even trying to work with the Committee.

March 2007: The Democratic Committee held a screening for both the mayor's position and two council seats, all of which were up for re-election that year. However, before they even interviewed candidates, Committee leaders mailed out notices of a fundraiser for Frank and the incumbent Council members. How could the Committee have presumed in advance of the process what the results would be? If the Committee had already determined in advance who would get their support, why hold a screening at all?

2004-2008: In interviewing candidates, the Committee made support for the mayor's redevelopment project a key question. Those who had slightly different views about the downtown and redevelopment; for example, those who did not want any use of eminent domain, were immediately discounted as candidates.

Throughout the decade, the Democratic Committee did almost nothing to support county and state-level Democratic candidates in spite of the fact that this is a part of their duty as party representatives. Serving Frank was clearly more important than serving the county and state party and the party's ideals.

Committee leaders also filed incomplete Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) reports over the course of the decade, leaving out major sources of their funding. In at least one case, no ELEC report was filed at all for a campaign in spite of the legal requirement to do so. In 2007, invitations to a fundraiser for Frank were inappropriately collected at Borough Hall.

During the entire decade, no screenings were conducted, and no public outreach of any kind was held to recruit people who might be interested in serving as their district representatives on the Democratic Committee. The only recruiting involved Frank personally selecting and contacting her own supporters, mostly parents active in the school PTOs. That means those who didn't have children in the public schools or were not involved with the PTOs never had a chance to even be considered for a committee seat.

All Democrats in Highland Park must ask ourselves, why is our party Committee the only one in the region that does not hold open meetings? Why does a group that talks the talk of open government and transparency not walk the walk? Why is the Democratic Committee in this town being allowed to break the law whenever they choose and act in ways reminiscent of New York City's infamous Tammany Hall?

Our party can do better than this. Let's commit to following the Democratic Committee's Decade of Disgrace with a new Decade of Real Democracy. If Democratic organizations in other towns can do this, we can too.

Religion, science, and the solstice - The Boston Globe

2009-12-21T01:54:00.001-05:00

Religion, science, and the solstice - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis

In Memoriam: Harvey Brudner

2009-12-06T15:12:00.003-05:00

On September 15, 2009, Highland Park lost yet another of our most active citizen volunteers--Harvey Brudner, former chair of the Highland Park Centennial Committee and for me and many, a valued personal friend.

Harvey had a PhD in theoretical physics and during his life, was president of Medical Development, Inc. in Jersey City, Dean of Science and Technology at the New York Institute of Technology, president of Westinghouse Learning Corporation, and research scientist at the Power Authority of the State of New York.

But beyond his intellectual brilliance and career accomplishments, Harvey was a kind, gentle soul, a good friend, a man who loved his community and history, an environmentalist, and a wonderful conversationalist.

Fascinated by Joyce Kilmer, Harvey served as president of the Joyce Kilmer Centennial Commission in New Brunswick. One of his favorite poems, if not his all time favorite, was Kilmer's poem "Trees." If Highland Park is a green community, it is because of people like Harvey leading the way. In 2004, he organized a beautiful ceremony in which a descendant of the oak tree that inspired Kilmer was planted in front of the Highland Park High School. That baby tree has grown significantly over five years and stands as a gift from Harvey to our town, hopefully for generations to come.

I first met Harvey when he was appointed chair of the Highland Park Centennial Committee and asked me to attend meetings and volunteer for the project even though I was not a formal appointee. I was happy to do so and learned a lot about the history of our borough and the region in the process. Harvey had so many wonderful ideas about how to celebrate Highland Park's centennial in 2005, some of which came to fruition and were very successful.

Unfortunately, early in the borough's centennial year, the mayor dissolved the Centennial Committee abruptly without adopting the resolution required by law to dissolve such a body. The move was part of her war against a former councilwoman who opposed her redevelopment plan; that councilwoman was the liaison to the Centennial Committee and a friend of Harvey's. He and those who had spent a year and a half working on the borough's centennial suddenly found themselves completely excluded from the project as the mayor took complete control.

The irony is that she has sought designation for Highland Park as the state's first green community while here was a man who put trees at center stage of our centennial celebration only to unfairly have his position snatched out from under him for solely political reasons.

But his reputation was never damaged by this. Every year as my annual birthday party approached, people asked if the "Tree Man" was going to be there. That's the unofficial nickname that became attached to him--the "Tree Man."

And he was the Tree Man, especially in the way he literally put this special tree at the high school first. In 2005, at my suggestion, he ran for the 10th district Democratic Committeeman position along with a slate of candidates led by me and George Valenta running for Borough Council. A group of us campaigned door to door in the district, and Harvey inevitably would start talking about the tree and a first anniversary celebration of its planting a week after our primary. The rest of us had to keep reminding him that our main purpose was to campaign for the election!

At the time, the situation seemed quite funny, but in retrospect, it tells a lot about who Harvey was. Elections come and go; people enter and leave office, but the need to put the Earth first is always paramount. What is more representative of the Earth's and nature's endurance more than a tree?

Interestingly, Harvey ended up getting an even 100 votes for the Democratic Committee seat, and those on our team could not help notice the synchronicity of that--100 votes for the chair of the Centennial Committee in Highland Park's centennial year. Although he did not win the seat, Harvey's strong showing helped pave the way for a victory in winning back that seat by our team in 2007.

Harvey was always one of the first people to whom I would go seeking signatures for yet another petition to run for office, whether Council or Democratic Committee. Knowing I am a freelance writer, he would give me writing and editing jobs publicizing his research. That research was completely mathematical, centered on the Pythagorean theorem, and here I was, an English/journalism type, writing and revising something I barely understood. But that hardly mattered in the larger scheme of things because our real connection was that of friends helping one another.

Every year on the second Sunday in July, Harvey was the first person to show up for my backyard barbecue birthday party. While many people attended some years but not others due to vacation plans, he was there every year and became popular among the many guests we had over that time. When I took up astronomy as a hobby and began circulating petitions opposing the demotion of the planet Pluto, Harvey was one of the first to sign, and we had some provocative discussions of astronomy and cosmology.

It has not quite sunken in that next year, he is not going to show up in my backyard at exactly 3 PM on the second Sunday in July.

Harvey was also a beloved husband, father, and grandfather. He was a genuine "good guy." At his funeral, all who spoke emphasized the same qualities of his--kindness, generosity, gentleness. More than just being an intelligent and accomplished professional, he was a wonderful human being. And he will be terribly missed.

2009 has seen far too many losses both locally and on the world stage. Here in Highland Park, we are all diminished by the loss of Harvey Brudner.

There is a prayer that reads, "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree. He shall grow mighty like the cedar in Lebanon." These words are Harvey. His legacy will live on in this borough and beyond as our own towering oak tree.

Farewell to an amazing citizen of Highland Park and more importantly, a friend.

New Meeting Needed for Master Plan Revision

2009-12-01T18:40:00.002-05:00

How many borough residents are aware that a revision of our Master Plan, which outlines a vision for how and where to develop, has been discussed and set for a final vote on Thursday, December 17? How many are aware that the revision was discussed at a November 19 Planning Board meeting? My guess is, not very many since only one member of the public showed up to provide input that night.

Somehow, I don't think lack of interest or apathy is the problem. More likely, the borough's perennial lack of publicity for important events is at work again. Legally, the Planning Board fulfilled the minimum requirements to provide advance notice of its meeting to the public, with advertisements in the Home News Tribune and Star Ledger and a notice on the wall at Borough Hall.

But being open and transparent means doing more than the bare minimum required by law. Newspaper notices are written in their legal sections in very small letters and easily missed. Why didn't the Planning Board issue a press release to these papers, which would have gone into their community sections and reached far more people?

The borough just published its fall edition of the Quarterly. Why was there no article summarizing the proposed Master Plan revision and stating that a meeting on the revision would be held on November 19 at Borough Hall? Why did the borough never put notice of the Master Plan revision or this meeting--and a copy of the draft revision--on its web site? Are these things so difficult to do, or is it just that no one bothered? Or, given the large crowds that attended the meetings on the redevelopment plan, was publicity deliberately kept to a minimum so the administration could quietly amend our Master Plan with no one aware of what is being done until it is already a done deal?

Furthermore, the November 19 meeting was held within a week of the Thanksgiving holiday, a time when people are either planning vacations or family events and not paying as much attention to public affairs. That alone makes this date a poor choice, and the same applies to December 17. What is worse is the Planning Board's denial of a citizen's request for a second meeting to allow more time for public input and comments.

Copies of the Master Plan revision are available from the Borough Clerk. While borough officials refused to provide a digital version of the document, the citizen who attended the meeting did that work on his own, taking the time and effort to scan it into a Word document. That document is now posted on the Files page of my Friends of Laurel newsletter at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friends-of-laurel/files/ under the name Reexam of MasterPlan.doc. Unfortunately, Yahoo does not allow access to the files for those who are not subscribers to the newsletter. I have a copy of the Word document that I am happy to email to anyone who cannot access it via Yahoo. Just email me at laurel2000@gmail.com or laurelkornfeld@netzero.net and ask for a copy of the 2009 Master Plan revision.

Unfortunately, anyone who wants input into this document outlining the direction of development in our town is going to have to act quickly. According to the Planning Board chair, written public comments may be sent to the Planning Board at Borough Hall, but must arrive by the deadline of Monday, December 7.

For many people, reading the long document and writing comments will compete with shopping and holiday preparations. This is why we need a second meeting Planning Board meeting to solicit public input after giving citizens the time to read and absorb the whole document. I implore the Planning Board to reconsider its decision, hold a public session at its December 17 meeting--at which the Board is now scheduled to vote on adopting the document--and postpone the vote until its January meeting. What harm can possibly come from a one-month delay whose sole purpose is to make our government more open and transparent? If the mayor can postpone her resignation by nearly a year, certainly the Planning Board can postpone its vote for one month.

The borough knows how to do publicity when the mayor and council want it done. Not providing adequate publicity and advance knowledge about something as serious as the future of our town, in a document reviewed only once every seven years, is a tremendous disservice to every resident in the borough. Rushing to adopt a plan in a manner that cannot help but appear arranged to minimize public participation is a slap in the face to every business and resident of Highland Park.

The timing of this rushed process cannot help but raise questions. Mayor Frank, who announced her resignation in February, has still not resigned. Is this rush through of the Master Plan revision an attempt by a lame duck mayor to impose her vision on the town one last time as a parting gift?

Don't forget that the previous Master Plan revision is the one that selectively stated certain businesses don't belong in the downtown, the one that called for riverfront residential development on the Y property and townhouses on part of the Rite Aid property, the one that advocated formation of the BID and Redevelopment Agency, the one that allowed a change of zoning to permit four-story buildings on Raritan Avenue.

The Master Plan and any proposed revision is of major importance. All who can should obtain a copy, review it, and mail comments to the Planning Board at Borough Hall. In your comments, please add the request for an additional meeting so people can comment in person. Those who attend the December 17 meeting should repeat the request, as it is never too late for the Planning Board to hear the voice of the people and change its mind.

Is our government open and transparent? Saying so does not make it so. There is no point in talking the talk if we don't walk the walk. Where and how development occurs in Highland Park should be the decision of the people, not of a tiny group in a closed-door process.

Zoning laws are informed by the Master Plan. No one should be under any illusion that adoption of a Master Plan revision will not have a real, on-the-ground impact.

The Mayor's "Three Legs" Fallacy

2009-11-22T21:44:00.004-05:00

Back around 2004, at the height of Mayor Frank's push for redevelopment, she repeatedly emphasized what she called her "three legs" of downtown revitalization--Main Street, the Business Improvement District (BID), and redevelopment. Redevelopment is long dead, and it is time for the BID, which never should have been created in the first place, to go as well.

The concept of a Business Improvement District sounds good until you realize it requires business and property owners to pay an additional tax--in this case $1,000 to $2,000 a year--for services the borough is already supposed to provide.

In articulating her "2020 vision" for downtown revitalization, Frank deliberately blurred the distinction between Main Street, a BID, redevelopment, and going green, each of which is actually a completely separate policy on its own. A town can be part of the state's Main Street program without having a BID, just as a town can encourage environmentally-friendly or "green" practices without redevelopment.

Many property and business owners at the time objected to being burdened with yet another tax. Former Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons, in response to their concern, expressed serious reservations about enacting the BID. That position and her opposition to redevelopment led to her forced resignation.

Five years later, the facts show that those who opposed the BID and its tax, which was since increased several times, who believed we only needed one "leg," namely Main Street, are being proven right.

Six property owners on Woodbridge and Raritan Avenues recently attended a Borough Council meeting asking that their properties be withdrawn from the BID, as they are not getting any benefit from the additional tax.

What is especially troubling is that these property owners sent a letter to the Borough Council with this request in September 2008 and never received a response. That's September 2008, not 2009--over a year ago. The lack of response finally prompted them to approach the council directly.

If the mayor had had her way, the BID would have been expanded to all businesses in town, not just those on Raritan and portions of Woodbridge Avenue and Route 27. To their credit, the BID Board turned down this proposal, emphasizing they did not have the resources to serve even current BID members, let alone additional ones.

Last month, one property owner told the council the only benefit he is getting from this additional tax is a flower pot.

None of this is surprising. Five years ago, Mayor Frank and Councilman Steve Nolan specifically stated they wanted rents on Raritan Avenue to "skyrocket," based on the theory that that would bring in more "upscale" businesses and drive out the "less desirable" ones. In other words, the ultimate goal was gentrification.

Frank even went as far as recruiting one or two property owners who also were political supporters of hers to attend a council meeting and lament their not being included in the BID. Yes, they expressed their dismay at being excluded from the "privilege" of having to pay an additional $1,000-$2,000 a year in taxes.

Citizens and business owners who complained that the BID essentially is a form of "taxation without representation" were given a response from the mayor in the form of a political spin saying that the BID really was just a way of the business and property owners deciding how to spend their own money. After all, the BID Board of Directors, which is also the Board of Main Street, is composed of one-third property owners, one-third business owners, and one-third residents, the mayor emphasized.

The obvious question then was, who elects these board members? It would be one thing if every BID participant had a vote. But that is not how the BID leadership is chosen. In fact, the process by which the leadership--those who decide how much to tax and how to spend the money--is selected has never been made clear to anyone. I asked the mayor how a hypothetical business owner interested in joining the Board might run for the office or put his/her name up for consideration. Of course, I received no specific answer, just vague posturing and repetition of how all the BID really is is property and business owners deciding how to spend their own money.

A look at the BID's Board membership over the years reveals a disturbing but not unexpected pattern: the majority of members are political supporters of Mayor Frank. In other words, they were handpicked by her to enact her vision for the town--hardly a group of business and property owners deciding how to spend their own money.

Furthermore, the BID Board subsequently declared they are not subject to the state Open Public Records Act or Open Public Meetings Act and therefore do not have to release their budgets to the public or hold open meetings. A Star Ledger reporter investigating complaints about the BID's closed processes about two years ago noted that Highland Park's BID is the only one out of many she researched that made such a claim. Every other Main Street and BID in New Jersey was happy to disclose this information.

Maybe all the secrecy comes from the BID Board not wanting to reveal how much money has been spent and continues to be spent on outsourcing services such as organization of the Street Fair and publication of the Main Street newsletter to politically connected firms that just happen to support the mayor.

The previous Main Street director was one of the primary supporters of this outsourcing. Not only did he alienate business owners with a very unfriendly attitude, clearly representing nothing more than the mayor's redevelopment agenda--he also rejected offers by volunteers to provide services such as the newsletter in favor of spending large amounts of money on PR firms instead. Our property and business owners have been effectively subsidizing private firms that thrive on their political connections--otherwise known as Pay to Play.

In all fairness, Main Street is not the problem. Having a Main Street program is very valuable to a walking town like ours, and the current director is doing an amazing job reaching out to local businesses and working with them. But Main Street can exist without a BID, as it did in its first years in Highland Park. By abolishing the BID, we can go back to the original vision of centering the program on volunteers and at the same time relieve this additional tax burden on our business and property owners.

More than exempt these property owners, the Borough Council should either abolish the BID or adopt a suggestion made in 2003 by former mayor and then mayoral candidate Jeff Orbach. He recommended the alternative of a Special Improvement District, or SID, in which participation would be voluntary. Those business and property owners who want to participate, including Frank's eager-to-be-taxed supporters would have the option of doing so while those who wanted to opt out would have that option available as well.

The last thing Highland Park needs is for commercial rents to "skyrocket." Even Westfield, which the mayor repeatedly invoked as a shining example of her vision, now is filled with vacant storefronts left by businesses who could no longer afford the higher rents. Highland Park is not a wealthy town. It is a mixed-income town, and many of the mom and pop shops are barely making it, especially in this difficult economy. Skyrocketing rents would inevitably send them packing.

We need only one "leg," Main Street, not the three Frank repeatedly advocated, to revitalize our downtown and engage citizens and businesses in doing so. It is time for the borough to take a good hard look at the economic facts on the ground and listen to the business and property owners affected by failed public policies.

So Wrong on So Many Levels

2009-10-28T19:47:00.005-04:00

Highland Park residents should be ashamed of the tripe their tax dollars are supporting in the form of the Highland Park Quarterly, which reaches an all-time low in its Fall 2009 issue.

So much in this publication is wrong on so many levels, it is hard to know where to begin.

How about the events it chronicles, which go back to May of this year. Why is it that only a select few events of the last five months made it into this "community newspaper?" Readers are informed about a Kite Flying Day in May and a senior wedding conveniently officiated by the mayor, but no mention is given to a host of significant other developments that took place during this time. Where is the mention of the most successful People's Organization for Progress-Board of Health annual Health Fair? Why is there nothing on the new Community Gardens Project, which had people all over town growing their own gardens for the first time? Why is former Councilman Lou Pichinson's name left off the list of governing body members but no article published telling people about his recent resignation?

This summer, Highland Park lost two of our community's most active participants--Vickie White, former school board member and president of the Central Jersey People's Organization for Progress, and Harvey Brudner, former chair of the Highland Park Centennial Commission and president of the Joyce Kilmer Centennial Commission. Yet nowhere in the Quarterly is there even a word about these losses, not to mention a tribute to two very dedicated public servants.

Then we have the issue of the professional public relations firm, Jaffe Communications, whose owner was recruited to write and edit borough publications because at a meeting of the New Jersey State League of Municipalities, he expressed his admiration for the way Mayor Frank came to power. He has been paid $2,500 for each issue of the Quarterly and is also paid separately for coordinating the Main Street newsletter.

Well, if a person is going to be paid to write, he or she should at least know how to write and how to proofread. If the Fall 2009 issue of the Quarterly is any indication, Jaffe can do neither. Here are some examples of the errors he displays in the Quarterly:

1. On the top right corner of Page 1, a photo is captioned, "Borrough officials, residents, and students gathered recently at the Highland Park Recreation Complex to celebrate the opening of a new turf field." No comment needed here.

2. The misleading article attributing Rite Aid's renovation to redevelopment suddenly quotes someone named "Nolan" on page 2 without introducing him or providing any background on him. It should have noted he is a former councilman and former member of the Redevelopment Agency.

3. On page 5, in an article mentioning Highland Park being designated a Fair Trade Town, the bottom paragraph in the third column states, "Members of the middle and high school band, orchestra, and choral recently sold Fair Trade coffee, tea, and chocolate as a fundraiser." Choral? Choral what? Isn't the correct word "choir" or "chorus?"

4. On page 5, in an article on three businesses celebrating their first anniversary in town, the bottom paragraph on the left reads, "She said Main Street organizations bring added resources to downtowns, such as small business training that provides tools to small business owners on how to market their business, facade upgrades, and signs, all of which attract customers." This is a very poorly worded sentence and is missing the necessary comma after "small business training," as this should be an incidental phrase set off by commas. Also, resources don't "provides"; they provide. A competent writer should know something about subject-verb agreement.

5. Our Superintendent of Schools apparently needs some lessons in comma usage as well. She says, "At the high school our focus remains on enriching our current programs to meet the special needs of our young people." Where is the comma required after a prepositional phrase begins a sentence? The statement should read, "At the high school, our focus remains..."

The Superintendent then continues with a run-on sentence, apparently not caught by Jaffe, reading, "Our fall sports teams have begun practicing on the turf field and we look forward to watching them compete in the new facility." Any English 101 student will tell you that turf field should be followed by a comma in front of the conjunction "and" to make this a correct sentence.

The Board of Education president does no better. "On behalf of the entire School Board I invite the community, not just the school community but the entire community, to participate in the many activities going on at our schools." How about inviting the Board of Education to a workshop explaining the basic concept that a sentence beginning with a phrase such as "On behalf of the entire School Board" should be followed by a comma?

Yet our esteemed Board president manages to put a comma where it doesn't belong in this sentence: "And, I highly recommend being in communication with other parents." Maybe some of those parents could tell her that the "and" starting her sentence should not have a comma following it.

There are far too many such errors in the Board president's report to chronicle them all. Here is one more: "An inspiring number of our graduates attend some of the most prodigious colleges and universities in the country." Prodigious means large in size. The word the Board president probably intended, which Jaffe never corrected, is "prestigious."

6. On page 12, an article announcing the Junior Cadet Police Academy states an application deadline of October 23. The Quarterly came out on October 28. What's wrong here?

Some may argue that minor grammar mistakes are insignificant, but given the amount of money being spent on this paper and the fact that the bulk of the errors occur in the schools' section, this very well can be considered a legitimate concern.

But the worst of all are the politically biased statements and subtle promotion of particular candidates and businesses. A week before the gubernatorial election, Mayor Frank tries to sneak in a promotional for Governor Corzine with this statement in the article on road improvements: "With these extra funds, thanks to Governor Corzine and Steve Dilts, we can fix more of our roads and make Highland Park an even better place to live."

Well, Corzine has been in office for four years and Frank for nine, yet many of our roads and sidewalks are in terrible condition.

Then there is the "Heal the World" Mayor's Message, which once again repeats her self-proclaimed designation of Highland Park as "New Jersey's first green community." How ironic this is in a paper with repeated references to the installation of artificial turf at the Highland Park Recreation Complex. Artificial turf, or plastic grass, contains lead chromate and involves safety hazards to users from exposure. In June 2008, the New Jersey Department of Health shut down six synthetic fields due to high lead levels. Artificial turf has a base layer of crumb rubber infill, which is made from used tires and is considered hazardous waste in several states.

When confronted with the less than green reality of the artificial turf, Mayor Frank out and out lied by saying the county required its use in the grant funding the field restoration. County officials subsequently contacted by reporters denied that any such requirement was attached to the grant.

Is Highland Park New Jersey's first green community just because the mayor says so, even if other towns are doing much more to actively promote green living? Decide for yourself. Some advice: read the Highland Park Mirror's series at http://www.highlandparkmirror.com/hpmfts.html on Highland Park's artificial turf before making the decision.

Mayor Frank says "we are proud of our leadership." Does that mean she is proud of herself? "You can be good and green too," says her condescending, third-grade level mayor's message. How can we be good and green? The answer is by patronizing a set of listed businesses, all owned by Frank supporters.

Among those businesses is no less than Centerpiece, which the mayor herself owns. She says, "Some more favorites are gorgeous red, purple, blue, green, or yellow recycled glass salad bowls at Centerpiece..." What this means is the mayor is spending taxpayer dollars to promote her own business in the borough newsletter. Is this even legal? Even if the answer is yes, it most certainly is in poor taste.

Finally, the Quarterly is not, as is falsely stated on page 3, "Highland Park's official newspaper." A town's "official" newspaper is the one it designates by ordinance to publish all of its advertising. In our case, that would be The Home News Tribune. Calling a government newspaper by this legal term is misleading and just plain wrong.

This issue of the Quarterly would truly be a "comedy of errors" if only our hard-earned dollars weren't funding it.

Rite Aid Is Perfect Example of Why We DON'T Need Redevelopment

2009-10-28T18:46:00.003-04:00

While the recession continues along with job losses and foreclosures, the borough continues to spend taxpayer dollars on disseminating its propaganda and lining the pockets of Mayor Frank's good friend and political supporter Jonathan Jaffe. Too bad that for all this money, the Fall 2009 Quarterly gets it all wrong on Rite Aid and redevelopment.

A front-page article discussing Rite Aid's recent facade improvement is titled, "Rite Aid is Perfect Example of Effect of Redevelopment." That title is a perfect example of political spin. The reality is that Rite Aid's renovation was done in spite of, not because of, the borough's controversial redevelopment plan.

The Rite Aid property was placed in the 2004 redevelopment plan against the wishes of the property owners. Plans for the site included construction of two condominium buildings on South Fourth Avenue along what is part of the Rite Aid parking lot.

According to the Quarterly article, Rite Aid expressed the desire to renovate its building as far back as the early 1990s. This is interesting. The Redevelopment Agency was not founded until 2004. That means the owners sought to renovate under the existing system and not through a redevelopment agency or process. Also, Rite Aid was not in the building in the early 1990s. At that time, the pharmacy was still Drug Fair, owned by the property owner who later sold the business to the chain.

So how can Rite Aid's improvements be traced back to the Redevelopment Agency if those desires were sought and pursued long before the agency came into existence?

It turns out that the borough's adoption of the redevelopment plan actually delayed Rite Aid's renovation. The property was designated as being in need of redevelopment, in other words, as blighted, against the will of the property owner. As the Quarterly itself noted, the owners had already expressed their desire to renovate. Why then was there a need to blight their property and make it vulnerable to a taking by eminent domain?

The renovations, which are a tremendous improvement, were done as the result of a court settlement. The issue was in court because the property owners contested being placed in "an area in need of redevelopment." Such a designation was unneeded since they had already committed to renovating the property. Yet the property owner had to spend money on lawyers and legal fees to fight the town on this designation, delaying the improvements by several years.

In the end, the renovations were agreed to as part of a settlement that took the Rite Aid property out of the redevelopment zone. The borough also made the concession of taking out the condominium requirement. Therefore, former Councilman Steve Nolan's claim that the Rite Aid renovation is "a good example of how redevelopment can spur private landowners to be full partners in our downtown" is false and highly misleading. Rite Aid's owners did not want to be in a redevelopment zone. Nolan is also wrong in describing the renovation as "the Rite Aid redevelopment project," as it was never a redevelopment project at all.

The owners' desire and subsequent follow through in renovating their property is direct proof that redevelopment is not needed to spur landowners to improve their properties. Instead, redevelopment, specifically being placed in a redevelopment zone, can be considered a form of blackmail--the threat of eminent domain being placed on a business to motivate that business to take action out of fear of losing their property altogether.

Redevelopment agencies eat up taxpayers' money with paid consultants and the hiring of architectural, legal, and planning firms, none of which are needed. In the five years that Highland Park's Redevelopment Agency has existed, not a single redevelopment project has been done. Yet the agency takes credit for renovations funded and completed by private business owners through their own motivation and at their own expense.

Once again, we see the proof that sensitive revitalization, which involves no Redevelopment Agency and no threat of eminent domain, is the right way to go in improving our downtown. Those of us who campaigned on this premise back in 2005 and 2007 are once again vindicated by the reality on the ground.

That is a real victory for both the people and businesses of this town.

Eminent Domain Victory: It's Not Just for Long Branch

2009-10-01T21:48:00.007-04:00

Property owners in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, and Seaview Avenue area (MTOTSA neighborhood) in Long Branch, NJ, where a major rally against eminent domain abuse was held in June 2006, are free at last. In a decisive and final victory, they have won the right to keep their homes and their neighborhoods.

In mid-September, the municipal government and the developer involved reached an agreement with the homeowners in which all eminent domain actions were formally withdrawn. The city will be barred from any future efforts to take these homes via eminent domain under any current or future redevelopment plan.

This was a long battle, and it is a major victory. This neighborhood of longtime residents who barbecue together and regularly spend time on one another's front porches has literally been through hell. Unfortunately, many senior citizens, including World War II veterans, who had lived there for decades did not live to see this day, having died fighting for the right to keep their homes.

Under the agreement, the city has also agreed to reimburse the homeowners for a portion of their attorneys' fees and provide the homeowners with the tax abatements that had originally been promised to the developer who had planned to tear down their homes and build expensive condominium complexes. Additionally, the developer has agreed to rebuild and/or repair abandoned homes that were initially purchased under the redevelopment plan.

The beginning of the end of Long Branch's redevelopment and eminent domain abuse came in August 2008, when a three-judge panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division unanimously reversed the horrendous 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson, permitting condemnation of the properties. When the case was sent back to trial court, the city agreed to abandon its eminent domain actions and began negotiating a resolution of the matter with the affected homeowners.

The Long Branch case was one of the most publicized and prominent of the eminent domain abuse cases in New Jersey. That is why this victory goes far beyond Long Branch, why it is a victory for every homeowner and every business owner ever targeted by eminent domain for the purpose of economic redevelopment. As the 2008 decision was the beginning of the end for Long Branch's efforts, this victory is the beginning of the end of eminent domain abuse in New Jersey. And it is a shining example of how we the people can fight City Hall; not only can we fight, but we can win!

In the fight against eminent domain abuse, we still have quite a way to go. While 43 states have reformed their eminent domain laws in response to the 2005 Supreme Court Kelo decision, New Jersey's legislature has done absolutely nothing to protect home and property owners from this travesty. Legislative hearings on several bills were held; Governor Corzine's Public Advocate even actively advocated reform measures, yet nothing has been done. It is only in the state Supreme Courts that progress has been made to curtail the taking of homes and businesses for economic redevelopment.

Redevelopment may be dormant and for now, even dead in Highland Park, but make no mistake--our residents and business owners have very little legal protection should the governing body decide to revive redevelopment efforts. That is why we need to continue to lobby the state legislature for reform that protects all who want to keep their property the same way the Long Branch agreement protects the residents of one particular neighborhood.

The good news is, these battles can be won. Every victory along the way is a step toward the big victory. And every victory is a reminder that real power is not in City Hall, not in the State House, and certainly not with wealthy developers. Real power is within each one of us, and that is why, when this battle is finally over, we will prevail.

Long Live Vickie White

2009-08-01T21:37:00.003-04:00

"True Leadership. True Vision." This was the slogan that Vickie White created for my 2002 Borough Council race. For her, these words were a way of life.

On July 1, 2009, I and many others in Highland Park, in New Jersey, and beyond, even to New Orleans' ninth ward, were stunned and devastated to hear of Vickie's sudden death caused by a pulmonary embolism.

Vickie is the last person I would have expected to lose any time soon. She was vibrant, energetic, courageous, full of life, full of passion, an indefatigable champion of the people. She was a fighter on behalf of the poor, the victims of injustice, the oppressed, children, those forgotten by the people in power.

I first got to know Vickie when she took part in organizing Bridge Builders here in Highland Park as a response to several racial incidents that occurred in 2001.

Vickie served on the Highland Park Board of Education for ten years, from 1994-2004, in the later years as its president, and attained the rank of Master Board Member in 2001.

She also served on the Highland Park Board of Health from 1993-1996. Although I never had the chance of serving on the board with her, as I was first appointed in 1998, Vickie and Southside Pride, the group she had formed to advocate for residents of Highland Park's south side and for people of color, played a central role in co-sponsoring the annual Health Fair beginning in 2001. About two years ago, the Central New Jersey People's Organization for Progress, under Vickie's leadership, took over co-sponsoring the Health Fair with the board, a fair to provide needed health services and education to those who might otherwise not have access to them.

Unlike so many in the public arena, Vickie didn't just talk the talk; she walked the walk. Often, that included literal walking, in the Million Women's March, the military recruitment and anti-war protests, and in the March 2009 International Working Women's Day Coalition held in New York City's Union Square. The rallying cry of this demonstration was "Bail Out Women and Our Communities, Not the Banks."

In 2006, Vickie organized the 21st Century Freedom Ride to New Orleans. Twelve adults and twelve high school students did real work to help rebuild New Orleans' Ninth Ward, which had sustained the most damage from flooding by Hurricane Katrina one year earlier. The group met with students living in the ninth ward and later shared their experiences with the media and with other student and community groups.

She ran a Children's Defense Fund Freedom School here in Highland Park, a five-week literacy program open to all in grades 1-12 focusing on African-American literature, in 2004-2005.

Vickie often traveled far in her fight for social justice. She attended the Rosa Parks Memorial in Washington, D.C. and organized a bus trip this year from Highland Park to President Obama's inauguration. She played a leading role in the Peace and Justice Coalition, composed of 120 organizations, that sponsored Peace Conferences at Rutgers Law School, an anti-war rally at Essex County College, and the largest black-led peace march ever in 2007. She was active with New Jersey's People's Organization for Progress (POP) for almost ten years, serving on many committees and eventually becoming chair of POP Central Jersey.

This list was never meant to be comprehensive in detailing Vickie's activities. That would take an entire book. The point is that in a time and place of so much empty rhetoric, Vickie took action, led real efforts that made real, lasting changes in people's lives. Her actions put so many of our politicians to shame.

Within the last year, Vickie took interest in the development of green jobs, participating in the Second Annual "Good Jobs, Green Jobs Conference" in Washington, D.C. and in the Edible Gardens Project, whose goal is to involve young people in environmental justice, green jobs, and training.

On a personal level, I remember attending a Trenton rally against police brutality with her in 2002 and how she announced that while there was not a single elected official present, there was a candidate for public office there, which was me. She walked Highland Park's sixth district with me and introduced me to its residents. On the night of the election, she left an inspiring message on my answering machine about how proud she was of my achievement even though I didn't win. The reality is, I am the one who was and is proud to have known and worked with Vickie, a citizen of the world who did so much for so many in such a short time.

Vickie chose to take care of her nieces and nephews and viewed them as her children. She was their support, their advocate, their guide, not because she was obligated to do so, but because she wanted to do so.

A regular attendee of my annual birthday parties, Vickie always expressed interest in the wellbeing of my two nephews, marveling at how quickly they grew, from infants to walking and talking little boys.

Without her, efforts for social justice need that much more from us. POP-Central Jersey is organizing the Vickie White People's Legacy Project, which will provide a chance for family, friends, and colleagues to share and record their recollections of Vickie, her life, and her work. Anyone who wants to participate in this Legacy Project is encouraged to contact POP-Central NJ at (732) 763-1134 or email popcentraljersey@gmail.com .

On May 6 of this year, at the annual Health Fair, Vickie and I had what we never imagined would be our last conversation. She understood my own passion for activism and my indignation at injustice, which I have not hesitated to express, especially in the local political arena. At times, that passion has led me to exercise less than ideal judgment during debates and arguments with people who supported my political opponents. Vickie had seen so much more injustice, unfairness, exclusion, and oppression than I have seen or experienced, yet she knew how to transcend anger, very much the way the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. did. Her last words to me, spoken on that night, were to let go of anger and outrage over political slights during the last ten years.

The cause of Power to the People will live on, but all who have taken part in it are so profoundly diminshed by her loss.

Not representing any group or person but myself, I ask that the Borough of Highland Park posthumously award Vickie the Martin Luther King, Jr. Award and the title of Volunteer of the Decade for the first decade of the 21st century.

For us, the survivors, the most appropriate remembrance is in the words of the fourth verse of "Lift Every Voice and Sing," known as the black national anthem.

"Let us move onward still,
keep our resolve until
we achieve unity for all mankind.
Look to the rising sun;
new work each day is begun;
daily we strive,
'till we true freedom find.
Save our hopes,
that we so long and so dearly did cherish,
lest our hearts,
weary with cruel disillusion
should perish.
Stretch forth a loving hand,
You who in power stand.
Lose not our faith;
lose not our native land."

Godspeed, my friend.

June, July, August, or September???

2009-06-16T13:21:00.003-04:00

When Mayor Frank first announced in March of this year that she was going to resign to take a job as US representative to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, she did not set a date for her resignation even though she began the latter job on March 2. A few days after the initial announcement, Frank said she would resign in June, allowing three months to facilitate "a smooth transition."

But unlike former Governor Jim McGreevey, who in his resignation speech set a specific date for leaving office, Frank never did so. In fact, as June approached, she changed her resignation date to July. Subsquently, she said she would resign when the borough's 2009 budget is adopted on final reading.

That could very well postpone her resignation until August. Last year, political conflict over the state budget resulted in that budget being adopted later than the June 30 state-mandated deadline. This led to a delay in the allocation of state aid for municipalities. Since municipalities do not adopt their budgets until they have a definite number regarding the amount of state aid to be received that year, last year, most municipalities on calendar year budgets, including Highland Park, did not adopt a final budget until August. Home and property owners had to be given extensions on their tax bills because of this delay.

Many may ask, what difference does Frank's resignation date make? The answer is, it could make a huge difference. It could mean the difference between the borough holding a special election this November to replace her versus having to wait a year for that election with a mayor chosen not by the people but solely by the 26 members of the Municipal Democratic Committee.

According to state law, if a municipal elected official resigns 51 days or more before the day of the General Election (this year, that date is November 3, 2009), a special election must be held to fill that vacancy. In other words, the Municipal Democratic Committee can choose the person they want to replace Frank, but that person would still have to run for election in November, and anyone else interested in the mayor's position would have the option of running against the party candidate as an independent.

However, if Frank resigns later than 51 days before the General Election, state law mandates the special mayoral election be postponed until the next November (2010 in this case). That means whoever is selected by the Municipal Democratic Committee--someone likely to have Frank's stamp of approval--would have an entire year to serve as mayor before facing an electoral challenge.

Fifty-one days before Election Day comes out to be Sunday, September 13. Because that falls on a weekend, Frank must submit her formal resignation by Friday, September 11; if she fails to do so, there will be no special election until November 2010, and Highland Park residents will be forced to go an entire year with a mayor we didn't elect.

Many politicians around the state have, in the past, manipulated the calendar and deadlines to give their allies an additional year in power and thereby circumvent the will of the public. It is absolutely essential that this not be allowed to happen in Highland Park.

If the final budget is not adopted until August, the following scenario is very plausible: the mayor could claim that too many council members were away on vacation in August as a justification for postponing her resignation until September. At that point, there is little time left. If a council meeting lacks a quorum or must be postponed in those first 11 September days, the voters lose the chance to select our next mayor for another year.

What is scary right now is that few people are even aware that we will have to hold a special election for mayor. The Star Ledger, as stated in an earlier post, erroneously reported that the next mayor will be chosen solely from a pool of three names to be considered by the Municipal Democratic Committee. That may very well be what Frank and her supporters want the public to believe. But it is not the truth.

With or without a stamp of approval from the Municipal Democratic Committee, any borough resident who is a citizen and 18 or older can seek election as Highland Park's next mayor. Potential candidates must obtain petitions from the Middlesex County Clerk's office and are required to obtain the signatures of 50 registered voters in town. Those voters can be of any party affiliation. These petitions must be submitted to the Middlesex County Clerk's office by 4 PM on Friday, September 11.

This is a golden opportunity for anyone interested in serving our borough and bringing new leadership to this community. Members of the public have the right to know that this opportunity will exist.

If you or anyone you know is interested in running for mayor, don't wait for a resignation announcement because if it comes at the last minute, you won't have enough time to get the required petition signatures. Instead, get a copy of the petition now and start gathering the signatures, with the assumption that we will have a special election for mayor. The County Clerk's office has vouched that doing this is perfectly legal.

At the same time, it is important for as many citizens as possible to publicly demand that Frank resign before the September 11 deadline and give the people of our community the chance to choose our next mayor. We must make it clear that deliberately manipulating deadlines to assure another year of political control is a disservice to the public and to democracy and will not be tolerated.

NJ Democrats: Vote Carl Bergmanson for Governor and End "Octo-Dipping"

2009-05-25T15:16:00.009-04:00

How many New Jersey Democrats realize we have a choice for governor in the June 2 primary? The mainstream media certainly has not conveyed this vital piece of information. That is hardly surprising since Carl Bergmanson, the Democrat challenging Governor Jon Corzine for the gubernatorial nomination, is a reform-minded independent thinker whose campaign is struggling financially, the same way many of us are during this recession, and not a walking human ATM like his opponent.

A former mayor of Glen Ridge, NJ, Bergmanson has been "permitted" to take part in the race only because he has absolutely no ties to the New Jersey Democratic machine, which looks after its special interest friends like developers far more than after the averge working people. Anyone reliant on this party machine for a political career, such as the Perth Amboy councilman who had wanted to challenge Corzine, need only state such intention before the party bigwigs descend on them to talk them out of running for the sake of "party unity." Let's not forget that former Governor Richard Codey wanted to challenge Corzine for the nomination four years ago but was bullied financially out of the race.

This is not democracy.

Bergmanson could not be talked out of running because he owes nothing to this party machine.

It's time to assess Governor Corzine's record in office. In the corporate world, those who do not perform their jobs up to standard are fired. Corzine has failed to deliver on multiple promises, which is why it is time for him to go.

In his 2005 campaign, Corzine promised property tax relief. He pledged to increase property tax rebates 40 percent in four years. He advocated a constitutional convention to address the property tax crisis and unfairness in how we fund public schools.

The "40 in 4" plan evaporated almost immediately. Corzine actually eliminated property tax rebates completely for many, and seriously reduced them for many more.

The constitutional convention was never held. It seems the governor has experienced selective amnesia about his promises, as he did about driving the speed limit and wearing a seatbelt two years ago.

Ninety-eight proposals on property tax reform and countless meetings led to zero change. Now, the governor is using the old trick of providing homeowners with a rebate in 2009, conveniently in September or October, right before the election, while already having eliminated them from the 2010 budget.

Even worse, Corzine has proposed eliminating the property tax deduction on the state income tax, effectively forcing New Jersey homeowners to pay income taxes on their property taxes, which are already the highest in the nation!

And just like a certain mayor in Highland Park, Corzine promised "the most open and transparent government in New Jersey history" only to prove these more empty words, as the administration will not even release budget data to the state Assembly without having to be taken to court.

The governor did fulfill one promise--restoration of the Department of the Public Advocate. However, he ignored the recommendations of his own appointee, Public Advocate Ronald Chen, who pushed for new laws eliminating the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment.

So what will Carl Bergmanson do differently? For one, he plans to actually pursue the constitutional convention to address property taxes. When it comes to state mandates on municipalities, he will either fully fund them, in accordance with the "state mandate, state pay" law, or eliminate them entirely.

Bergmanson favors Initiative and Referendum, a procedure in which citizens vote directly on major issues, such as eminent domain reform. As for much-needed campaign finance reform, since the US Supreme Court has ruled against attempts to limit campaign contributions, Bergmanson proposes to tax these contributions on a graduated basis. If we can tax luxury items, why not tax campaign contributions?

One of Corzine's biggest failures is his promise to end "the old way of doing things in Trenton," namely corruption. Not only has he retained countless McGreevey political appointees; he has kept intact the government structure that rewards big campaign contributors with high-paid jobs for which they are not qualified.

In 2003, while completing the Main Street New Jersey Downtown Revitalization program, I had the chance to converse with employees of the Department of Community Services. Natually, being me, I tried to stir up a revolt by recommending these employees apply for top department positions such as Deputy Commissioner. That position had just been given to a former Highland Park councilwoman who had not completed a single term and had never worked for the Department of Community Affairs.

"Those are political appointments," several employees responded, laughing at even the idea that they should go for these jobs in spite of their being more qualified than the political appointee who was getting an $80,000 salary subsidized by our tax dollars.

This is where Bergmanson can and will offer real change. He is committed to ending "double dipping," which allows members of the state legislature, who are considered "part time" workers, to hold another full time government job, which in itself creates multiple conflicts of interest.

Even more importantly, Bergmanson will push each state department to reduce its budget by up to 20 percent to bring state spending under control. However, and this is the crucial point, he will begin the cuts at the top rather than the bottom of each department, eliminating thousands of high-paid patronage positions rather than the regular employees, like those I spoke with in 2003, who do the real work of serving the public, many of whom fall on the lowest ends of the pay scale.

Before voting, every New Jersey Democrat should take a look at this site: http://php.app.com/NJpublicemployees/results2.php . What you find out may very well leave you outraged. Over 3,000 people in New Jersey currently hold multiple state jobs. Many, as can be seen in the list on this page, hold seven, eight and nine state jobs all at one time, with total incomes of $300,000. They are getting pensions for every one of these jobs. I tried to count the number of people with eight or more jobs and soon realized it would take hours.

But I did come up with an appropriate name for the phenomenon of people holding eight government jobs subsidized by taxpayer dollars: "octo-dipping."

Every single one of these salaries comes from our tax dollars. Yet Corzine and other machine politicians, when making cuts, choose to "spread the pain" through targeting Medicare, property tax rebates, and toll increases. New Jersey is bankrupt not because we spend too much on social programs, but because of the depth of political corruption at all levels. As one bumper sticker says, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

New Jersey Democrats, it's time to pay attention. Research these facts for yourselves. We need to admit that the fox is not the best choice to mind the henhouse.

To volunteer or donate to Carl Bergmanson's campaign, visit http://www.bergmansonforgovernor.com/ . Then, on Tuesday, June 2, say no more to party machines and vote Carl Bergmanson for governor in the Democratic primary. The polls are open 6 AM-8 PM. Voters who never voted in a primary are considered undeclared and may vote in the Democratic primary.

Election? What Election?: The Star Ledger's Path to Mediocre Journalism

2009-05-13T19:26:00.003-04:00

In today's article, "Highland Park's Path to A New Mayor," Star Ledger reporter Ryan Hutchins continues his once-excellent newspaper's downhill slide to mediocrity, sacrificing the traditional watchdog role and instead choosing to be little more than a venue for politicians' self promotion.

Today's article reaches a new low. Hutchins seems to have forgotten that in Highland Park, we hire our mayor through a general election. For a reporter, forgetting an election is not by any means a minor oversight!

The article can be found at http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/middlesex/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1242187610322760.xml&coll=1

Hutchins also reiterates at face value Mayor Frank's deceptive claim that she alone authored the state and federal family leave acts. He describes her smiling and saying at a council meeting that her administration accomplished a lot. Details? None given.

This administration has been controversial from day one. Did Hutchins even attempt to get a perspective from the opposition? It's not hard; there are plenty among the business owners on Raritan Avenue. How about the owner of Ubry's, a successful mechanic shop that for four-and-a-half years has posted a large sign in its front window reading, "Mayor Frank, please don't take our business" in response to his property being declared "in need of redevelopment" and therefore vulnerable to eminent domain?

Below is an email I sent to Hutchins expressing my dismay at his lackluster and biased reporting:

"Dear Mr. Hutchins,

I am writing to point out several inaccuracies in your article today regarding the current mayor of Highland Park and process of selecting a replacement.

Frank is not the author of the New Jersey Family Leave Act of 1989 and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. She is one of several hundred volunteers who worked on this bill. For ten years, she has deceptively portrayed herself as the single author of these bills to inflate her political experience and mislead the public of Highland Park. It is disappointing that you would print her words at face value and not check into the veracity of her statements or those of any politician before printing them as facts.

Second, in discussing Frank's term as mayor, you quote her citing her own accomplishments while failing to acknowledge the controversial nature of her term or the fact that there has been significant opposition to her controversial redevelopment policies for many years. Good journalism requires presenting both sides of an issue, and to do this, the responsible thing would be to seek an alternative opinion from her many active, vocal opponents.

Third, the choice of a new mayor is not solely partisan and up to the Municipal Democratic Committee. You failed to mention that whoever the party chooses will face an election in November. That means an independent or Republican could challenge the party's choice. The public of Highland Park deserve to know that they will have this choice, and you failed to provide this important information.

I have been one of many leading opponents of Frank for the past ten years, and I would be happy to speak with you to present the other side and/or to refer you to others, including business owners, who can present you with this very different perspective as well. Please feel free to check out my Blog for Highland Park, representing the voice of the opposition, at http://www.blogforhighlandpark.blogspot.com .
Thank you,

Laurel Kornfeld
2005 Democratic candidate for Highland Park Borough Council

When it comes to newspapers, the public also gets a vote--with our dollars. I encourage anyone disgusted with this sham that passes for reporting to write letters to the editor, call the Star Ledger's Middlesex County bureau, and consider cancelling their subscriptions to this newspaper. In this recession, why pay for a shabby product?

Housing Project for Veterans Deserves Community Support

2009-03-08T23:28:00.005-04:00

A proposal by the Reformed Church of Highland Park's Affordable Housing Corporation to convert the vacant All Saints Episcopal Church on South Third Avenue to 11 housing units for struggling veterans deserves the full support of our town, its government, and its residents.

Yet the plan currently before the Zoning Board, which would create five studio apartments on the 83-year-old church's second floor, three apartments on its first floor, and three apartments in the basement, one of which would be a two-bedroom unit, is being fiercely opposed by about 40 neighboring residents. Why? The answer, at least the one opponents state publicly, is that conversion of the church into apartments, which would necessitate placing dormers on the building's roof, would "ruin the character of the building."

Opponents of the plan have gone so far as to apply to get the church registered on the state list of historic sites in their attempts to halt the project even though trustees of the housing corporation have committed to protecting the architectural integrity of the church along with its stained glass windows.

Is this opposition really due to historic concerns, or are those stated concerns masking something much uglier--the old Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) mentality, defined by people's supposed desire to do good as long as there is no negative impact, whether real or perceived, to their neighborhood?

According to the project proposal, veterans would be moved in only after spending up to four months in Veterans' Administration (VA) supervised residential treatment for vocational training plus another one to two years in transitional housing. These will be veterans with minimal physical or emotional handicaps, and the housing corporation plans to partner with the Behavioral Health Care of UMDNJ in Piscataway to assure that any supportive services needed will be provided.

The plan also calls for an office in the building for Greenfaith, a 16-year-old interfaith environmental group. How can any of this be anything but a win for a town that has pledged itself to economic, environmental, and social sustainability?

Interestingly, opponents of the project object to its requirement of variances for slightly higher housing density and more parking spaces than allowed by borough ordinance for this area. Yet some of these people are the same ones who actively supported higher density housing as proposed by the mayor in other parts of town--on Raritan Avenue, Cleveland Avenue, and South Adelaide Avenue--as part of the now defunct redevelopment plan.

That means their objection is not to higher density in and of itself. And if the housing corporation has already given their word that the historic character of the building will be respected and maintained, what is really the issue at hand? Why such strong objections?

Whether we support or oppose any individual war or military incursion, these veterans are people who put their lives and health on the line every day for us, to protect our freedom. They deserve nothing but the best society and every community can provide. Yet 3,500 veterans in New Jersey are homeless, and veterans' services across the country are grossly inadequate.

In 1988, when working on the Dukakis campaign, I was ecstatic when one month before the election, I was given a ticket to attend a speech Michael Dukakis was giving in Boston's famous Fanuel Hall, the birthplace of the American Revolution. It turns out the theme of the event was veterans and the gross neglect of veterans under the Reagan Administration. Listening to the horror stories of men and women who had served this country and come back to be abandoned to its streets, feeling the deep-seated pain and betrayal experienced by those who risked their lives for our freedom quickly brought me from excitement to tears. This was so wrong. And it still is.

Here in Highland Park, we have a lot of people who like to consider themselves "liberals" or "progressives." Unfortunately, for some of these people, these words serve more as labels and status symbols than real, genuine convictions. Sure, they support helping disadvantaged kids in New Brunswick--as long as their kids don't have to go to school with them. Yes, they're all for helping the poor in Newark, Camden, and Washington, D.C. Just don't ask them to bring any of "those people" next door because God forbid, at least in their minds if not in reality, that would drive down their property values.

One cannot help asking, how many of those actively opposing this project ever served in the US Armed Forces? How many of them ever put their lives on the line for the freedom to speak and write about everything from this local project to the wars in which these veterans have fought? My guess, thought it could be wrong, is few to none.

Not that apartments for veterans would do actual harm to property values. Some of the same people expressed similar concerns about an earlier housing project the housing corporation successfully built, an addition of six apartment buildings to the Reformed Church to house women ages 18-21 aging out of foster care. That project, titled Irayna Court, not only had no negative effect on the town; it stands as an example of what a small community of compassionate people can do for those most in need.

Real progressives operate from compassion. Real progressives put human life first, certainly before any monetary concerns. Real progressives understand that a community that looks out for its own people is the most desirable, most benefic, most valuable community in the world.

The pseudo-progressives have vowed to continue their opposition at the next Zoning Board meeting, which will take place on Monday, March 23 at 7:30 PM in Borough Hall. This time, let's have an equally strong contingent show up on the veterans' behalf. After all, they fought for us, and not just with words in a town hall. Fighting for their getting decent services and homes is the least we can do to thank them.

Journalism Involves Telling Both Sides

2009-03-01T20:40:00.004-05:00

It is common knowledge that journalists are supposed to be objective when covering politics and controversial situations. That is why an article by Tom Hayden about Mayor Frank that appeared in The Star Ledger on February 28, 2009 comes off as so strikingly inappropriate. From reading the article, one would think Haydon thought he was writing a press release promoting Frank. His portrayal practically celebrates her highly controversial first mayoral race, accepts her statements at face value and blindly repeats them, quotes only her supporters, and does not even acknowledge that there is an entire other side to her term in office. This kind of journalism that does nothing more than promote individual politicians is a disservice to the public, which has a right to know all sides of any issue, especially when controversy is involved. Haydon should have at least quoted some of Frank's critics, questioned her claims, and provided an objective overview of her administration. Unfortunately, he did not do that.

And there most certainly is another side. Far from being the dynamic, accomplished mayor he portrays, Frank used this town as a stepping stone in her quest for higher elective office and spent more time cultivating relationships with politicians outside of Highland Park than serving our community. Our Y is gone; the Corner Confectionary is gone; the roads and sidewalks are in terrible shape; the Police and Fire Departments and First Aid Squad never got the equipment they need and were promised; the grant money we got from the state all went toward politically connected architectural firms and planners for what turned out to be a dead end redevelopment plan, and now the state has no more money to give. The truth is that Frank has left this town in shambles, and the public has the right to know. That is why I sent the letter below to Tom Hayden and am now choosing to share it with everyone.

Dear Mr. Haydon,

I am a writer and politician in Highland Park who has also "built strong political connections" over the past 20 years and additionally have been a de facto leader of the political opposition to Mayor Frank since she first ran for office in 1999. I am writing regarding your article of February 28, 2009, which contains several inaccuracies regarding Frank and does not tell the whole story of her tenure in office, which has been extremely controversial.

First, Frank did not "author" the New Jersey Family Leave Act of 1989 or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Yes, she took part in crafting them, but she was one of thousands of volunteers who worked on this project. She has consistently misled the public and the press by misrepresenting the situation and acting as though she singlehandedly spearheaded this work. That is absolutely not the case. For her to claim this as solely her accomplishment devalues the efforts of other volunteers across the state and country who worked equally hard on these bills.

Frank's 1999 campaign was exceedingly negative and severely divided the community. Many of the people, especially women, who initially supported her changed their minds within a few years when they realized that she ran the town like a dictator. Our system is supposed to be weak mayor-strong council, and she undermined that completely. She also deliberately targeted long term hard working council members when she first took over as mayor with lies and defamatory statements in an effort to get them to resign and replace them with her loyalists, many of whom had no qualifications for the council positions at all.

I ran against her council candidates in 2002 and 2005 and came within a hair's breadth of winning. I too, ran off the party line in Democratic primaries, and my supporters consisted largely of lower income residents and disenfranchised members of the community unhappy with Frank's reckless spending and astronomical tax increases. On several occasions, she responded to people who said they couldn't afford her taxes by saying, "then move. You could get a lot of money for your house."

During my campaigns, she spread vicious and false rumors about me including accusing me of being a racist and of attempting to overturn an election. She filed false police reports claiming I threatened her, which I never did, and complaining that I was copying her hair and wardrobe. After each election, she and her machine lied about the results in repeated letters to the editor in an attempt to marginalize me and my supporters and twist the results of the elections. She also attempted to get both me and my 2005 running mate fired from our jobs by approaching our employers and asking them to fire us. Thankfully, neither listened to her.

Frank pushed a redeveopment plan that generated tremendous controversy, as she refused to rule out the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. She told the owners of several blue collar businesses (a mechanic shop, a used car lot co-owned by my brother, and a gun and boat shop) that their businesses did not belong in the downtown. The redevelopment push was done in backroom deals with little to no transparency. In 2005, business owners held several public protests against her redevelopment plan. They were ultimately successful, and every redevelopment project she had initiated and supported was stopped. When one councilwoman, Carolyn Timmons, decided she could not support redevelopment due to the possible use of eminent domain, Frank forced her to resign her council position and went behind her back to get her fired from her county position.

In 2007, Frank lied about a huge cell tower placed in the center of town, claiming Verizon misled her. The opposition found a dated copy of the contract, and it was clear she was lying. This year, she pushed for artificial turf being placed at the high school football field. When confronted with the fact that this turf could be toxic and contains the remains of recycled tires, she claimed that the county grant that funded the project demanded the use of artificial turf. However, this was a lie, as the county Parks Superintendent assured concerned citizens that artificial turf was never a requirement for the project.

Many people in this town have built strong political connections, myself included. Because I openly fought her and confronted her about her repeated lies, Frank attempted to sabotage my political relationships and spread false, vicious rumors accusing me of being mentally ill. I have worked with Democracy for America on the 2004 Kerry campaign, testified before the State Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee on eminent domain abuse as a representative of the NJ Coalition to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse, was appointed by former Governor Richard Codey to the state Natural Areas Council, and am also a member of both the Democratic National Committee Women's Leadership Forum and of the Bipartisan Commission on the Appointment of Women. Yet Frank has refused to acknowledge any of my service to the town and my extensive political connections on the state and national levels.

This town is still very heavily divided politically, and Frank's supporters are largely wealthy upper class PTO parents who have no sense of the impact of the tax burden on most of our population. The campaigns I put together were far more grassroots than hers ever were, as they truly empowered the poor, the disabled, and the disenfrachised. Yet Frank pretends these campaigns never happened and that she never had any opposition.

She also recently ordered the Police Department to give over 600 tickets to people for failure to shovel their walks after a snowstorm in spite of the fact that many did shovel. Her relationship with the Police Department, Fire Department, and First Aid Squad is completely hostile. I urge you to contact representatives of these groups to hear this other side of the story.

Debbie Walsh has been a supporter of Frank's from the beginning, so it is not surprising that she would say the things she did. However, Walsh also misused her position as Director of the Center for the American Woman and Politics, which is supposed to be bi-partisan. At the 2000 and 2001 Ready to Run seminars, for which I paid over $100 each, Walsh objected to my discussing my struggle with Frank during public sessions in which every participant discussed their political battles. Apparently, criticizing incumbent politicians is okay to her, but criticizing Frank is not.

Frank leaves this town with a huge budget mess, broken streets and roads, a football field of artificial turf, a constant turnover of borough employees, and nothing positive to show for her nine years in office. The vision she so heavily promoted of Highland Park 2020, her redevelopment plan, is dead, as such a blatant example of social engineering should be. I can assure you that many residents, including members of the Police and Fire Department and First Aid Squad are happy to see her go.

To find out more about the other side of Frank's administration, please visit my blog at http://www.blogforhighlandpark.blogspot.com . As a journalist myself, I believe the public has the right to know both sides of the story, and unfortunately, your article told only one of those. I would be happy to speak with you further at any time to share this other side.

Sincerely,
Laurel Kornfeld

Ticket to Ride

2009-02-14T20:18:00.003-05:00

Remember how when she first took office, Mayor Frank kept emphasizing that Highland Park cannot go running to Trenton with our hand out for assistance, how we need our borough to become economically self-sufficient?

Well, not only has that not happened; now, the state is coming up empty-handed, and the borough has turned to the taxpayers in what looks a lot like a desperate attempt to raise enough money to plug a huge budget hole. The means for doing this--a ticket blitz.

About a week after a minor January snowstorm, approximately 500 residents and business owners were mailed tickets for failing to shovel their sidewalks. Now, it's reasonable to assume that some of them really had not shoveled and deserved the tickets. But 500?

Many of those who found a ticket when opening their mail had indeed shoveled their walks, and had done so to meet the borough's ordinance requiring that 40 inches of sidewalk be cleaned so that people using wheelchairs have enough room to maneuver. In fact, some people received two or even three tickets in the mail for the same violation!

And isn't it interesting that a large proportion of those who received tickets are homeowners and businesses who publicly opposed this mayor--including my family, my 2005 running mate, and various people who donated money to our campaigns (campaign donations are a matter of public record).

The mailing of tickets a week after the supposed violations has to raise eyebrows. It makes sense that police officers patrolling the town would come to the doors of home and business owners who hadn't shoveled to give them a summons. But mailing tickets a week later--at which point a lot of the snow had melted, making it impossible for anyone to prove he or she shoveled seven days earlier (unless that person had taken a photo of the shoveled walk with the date stamped on it) strongly suggests that something fishy is going on here.

Ever since the calendar year started, there appear to have been ticket blitzes everywhere around New Jersey for supposed traffic violations. One has to question: in communications with local mayors and council members desperate for state aid, did state officials respond by advising them to seek additional revenue through writing tickets? State officials communicate regularly with municipal ones both at formal events and informally, so it is not unlikely that the heavily in debt state of New Jersey recommended municipal officials turn to the taxpayers for additional revenue.

Also troubling are some of the anecdotes being circulated around town regarding the ticket blitz and people's subsequent experiences fighting tickets in court. Several police officers supposedly told residents that the ticket blitz was conducted expressly as an order from the mayor and urged the people they were ticketing to fight the summonses in court. It is important to note that the mayor is not permitted to dictate orders to the Police Department. If such a directive was given, it was an abuse of power.

And it is well known that there is no love lost between the mayor and the Police Department, with the PBA having endorsed challenger Nancy Wolf in the 2007 mayoral campaign. So it would make sense for the mayor to make the cops look like the "bad guys" and disavow any connection to these tickets, denying she ever gave any order and hiding behind the old line, "they were just doing their job."

When those who chose to fight the tickets went to court, they were advised by the judge upfront to pay the fines because there was no way they would win. That sounds like he had made up his mind before even hearing any evidence in any of the cases! Furthermore, all those in court for snow tickets were told that their cases would be addressed last, only after every single motor vehicle violation was adjudicated. Again, we have another ploy--make people wait for hours until they get so tired they give up and pay the fine or force them to come back to court on another day and do it all over again. That is the same tactic used by the mayor and council when they had to deal with an angry public in any controversial situation.

The good news is that several newspapers have picked up the story, complete with statements by many who swear they shoveled their walks and were ticketed anyway. The best antidote for this type of abuse of power is bringing awareness of it into the light of day.

Because, now, the people are watching. The next time it snows, be prepared to see people out with cameras taking pictures of their shoveled walks the minute they finish cleaning them.

This is one snow job that won't be happening again.

Meet Susette Kelo in New York this Wednesday

2009-01-26T23:53:00.003-05:00

This message is from the Institute for Justice, which has been in the forefront of the fight against eminent domain abuse for years. Susette Kelo, whose case resulted in the infamous Kelo vs. New London Supreme Court decision permitting the use of eminent domain for redevelopment, will be holding a book forum with author Jeff Benedict, who documents her story in Little Pink House: A True Story of Courage and Defiance.

"Susette Kelo is the person behind the infamous U.S. Supreme Court eminent domain case, Kelo v. City of New London. Susette’s little pink house—along with the homes of her neighbors—were taken from them as a result of that 2005 decision. New London promised to put a glitzy new private development project on her land, but now, nearly four years after the ruling and $78 million in taxpayer money spent, literally nothing has been built on the land; it remains vacant, the neighborhood bulldozed.

Susette and author Jeff Benedict will hold a book forum at Columbia University on Jeff's new book, Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage. The book is available for purchase from Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Pink-House-Defiance-Courage/dp/0446508624. Be sure to check out the Wall Street Journal's review of this terrific book in its January 26, 2009 edition here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123293428423414379.html
The review is titled 'Evicted but not without A Fight: The Government Took Her Home. The Supreme Court Approved.'"

Book Forum
Hosted by the Federalist Society
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2009
4:30pm - 6pm
Columbia University School of Law
William & June Warren Hall
Amsterdam Avenue & W. 115th Street
(Entrance on Amsterdam Avenue between 115th & 116th)
Room L107 (on lower level)
New York, NY

While the specter of redevelopment has significantly diminished here in Highland Park, due to citizen action against eminent domain abuse and the subsequent recession, make no mistake: we have no legal protections for businesses or properties if local government ever decides to resurrect redevelopment. In spite of many Assembly and State Senate proposals, no law has been passed in NJ to protect property owners from eminent domain abuse.

The fight against eminent domain abuse for redevelopment is far from over. This is a golden opportunity to hear from someone on the front lines of this struggle.

Wally's Whoppers: A Heads Up to All 2008 Candidates

2008-12-26T15:40:00.005-05:00

Anyone who ran for any office here in New Jersey during this past year is hereby forewarned: you and/or your campaign might very well be spun, distorted, or portrayed in outright lies in the annual New Year's wrap up of state, county, and local political campaigns by the online web site politicsnj.com, also known as "The Politicker."

Founded in 2000, politicsnj.com purports to be an online version of a statewide political newspaper. Yet it falls far short in that its writers, led by editor Wally Edge, who writes only under a pseudonym, have no journalistic ethics to speak of and are content to run their site in the spirit of tabloids such as The National Enquirer.

I know this from personal experience because of the hatchet job politicsnj.com did on the Highland Park mayoral campaign on which I worked. In compiling his "best and worst campaigns of 2007," Wally Edge never bothered to check the facts, wrote statements that could be considered borderline libelous, and refused to print any correction when confronted with his error.

Here is, verbatim, the trash journalism politicsnj.com seeks to pass off as “news.”

Under “Worst Campaigns of 2007,” Wally Edge opines:

7. Nancy Wolf for Mayor
(Democrat, Highland Park)
“The Laurel Kornfeld-led primary challenge to Mayor Meryl Frank was more like a scene out of ‘Fatal Attraction’ than a real campaign.”

As a journalist myself, I can easily say I’ve almost never read a single sentence that contained so many factual errors and outright lies.

To start with, the Wolf campaign should not have been in the “Worst Campaigns” list. A campaign that receives a respectable 45 percent of the vote and is not tainted with scandal or corruption does not deserve this designation. There were plenty of campaigns during 2007 with far worse showings and questionable tactics to boot. This designation only confirms an eight-year pro-Frank bias on the part of politicsnj.com, a bias that has surfaced over and over again in its coverage of Highland Park politics.

Then we come to the libelous part. First, I did not “lead” the campaign. I worked as a writer and researcher and did public outreach, but I was not a decision maker. Wally Edge could have easily verified this by taking the time to look at the campaign’s Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) report, but he never bothered to do so. If he had, he would have seen the name of the real campaign manager and found my name only under the list of donors. Checking one's facts is an integral part of being a responsible journalist.

Even worse is the “Fatal Attraction” reference. Here Wally is referencing a March 2007 police report filed by Frank claiming I was copying her hairstyle and grooming and making other, more serious false accusations against me. I was the one who went to The Star Ledger with the story because it was so outrageous. In a March 27, 2007 Star Ledger article, I made clear that none of the hideous accusations Frank made against me were true. Yes, the story became a laughingstock on News 12, WINS in New York and even NPR’s “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me,” but it was Frank who was the butt of the jokes.

In typical tabloid style, Wally Edge conveniently forgets that everyone is innocent until proven guilty of a crime in a court of law. Even though I was the victim of a false police report intended solely to intimidate me out of challenging Frank in the mayoral race, Wally Edge instead chose to use a highly defamatory reference to make me sound like a stalker instead of a political opponent.

Libel standards are much harder to prove for public figures, and having been a candidate for public office, I am considered a public figure. However, Wally Edge’s single sentence meets all three criteria for libel even against a public figure—it is false; it is defamatory, and it shows reckless disregard for the truth.

Long ago having stopped being a regular reader of politicsnj.com, I was unaware of any of this until sometime in March. As soon as I read it, I emailed Wally and told him that his statement about me leading the campaign was not true. He insisted that he “stands by the story” and refused to print any retraction or correction even though I, a first hand source, told him he was wrong.

He then went on to make a big deal about the fact that three months had passed, so the issue was moot and no longer relevant. In back and forth emails, his main defense was repeating the question, “why do you care after three months?” as if it’s okay to stick with a lie just because some time has passed.

It doesn’t matter if three months, three years, or three decades had gone by. A lie is still a lie, and any journalist worth his salt would acknowledge the error or at least check the documentation in the ELEC reports to find out if a mistake was made. Why do people seek exoneration of those wrongly convicted of crimes even after decades have passed, sometimes even after the accused is no longer living? The truth does not change with the passage of time, unless you’re writing to the standards of The National Enquirer, The Weekly World News or Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984.

Interestingly, while politicsnj.com started as a grassroots effort, about two years ago, it was purchased by Jared Kushner, the son of Charles Kushner, the McGreevey financier and developer who went to jail on charges of tax violations and witness tampering. For those who may not remember, Kushner is the one who financially supported the hiring of Golan Cipel by McGreevey. Cipel allegedly had a personal relationship with McGreevey and allegedly used it to blackmail him, resulting in McGreevey’s resignation. Kushner’s witness tampering involved the hiring of a prostitute in another blackmail scheme.

Jared is not responsible for the actions of his father; however, the significance here is that politicsnj.com is owned by a real estate developer. Jared has stayed in the real estate business and is engaged to Ivanka Trump, the daughter of developer Donald Trump.

In this state, where most of the political establishment is tied to big developers and their politically connected network of contractors, law firms, planners, engineers, etc., where the majority of elected officials have received campaign dollars from developers, it is not surprising that a developer like Jared Kushner would want to control an online “newspaper,” which he could easily use to spin all coverage toward developer friendly political candidates.

Both Wolf in 2007 and I in my 2005 council race opposed high density development in town, any use of eminent domain, and the philosophy of “new urbanism.” It is natural, then, that a developer-owned medium like politicsnj.com would put its clout behind our opponents, who publicly expressed their support for higher density commercial and residential development numerous times. It makes sense that a Kushner-owned site with connections to Donald Trump would want to discredit genuinely green candidates who want to preserve the small town feel of our community and cannot be bought at any price.

On this anniversary of politicsnj.com’s yellow journalism, I as someone who has been “burned,” hope to warn any candidates of the past year, especially those who ran against the developer-backed political machine, to be prepared to find your efforts distorted, even portrayed with outright lies, in politicsnj.com’s New Year’s edition set to be published on December 30.

But here is another message to potential victims of this junk that passes for journalism: even if you see your campaign illustrated in a whopper bigger than anything Burger King has to offer, don’t let it stop you from continuing to participate in the democratic process in the year to come. It’s past time for the developer-run political machine to be exposed as the corrupt system it is and replaced with a true democracy of, by, and for the people of this state.

The "December Dilemma": A Non-Issue

2008-12-12T00:28:00.004-05:00

This article, with a few minor revisions, is a reprint of a column I originally published in the New Brunswick-based Business and Entertainment Journal in December 2000.

During the waning days of autumn and of the calendar year, an emotionally charged debate has for years become as much of an annual ritual as watching football games or counting down the seconds to the new year. Popularly known as the “December Dilemma,” this debate centers on public displays of religious holiday symbols and the coping of minority religious groups with the predominance of Christian symbols and themes in stores, the media, and even public schools.

As the days grow shorter and the weather colder, this issue inevitably emerges in numerous letters to the editor and on radio and television shows. Every year, at least a few lawsuits are filed, and courts hear cases for months afterward and often end up overturning previous precedents. Yet in spite of all this sound and fury, the “December Dilemma” is really a non-issue, and it is high time we finally put it to rest.

The historical reality is that almost all December holiday celebrations have their roots in the seasonal commemoration of the Winter Solstice, the first day of winter and the shortest day of the year. Down through the centuries, the waning daylight and increasing darkness and cold of late autumn have filled people with trepidation.

Facing winter was an issue of life and death in which people never knew if there would be enough food for the lean months or if they and their families would survive the brutality of the elements and of possible illness.

When the hours of sunlight grew fewer, and the natural world appeared to be overrun with death, the subconscious fear often arose within people that the sun would wane to the point of non-existence, and the world would be plunged into darkness and cold. This fear has even been linked to the modern phenomenon of depression and fatigue at this time of year known as Seasonal Affective Disorder.

Ancient peoples were usually competent astronomical observers, and it did not take them long to recognize the reversal of the increasing darkness at December’s end. Going back thousands of years, people have recognized December 21 as the day of greatest darkness, the day after which the tide begins to turn; the sun grows stronger, and the days grow longer. This day, and the weeks immediately before and after it, became recognized not only as the nadir of the sun’s strength, but also as a time of rebirth, and from this came the great seasonal celebrations.

The legend that grew around the Winter Solstice was of the sun that dies and is reborn on the same night. It invoked profound joy, the type of joy that accompanies a reprieve from execution, a feeling of light and life having been spared. While many cultures and religions developed their own unique celebrations at this time, most seasonal symbols to this day hearken back to Winter Solstice imagery. The many stories of a lone light that shines in the darkness, of small candelabra that illuminate the night, have their roots in humanity’s perception of the reborn sun.

Today, Western civilization has largely dissociated people from our natural environment. Winter is merely an inconvenience for most people, and the seasons are barely noticeable from climate-controlled and artificially lit offices where many people spend a large portion of their waking hours. And because we have lost touch with the natural world around us, it has become easier to feel superior to it or see it as irrelevant. One hundred and fifty years of this view have allowed abuse and degradation of our natural environment to the point that we have altered the earth’s climate and threatened the future of our own existence.

The answer to the “December Dilemma” is to go back to the original celebration at this time of year. No matter what our ethnic, cultural, or religious background, we all experience the seasonal cycles; we all feel the loss of life and light in late autumn, and we all instinctively sense the hope of spring and rebirth as the sun grows stronger after December 21. This could and should be the focus of our public celebrations.

We could take advantage of this time of year to encourage people to plant potted evergreens and other trees as part of a natural effort at reforestation. Schools could emphasize ecology, the astronomical reason why we have seasons (notably, a question that many college graduates, in a recent survey, were unable to answer), and the cycle of life as well as how history and culture have been influenced by climate and natural conditions. Religious celebrations should be confined to homes and houses of worship and kept away from municipal buildings and government programs.

However, even churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship of all denominations could take this opportunity to focus on uniting humanity in preserving God’s gift of the earth and the natural world. Public squares could focus on displaying solely seasonal symbols such as winter landscapes, snowmen, suns, animals associated with winter (polar bears, stags, etc.) or non-religious winter traditions representing that particular region’s many ethnic populations.

For the first time in human history, we face the very real possibility of human extinction at our own hands. The latest climate studies now show that global climate change is rapidly accelerating, to the point that if we do not change our ways, the earth could face a catastrophic 11 degree Fahrenheit global surface temperature increase within only 100 years. And this is only one of many instances of environmental degradation that are coming frighteningly close to the point of no return.

This time, it is up to us to turn the tide, to reverse the course of darkness and death and provide ourselves and all life on earth with a reprieve, a chance for a new birth and a new spring. All humanity, regardless of ethnicity or religion, shares this very real dilemma. By focusing on the Winter Solstice and its profound meaning and significance for our time, we can invoke a universal inspiration and hope that resonate within all people and provide the impetus for us to confront and overcome the life and death challenges facing our world.

Feed the People, Not the Propaganda Machine

2008-11-26T22:18:00.005-05:00

Our country is in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, but you would never know it from the spending habits of the mayor and council. While Highland Park, like all New Jersey municipalities, faces potentially staggering losses in state aid next year, the administration continues its frivolous spending as if nothing is wrong. The latest bit of frivolous spending, an insult to all in this town who are struggling to meet their basic needs, is the borough-subsidized Quarterly, the signature promotional of the Meryl political machine, printed and mailed to all residents at taxpayers' expense.

This so-called borough newsletter misleadingly refers to itself as "the official newspaper of Highland Park." Obviously, borough officials do not know the meaning of the term "official newspaper." It is a very specific term and refers to the private newspaper or newspapers in which a town places its legal advertisements--not to a newsletter that is government run.

The Quarterly is produced by a private firm, Jaffe Communications, which I have referred to in previous blog posts. Through having Jaffe print the newsletter, the borough is effectively subsidizing this private company which happens to have political connections with the Democratic machine throughout New Jersey. Jaffe solicits ads for the paper from local businesses and then gets another windfall in being paid $2,500 by the borough to write the articles for the newsletter.

This is clearly a win-win situation for Jaffe Communications, a firm run by Jonathan Jaffe, a man who has pioneered a trend of government run newspapers throughout the state. Interestingly, his first contact with Highland Park was a meeting with the mayor several years ago at a League of Municipalities convention. Is his being awarded this opportunity political? Well, consider the fact that he has publicly expressed his "admiration" for the smear campaign that initially got Mayor Frank elected in 1999.

The very thought of government run newspapers, no matter what government is doing the running, is chilling. This practice is common in countries like China, which has an official party-run newspaper. It was done in the old Soviet Union, in totalitarian states on both the political right and left. It is not in any way appropriate for American democracy. A free press independent of all government sources was viewed as critical from day one by our Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago. One might wonder what they would think about Jaffe-style government run publications that pass themselves off as "newspapers."

Frank says the ads Jaffe sells cover the cost of producing the newsletter but leaves out the fact that advertising revenue does not in fact cover the whole cost of it and that the taxpayers of Highland Park are effectively subsidizing a private company through direct payment and revenue from these ads.

This past summer, I submitted an OPRA request for copies of all vouchers for the Quarterly from 2008. I was given the voucher for the winter issue, for which the borough paid the usual $2,500, but was told the borough did not yet have the voucher for the spring issue. Keep in mind this is at least three months after the spring issue was produced and mailed.

Why is the borough's spending on the Quarterly such a mystery? Are we still spending $2,500 per issue, or has the amount gone up with the current increase in the price of printing? What is the administration hiding by not disclosing its expenditures on this taxpayer funded enterprise?

Just this week, a record 93 borough residents sought help from our local Food Pantry. We are not a wealthy town, and as everywhere in the state and country, our residents are being hit with job losses, foreclosures, and staggering cost of living increases. Interestingly, East Brunswick's mayor and council recognized this fact and ended a similar agreement with Jaffe Communications for printing a town newsletter. You can read more about East Brunswick's decision to be fiscally responsible, in such stark contrast to the attitude and actions of our own administration, here: http://ebs.gmnews.com/news/2008/0918/front_page/035.html

An expenditure of $2,500 may not sound like much, but that amount could feed a lot of people or help those in emergency financial situations. It could be part of an effort by the borough to help Elijah's Promise, a struggling soup kitchen in New Brunswick. The money local businesses pay for these ads could go toward similar assistance programs for borough residents in need.

We don't need to spend taxpayers' money to send every resident pictures of smiling council members posing with the residents upon whom they look with such contempt.

In considering the mayor's fiscal irresponsibility, one cannot help but evoke the image of George W. Bush, who for most of this year kept on insisting, in spite of all the signs pointing to the contrary, that the economy is fine; there is no recession; prosperity is just around the corner, and all we need to do is stop worrying.

We all know the results of that brand of "leadership." Let's make our voices heard through letters to the editor, speaking up at council meetings, and every public venue possible that the time for frivolous wasting of money on items like PR for local politicians is past.

Hope Still Trumps Cynicism

2008-11-05T00:45:00.003-05:00

Regardless of which candidate any of us voted for today, our country has made history, has done something many said could never be done. We have taken a giant leap toward conquering the dark specter of bigotry and racism that has haunted our nation since its first days. No matter what one's beliefs are, regardless of whether the new administration lives up to the hopes and dreams so many have invested in it, we have broken a barrier with a bold step into this bright new century.

When people express idealism, so many times that idealism is met with a sense of jadedness and cynicism. Those beliefs belong to the 1960s, so many say, and that decade is long over. Hippies became yuppies, and dreams of changing the world turned into me-first visions of climbing the corporate ladder and making big money.

But conviction in justice, fairness, freedom, equality, peace, and government of, by, and for all the people is not bound to one time but represents values that are eternal. We can change our world. We can rise above social ills that have plagued us for centuries and journey from darkness into light. We can end poverty and homelessness; we can feed, clothe, shelter, educate and provide health care to every human being on this planet, even if we've never done it before. We can not only believe in but fight for a better future. Idealism is alive and well, and it will motivate us to meet and overcome these challenges.

As a "Star Trek" fan, I've always wished to live in the world of the 23rd century, a world where citizens of the planet have overcome our darkest impulses and come together to cure some of our worst diseases, unite as one world, and explore the stars. Every New Year's Day, my best friend and I have a tradition of watching my favorite movie, "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," a lighthearted and uplifting film in which the Enterprise crew go back in time to save the world from destruction.

That movie and the novelization of it contain numerous contrasts between the "primitive and paranoid" world of 1986 and the better, more enlightened Earth of the 23rd century. My friend and I have made a tradition of watching this film at the beginning of every year to reaffirm our belief that this better future is possible.

Tonight, I am reminded of two memorable scenes in the novel. The first involves 20th century whale biologist Gillian Taylor helping the Enterprise crew sneak into a San Francisco hospital to rescue an injured Pavel Chekov. Gillian is filled with hope when confronted with crew members who know nothing of gender discrimination.

"'Wait a minute,' she said. "How come I have to be the patient and you guys get to be the doctors?"

'What?' McCoy said, baffled.

'Good Lord, Gillian, what difference does it make?' Jim said.

Gillian saw that he honestly did not understand why his suggestion might irritate her; and that gave her a view of his future that attracted her far more than all his descriptions of wonders and marvels."

In a later scene, Gillian gets her first complete look at the bridge of the captured Klingon ship in which the Enterprise crew traveled back to 1986.

"A Black woman glanced up from her console, saw Gillian,and smiled at her. The Asian man who had helped Chekov entered and took his place at another control console. Gillian stared around in wonder. She was in a spaceship that could travel from star to star, among a group of people who lived and worked together without being concerned about race or gender, among people from Earth and a person from another planet. Gillian broke into a grin. Probably a silly grin, she thought, and she did not care."

In spite of all the unnecessary suffering and injustices still occurring, tonight we've been given a glimpse that this more just, egalitarian world is possible, that we have the power to make it happen, that we are not prisoners of the past.

The future begins now.

The Greening of Highland Park: Myths and Facts

2008-10-27T23:38:00.004-04:00

Is Highland Park really New Jersey’s “first green community,” and if so, who designated it as such? The answer may surprise you. The reality is that no one bestowed this distinction on our borough other than Meryl Frank herself. It is not an award we won, a title we were given, or anything more than a self-proclaimed statement by Frank, done conveniently before the 2003 mayoral election in an effort to use the green issue to promote herself.

Over the last few years, “going green” and taking steps to reduce carbon emissions and adopt environmentally friendly policies has been a popular trend not just in New Jersey but around the country and even the world. Highland Park has taken some of these initiatives, but it is hardly alone in doing so. Some other towns, counties and school districts have much stronger environmental records than Highland Park does. The difference is that the leaders of these towns, counties and school districts have not engaged in the active marketing and self-promotion that Frank has. That self-promotion involves a deliberate blurring of the boundaries between the persona of Frank and the town and an active effort to wrap herself in a well-marketed green package. She is a product of sleek packaging, of an advertising age where image all too often triumphs over substance.

Since Frank is continuing to tout herself as the “Queen of Green,” it is important to distinguish myths from facts when it comes to the greening of Highland Park.

Two points stand out here. First, Highland Park and its residents were green and environmentally conscious for decades, long before Frank came onto the scene. Conveniently, she has taken credit for initiatives that long predate her. Second, the actual record shows that Frank’s administration has not been nearly as green as she presents or as she would like others to believe.

The citizens of Highland Park have maintained a strong environmental commitment to for decades, long before Frank even moved here. In the early 1990s, Mayor Jeffrey Orbach successfully fought to save the Rutgers Ecological Preserve from development by the university. Mayor James Polos, whom Frank has routinely disparaged with false and defamatory remarks, preserved four acres of borough-owned land on River Road from a real threat of development and obtained initial funding for our Environmental Education Center. It was Polos who first proposed a greenway running across town from Johnson Park through Donaldson Park and up into the borough-owned property known as the Meadows.

The late Richard Marx, a Green Party council candidate in 1999, drafted stream corridor and steep slopes protection ordinances that ANJEC used as models for the state. When I ran for Borough Council as a challenger in 2002 against Frank's candidates, I advocated the adoption of these ordinances while my opponents never mentioned them. Although I did not win the election, the ordinances were subsequently adopted within a year due to the attention the council race forced on them. Notably, this was four years after Frank took office.

As the above examples show, Frank has routinely taken credit for initiatives pioneered and advocated by others, including her political rivals and a man no longer with us.

Then comes the other side of the equation, the one Frank does not want you to know—the fact that she and her record are nowhere as green as she would like everyone to believe.

Frank's 2020 plan is not the well-rounded, wholesome vision she portrays it to be.
Instead, that vision deliberately blurs the concept of the town being a green community with Frank's own agenda of economic redevelopment. Frank is an outspoken supporter of "new urbanism" and wants to see higher density commercial and residential development in our town, which many oppose because it would have detrimental environmental effects such as increased traffic congestion and pollution. She has stated many times that our small town is not suburban but urban, a vision disputed by many residents.

For nine years, environmental activists have urged the rezoning of several acres of borough-owned property known as the Meadows, from residential to conservation. Frank has repeatedly refused to consider this. She also cost the borough the opportunity to preserve some of the land on South Adelaide Avenue formerly owned by the YM-YWHA by refusing to respond to a county offer to purchase some of that land as
open space. As a result of her stonewalling, the financially-troubled YM-YWHA sold the property to a developer, who is likely to institute a zoning change she advocated for this land in the 2003 Master Plan revision. The land was zoned quasi-public; at her recommendation, the Master Plan calls for it to be rezoned riverfront residential.

As for the Environmental Education Center, we spent $800,000 on what amounts to little more than a bus stop. The Center cannot be used because it was built on contaminated land! Why was there such a lack of oversight regarding this taxpayer-funded project? Frank’s administration spent close to a million dollars on a site that cannot be used by anyone—children or adults—because no one bothered to do proper due diligence before beginning the Center’s construction.

At the same time that this money was spent on what amounts to little more than a vanity project—plus another million on a second vanity project, the million dollar park at the corner of Raritan Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and River Roads—our firefighters are endangering their lives with torn equipment and gear. Their repeated requests to the borough to replace this equipment and gear have been denied. Whatever happened to safety first?

The Environmental Education Center has no solar panels because overspending led the borough to run out of the money necessary to fund them. Meanwhile, the solar
panels placed on the roof of Borough Hall, which Frank so proudly brags about, do not work. Their biggest “success” was serving as a backdrop for Frank posing for the cover of New Jersey Municipalities magazine! The geothermal heating system installed at Irving School does not work either, and the building has insufficient heat. No other municipal buildings have been made “green” in any way.

We all remember that Frank was responsible for the huge cell tower placed in the center of the downtown in the spring of 2007. She subsequently lied in claiming Verizon misled her regarding the size and nature of the tower. I and others in the political opposition obtained a copy of the contract that proved she knew exactly what she was signing. Only due to intense political pressure was the cell tower taken down and relocated.

At Frank’s initiative, management of the Street Fair was turned over to a private company, which requires all participants to enter via a procession of vehicles through Donaldson Park. I have taken part in this procession personally and have seen vehicles bumper-to-bumper idling for over an hour—an emissions nightmare.

Let’s address some of Frank’s other so-called accomplishments. She cites hybrid police vehicles. What about police officers on bicycles? We used to have them; why don’t we have them anymore?

A commuter shuttle bus to New Brunswick was due to arrive in the spring of 2007. This is the fall of 2008. Where is it?

Frank takes credit for events like the Townwide Yard Sale and the Farmers’ Market, both of which predate her by many years.

Promoting walking and biking? How exactly has she done that? We see a nebulous claim here with nothing concrete to back it up.

Expanding green utility initiatives? This was started by the state, which has now cut back on the program, meaning it is no longer an option for borough residents.

Anti-idling ordinance? This has been largely ignored and almost never enforced.

Green snow removal using calcium chloride? It turns out this is standard practice adopted simultaneously by many municipalities.

Aggressive Recycling? This is required by county and state mandate.

No Pesticides Policy? Various municipal and school sites, including the library, are still using potentially harmful pesticides. Look for the warning signs on the lawns next spring.

Brownfields to Greenfields? I challenge Frank to name one site where this has been implemented. The Meadows is an ideal candidate since it is borough-owned, but as stated above, Frank refuses to rezone it for conservation.

A Green Redevelopment Plan? Try a dead redevelopment plan because that is what it is. Redevelopment has nothing to do with going green in the first place. Highland Park’s plan is null and void anyway due to a state court ruling earlier this year that nullified redevelopment plans done without 45-days advance notice to property owners that their land could be taken by eminent domain as a result of being placed in “an area in need of redevelopment.”

In the end, we spent a whole lot of grant money—taxpayers’ money—on a redevelopment study and plan that never was green and that will never become reality. Don’t count on Highland Park getting another grant to redo either of these; this is all but impossible given New Jersey’s fiscal situation.

And don’t count on green leadership from Council President Elsie Foster Dublin either. Instead, ask how her 2003 Zoning Board application to add a dormer and a deck to her modest home managed to result in transforming that home into a mansion. Larger homes take more energy to heat, cool, and light—not exactly an environmental example here.

One issue that has come up in this year’s presidential race on all sides is the issue of candidates’ choices of friends and acquaintances. In Frank’s case, it is completely appropriate to note her strong friendship with developer Michael Kaplan, whose business headquarters, located at the Castle on River Road, was used on several occasions by Frank to host political fundraisers for herself and others.

Critical thinking is crucial to democracy. In Frank’s case, a clear distinguishing of the myths from the facts is long overdue. When Frank proudly proclaims Highland Park the “greenest of them all” and credits that to her individual efforts, let’s question whether this “empress” is really wearing any clothes.

Help Me Fundraise for Obama Environment Event

2008-09-15T23:45:00.007-04:00

Following the example of John Edwards, my first choice in the upcoming presidential election, I am supporting the Obama/Biden ticket as this country's best choice for real change in economic policy, health care, foreign policy, and environmental issues.

Having spent two decades as an environmental activist, I am especially concerned with vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as her promotion of aerial hunting of wolves and polar bears. These positions clearly illustrate she is on the wrong track when it comes to making the hard choices in fighting global climate change and habitat loss as well as cleaning up our air, land, and water.

My experience as an environmental leader includes 11 years on the Highland Park Environmental Commission, nearly three years as a gubernatorial appointee on the state Natural Areas Council, membership in the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC), the New Jersey Environmental Lobby, and Environment New Jersey. In 2005, I took part in ANJEC's inaugural Environmental Leadership Training Program, and in 2007, I completed the Rutgers Cooperative Extension Environmental Stewardship class, a six-month program.

I've done these things because of a genuine love of nature and our environment and growing concern that we are not making the changes necessary to reverse the impact of 150+ years of environmental abuse through greenhouse gas emissions. It's scary to remember President Carter talking in the late '70s about how we need to switch to renewable energy sources; to remember Time magazine declaring Earth as "Planet of the Year" in 1988, the hottest year then to date, the one of the garbage barge and hospital waste washing up on our beaches; to remember 1998, trumping its predecessor of ten years as the hottest year on record.

In all this time, we've seen talk but the only action that happened was steps in the wrong direction. Not only did we lose 30 years in which we could have made a difference; during that time, we saw climate change accelerate with terrifying rapidity.

Yet we have to assume the world has not reached that crucial "tipping point" after which the damage we will have inflicted will be too great to undo.

That is why I am asking all who are concerned about the environment to please consider helping me raise enough money to co-host a fundraiser titled "Obama for the Environment," which will be held on Monday, October 6 at the George Street Playhouse, 9 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ (near the corner of Livingston Avenue and George Street). Support Obama/Biden and hear presentations from environmental leaders such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (named by Time magazine as one of the Heroes for the Planet) and Dr. Michael Oppenheimer (member of
the Nobel Prize Winning Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). The presentations will begin at approximately 8 PM. The minimum contribution to attend is $100. For those interested, there will be a pre-reception at 7 PM; participation in the pre-reception requires a minimum contribution of $500. Donations can be made by check or credit card. If you're writing out a check, make it out to "Obama for
America" and mail it to c/o Joshua Haimson, 325 Raritan Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904. If you choose to use a credit card, go to
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/fundraising/gpgqff

to make the donation. After making a pledge, please click on "Fulfill your pledge" and make your donation on-line. If anyone has questions about donation procedures, please email Joshua at ilenejj@optonline.net or call him at 732-740-1238.

If you do decide to donate, either by check or credit card and feel so inclined, please note that your donation was solicited by me, Laurel Kornfeld. You will get full credit for your donation and will also help me raise the minimum of $1,000, which I seek to do in order to qualify as a co-host of this event.

This event is a joint effort by many people, but I have a strong attachment to it, due to my intense environmental concerns, that makes it feel like "my baby." Thank you in advance to anyone who lends support. If there are any questions, I can be reached at laurel2000@gmail.com, at (732) 985-6878 or at (908) 208-2531.

Demolition Double Standard

2008-09-10T19:33:00.003-04:00

Last week, the YM-YWHA building at 2 South Adelaide Avenue, a partially-historic site and one with which many borough and regional residents have had long ties, was demolished by the developer who purchased the property from the Y.

The Y's demolition constitutes a tremendously personal loss to me. That building had been like a second home to me since my family and I moved to Highland Park in 1969. There I learned to swim and do gymnastics, had art classes, took part in numerous community activities, made friends and also made countless memories.

Established in 1955, the Y built an addition onto the historic Meyer-Rice mansion, which dated back to the turn of the last century and sat on the site of a colonial encampment during the Revoutionary War.

What is interesting is the complete silence from the historic preservation community in Highland Park. What is even more interesting is the stark contrast with the historic preservation community's reaction to the tearing down of another historic home, the Brody House on Raritan Avenue, ten years ago.

At that time, members of the Highland Park Historical Society rallied and lobbied hard to save the Brody House, which was built in 1917 and had been abandoned for ten years. It too was privately owned, and the decision to demolish the home was made solely by the private owners.

In spite of this being solely a decision by the owners of the property, members of the Historical Society jumped upon this issue, falsely claiming that then-Mayor Polos asked the owners to tear it down and using the demolition as a springboard to advocate that Polos be replaced with their candidate of choice, Meryl Frank. The reality that neither Polos nor anyone in the administration at the time asked for the demolition or had any say in its being done mattered little to those who obviously intended to use the Brody House to further their own political agenda.

Fast forward nearly a decade. Where is the Historical Society now? The answer is, dormant and inactive. It doesn't matter that the Meyer-Rice House was older than the Brody House and in better condition or that the Y had a public history in Highland Park.

It doesn't even phase some people that the borough had a chance to save this building when Middlesex County offered to purchase a portion of the land for open space, thus rendering the Y less dependent on developers' funds if they chose to renovate the building, yet turned this offer down. Why did the mayor not respond to the county's offer, insisting that only the Y itself could do that? Why didn't the borough take the lead in trying to bring about an agreement to save this historic site? Could it be because the offer of county funds came from former mayor and now Freeholder Polos?

The double standard in the strong reaction to the demolition of the Brody House in 1998 and the non-reaction to the demolition of the Meyer-Rice House in 2008 is glaring and raises serious questions about the intentions and credibility of the historic preservation community here in Highland Park. Is their purpose to preserve local historic sites, or is it to elect Meryl Frank and keep her in power? These are two very different goals, and many, including myself, support the former but not the latter.

Why did the Historical Society become dormant within a few years of Frank's election? Why is the borough's official Historic Preservation Committee completely inactive?

The people of this town, especially those who want to preserve our history rather than the rule of one particular clique, deserve answers.

Meryl Frank, Stop Lying!

2008-09-01T23:38:00.002-04:00

My goal in starting this blog three years ago was and today remains presenting an alternative perspective from that of the current administration on the political scene and public policy in Highland Park. I really want to stick to the issues and not get personal, but when the mayor and her supporters falsely, via the Internet and word of mouth, attempt to criminalize me and my record of public service, which they are still doing to this day, the truth must be told.

It has always been a tactic of those in power to demonize their opponents with broad brush denigrations such as labeling them “crazy,” “extremist,” “fringe,” or “stupid.” From the beginning, Meryl Frank has targeted me this way solely because I opposed her candidacy for mayor and her vision for our town.

In 2001, she told a reporter that “Laurel has a past, and I know what it is.” Beyond my having spent some time on this planet, the implication that I somehow have skeletons in my closet or something to be ashamed of is blatantly false. Yes, I have acted since childhood and have done many low budget horror films, including many with next to no plot, but that is not a crime or something to be embarrassed about. There is no past whatsoever that would negatively impact my ability to serve this town.

The mayor and her supporters, over the last year and a half, have falsely attempted to portray me as someone with a criminal record, claiming there was a restraining order against me approaching her or her family. This is blatantly false. A restraining order must be issued in a court via a judge. No such restraining order was ever issued against me at any time. This can be verified with the Highland Park Police Department.

Their claim regarding the non-existent restraining order is based an even worse false accusation, that I somehow threatened the mayor or anyone with bodily harm. This is another lie, and a most vicious one. The only “threat” I have ever made was a political one regarding future campaigns. Some people may have been dissatisfied with the disturbing issues the 2007 mayoral race brought to light regarding possible corruption in this administration. I do not regret raising these questions and have made it clear that I will do so again, even more forcefully, during future elections. That is the one and only “threat” that ever came from my mouth. I fight with words and words alone, and never, ever would threaten to inflict bodily harm on anyone, much less even think of doing so. Spreading this lie constitutes a convenient but ugly pre-emptive attack on any future candidacy of mine for public office.

Contrary to yet another lie repeatedly spread by the mayor and her political machine, I have never, ever suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder or from any other mental illness. Passion, intensity, and quirkiness are not diseases, and it is shameful for a public official to attempt to twist these character traits into something sick that simply is not there. Call me a “diva,” a “drama queen,” a “character,” etc., but do not shamelessly lie about the state of my health.

I am a very happy, lucky, idealistic and yes, passionate person, a proud non-conformist who believes everyone should follow his or her own convictions in life rather than do what society expects. The choices I have made, such as staying single, are conscious and voluntary. I have never been bitter over any elections in which I ran, in spite of the repeated accusations of this by the mayor and her supporters. I am proud of the 42 percent I received in my 2005 council primary and am not angry over the outcome of a legitimate election. I’m a person who looks ahead, not behind. What I take issue with are the meanspiritedness, the name calling, the false rumors, and the attempts to criminalize me for no reason other than my desire to serve this town.

I realize that too often, this meanspiritedness is part and parcel of the political process, both here in New Jersey and nationwide. What a disservice to democracy. It is one thing to bring to light questionable actions and policies of an elected official. It is quite another to rest one’s entire campaign against the opposition on unfounded, baseless personal attacks.

That’s why I’m trying to set the record straight, even after all these months. Like any concerned citizen, I plan to continue being involved in public service and the political process here in Highland Park for a long, long time. I will respond when lies are told about me, but I will never, ever be intimidated from public participation.

Help Fight Eminent Domain Abuse Again

2008-08-31T20:44:00.002-04:00

The Institute for Justice, a national organization dedicated to ending eminent domain abuse, needs volunteers to help a Vietnamese-American business owner in Atlantic City keep his jewelry store now that a wealthy developer wants to take his land and build yet another casino.

On Wednesday, September 3, the City Council of Atlantic City will decide whether to designate businesses and homes in a 24-acre area around the former Sands Casino as "in need of redevelopment," in order to seize the properties and transfer them to Pinnacle Entertainment for a new casino.

Quang Ha owns a jewelry store right next to the developer's lot. In the 1980s, his small factory in Hanoi was seized and he was imprisoned. Quang fled Vietnam, and after a treacherous journey, finally made it to the United States. After years of hard work and learning the trade, he opened his own business - one that the government couldn't seize. Or so he thought.

If the city votes to designate his property as "in need of redevelopment," it may be seized so that a rich developer can build a casino and make money on Quang's land. It would be a travesty to let the city destroy Quang's American Dream!

Before the City Council meeting on Wednesday, the Institute for Justice is organizing a rally to show support for Quang and the other threatened property owners in the area, and to send a message to those in power that we will not tolerate eminent domain for private gain. Here are the details:

RALLY to Stop Eminent Domain for Private Casino's Gain
September 3, 2008 @ 4pm
1301 Bacharach Boulevard
Atlantic City, NJ
City Council meeting to follow at 5pm.

Let's help save Quang's American Dream and those of his neighbors and property owners across the Garden State. We may be winning the battle against eminent domain abuse here in Highland Park and even making significant progress across the state, but this fight is far from over. For more information, please contact Christina Walsh, Director of Community Organization, Institute for Justice,
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22203. You can reach the Institute by phone at(703) 682-9320 or on the web at http://www.ij.org or http://www.castlecoalition.org

And in another good sign that public sentiment is overwhelmingly opposed to the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment, the Rutgers film festival is again presenting "Greetings from Asbury Park," the story of a 91-year-old woman whose modest home is threatened by eminent domain to make way for a waterfront redevelopment project. The film will be shown on Friday, September 19, Saturday, September 20, and Sunday, September 21, in Scott Hall Room 123 on the College Avenue Campus at 7 PM on all three days. Tickets are $10 for members of the general public; $9 for students and seniors; and $8 for Rutgers Film Co-op/NJMAC Friends.

Director Christina Eliopoulos will make a personal appearance at the Friday night showing.

For more information on the film showings, call (732) 932-8482 or visit http://www.njfilmfest.com

It's not over until any and all taking of private residential and commercial property in NJ and in this country is eradicated forever. These two events are opportunities to stand up for property owners and against big developers and to learn the truth about the projects these developers work hard to sell to communities. Be part of the change!

A Great Debate

2008-08-12T19:07:00.011-04:00

I'm going to go off topic in this post and recommend that anyone reading this take the opportunity to follow a fascinating conference occurring this week from Thursday to Saturday, a conference I am honored to have been invited to take part in--the Great Planet Debate at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland (interesting choice of locations for this event).

The Great Planet Debate, which will discuss "Science as Process" in the context of the ongoing controversy over how to define a planet, can be found at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/ . For people in a town like Highland Park, people who take pride in being part of an intellectual, university community, this conference promises to be a fascinating discussion of how we know what we know and how we define the terms we use.

The planet definition issue, especially as it relates to the status of Pluto, is of special personal interest to me. As those who receive my email newsletter might be aware, I have long had a personal interest in astronomy and always include dates and times of solstices, equinoxes, and even locally visible eclipses in my messages. Several month ago on this blog, I urged readers to consider buying an excellent CD called "A Tribute to Clyde Tombaugh and the New Horizons Mission" as a holiday gift for friends and family members.

There is a personal note here: Although I did not know it then, August 24, 2006 changed my life forever. It began as an ordinary fourth Thursday, which meant it was a Food Pantry day. Only later did I find out that in Prague, in the Czech Republic, four percent of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) had voted in a highly controversial manner to create a new, linguistically nonsensical planet definition, one that, as everyone now knows, excluded Pluto.

Naturally, as a writer, I am interested in words, phrases, and definitions. Campaigns often use take these out of context and use them to mean something entirely different than what they were originally intended to mean. As a writer interested in astronomy, I found this decision outrageous and began a blog about it, which was intended to be a one-time deal.

What happened next was a testament to the power of the Internet. I began to receive requests from all over the world to write articles and further blog entries about this issue. After the 2007 Highland Park primary, even more people who had seen my writing and wanted support statements for Pluto contacted me with opportunities to write advocating Pluto's official reinstatement as a planet.

It has been a long, exciting, wonderful learning experience over the last two years. I have learned much, not just about Pluto and the solar system, but about all aspects of astronomy. I have met many wonderful, amazing people, a breath of fresh air in a political climate where opponents have spread the most vicious lies and personal attacks about me, where even a rabbi had the gall to falsely refer to me as "sick" at a public event two days before the 2005 primary.

So while I learned much about the solar system, I also learned that there are kind, accepting, welcoming, non-judgmental people who will not look down on someone for not making a lot of money or holding a high level position. These are the people organizing the Great Planet Debate, and they have given me the tremendous honor of doing a public presentation at this event. The topic of my presentation is, "Planet Definition Is Important."

The organizers of the conference, Dr. Mark Sykes and Dr. Hal Weaver, have opened it to the public because they respect rather than look down on public opinion, because they want to hear your input, our input. What an amazing example of a truly open process.

I especially hope the people who have most maligned those of us who oppose this administration with lies, for example, the claim that I lack leadership skills; those who have tried to force disappointment and setbacks down my throat when these were never my authentic experience; those who have tried to force an elitist vision down this town's throat writing out the businesses they don't like and using the most deplorable practices to enact that vision, take time to find out what a genuine, open process really is. I also hope they find out how wrong their negative attacks on me are.

Some political leaders in this town seem to think they are still in junior high and are trying to recapture their youth by creating a clique, in group versus out group situation. If they want to do this, fine, but don't even think of choosing me as the one to exclude. The organizers of the Great Planet Debate have proven my opponents' unjust assessment of my abilities wrong. I am proud to be a national speaker, and I will not put up with being the victim of the mayor's politics of personal destruction. And yes, Helen, the status of Pluto is important to me, so take your "holding down a job" nonsense (I do have one in spite of your false Internet claims) far beyond the orbit of Pluto and deep into the Kuiper Belt where it belongs.

As I leave for the Great Planet Debate, I want to thank all the wonderful people who have been with me throughout this journey, especially Dr. Alan Stern, Dr. Hal Weaver, and Dr. Mark Sykes, who have continually stood up for Pluto and have valued the input and contributions of all who have offered them.

To paraphrase Dr. Seuss, "a planet is a planet, no matter how small." Pluto is a planet, and this conference will seek to undo the mess created two years earlier by the IAU. Exclusion, whenever it is done with the agenda of isolating one specific object or person for no reason than someone's personal agenda, is always wrong. This conference will be a summer educational experience that no one should miss.

For anyone interested in this fascinating discussion, I will be blogging about the conference on my other site, http://laurele.livejournal.com .

A Victory for NJ Property Owners

2008-08-09T11:57:00.006-04:00

Residential and commercial property owners in New Jersey have yet another victory to celebrate in the fight against eminent domain abuse. On Thursday, August 7, a three-judge panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division unanimously reversed the June 2006 decision of Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson, which allowed the city of Long Branch, N.J., to condemn a charming seaside neighborhood known as MTOTSA for a luxury condominium development.

The MTOTSA residents are being represented by Scott Bullock, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice and by Peter Wegener of Bathgate, Wegener &
Wolf in Lakewood, N.J. The Institute for Justice is an advocacy group whose mission is to combat eminent domain abuse nationwide.

U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone has publicly taken a stand against any use of eminent domain in the redevelopment effort by the municipal government of Long Branch.

Two years ago, I took part in a Kelo Day protest in Long Branch immediately following Judge Lawson's decision. All of us who took part in the protest had the chance to view a genuine community firsthand, as we were welcomed into a neighborhood of attractive beachfront homes where residents, many who had lived there for decades, routinely joined one another for cookouts, friendly get togethers, and of late, activism to save their homes. That activism became necessary because Mayor Adam Schneider decided this friendly, homey neighborhood was "blighted" and should be replaced with luxury condominiums.

Many of the neighborhood residents are senior citizens, and some are veterans. For all, this is the only home they know.

The Appellate Court decision is the latest in a series of New Jersey court decisions restricting the long unfettered use of eminent domain for private economic redevelopment.

Last year, in the case of Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. vs. the Borough of Paulsboro,the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that local governments cannot simply declare an area blighted and then proceed to take properties in that area via eminent domain for the sole purpose of economic development.

In this year's Long Branch case, the three judge panel aptly wrote: "We agree with
appellants that, in light of the principles laid down in Gallenthin, the City did
not find actual blight under any subsection of N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5, that the record lacked substantial evidence that could have supported the New Jersey Constitution's standard for finding blight, and that the absence of substantial evidence of blight compels reversal."

This decision means that unless Long Branch can produce additional information illustrating "substantial evidence of blight," its quest to bulldoze modest homes on behalf of a private developer is illegal.

Bullock accurately noted that this latest ruling is a victory not just for the Long Branch residents, but for property owners throughout New Jersey, praising it as "sending a clear message that abusers of eminent domain will be held accountable."

Jeff Rowes, another staff attorney with the Institute for Justice, pointed out that at last, "New Jersey courts understand that 'blight' and 'redevelopment' are often merely smokescreens for taking valuable property from people of modest means and giving it to rich and powerful developers."

Combined with the recent victory of the Halper family in Piscataway, in which a court ruled the family must be compensated for their farm, taken by eminent domain in 2006, at 2004 rather than 1999 market rates, the MTOTSA ruling confirms that the tide is indeed turning in the battle against eminent domain abuse. For Highland Park home and business owners, this is definitely good news.

The days of governments declaring properties blighted due to vague, often class-based criteria such as "underutilization" are coming to an end. But the fight isn't over yet. At the grassroots level, we must continue to oppose this unjust practice until eminent domain is permanent removed from the "toolbox" used in economic redevelopment.

Redevelopment Falters

2008-08-03T22:19:00.004-04:00

From the time the idea was first unveiled, the redevelopment vision has been wrong for Highland Park. It called for rents of commercial properties on Raritan Avenue to skyrocket, for upscale boutiques to replace longstanding blue collar businesses, and for increased density that would destroy the character of our town and turn it into a version of Brooklyn.

Fortunately for the borough, the redevelopment effort, which has cost the taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars and yielded nothing in tax benefits, is faltering all on its own in several areas.

The proposed Dornoch project, which calls for luxury condominiums as well as a mandated arts center on Raritan Avenue at the site of the old Senior Center, has been stalled since March. This application, for which negotations between the Redevelopment Agency and Dornoch Management are ongoing, proposes 35 luxury condominiums--scaled back from an initial 66 due to a lack of demand for the condos and financing for the project--in the Farmers' Market area between South Second and South Third Avenues. What would become of the Farmers' Market should the project gain approval is uncertain.

What is certain is the requirement that the site host an arts center, a personal vision of Mayor Frank for at least six years. In the borough's redevelopment plan, no other use of the old Senior Center location but this is permitted. Originally, the Dornoch proposal sought to purchase several adjacent homes, an option luckily dropped when the project was scaled back.

The executive director of the Redevelopment Agency, who is paid a $35,000 annual salary with taxpayers' money, is not commenting on the state of the project. That is not a good sign, and the witholding of information is most certainly not a characteristic of good and open government.

On June 23, the Zoning Board voted down a redevelopment proposal for 233 Cleveland Avenue, the site of Illuminating Experiences, a business currently owned by a big time financial contributor to the mayor. That proposal had also been downsized, from an initial 178 luxury and 20 affordable condominiums to 119 luxury and 14 affordable units.

Over eight months, residents of Cleveland Avenue and other concerned residents attended Zoning Board meetings expressing concern about this increase in density and the inevitable resulting issues of traffic congestion and influx of children to the school system.

While the mayor continues to tout higher density as a "principle of smart growth," even council members are resisting the idea. Lou Pichinson, the newest council member, was quoted in a May Star Ledger article as objecting to an increase in density.

The vice president of Avalon Bay Communities, the developer who made the application, claims that environmental and traffic studies have shown the building would produce no negative environmental impacts and no significant traffic increase. But these studies were paid for by Avalon Bay. Before any land use board grants approval for this project, that board should order independent traffic and environmental studies to be done at the developer's expense but out of the company's control, to provide residents more accurate, well-deserved findings on these matters.

When the mayor speaks of redevelopment succeeding, she cites the renovation of the former Bernstein building on North Third Avenue. But that renovation is interior, does not change the building's footprint, and therefore does not require any involvement by a redevelopment agency. It is not a redevelopment project; it is a renovation project. We don't need a taxpayer funded Redevelopment Agency executive director, a $20,000 a year Redevelopment Agency attorney, or an annual $50,000 contribution of taxpayer dollars from the borough for such renovation projects to happen.

By eliminating the Redevelopment Agency, we could automatically save the taxpayers of Highland Park $105,000 a year. Remember that when you get your new tax bills this month.

We can save another $30,000 by following the 2004 advice of former Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons and doing away with the Business Improvement District (BID), which is still getting $30,000 a year from the borough. BID Executive Director Graham Copeland has been laid off, and this position, which cost the business district $70,000 a year, should not be replaced. As of now, businesses in the district are paying between $1,000 and $2,000 a year in a BID tax that largely goes toward consultants in event planning and public relations. The mayor has actually suggested expanding the BID to all commercial properties in Highland Park as a means of bringing in more revenue. This is exactly the opposite direction of the one we should be taking, which is to lift this tax burden from our already struggling businesses.

Back in 2005, when George Valenta and I were running for Borough Council, a supporter of the mayor argued that she "has a vision for this town" that she seeks to implement. We knew then, and it is even more evident now, that that vision is the wrong one for our borough. Both political opposition and market forces continue to drive that point home. Higher density is wrong for Highland Park.

The mayor is fond of saying that in contrast to plans by previous administrations, hers is actually being enacted. The reality is, it is not, and it should not be enacted. Five years after she unveiled her 2020 proposal, which inappropriately tied green and environmental initiatives to higher density, that plan is exactly where it should be--sitting on a shelf with its predecessors, gathering dust.

Support the "Rutgers 3" and the Right to Peaceful Protest

2008-07-14T19:17:00.004-04:00

The right to peacefully protest government policies we believe are wrong is inherent in the very foundation of this country. That includes the right to voice opinions that might be unpopular and/or not politically correct and to peacefully assemble in groups for this purpose, even when doing so may be disruptive to the routines of every day life.

Three Rutgers students who took part in an anti-Iraq War protest along Route 18 on March 27, 2008 are now being charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor offense that could get them a $500 fine, 30 days in jail, and a record of an "offense" they would need to expunge. Interestingly, these students were not issued any summonses on the day of the incident; instead, two weeks later, three students out of several hundred who took part in the march received notice that charges were being filed against them.

The seemingly random selection of three out of several hundred students is deliberately intended to intimidate all potential participants in future demonstrations, to show that even in a crowd, no individual protestor can "hide" from potential--and wrongful--criminal prosecution.

Over the last seven years, civil rights in this country have too often become a casualty of the war on terror, with US citizens, often those who publicly express views dissenting from those of the people in power, being targeted by various provisions in the Patriot Act and by domestic spying. Make no mistake: criminalizing dissent is a far greater threat to our democracy than Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda ever will be. These terrorists seek to destroy our democracy from without. We hand them a tremendous victory if we do their work by destroying it from within.

Here in New Jersey, all too often over the last several years, politicians have abused police departments and law enforcement for their own political purposes. One glaring example is the repeated police intimidation of the Halper family in Piscataway, a direct result of their refusal to sell their farm of 84 years and opposition to it being taken by eminent domain. Also in Piscataway, several years ago, a man who made no threats of violence whatsoever was expelled from a council meeting by the mayor's order and unlawfully taken to a mental hospital, where he was held against his will. That sounds like the kind of thing that happened in the former Soviet Union, something that should be anathema in this land of the free.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 15, activists plan to attend the Highland Park Council meeting at 7 PM in Borough Hall in support of these three students, Suzan Sanal, Erik Straub, and Arwa Ibrahim. I urge anyone concerned with maintaining our right of peaceful protest, in this state and in this country, to attend this meeting, not just on their behalf, but on behalf of the rights of all of us to peaceful protest.

Thomas Jefferson was right on when he said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

We Never Walked Alone

2008-06-06T16:05:00.010-04:00

“When you walk through a storm, hold your head up high,
and don’t be afraid of the dark…”

Three years ago on this day, June 6, 2005, a lot of campaign workers in this town and this state walked through a wild storm doing last minute literature drops in anticipation of the next day’s primary.

Here in Highland Park, there was a lot of walking. The incumbent council members up for re-election had paid Democratic Party machine operatives and college students walking door to door to distribute their pro-redevelopment literature—literature that accused us challengers of spreading “ugly scare tactics” because we dared tell the truth about the potential use of eminent domain against local businesses.

Our campaign had a lot of walkers too, but we were grassroots volunteers—friends and family members of the candidates and supporters who believed in our mission. We were far fewer in number than our opponents, so each person had to cover a lot more territory. It was way too late for any mailings by either side.

A hot, humid day gave way to on and off thunderstorms. Each time the weather cleared, we went out only to have it start raining on us again. Ever the optimist, I chose not take an umbrella, believing the wild weather could only go on for a limited time. Naturally, it went on for hours. The thunder, lightning, and downpour were an apt metaphor for what the political scene had become in town. And I was reminded of this song from “Carousel,” a play in which I had performed back in 1992.

“At the end of the storm is a golden sky, and the sweet, silver song of a lark. Walk on through the wind; walk on through the rain though your dreams be tossed and blown…”

Even at the last minute, on the last night, we were determined to cover as much of the town with our flyers as our opponents did with theirs because we believed the public had the right to know the whole truth, not just one part.

Under normal circumstances, almost no one does any canvassing work during a downpour. But these were not normal circumstances. We were out of time. We had been outspent four to one. But no one balked when the need came to go out one last night even if it meant getting soaked to the skin and looking to anyone watching from their windows like something the cat dragged in.

Somehow, the feeling was, this is what a real campaign should be—not the glitzy, image-centered sound-byte circus into which the media has turned elections, but the ideal imagined by the Founding Fathers—members of the community going out to the community in person with their message braving the elements because we believed so completely in what we stood for that getting wet and windblown didn’t matter.

“Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart, and you’ll never walk alone. You’ll never walk alone.”

Over and over, the mayor and her supporters tried to portray the opposition as fringe, as extremists, as a tiny, insignificant minority. Three years earlier, in my first council race, two days before the primary, the mayor saw me handing out literature in front of Dunkin’ Donuts and sarcastically asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”

It turns out she was wrong in 2002 and even more wrong in 2005. Idealists filled with hope for a more democratic, inclusive vision for our hometown, we were vindicated by the election numbers as anything but alone. When all was said and done, 861 of us stood together in 2005, proud and unafraid and eager to make our voices heard in future policymaking and elections. And three years later, that is still something to celebrate because we are still here, and we are still speaking.

The political arena is full of storms. For all who believe in what they are doing, quitting should never be an option, no matter how many setbacks, no matter how long the odds.

In Highland Park, we never walked alone. And we never will.

More Meryl Lies

2008-06-03T17:27:00.003-04:00

The infamous Highland Park rumor mill continues to circulate lies that almost certainly originate with Meryl Frank. While I prefer this blog focus on our town and not on myself, the latest untruth demands a response.

That lie, apparently circulating around town for several months, is that I have been officially banned from attending Borough Council meetings after having supposedly made "threats" against Frank and her family.

Yes, it is true, I have taken a much needed vacation from attending Borough Council meetings. There are many reasons for this, but the above is most certainly not one of them. I am not now and never have been banned or prohibited from attending any meetings of the Borough Council.

Most importantly, I never made any threats against the mayor or her family except for the "threat" of dealing her political defeat and fighting on for as many years as it takes to bring regime change to Highland Park and resist the part of her 2020 plan that calls for higher density development in town.

Politically, I have taken issue with Frank's touting of motherhood as a qualification for being mayor and her insular recruitment of PTO parents to fill Borough Council and Democratic Party positions. The center of her support has always been a demographically homogeneous sector of the PTO parents who use children as pawns and politicize their being school parents to portray themselves as more qualified or more representative of this borough as a whole.

I am a strong supporter of education and have personally contributed to the Highland Park Education Foundation. Yet Frank and her supporters have consistently used the fact that I am not a parent against me, to the point that in 2002, they conducted a phone chain the night before my council primary telling people that I was "anti-children" because I opposed the building of 24 four-bedroom homes in environmentally sensitive Buck Woods as proposed by developer Jack Morris.

And Frank and her supporters have for nine years acted as though Highland Park's other, non-public school parent populations either don't exist or are at best second class citizens who should sublimate their needs to those of her group of supporters.

What I object to is the politicizing of children, education, and the PTOs. The mayor's repeated attempts to twist my statements into something sinister--and utter fiction--are downright despicable.

In a previous post, I mentioned having to spend $1,500 on a lawyer to defend myself against these false charges. Thankfully, the court in Milltown (the case was moved there due to conflict of interest) rightfully saw through this sham, and on January 10, 2008, cleared me of any charges other than violation of a noise ordinance during a shouting match.

I believe Mayor Frank has known all along that I am not a threat to anyone except in the political arena. These tactics are the sort of dirty politics happening all over New Jersey, where politicians use the police to intimidate opponents from challenging them, whether in elections or at public meetings. Such was done to the Halper family at the direction of the mayor of Piscataway.

However, I emphasize that I never was and never will be intimidated from political participation and seeking of public office. Mayor Frank, your efforts are a resounding failure.

My involvement with the 2007 mayoral campaign led to several amazing opportunities for me as a writer, including an invitation to write a play, on which I spent most of the past year working. These writing projects have been my personal priorities since the election. My absence from council meetings has been solely my own choice and not due to any legal edicts. Anyone who doubts this is free to investigate the issue with the Highland Park Police Department, whose members will confirm that there never has been any prohibition against my attending Borough Council meetings.

As a "political animal," I fight my battles with words and words alone. I have not stopped fighting this administration, and I never will. At this point, I believe the opposition has already won its most important victory, in that we blocked the implementation of any use of eminent domain to force business or home owners to sell their properties to private developers.

At some point, hopefully this summer, I intend to once more attend Borough Council meetings and ask the tough questions.

Meanwhile, I reiterate again in the strongest possible terms that any attempt to criminalize or demonize me with false accusations of threatening any human being with harm other than political defeat are nothing but lies and, in Shakespeare's words, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Film Tomorrow Night Depicts Reality of Eminent Domain Abuse

2008-05-30T16:31:00.004-04:00

Tomorrow night, Saturday, May 31, at 7 PM, the Rutgers International Film Festival will show "Greetings from Asbury Park," a 90-minute 2007 film directed by Christina Eliopolous, at Scott Hall, Room 123, College Avenue Campus, 43 College Avenue, New Brunswick. The film centers on the story of Angie, a 91-year-old woman who lived in Asbury Park over 30 years only to find her small home now threatened with eminent domain for a 56-acre redevelopment project. In the words of Eliopoulos:

"Angie, 91, lived through three decades of rust, riot and ruin in Asbury Park, the one-time postcard paradise of the Jersey Shore. Now the tiny bungalow that she has called home, for half her life, will be seized by eminent domain. Hundreds of homes, apartment buildings, local businesses, are boarded up, ready for the wrecking ball. In fact, 29 city blocks, 56 acres of waterfront property and historic boardwalk attractions now belong to a private developer and will be razed to make way for 3,100 luxury condominiums, an ersatz city within a city.But this is welcome progress, and terrific tax revenues, say city officials. The revitalized Asbury Park will be a thrilling combination of SoHo and South Beach. Meanwhile, the bulldozers are in Angie's backyard, and Angie's attorney breaks the news to her. A court case challenge is difficult and costly. This could be the last summer her beloved garden will be in bloom. 'I came to the United States a displaced person, and I will be again a displaced person,' she says sadly.'"

You can find more information about the film at http://www.greetingsfromasburyparkmovie.com/

Also being shown at tomorrow night's film festival are "Too Lost to Find," a 12-minute 2008 documentary on a group of homeless people living on the streets of Hackensack, directed by Bonnie Blake, and "Woven Ways," a 49-minute 2007 film on environmental issues that threaten the health and well being of the Navaho people, directed by Linda Helm Krapf.

All three directors will be present at the showing.

Tickets are $10 for general admission; $9 for students and seniors; and $8 for Rutgers Film Co-op/NJMAC Friends.

If you want to get involved in fighting the injustice of eminent domain abuse, take advantage of a day of training provided by the Castle Coalition only one week later, on Saturday, June 7, from 9 AM-3 PM at Princeton University. The workshop is free and includes lunch. Registration deadline is June 4. To register, call (703) 682-9320 ext. 236 or email cgrodecki@ij.org . Once you register, you will be given the details regarding the exact location of the event at Princeton.

Finally, I am thrilled to report some good news--an actual victory for the Halper family, who lost their family farm of 80 plus years to eminent domain abuse by Piscataway Township. A state appeals court has upheld a $17.9 million jury verdict awarded to the Halper family in the battle over the condemnation of their 75-acre farm on South Washington Avenue in the township. Piscataway had contended that the price of the farm should be based on a December 1999 appraisal of $4.3 million. The court rejected that claim, stating that market forces, not government action, caused an increase in land values between 1999 and 2004.

In a Home News Tribune article, Mark Halper rightly describes the ruling as a victory for the family. "I feel we've been vindicated,'' he said. "The township was trying to steal our land and they didn't get away with it.''

Whether or not Piscataway will appeal the ruling is unclear. What is definite is that so far, $10 million in Middlesex County taxpayers' money has been spent assisting Piscataway in its despicable attempt to seize the Halpers' property.

Mark Halper says he is still willing to negotiate to undo the condemnation and get back his family home.

But the larger point here is that after nearly a decade of battling corruption and injustice, the Halpers--and by extension all who are fighting eminent domain abuse in New Jersey and this country--have won a long, hard fought victory after a seemingly endless series of setbacks. That itself is encouraging, and it reinforces the conviction that in the long term, justice will prevail.

Avalon Bay Application: More Questions than Answers

2008-05-22T18:08:00.004-04:00

After five months of hearings on the Avalon Bay application to build 119 townhouses on the former Illuminating Experiences factory site on Cleveland Avenue, the Zoning Board is now uncertain as to whether it has jurisdiction over the application, which was first filed last September.

This means Cleveland Avenue and nearby residents who have faithfully attended Zoning Board meetings on this application for nearly half a year may have taken time out of their schedules to do so for nothing.

The proposed Cleveland Avenue development has been frought with more questions than answers that date back to 2004.

That year, several sections of Cleveland Avenue were listed in a study for consideration as "areas in need of redevelopment." But the study was never approved by the Borough Council. After many contentious meetings over the Raritan Avenue redevelopment study, the Cleveland proposal was essentially abandoned.

That Cleveland Avenue study specifically excluded the seven-acre Illuminating Experiences property, which at the time was owned by one of the mayor's strongest financial backers.

About a year to a year and a half later, with no additional studies done and very little publicity, the Borough Council designated the Illuminating Experiences site as an area in need of redevelopment.

The site is adjacent to a property formerly owned by Grimes Aerospace, which was contaminated and in the process of being cleaned up for many years. Last spring, Honeywell, which purchased the company that previously owned the property, completed a full cleanup of that site.

Here is where things start getting fuzzy. Not only did Honeywell clean up the site they now owned--they also cleaned up the Illuminating Experiences site, which they did not own. Why would they spend money cleaning up a site they did not own?

Interestingly, the cleanup enabled the previous owner--that's the mayor's big time financial supporter--to sell the Illuminating Experiences property to Avalon Bay for a much higher price than he would have had the land not been cleaned up for him as a free gift by Honeywell.

Ties between the mayor and Honeywell go even deeper. She is involved with a lobby group that has pledged to raise $1 million for Hillary Clinton's campaign. The head of that lobby group, Michael Kempner, has done major lobbying work for Honeywell. He also donated the maximum $2,300 permitted by law to the mayor's re-election campaign last year. This information is available in her Election Law Enforcement Commission campaign finance reports.

Several months ago, the mayor said publicly that she was not sure the Zoning Board had jurisdiction over the Avalon Bay application. If she knew that, why did she allow the Zoning Board to waste its time hearing the application and residents to spend months attending the meetings and and providing input when none of the proceedings would be valid anyway?

Cleveland Avenue residents are justifiably concerned about increased traffic with the new development. What is less well known is that Cleveland Avenue residents have been concerned about trucks speeding down the street for years now and have repeatedly requested a four-way stop sign, yet their pleas were consistently dismissed or ignored by the mayor and council.

Public concern over the density of the original Avalon Bay proposal led the company to scale back its application from 178 to 119 units. However, let's not forget that Mayor Frank has consistently been an ardent supporter of increased density in town. Her mantra, repeated incessantly, is that "higher density is a principle of smart growth." Make no mistake; developments like this one are what she wants for Highland Park.

"Smart growth" and "sustainability" have unfortunately become rhetoric for one particular movement known as "new urbanism." Proponents of this movement argue that concentrating populations in more dense areas will discourage automobile use and benefit the environment by encouraging walking, biking, and use of public transportation.

But a one-size-fits-all solution is never the answer because it does not take into account the individual needs and concerns of specific municipalities. Highland Park is not Brooklyn, and most residents don't want it to be Brooklyn. With 14,000 residents living in 1.9 square miles, our density is as high as it should be.

The argument that higher density will bring in more tax dollars is debatable because additional developments like the one proposed for Avalon Bay will require additional municipal services, including more firefighters and equipement, more police officers, more infrastructure and public works employees, and, of course, additional school costs for children of the families who will move into the two and three bedroom townhomes.

If the Zoning Board doesn't have jurisdiction over this application, who does? Why was the board allowed to meet for five months when the mayor knew in advance it likely did not have jurisdiction in this matter? Was the goal to wear people out by having them come to meeting after meeting only to find out it was all for nothing? Why did Honeywell clean up a site they did not own in the first place? Why was the Illuminating Experiences property first excluded from the Cleveland Avenue redevelopment area only to be later added quietly while the other properties were dropped?

Am I the only one who sees something fishy here? Somehow, I think not.

A Letter to American Jewish Congress--Meryl Frank is Unfit to Lead Women's Division

2008-04-29T00:37:00.005-04:00

Talk about hearing only one side of an issue. Although Meryl Frank has consistently acted as one of the most divisive forces in the Highland Park Jewish community, the American Jewish Congress apparently is unaware of her shenanigans and has appointed her as President of its Women's Division. Below is a letter I sent the AJC explaining the other side of Meryl Frank's regime in Highland Park and asking them to rescind the appointment.

Dear Mr. Gordon and Ms. Kurlander,

I am writing to express my strong objection to the appointment of Highland Park, NJ Mayor Meryl Frank as AJC Women's Division President.

I am a writer and a child of Holocaust survivors, and my family and I have lived in Highland Park, NJ since 1969. We are actively involved in the community through both synagogues and service organizations, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that Ms. Frank has been one of the most divisive political forces in this town over the last decade.

Far from being a respected activist on behalf of social justice, women’s rights, and human rights, Ms. Frank is a bully, a tyrant, and a self-centered politician connected with corrupt officials in the highest echelons of New Jersey state government, including Board of Public Utilities president Jeanne Fox, currently under investigation by the FBI.

During her eight years as mayor, Frank has used strongarm tactics in an attempt to force her redevelopment vision, one that urbanizes our small town, onto the borough. She has targeted various businesses, including a used car dealership co-owned by my brother, his father-in-law, and his two brothers-in-law, all of whom are Orthodox. She has made statements saying their business, which is heavily patronized by the Orthodox community, does not belong in the downtown. When confronted by one of the owners regarding a proposed development plan that totally excluded his business and placed a four-story building on the site instead, she justified her plan by yelling, "you didn't vote for me."

My family and I proceeded to lead a movement against the potential use of eminent domain in her redevelopment plan. She had put my brother's business in the redevelopment zone against their will after lying about how much taxes the property owner pays and forcing that owner along with several other business owners to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers. In one conversation, she described my family as "a family of despicable liars."

I ran for Borough Council twice against her candidates in a Democratic primary and ended up with a respectable 42 percent. She proceeded to drag my name and reputation through the mud all over town. She publicly distorted my election results, saying they were two to one; she made up stories attempting to portray me as a racist (including one she conveyed to another local rabbi); and she filed two false police reports against me claiming I threatened her and her family, which I never did. My so-called threats were of defeating her politically. I had to spend $1,500 on a lawyer to defend myself against a phony charge of disorderly conduct. In 2001, she asked my employer to fire me, and in 2005, she asked the employer of my running mate to fire him. Thankfully, neither complied. At her urging, the rabbi of a prominent temple violated his temple's 501 C3 status by telling his congregants at a public event two days before my primary not to vote for me.

Because I politically oppose her "vision" for the downtown and support a different Democratic faction, which she ousted in 2000 through lies and false accusations of corruption, Ms. Frank has spread "lashon hara" about me all over town, referring to me as "mentally unbalanced," and "in need of help." In one newspaper column after another, she and her supporters made false accusations against me, including accusing me of trying to overturn an election and of being "filled with hate like the plague." She has attempted to defame me and destroy my reputation among Democratic Party leaders at all levels with what cannot be described as anything other than the politics of personal destruction.

I am not the only victim of Ms. Frank's dictatorial tactics. When she first took office, Frank filed false charges of theft against the former Democratic Party treasurer, an Orthodox Jew who had been fighting cancer for 20 years. In 2004, she forced Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons to resign and got her fired from her Middlesex County position as Director of Children's Services because Timmons publicly opposed her redevelopment plan. Last year, she asked New Jersey Democratic leaders to fire a leader of a local Democratic group because he supported her opponent in the 2007 Democratic primary. Over and over, she has shown her hostility to our large Orthodox community, in one case saying another Orthodox synagogue would come into town "over my dead body."

Ms. Frank's regime has been one of closed government and backroom deals, the complete opposite of the open government in which she presumes to believe. An energy consultant who worked for her husband's firm as well as her husband are under investigation by US Attorney Chris Christie in connection with New Jersey's $100 million no oversight Clean Energy Fund, which disbursed money to both through no bid contracts.

If you take the time to speak with many representatives of the Jewish and non-Jewish communities in Highland Park, you will find out that Ms. Frank is a divider, not a uniter, a ruthless, vindictive politician who has spread "sinat chinam"--senseless hatred--within our town for almost a decade.

I admit I am a biased source, but I experienced all these things firsthand, and I seriously ask you to reconsider the appointment of Ms.Frank to this position. I would be happy to speak with you personally and provide media sources for many of these incidents. You can find out more about the opposition to Frank from my two-and-a-half-year-old blog at http://blogforhighlandpark.blogspot.com/

Thank you for your consideration and for taking the time to read my concerns.

Sincerely,
Laurel Kornfeld
Highland Park resident since 1969, Borough Council Candidate in 2002 and 2005

Budget Calls from Mayor's Firm Inappropriate

2008-04-12T14:55:00.003-04:00

Municipalities such as Highland Park that have elected rather than appointed Boards of Education do so for a reason. That reason is to maintain a healthy separation between the political establishment in the town and the running of the town's school system. This separation allows a balance of power between the Governing Body and the Board of Education in which each is autonomous, and schools are not held hostage by politics through having to depend on the good graces of municipal elected officials.

Unlike our neighbors in New Brunswick, we here in Highland Park are fortunate enough to have an elected rather than an appointed school board.

This Tuesday, April 15, voters across the state will go to the polls to vote on proposed school budgets for the 2008-2009 academic year.

Here in Highland Park, a troubling development has occurred over the past several years in regard to school board elections. Specifically, that trend is the use of facilities in the mayor's energy consulting firm, Gabel Associates, as a call center from which volunteers have conducted phone canvassing on behalf of the school budget.

I emphasize here that this is not a statement against the school budget. It is a statement that use of facilities owned by the mayor to make phone calls regarding the budget constitutes a conflict of interest.

When residents overburdened by our high property tax rates have complained to the mayor about their inability to afford living here anymore, the mayor's most frequent response has been to blame our high taxes on the schools rather than on the municipal budget. This response conveys the notion that, as should be, the school budget is operated independently of the mayor and council.

The donation of the mayor's business facility for calls supporting the budget make her above response highly disingenuous. She is not the neutral party she wants people to believe. Giving use of a facility to a campaign as a call center constitutes an in-kind donation that must be reported to the state Election Law Enforcement Committee (ELEC). It is the equivalent of the mayor donating money to canvass voters on behalf of the budget.

None of this is against the law unless the donation is not reported to ELEC as required. However, it can legitimately be viewed as inappropriate political involvement by the mayor in the business of the schools, which is supposed to be independent of the Governing Body. It is also an insult to those taxpayers because she assigns blame for our high taxes to the schools while at the same time donating her own property to actively support those taxes.

Our children deserve the best education possible, and all voters should support our school system. At the same time, the mayor should respect the system designed to deliberately create a healthy distance between the Governing Body and the Board of Education and should at least publicly maintain a healthy neutrality on this issue.

By all means, go out and vote on April 15. But if you receive a canvassing call from Gabel Associates, take the chance to inform the person on the other end about the concept of conflict of interest.

Delivering Nothing

2008-01-31T20:37:00.002-05:00

When a US president delivers the annual State of the Union address, it has become part of the process for the party in opposition to present a response. Democracy thrives only when voice is given to all points of view, when the fact that there is more than one way of looking at critical issues is acknowledged.

In the spirit of that tradition, what follows below is a response to the mayor's speech "Delivering on Promises," published in the Winter 2008 edition of the Highland Park Quarterly. That speech reflects exactly why this mayor and her agenda are wrong for Highland Park.

As usual, she begins with herself, with a self-congratulatory statement about her position as mayor. From there, the first person language changes from "I" to a nebulous "we," but this is not a "we" that is inclusive or even in acknowledgment that other visions for the town's future exist. Mayor Frank's use of "we" is focused solely on her vision, her agenda, and the contributions of her hand-picked people . From the tone of her presentation, an outsider would think this is a politician who received 100 percent of the vote instead of 1,622 out of a total number of 8,000 registered voters.

The blatant blurring of partisan political rhetoric in a report supposed to detail government accomplishments is stunning. The mayor says she wants "to reflect" with the public "about that change that voters demanded eight years ago," a partisan, biased, self-serving, offensive statement that presumes the only people living in this town are those who fought for her. She later continues the illusion--or should one say delusion--with the claim that the people of this borough have come together "to work out a common vision" that just happens to be her personal vision as opposed to a conglomeration of the many different visions put forward for Highland Park by citizen activists over the past decades.

Sorry, mayor, but not everyone fought for you and the change you wanted. Forty-five percent of Democratic voters opposed it back in your precious 1999, and 45 percent of Democrats continued to oppose it in 2007. And since this town almost never had a contested general election over the last eight years, the majority of voters, who are not affiliated with any party, have never had a choice of leaders in the November general elections.

The world did not begin eight years ago, and neither did the borough's environmental and green efforts. Highland Park has been a model community in the environmental arena for decades. Long before Frank came onto the scene, Mayor Jeff Orbach fought for and succeeded in saving the Highland Park portion of the Rutgers Ecological Preserve from development. Mayor Jim Polos initiated the Eugene P. Young Environmental Education Center and obtained the initial $500,000 in county funding for it. Mayor Polos also was one of the first to set out a bold vision for a greenway from Donaldson Park to Johnson Park.

Yes, this town played a leadership role in being green long before it was a hot issue, but the fact our current mayor ignores is we did so long before she came onto the scene.

When we enacted ordinances to protect steep slopes and stream corridors, it was because of the effort of the late Richard Marx, an independent council candidate in 1999 who wrote one of the original ordinances, and subsequent persistent lobbying by citizen activists of all political persuasions.

If we are such a green community now, why have we not rezoned the borough-owned Meadows below Buck Woods from residential to conservation? Why did we spend $1 million on tiny Centennial Park but make no effort to raise the funds to purchase the thriving four-acre ecosystem known as Buck Woods? Why did we let Jack Morris cut down 40 trees illegally in Buck Woods with impunity in 2005? Why did we not do more to prevent the Parker Assisted Living Facility from clearcutting a huge area of mature trees to build its facility?

Why did the borough's 2003 Master Plan change the YM-YWHA property from being zoned quasi-public to riverfront residential, paving the way for another high rise at this site?

And why are we claiming to be playing a leadership role in promoting environmental sustainability when numerous municipalities across the state, as well as Middlesex County itself, are taking the exact same initiatives at the same time we are, with the only difference being their leaders are not "packaging" themselves in green wrapping paper for the sake of photo ops, maximum press coverage, and political promotion for their mayors?

If there is one laughable statement in the mayor's overt propaganda statement, it is the labeling of the 2007 opposition campaign as the "old guard." That term was first used by communist regimes in the former Soviet Union in an attempt to distance themselves from their predecessors. Dictatorships specialize in propaganda, so it is not surprising the mayor would take a page from their books.

Our candidates who ran in 2007 are new, energetic, dynamic citizen leaders, most of whom have never held public office before. Mayor Frank and her supporters have repeatedly spread the lie that our money came from a former mayor and a former borough attorney. Nothing could be further from the truth. But she cannot acknowledge that there is a grassroots movement in town other than her own, a group that raised our own money, a group that worked hard going door to door to mobilize citizens to elect a mayor, council, and Democratic Committee that respect and represent the views of all in town, not just one clique, a group that earned nearly 1,250 votes in last year's primary and won several committee seats.

There is nothing entrenched about the opposition in Highland Park, nothing that looks backward instead of forward. Mayor Frank is stuck in either 1999 or 2020. We want to address the affordability issues, the crippling burden of property taxes, and the wasteful spending on expensive consultants for redevelopment happening here, now, in 2007, 2008 and 2009. We want to make it easier for businesses to thrive in town by removing the $2,000 annual burden of the BID on business and property owners, most of which goes to pay salaries and expensive consultants. We want open government to be more than just words that apply only to the mayor's friends.

The people of Highland Park do want good, clean government. But your administration, Mayor Frank, is not it. Your administration is one that has again and again showed contempt for the Open Public Records Act, through repeated delays and stonewalling of public records requests and open berating of those making those requests. It is worthy to note that this administration has two outstanding complaints before the state Government Records Council and is also being investigated by the Office of the Public Advocate for improper designation of redevelopment areas. Frank's mayoral campaign also is under investigation by the state Election Law Enforcement Commisson for illegally taking $500 from an LLC.

Last spring, Councilwoman Fern Goodhart promised that council meetings and agendas would be put on the borough's web site, as is done already in many other towns. Nine months have passed, and nothing has been delivered. Some towns are now placing the text of ordinances approved on first reading on their web sites as well. Why aren't we? Where other governing bodies make sure to have at least one public comment session early in their meetings, our mayor and council continue to delay public comment until the meetings' end, making it harder for senior citizens and those who have to get up early for work the next day to stay long enough to have their say. And when people do come up and express dissenting views, they often are faced with an attitude of contempt and ridicule by those at the dais who think they know better than the average citizen.

When $400,000 in taxpayers' money vanished, but the mayor waited five weeks to report it to the police, was that good and open government? When a Tax Assessor indicted for misapplication of those funds was allowed to continue working for a week at the scene of the crime, was that good and open government?

Leadership in ethics? Then why are five out of seven members of the Ethics Task Force open supporters of the mayor? Why does the mayor want to, in contravention of the law, skip appointing Republicans to the Ethics Commission as required? Why have no ethics laws been created to cover Main Street and the Redevelopment Agency, as former Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons recommended?

Mayor Frank claims the borough has worked hard to find savings to control property taxes? Then why were several new positions with full salaries and benefits created? Why are thousands of our tax dollars going to politically connected PR firms to politically promote Frank through press releases and publications like the Quarterly? Why are we spending $35,000 a year on a Redevelopment Agency Director and over $100,000 on Main Street salaries? Why have we paid the mayor's friend Jennifer Sennick for at least four separate revisions of the streetscape plan?

The administration will fight the way it fought Verizon over the cell tower? Remember, that's the same cell tower for which the mayor signed a contract and then lied about not knowing what was in that contract. The administration will fight for openness? Remember, this is the same administration that never bothered to consult with a whole group of business owners before placing their properties in a redevelopment study and therefore at risk of being taken via eminent domain.

The administration will fight for a "common vision" opposed by only "a few exceptions?" Let's not forget that vision is one of increased housing density on Cleveland Avenue, Raritan Avenue, River Road at the Cenacle site, and likely the YM-YWHA site. Higher density is not the right direction for a small town like Highland Park. We are not Brooklyn, nor do we want to be. Higher density is not "smart growth" in spite of all the rhetoric that claims otherwise. Higher density means more school children, more funding needed for schools, and more infrastructure. It means traffic congestion far worse than the already bad situation we have today with 25,000 cars traveling daily down Raritan Avenue.

And the mayor can hardly take credit for bringing new businesses into town, as the business turnover during the last eight years has followed the same pattern as it has for decades. Yes, new businesses came in, but many also were lost, including favorites such as Victoria's Resale Boutique, Chapter One Coffeehouse, and Blooms.

And when the YM-YWHA, which has served generations in this borough for 52 years, faced closure, this administration showed a complete lack of leadership in working with its leaders to keep the Y in town. Middlesex County offered to purchase some of the property for open space, leading to a situation where a smaller high rise could be built along with a new Y, but the borough did nothing to help make this possibility succeed.

Are 45 percent of Democrats, 400 Republicans, and several thousand independents "a few exceptions?" What about the large numbers of people who have repeatedly written letters and held protests asking for a referendum outlawing the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment? What about the many business owners who feel unrepresented by this administration and put up signs for the opposition? It seems as though to this mayor, we don't exist.

Decency, civility, and inclusion? The voters definitely want this, but this administration has not shown any of these. If you doubt this, ask former Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons or one of the many people Frank unjustly had fired, such as the former recreation director or Irene Glinsky, the council's secretary for six years. For those who dissent with Frank, there is no decency, civility, or inclusion. That is why there was no room for Sal Raspa or Nancy Wolf on the Democratic ticket in 2001 in spite of their many accomplishments on behalf of this town. That is why opposition candidates, such as myself, faced Karl Rove style swift boat attacks accusing us of being racists, liars, anti-children, pro-developers, crazy, etc. Sorry, mayor, but decency, civility and inclusion have to apply to everyone, not just the people you like.

Change is not always a good thing. Many of the changes brought by Frank over the last years have been steps in the wrong direction, steps towards gentrification of our town. Her "hard fight" and "difficult start" was built upon slanderous lies falsely defaming people who had honorably served on the governing body for years. Her claim that the current council represents the borough's diversity rings hollow. Where are the senior citizens? Where are representatives of the business community? Where are the tenants? Where are the low income residents? Why is every council member in roughly the same age and income demographic?

Frank forced her changes on the Democratic Committee through bullying tactics, engaging county Democratic leaders to pressure incumbent committee members to resign so they could be replaced with a list hand-picked by her. When remaining committee members protested these heavy-handed tactics back in 2000, they were told by county Democratic leaders on behalf of Frank that any resistance to these changes would be met with well-funded efforts by "an army of lawyers." The committee, of which she proudly refers to herself as "titular head," has repeatedly flouted the laws and procedures it is supposed to follow and has not held a single open meeting for the better part of a decade.

For eight years, we have been hearing promises and rhetoric. But promises and rhetoric are not reality. Leadership that forces a vision of one person on a whole town and ignores those who see things differently is not effective or ethical leadership. Plans that claim to represent a public consensus while ignoring the sentiment of whole segments of the population are not accomplishments to be celebrated.

Mayor Frank was wrong for this town in 1999. She was wrong for this town in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007. She is wrong for this town in 2008. She has promised much but delivered nothing more than divisiveness, self-promotion, bullying, increased taxes, reduced services, a high school style clique mentality, and empty promises.

To this mayor, I say, you have no mandate. You won nothing. The vision you tried so hard to impose on our business owners between First and Second Avenue is thankfully dead, not because of your efforts, but because citizens spoke up and demanded justice. And we will do so again whenever any business is threatened with eminent domain, whenever an attempt is made to impose density too large for this town, as with the Dornoch proposal, and whenever the voices of those you wish would go away are ignored.

These are the promises of the voters you refuse to hear. We will continue to fight for our vision of an affordable, small town Highland Park that cares about all its residents and businesses. We will continue to keep democracy alive and thriving by running candidates challenging yours in every election. We will not allow Highland Park to become an exclusive, upscale community or your version of Westfield. We will hold this administration accountable at every turn regarding openness and accessibility. So you can expect to have to fight just as hard as you did eight years ago and every day since because there are enough people who genuinely believe your direction is wrong for Highland Park and who are willing to act on that belief.

There is an old saying that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." And there are not, as you claim, "only a few exceptions" who dissent and embrace a vision different from yours. There are many of us in this town, and we're here for the duration regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge us. We are building a movement for the people based on substance instead of flimsy rhetoric. We are not any type of "old guard." We are citizen watchdogs, and we will make what you call "tries for it," namely attempts bring regime change to this town, again and again, for as long as it takes.

This mayor promises rhetoric and delivers nothing. We promise to fight for real change, real progressive values, and no matter how long it takes, we will deliver. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

We will deliver.

Rules? What Rules?

2008-01-29T13:55:00.000-05:00

In their latest move to fill a Borough Council vacancy earlier this month, the leadership of the Highland Park Democratic Municipal Committee has once again shown their utter contempt for the rules and procedures that are supposed to govern party operations.

Fern Goodhart, who won a three-year council term last year, accepted a job offer in Washington, D.C., meaning she cannot serve her new term. As the law requires, she took office at the Borough Council's reorganization meeting on January 7, 2008 and then promptly submitted her resignation.

What occurred after that is highly problematic. At the very same meeting, the council appointed Padraic Millet to fill the vacancy, citing his as one of three names submitted by the Democratic Municipal Committee to fill the vacancy.

Under state-governed procedure, the party of the person who resigns an elected office must name three potential replacements within 15 days of the person's resignation. The council then has 30 days from that person's resignation to pick one of the three nominees submitted by the party.

Here in Highland Park, several rules were ignored in the process of filling the vacancy left by Goodhart. First, the Democratic Committee was never given the 15-day period to submit the three names. Second and far more important, the Committee never held a meeting or the required interview for the selection of the three nominees.

The chair and vice chair of the party simply submitted three names to the council before Goodhart had even formally resigned. Most Democratic Committee members were not even aware of the resignation. Apparently, chair Bruce Morgan and vice chair Diane Weinberg are psychic, as they knew in advance that Goodhart planned to resign and on their own submitted three names for her replacement.

This in no way is intended to disparage Millet, who is hard working and dedicated and has done his best in taking on his new responsibilities as a council member. It is solely directed at the leadership of the Democratic Municipal Committee, which ignored proper procedure and acted on its own without bothering to inform fellow committee members of the vacancy, hold an interview process to recruit nominees, or allow for the appropriate time periods the process requires.

Mayor Frank continues to pride herself and her administration as paragons of open government and transparency. But it is actions that count, not words. Here we see the exact opposite of openness and transparency--not even an attempt to appear to be following procedure. This is the way dictatorships and oligarchies operate, not the way democracies operate.

Even members of the Democratic Committee were outraged at being completely left out of the loop in this action.

This is not the first time the party leadership has ignored rules and procedures. The last time a council vacancy occurred, no interview process was conducted either. The chair simply submitted three names without even convening the committee.

And in the case of an earlier vacancy, when there had been an actual interview process, the committee chair named only two people to the council for consideration, refusing to name a third even though three people had interviewed. That third person happened to be me. While I am not angry or bitter about not being chosen, I do take issue with the fact that the chair so cavalierly violated the law by refusing to name all three people who interviewed.

Appropriately, formal complaints have been filed with the county Democratic chair, state Democratic chair, and Middlesex County Prosecutor regarding the complete contempt for proper procedure shown in this latest case by the Democratic Municipal Committee's leadership.

In light of this utter contempt for and ignoring of rules issued by the state and followed in every New Jersey municipality, party chair Bruce Morgan and vice chair Diane Weinberg should immediately resign their positions, so new party leaders who respect the law can be chosen.

Once again, we are reminded why it is so important for citizens to run for positions on the Democratic Municipal Committee. If you are a Democrat and believe the same rules should apply to everyone, please consider running for a committee seat when they are up for election again in 2009.

John Edwards for President

2007-12-27T18:01:00.000-05:00

With the New Jersey presidential primary little more than a month away, I want to urge readers not just in Highland Park but across the state and beyond to give their support and votes to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.

Why Edwards? The answer is actually quite simple. Edwards provides the Democratic Party with an opportunity to return to its populist roots as an advocate for fighting poverty and standing up for a strong middle class.

Beginning in the 1930s, the New Deal and then the Great Society led to generations of prosperity, economic growth, and increasing opportunities for a burgeoning middle class. This was the heyday of the Democratic Party, when being a Democrat meant being an advocate for the average person as well as for our most vulnerable citizens.

But as Stephen Crockett, co-host of Democratic Talk Radio, states, when Ronald Reagan came to power, Democrats began selling out to the corporate agenda and corporate campaign dollars. Their support for initiatives such as income tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations amounted to "Republican lite" policies that reversed a long term period of prosperity and began a decades long trend of the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the middle class being heavily weakened.

Acceptance of "supply side economics," in spite of its being proven a failure again and again, led to Democratic complicity in support of tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens and corporations, a resulting shortage of revenue to fund services, and cuts in everything from college financial aid to anti-poverty programs. "Trickle down economics," which Democrats could have stopped but instead embraced in a "lighter" form, led to excessive corporate executive pay, downsizing, outsourcing, corporate consolidation and monopolies, undermining of labor unions, and increased corporate control of the media and politics, shutting out the voices of average people.

Bill and Hillary Clinton supported the series of free trade agreements such as NAFTA, GATT, etc., all of which facilitated more downsizing and outsourcing, just as predicted by independent presidential candidate Ross Perot.

Meanwhile, no Democrat has truly made a priority out of ending poverty as we know it, something that can be done but for the lack of political will. The US is the only industrialized democracy in the world not to have national health care. Our infant mortality and average lifespan rates are an embarrassment in that they are behind those of most other industrialized countries. We spend 17 percent of our economy on health care but still have 47 million people without coverage. Other industrialized nations spend about 8 percent on health care and cover everyone.

John Edwards is running as an economic populist, wholeheartedly committed to restoring the soul of the Democratic Party. He is the only candidate talking about fighting poverty in America. Because the poor don't give big bucks to campaigns, their voices are almost always ignored. That is not the case with Edwards, who first told the truth about "a tale of two Americas," one wealthy and one increasingly struggling and who has made the commitment to restoring "one America" where "a rising tide lifts all boats."

Edwards is committed to universal health care, combatting both urban and rural poverty, strengthening the right of workers to form unions, and fighting outsourcing of jobs from our country by ending trade agreements that encourage companies to move overseas.

Even in presidential elections, this country rarely sees a turnout beyond 55 percent of those eligible. We need to ask ourselves why so many citizens opt to not participate. Maybe the answer is because no one is addressing the concerns and needs of those who struggle from paycheck to paycheck, the increasing lack of affordability of higher education, the lack of manufacturing jobs with benefits that used to secure average citizens a decent standard of living, the fear of catastrophic illness or the need for nursing home care alongside the inability to afford these.

Economic populism was the soul of the Democratic Party for decades. When the party abandoned this central tenet, it lost the allegiance of countless voters. Unfortunately, people like Bill and Hillary Clinton along with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), who advocated the policy of "triangulation" or "Republican lite," opting, for example, to focus on ending welfare as we know it instead of ending poverty as we know it, played a central role in leading the party in this wrong direction.

Barack Obama is far more the economic populist than Hillary Clinton, but he could use additional political experience. He might find that experience as a running mate for vice president alongside John Edwards.

In 2004, I took part in a loose organization known as "the Group," which focused on raising money for Democratic candidates. At this point, with "the Group" having endorsed Hillary Clinton, I respectfully dissent with their decision. I urged its members to consider endorsing Edwards, but unfortunately, that did not happen.

It is time for the Democratic Party to reclaim its soul from those who sold out and continue to sell out to the highest bidders. Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis once said, "the more you have, the more you're responsible for giving back." If you want to see a move away from today's economic inequality, the worst since the Great Depression, if you want the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes, if you want universal health coverage for all Americans, if you want the interests of the poor and middle class to once again take front and center stage, I urge you to actively support the campaign of John Edwards and to vote for him in our primary on February 5.

To volunteer for Edwards' campaign, visit http://johnedwards.com/

So Much for Openness and Transparency

2007-12-07T16:29:00.000-05:00

Does this sound legal? Main Street Highland Park, which is funded through a tax on commercial property and business owners as well as $35,000 from the Borough of Highland Park, claims it is not subject to the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA). Below, in a quote from The Highland Park Mirror, Borough Attorney Diane Dabulas and Main Street Director Graham Copeland claim Main Street is not subject to the Open Public Records Act or to the Open Public Meetings Act:

"Acting on advice from borough attorney Diane Nabulas (sic, the real name is Dabulas), Main Street Highland Park now asserts that their meetings are private affairs, to be announced only at the board's discretion. The open meetings law 'applies specifically to public bodies,' director Graham Copeland wrote to The Mirror. 'It does not apply to private nonprofit corporations (such as) Main Street Highland Park.'

Main Street's budget of $225,000 is approved yearly by the borough council, in a municipal action that includes a 30-day comment period. The money is raised in part from residents' property taxes, and mostly from a 'business improvement assessment' on Raritan and Woodbridge Avenue commercial buildings. Main Street staff report its actual spending back to its board and borough council once a year, during the next budget submission.

MSHP went unchallenged in 2005 when it declared its invoices and purchasing policies as private information, exempt from the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA). While reserving the right to operate in secret, the downtown improvement group has generally welcomed public attendance and provided board minutes on request."

For several months in 2002, Main Street's board refused to make their meeting dates public and criticized me for printing those dates anyway in my non-partisan, unofficial Highland Park email newsletter. Eventually, they relented and even posted meeting dates on their web site.

This year, when I asked for a copy of the Main Street budget in time for their hearing before the Borough Council, I was given the wrong sheet, which Main Street representatives claimed was a worksheet that should never have been publicly distributed. Meanwhile, the actual budget document was never made public before the public hearing. I pointed out that under these conditions, the council should have postponed approval of the Main Street budget until it was made available to the public in advance of the meeting as required by law. The council ignored this request, emphasizing the need to approve the budget as soon as possible so Main Street can get on with its work.

For a mayor and council that claim to be paragons of open government and transparency, this type of action is reprehensible. Main Street is funded by taxpayer dollars, both through the borough budget and through an average assessment of $1,000-$2,000 a year paid by property and business owners. This makes Main Street a public body, subject to the same laws as mayors and councils, including OPMA and OPRA. It is interesting to consider what the Government Records Council or the state Office of the Public Advocate might have to say on this matter.

Operating in secret for the sake of efficiency is the way dictatorships work. It has no place in a democracy and no place in Highland Park. If borough officials condone this policy by Main Street, then all their repetitions of words like "open government" and "transparency" are nothing more than shallow, empty rhetoric.

A Wonderful Gift

2007-11-21T22:30:00.000-05:00

On this eve of Thanksgiving, I am going to depart from the usual Highland Park political commentary to share what I believe would make a beautiful holiday gift for your friends and family members.

About one month ago, I had the good fortune to receive an email from an amazing woman in Streator, Illinois, named Siobhan Elias. We've all had the experience of meeting someone who shares so many of our values, beliefs, and interests that the person can be considered a kindred spirit. When that happens, it truly feels like a blessing from above.

Siobhan served on the municipal council in Streator, Illinois, for four years. There, she acted as a watchdog and advocate for the citizens of her town. The "powers that be" and their wealthy supporters had no use for her service and bitterly opposed her efforts at every turn. On the day she filed to run, Siobhan was fired from her job simply for exercising her right to seek public office.

Streator, Illinois, is the birthplace of Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the planet Pluto in Flagstaff, Arizona, in 1930. Tombaugh had only a high school diploma when he was hired by the Lowell Observatory to search for a suspected ninth planet and spent many long, cold nights observing and viewing endless photographic plates before making his discovery.

This past May, in spite of all the political obstacles she faced, Siobhan spearheaded a two-day Planet Pluto Festival in Streator. That festival featured Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, who spoke as part of an event that featured equal amounts of entertainment and education.

What is fascinating is that both Siobhan and I share two of the same passions: we are both idealists who seek to serve in public office, and we both are big time fans of the planet Pluto.

Siobhan's husband, Kevin Elias, is a singer/songwriter, who along with Richard Fey, make up a team of musicians who have written and performed many wonderful songs. The group is facing the uphill battle of trying to make it in the music business independently of the major record labels.

This year, Elias Fey wrote a beautiful tribute to Clyde Tombaugh titled "New Horizons: A Tribute to Clyde Tombaugh and the New Horizons Mission." The song is an uplifting, inspiring tribute with beautifully written lyrics set to an upbeat tune. No mention is made of the wrongful demotion of Pluto by the IAU last year; instead, the song recalls Tombaugh's discovery of Pluto on a winter night in 1930 and celebrates the launch of New Horizons in 2006, carrying some of the ashes of Pluto's discoverer, who died in 1997.

Anyone can listen to their demo catalogue by visiting their web site at http://www.eliasfey.com/

Not only is this CD a more meaningful gift than most of what is available in crowded shopping malls; it also carries a message of faith in dreams and infinite possibilities, a theme in tune with the season of light and hope that culminates with the birth of a New Year. To quote the song, "You gotta believe, 'cause that's what keeps us moving on. An American dream to where no one's ever gone."

Visit http://www.eliasfey.com/ and keep believing and dreaming--and buy somebody a wonderful gift this season.

A Vote of No Confidence

2007-11-20T15:52:00.000-05:00

The embarrassingly low number of votes received by Mayor Frank in the November 6 election, both in comparison with the total voter turnout in town and in comparison with the total number of registered voters cannot be read as anything other than a clear vote of no confidence in this mayor.

A total of 2,468 Highland Park residents out of about 8,000 registered in town went to the polls two weeks ago. Yet out of that total, Frank received only 1,622 votes, or 846 less than the total turnout. That amounts to a lot of people who took the time to vote but wouldn't press the button for her. Her numbers were lower than those of her council running mates, Jon Erickson, who received 1,670 votes and Fern Goodhart, who received 1,654 votes.

Interestingly, all three local candidates received lower numbers than they did in the June primary, something practically unheard of, even in heavily Democratic Highland Park. In contrast, local Democratic candidates in general elections typically receive 2,700 to 2,900 votes. In 2003, Frank received 1,961 compared with Jeff Orbach's 791.

Also, in stark contrast, the four ballot questions and the county and state races all generated about 2,100 or 2,200 votes. It appears more people came out for the questions than they did for the local candidates.

Highland Park also set a record for the unusually large number of write-in votes for mayor and council: 145 for mayor and 94 for council. The list of vote getters is downright amusing. I campaigned for A. Ficus, not for myself, but received eight write-ins for mayor and one for council, easily beating Mickey Mouse, Homer Simpson, Donald Duck, Darth Vader, Santa Claus, the Devil, and a host of other names, coming in second only to Nancy Wolf and A. Ficus. A very special thanks to the nine people who wrote my name in even though I did not ask for it.

In the council race, the top write-ins were Michael Kornfeld, George Valenta, and A. Ficus plus a host of many other names.

All joking aside, 2007 is not good news for Frank. Sometimes, things appear one way on the surface but turn out exactly the opposite once one looks deeper. George W. Bush might have won both the 2000 and 2004 presidential races, but has been unsuccessful in implementing major pieces of his vision including Social Security privatization, oil drilling in the Arctic national wildlife reserve, or bringing about desired results in Iraq. In contrast, Al Gore, viewed as the "loser" in 2000, has had tremendous success in implementing his vision of raising public consciousness about global warming and initiating a paradigm change in how we view our interaction with the environment.

Highland Park's voters have shown a stunning lack of confidence in Frank and a deep desire for different leadership. That is the legacy of 2007. Those of us who seek new leadership have spent this year successfully planting the seeds of change. Like all the natural world at this time of year, those seeds will for a while be unseen and dormant, but like all seeds, in only a matter of time, they will germinate and emerge into a new cycle of life.

Victory delayed is NOT victory denied.

Write In Protest for Mayor

2007-11-04T18:50:00.000-05:00

An election that offers the choice of only one candidate is never representative of true democracy. Unfortunately, that is the "choice" Highland Park voters face in this year's mayoral race on Tuesday, November 6.

Instead of staying home out of apathy, many in town are choosing to voice their unhappiness with the lack of choice, and in some cases,with the policies of the current administration, by casting a write in vote for mayor as a protest. While this will not change the outcome, a large number of write in votes can and will send a message that people in town want a more open government where they can have a genuine voice in decision making.

I am asking everyone who shares this view to support a grassroots movement to write in A. Ficus for mayor. The Ficus is a plant that was "run" several years ago in a Congressional race where the incumbent Republican had no Democratic opponent. Writing in A. Ficus is a statement on behalf of genuine green principles, not simply the vanity projects on which this administration has spent our hard earned taxpayer dollars. You can find out more about A. Ficus and the grassroots movement behind it at http://www.aficus4mayor.org/

For those who do not feel comfortable writing in a plant, I urge you to go to the polls and write in the name of the person you would like to see serve as mayor. This is coming from me alone and not from the official Ficus campaign effort. If you don't want to write in A. Ficus, write in Sal Raspa, Nancy Wolf, yourself, or anyone you believe would be a better choice for mayor of Highland Park. The polls will be open from 6 AM-8 PM on Tuesday, November 6.

There are also two uncontested Borough Council seats up in this election. Many Ficus advocates are continuing the green theme and writing in Rose Bush and Prairie Fyre. Again, if you're not comfortable writing in these names, please come to the polls anyway and write in candidates of your choice.

I ask voters to remember that during this year's primary, the mayor and council members up for re-election made a promise to place all agendas and minutes of Borough Council meetings on the borough's web site. Five months have passed, and this has not been done, in spite of the fact that more and more municipalities are adopting this practice. Once again, we see promises made and promises broken.

Directions for Doing A Write In Vote:

Look for the office of Mayor near the bottom of the left hand column of the ballot listing all candidates.

Go to "Personal Choice" in the right hand column of that row and press the button next to "Write In."

THEN go to the alphabetical keyboard at the bottom right of the voting machine. Note: It is not a typewriter keyboard. Using this keyboard, enter the name of your choice one letter at a time. To make a space between the first and last names, use the arrow pointing right on the keyboard. To make a correction, use the arrow pointing left on the keyboard. The name you enter will appear on the display to the left of the keyboard.

IMPORTANT: When you have finished entering the name, press the "Enter" button on the keyboard. If you don't press enter, your vote will not register. This button is separate from the red "Cast Vote" button one must press before completing all voting.

Repeat the same process for both Borough Council seats. These will be listed in the left hand column of candidates underneath the mayor column.

Please pass this message along to anyone who you think might be interested in this option.

Finally, I would like to address a personal comment on the write in effort by one of the mayor's supporters. He emailed me with this statement: "Think about it Laurel, refusing to get out of the rain doesn't make you right, it simply makes you wet."

Sometimes getting wet is the better option than going inside to a place that is toxic on many levels. The night before my 2005 council primary, I distributed literature door to door in a raging thunderstorm. I've gotten rained on many times as a candidate and likely will again. Contrary to the opinions of some people in this town, I don't melt on contact with water.

Show Us the Data

2007-10-24T19:13:00.000-04:00

At a recent Borough Council meeting, Brian Taxman, chair of Main Street Highland Park's Board of Directors, made a startling claim when he stated that the last three to five years have been the most successful ones in the history of Highland Park's business district.

When one makes such a claim with the intent of it appearing credible, it is expected that one will provide either quantitative or qualitative data or both to back up that claim. Yet no such data other than this one man's opinion was provided to the public at that meeting.

Have Main Street Highland Park officials reviewed the profit and loss averages for local businesses over not just the last three to five years, but over a longer period so as to have a standard of comparison? Have they spoken with as many business owners as possible or communicated with them via a survey? Without this information, there is no way of verifying Mr. Taxman's claim as anything other than a politically motivated statement.

Why politically motivated? Maybe because he has made such a statement before. Several years ago, in a Main Street newsletter, he credited success in the business district to the election of Mayor Meryl Frank. When one talks about elections and brings in partisan politics, especially in a town as polarized as this one, he or she is making a political statement. This is especially noteworthy because Main Street, as a 501 C3, is required to be nonpartisan and prohibited from engaging in electioneering or promoting any political candidates.

Mr. Taxman's statement amounts to a claim that the last three to five years have been the business district's most successful ones in all Highland Park history, which is 102 years! That requires review of a century of business activity to verify! At the very least, we should consult long time residents and businesses for their take on this even though the chances of obtaining records dating back to 1905 are very slim.

New businesses have always opened in the borough, and some have always closed and gone out of business over the years. There is no proof that the last three to five years have been any different. In fact, many businesses have found this period more difficult, as for the first time, they have been struggling with an additional tax burden through the Business Improvement District (BID). BID money is largely going to expensive consultants and PR firms to promote and conduct events that could be done by volunteers when in all justice it should go directly back to the business owners in the form of assistance in upgrading their properties. On average, business and property owners are now paying an extra $1,000-$2,000 a year in the BID tax.

It is noteworthy that in the recent primary, several businesses displayed signs for the opposition slate while none displayed signs in support of the current mayor.

The streetscape improvements scheduled for the springs of 2005, 2006, and 2007 respectively still have not begun. What has happened, however, is several revisions of the design concept requested by the consultant, the engineer and the architect. Each revision costs additional taxpayer dollars. The results on the ground are once again, more spending of our money and nothing done.

To determine exactly how much money has been wasted on endless revisions of the streetscape design, I have submitted an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request seeking copies of all contracts with consultants, engineers, and architects on the project, which I will share on this blog once I obtain the information.

In all fairness, I ask Highland Park's business and commercial property owners: Have you experienced the last three to five years as your most successful ever? If your assessment differs from Mr. Taxman's, tell the Borough Council at one of its next meetings (Wednesday, November 7 and Tuesday, November 20, both at 7 PM in Borough Hall) or write to the mayor and council at Borough Hall, 221 South Fifth Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904. Better yet, write letters to the editors of local newspapers or contact Main Street at info@mainstreethp.org . You are the heart of our business district. Make your voices heard.

In Memoriam: David Rebovich

2007-10-18T13:39:00.000-04:00

New Jersey politics lost one of its few good guys with the sudden death of political commentator David Rebovich, Director of the Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University. For those who have not yet heard, Rebovich died of a sudden heart attack at age 58 on Friday, October 12 while teaching a class at Rider.

According to Senator Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, who was quoted in The Home News Tribune, Rebovich "was never encumbered by politics or partisanship. He was about what was right and what was wrong," said Sen. Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex, whose district includes the city of Perth Amboy.

I owe a personal debt of gratitude to Rebovich for his comments in a March 27, 2007 Star Ledger article in which he recognized Mayor Meryl Frank's attempt to intimidate me from running for office by filing a false and ridiculous police report against me on March 12 of this year as the abuse of power it was. That article ran in the statewide section of the newspaper.

In this state of pay to play, where money and power so often triumph over justice and fairness, where corruption runs so deep that even US Attorney Chris Christie is shocked at the depth and extent of wrongdoing that permeates our political culture, it is not easy to side with a watchdog over a person with an official position such as the mayor of a town.

Yet Rebovich, unlike so many politicians and political consultants in this state, found the courage to do just that, to speak the truth as he saw it, unafraid of repercussions from bosses and party leaders. And for that, he was respected on all sides of the political spectrum--not an easy feat to accomplish in New Jersey or in the country.

"Public officials are fair game," he wrote in the March 27 article on the false police report, an article I initiated by contacting the press to expose this obvious abuse of power.

"They have to have thick skin. It comes as part of the price in holding office to be accountable to all constituents, and the rule of decorum is to respond to queries politely. They can't use police reports to stifle political opponents, as annoying as they may be."

Sadly, in this case, Billy Joel's song is right on the money in stating "only the good die young."

However, the holding of government officials accountable for their actions and the vigilance of government watchdogs will go on. For that, David Rebovich would be proud.

Borrowing Big, Spending Bigger

2007-10-08T15:52:00.000-04:00

The October 6, 2007 edition of The Mirror, a local newspaper, states on its front page that Main Street Highland Park plans to borrow big in 2008. The program will receive a loan of $500,000 from the State Department of Community Affairs , which will go toward the Business Improvement District (BID) to fund long promised and long postponed streetscape improvements including pedestrian and highway lighting, signs, street furniture, planters, other decorations,and "other contributions to design and construction costs."

This loan comes on top of a $69,000 loan already obtained by the BID and used in previous years' BID budgets. It will be paid back through the quarterly BID assessment on commercial properties and businesses in the BID area.

What stands out here is what the article does not tell us. Is this loan being paid back with interest, and if so, what is the rate? What is the repayment schedule? Most importantly, since it will be repaid through the BID assessment, will it involve an increase in the annual BID assessment to already overburdened businesses and business property owners?

What exactly are the "other contributions to design and construction costs?" This sounds a lot like a euphemism for consultants' fees. The BID has already been paying consultant Jennifer Sennick, who just happened to nominate Mayor Frank for a state environmental award in 2005, via contract for several years, with the streetscape design having been changed at least four times. What is going on here? Why so many revisions? Are any designers or architects being paid extra for endless reconfiguration of these designs?

And why, when the mayor and council announced that the streetscape work is scheduled to begin soon, did they not mention the fact that $500,000 is being borrowed on the backs of local business and property owners to pay for this?

In September, about 30 people attended a Borough Council meeting to protest draconian cuts in the budget of the Highland Park Public Library. These cuts forced the layoff of many part-time library employees, the elimination of some children's programs, and the closing of the library on one weekend day every week.

The reason given for these cuts is that the borough anticipated $750,000 in state extraordinary aid and only received $200,000, leading to a huge shortfall. If so, how is it we can continue to afford paying expensive media consultant Jonathan Jaffe for production of the Quarterly, the borough's propaganda "newsletter," the latest issue of which was mailed to all borough residents last week?

Supposedly, the non-profit 501c3 Fund for Highland Park is paying for production of the Quarterly. The Fund gave approximately $50,000 to the borough in 2005, but no itemized list of exactly what they funded was ever made available. If they have this type of money to give, why isn't it going to the library, one of the most valuable community resources in town? If we had to choose between the library and the Quarterly, most people would pick the library without second thought.

And here are several other areas that could be cut instead of the library's budget. The borough's Redevelopment Director, a friend of the mayor's, is making $35,000 a year? Is this position really necessary? What return on investment has the borough had in the three years since this position and the Redevelopment Agency were established? Wouldn't the public be better served in eliminating this position and putting the $35,000 toward the library?

Then there is the so-called training for municipal officials, all at taxpayers' expense. The borough usually sends 12 people to the annual New Jersey State League of Municipalities convention in Atlantic City--seven Governing Body members plus several employees. At $55 per person, the registration fees for these participants amounts to $660.

The conference takes four days, and borough officials typically stay at Caesar's Hotel, where the cost is $150 per night (see the League site at http://www.njslom.com/). That equals $450 per individual assuming that person stays for the whole conference. Multiply that by 12 participants, and the total is $5,400. If you add the $660 registration fee, the grand total for elected officials and borough employees to take part in this conference equals $6,060.

Elected officials are also encouraged to complete an Elected Officials Certification Program through the Rutgers Center for Government Services. This program requires a 15-hour course, which costs $330 per person, plus five four-hour courses, each of which cost $100 (see http://policy.rutgers.edu/cgs/PDF/EO%20Bro%20Fall07%20Website.pdf ). Multiply that by seven Governing Body members, and you get $5,810.

So, between the League conference and the certificate program, the taxpayers are subsidizing the "training" of our elected officials to the tune of $6,060 plus $5,810, a total of $11,870.

If our elected officials really want to put the public interest first, they will voluntarily pay for these trainings themselves and donate the savings to help fully fund the library.

Interestingly, just today I found out that Park Decorating on Route 27 is going out of business after 12 years because of inability to afford Highland Park's exorbitant taxes. Property and business owners all over town are struggling to stay afloat and finding no sympathy from our elected officials. All this misplaced borrowing and spending threatens to bankrupt our business district and/or replace local mom and pop shops with an avenue of chain stores--not the ideal for Highland Park.

If these misplaced priorities disturb you, go to public meetings of the Borough Council and make your voice heard. The next meeting is Tuesday, October 15, and the one after that is Wednesday, November 7. Both take place at 7 PM. Let's never let up in holding our elected representatives accountable for the way they manage our hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Time to Go Carbon Neutral

2007-09-19T13:11:00.000-04:00

By now, almost everyone is aware of the growing danger of global climate change. Citizens of Highland Park and Middlesex County have a long, proud history of being in the vanguard of fighting for conservation and working hard to restore the healthy ecosystems our planet needs to survive.

Now, in conjunction with Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, the Jewish National Fund, a group founded in 1901 to reforest Israel, has embarked on an exciting new program of which I am proud to be an active volunteer. That program, called Go Neutral, provides a survey by which any person can calculate his or her carbon dioxide output and then neutralize that output by planting trees in Israel to offset that damage.

Of course, it crucial to plant trees here at home, but a tree planted anywhere in the world can make a genuine difference. Imagine if every citizen of Middlesex County alone planted trees either here or abroad to offset their carbon emissions. The reality is that when it comes to global warming, everyone really can make a difference.

One of the most powerful steps anyone can take is to reduce his or her amount of air travel. Airplanes are some of the worst emitters of carbon dioxide, doing far more damage than ground-based vehicles. Taking vacations closer to home or utilizing ground instead of air travel is a giant step towards a carbon neutral lifestyle.

After completing the Rutgers Environmental Stewardship lecture program, through the Rutgers Cooperative Extension Program, I am excited to begin a new chapter in environmental advocacy by serving as a volunteer with the JNF Go Neutral program. In this capacity, I plan to conduct outreach to various Jewish and possibly other organizations promoting the Go Neutral program.

To encourage more people to get involved with JNF GoNeutral, the Jewish National Fund is sponsoring a Go Neutral Bootcamp, which will take place on Monday, October 15 in New York City from 4:00 - 7:00PM. As described on the Go Neutral web site, "this free program will provide you with the tools you need to go back to your community, and raise environmental awareness, encourage action by reducing and offsetting carbon emissions while learning about and supporting JNF’s work in Israel. The JNF Go Neutral Bootcamp will include a panel of environmental experts to teach about the environmental issues we are facing, breakout sessions to learn how the program works, and tactics to engage those in your community."
The event will take place in NYC on Monday, October 15. For more information and to register for the program, please email Debra Scher at dscher@jnf.org. You can also find more information dirctly by visiting http://www.jnf.org/goneutral.

I give special credit to my family and closest friends for inspiring me to find a cause that blends both my Jewish heritage and long term environmental concerns. The idea of volunteering with this new effort and encouraging others to do the same grew directly out of conversations I have had with family members and friends about global warming and planting trees. The movie "An Inconvenient Truth," which I had the opportunity to view in a class last fall, had a tremendous, jarring impact on me, as it has had on so many people. Taking care of the Earth is not a Republican or Democratic or factional issue. It is not even solely a human issue. It is about preserving a healthy habitat for all creatures far into the future. And though this may seem a daunting, overwhelming task, it is something toward which we can all make a real difference, whether through JNF or the many other groups working on the same issue.

Another action we all can take is consciously decide to donate a portion of the net worth of gifts we receive at birthdays, holidays and anniversaries to environmental groups. This past July, as usual, I received far too many gifts that I do not need at my annual birthday party. The JNF Go Neutral program gave me the privilege of donating 20 percent of the monetary value of the gifts I received toward planting trees in Israel. Donating a percent of gifts one receives is something every person can do, and it makes the celebration all that more meaningful, moving away from the usual focus on hyper-materialism to concerns of the soul, of giving of oneself.

Not everyone celebrates the Jewish New Year. However, what we do share is a common fate as part of the world now in serious climatic trouble and running out of time to turn things around. Every single individual can make a difference in averting disaster. The Go Neutral program shows that no one is too small or insignificant to matter.

Shooting the Messenger

2007-08-21T00:20:00.000-04:00

In the fifth Harry Potter book, Harry and his mentor Professor Dumbledore try to warn the wizarding world that its nemesis Lord Voldemort is back, but unfortunately, the powers that be in that world choose not to believe them. Instead, they demonize Harry and Dumbledore, portraying them as liars, unstable, etc. because they do not want to believe their words are true.

Here in Highland Park, some of the mayor's supporters have taken a page from Harry's detractors. They claim that somehow, the campaign literature of the Wolf team in the June primary was "negative," "full of lies," "evil," etc. And those of us who worked on the literature are described as "angry," "vindictive,"and sometimes "evil" ourselves.

There is only one problem with this argument, which is this. Every single one of the accusations against Mayor Frank in the Wolf campaign's literature is true.

Frank did preside over the loss of $400,000 in tax deposits and then proceed to cover for two guilty borough employees, one of whom was allowed to work at the scene of the crime after being indicted.

Frank was fully aware of the terms of the cell tower agreement and then swore falsely that she was not.

Frank did refuse to enact statutory protection for local homes and businesses against eminent domain. The only reason her administration did not use it is because they couldn't. The property owners whose lots were placed in the redevelopment zone effectively pre-empted the administration by sounding the alarm and alerting the public and the media to the fact that eminent domain might be used.

Frank did play a role in former Councilwoman Carolyn Timmons' loss of her county job in late 2004 and her forced resignation in 2005.

A huge, unresolved conflict of interest remains in the fact that she has positioned herself as a leader in promoting green technology while her husband owns an energy consulting firm that accepted no bid contracts from the BPU's Clean Energy Fund and that benefits financially by getting consulting jobs through her efforts.

Frank formed an ethics task force made up entirely of her own supporters including the spouse of the previous head of the Green Community Working Group, who at the time was an employee of her husband's firm and being paid through Rutgers to consult on the borough's green initiatives.

Frank approached the employers of several of her opponents and asked that they fire those employees. I and my 2005 running mate were victims of this bullying. Thankfully, neither of our employers caved to these demands.

Frank presided over the largest municipal tax increase in Highland Park history--an increase of forty percent. And she has overburdened the business district with an additional tax--an assessment is, after all, a tax--averaging an additional $2,000 a year.

And in a move worthy of a totalitarian dictatorship, Frank filed a false police report against me in an attempt to intimidate me from seeking public office and brand me as some sort of criminal. Again thankfully, our Police Department recognized a political stunt when they saw one.

Why bring this up now that the election is over? The answer is that none of these issues has gone away. These things actually happened, and election or not, the public has a right to know about them, as do the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Frank's supporters claim that opponents including myself will "ruin the schools," which is absurd. The Borough Council has nothing to do with running the schools, which are governed separately by the Board of Education. Everyone of our 2007 team--and our 2008 team--is a staunch supporter of public education. Her claim is a lie, and once again, the public, especially parents, have the right to know.

Once again, I am immensely proud of the 2007 race and my role in it. I have no intention of changing my personal or political style, both of which are sources of great satisfaction and reward. I am proud to be the type of politician who will not be bullied or intimidated from telling the truth as I know it. Through informal participation in campaign trainings, I have shared my strategies and experience as a watchdog and a muckraker and encouraged other aspiring political activists and candidates to not be afraid to shine the light in all of the public realm's dark places (and here in New Jersey, there is no shortage of them).

Instead of shooting the messenger, borough residents should take the time to think and investigate on their own whether any of the so-called "negative" accusations against Frank are true. Because if they are, we are being governed by someone who has consistently ducked responsibility and has shown herself unfit to hold public office.

Frank was right in one statement she made on the night of the election. To quote her own words, it's not over.

Eminent Domain on the Retreat

2007-08-14T14:15:00.000-04:00

A funny thing has been happening on the way to redevelopment here in New Jersey. In just a few months this summer, government's use of eminent domain to seize property and hand it over to private developers in the name of "redevelopment" and higher ratables has sustained one defeat after another in rapid succession.

First, of course, there was the June ruling by the State Supreme Court that "underutilization" or "not being fully productive" may not be used a sole criterion to declare a property blighted and therefore potentially subject to eminent domain, in response to the case Gallenthin Realty vs. Paulsboro.

On July 19, Essex County Superior Court Judge Marie P. Simonelli threw out Newark's attempt to declare its Mulberry Street area as "blighted" or, more euphemistically, "in need of redevelopment." The 14-acres area has been improved with a mix of residential and commercial buildings and several parking lots. There are 166 lots, and all but seven are owned by private businesses or individuals. The area is located approximately one block east of the Newark Arena project presently under construction on Broad Street. The Court concluded that the city had not presented substantial credible evidence of blight as required under the state Local Housing and Redevelopment Law. In this case, the Court also noted the existence of "allegations of impermissible favoritism given to politically connected developers" (eminent domain attorney Bill Ward).

In Lodi, a trial court rejected the city's designation of a residential trailer park as blighted. New Jersey Appellate Judges Kestin, Payne, and Lihotz affirmed the decision of Superior Court Judge Richard Donohue throwing out the resolutions of the Lodi Planning Board, Mayor and Council that blighted approximately 20 acres in the Route 46 area. As a result of this decision, Lodi's Governing Body unanimously decided to drop any appeal of the case. Had the properties of Brown's Trailer Park and Costa Trailer Court been subject to eminent domain, more than 40 residents would have been displaced from their homes.

On July 11, another three-judge appellate panel reversed a decision of Judge Lawrence Lawson, A.J.S.C., Monmouth County, which had affirmed the Borough of Belmar's blighting of waterfront property belonging to Freedman's Bakery in HJB v. Borough of Belmar.

In Maplewood, Essex County Superior Court Judge Donald Goldman vacated a blight designation for two properties, one owned by Carolyn Evans and the other owned by Richard Rio of the Rivco Group LLC. In this case, "the court rejected Maplewood’s argument that the suit was premature because no plan for redevelopment has been adopted and no condemnation was imminent. Maplewood’s argument is typical of the disingenuous blather presented to property owners who oppose a blight designation under the 45-day time constraints" (eminent domain attorney Bill Ward).

The bottom line, according to attorney Michael Kates, Esq., is "Now we know that you can't simply say that you can redevelop on the basis that you're not getting the highest return on your land." - Michael Kates, Esq., as reported in the Star-Ledger (July 25, 2007).

In Camden, a lawsuit brought by the residents of the Cramer Hill Neighborhood as a result of the city's attempt via eminent domain to acquire several parcels of land containing residential homes resulted in the Appellate Court Division's reversal of an earlier trial court decision in favor of the takings. It is noteworthy that Camden sought to use the Fair Housing Act rather than the Local Redevelopment Housing Law (LRHL) after the trial court threw out Camden’s redevelopment plan. The Cramer Hill Neighborhood encompasses more than 162 city blocks containing more than 4,000 homes, most of which are well maintained, historic, and attractively landscaped.

In Perth Amboy, a blight designation was reversed by the New Jersey Superior Court because the city did not provide enough evidence to justify the designation. According to the court decision, "You can’t just say by reason of dilapidation you’re in an area of redevelopment. You have to indicate how that’s detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of a community. And in order to demonstrate that … that’s where the evidence comes into play. That could have been demonstrated or possibly demonstrated through zoning violations, building code violations, fire reports, something of that nature. Again, that wasn’t present in the report. (381 N.J. Super at 275)."

As of mid-August, there have been a total of seven court decisions in New Jersey that focused on the determination of blight and the use of eminent domain. According to eminent domain attorney Bill Ward, "decisions in Lodi, Bloomfield, Newark, Belmar, Camden and Maplewood demonstrate that the courts will not accept or give deference to municipal blight declarations which are not supported by substantial, credible evidence. The message is clear: the New Jersey courts are looking at these prerogative writs actions and expert testimonies through the lens of Gallenthin. As a consequence, municipalities that present evidence less than required by Gallenthin are subject to losing their blight designations and redevelopment projects" (eminent domain attorney Bill Ward).

The implications of these decisions for Highland Park are clear. Properties that are not vacant or abandoned, that house residents or businesses who have no violations of building codes, fire codes, or zoning laws, may not be declared "in need of redevelopment" and subsequently taken by eminent domain because government officials believe they have a better use for those properties that would produce more tax ratables. This reasoning was exactly that stated by the Highland Park Planning Board in its 2005 declaration of a patchwork of properties on Raritan Avenue as being in need of redevelopment. It is exactly the reasoning used by the mayor's designee on the Planning Board, former Councilman Steve Buzbee, in arguments he has made dating back to 2001. And now it is clear it will not hold up in court.

Neither will the argument that the town has no specific redevelopment plans and/or intentions of imminent condemnation of these areas hold up in a court of law. Mayor Frank often makes a point of noting that eminent domain has not been used, that no declarations of taking have been issued, and that Highland Park will "do" redevelopment differently than other towns. Whether or not a declaration of taking has been issued, a designation of blight makes a property permanently vulnerable to being seized at some point in the future.

As for "doing redevelopment differently," those very words have been pronounced by mayors and council members across the state and country. They could be coming from the same script, written by firms such as Jaffe Communications who specialize in "selling" redevelopment to the public. Every town purports to be different, yet in the end, the results are the same. An oral promise stating the borough hopes to never use eminent domain yet refusing to rule it out by statute means about as much as an oral contract between buyers and sellers or between employers and employees.

Equally encouraging, various state agencies are now investigating over 70 improper blight designations in New Jersey.

For local businesses and residents who want to stay in Highland Park, things are definitely looking up.

A Worthy Endeavor

2007-07-05T00:05:00.000-04:00

One year ago, as our country celebrated the Fourth of July, a Piscataway family faced the travesty of having their family farm of 84 years being taken from them forcefully by eminent domain. In the time that has passed, they have still not received any compensation whatsoever for their property.

This gross miscarriage of justice is a reminder of why active participation in politics is so important. As is often said, democracy is not a spectator sport. It is a participatory one in which everyone has not only a right but an obligation to take part.

One of the most rewarding ways of actively participating in democracy is running for office. This is a worthy endeavor too many people shy away from, thinking they "do not have what it takes" and/or anticipating the negative attacks that are likely to come the way of any candidate. The reality is, our system was set up 231 years ago to encourage not career politicians, not a moneyed elite, but all citizens to seek service as representatives of their communities at all levels. That is why the job requirements are limited to citizenship, residency, and being of legal age.

Yes, it is true that the negative attacks that inevitably come with campaigns turn away many people. Much of this comes from the national and state levels and has filtered down into local races as well. Conveniently, this negativity serves those in power by keeping citizens from any form of participation, even voting itself.

If there is one thing I can offer from my own personal experience as a candidate, it is the hope to inspire others with the affirmation that the positives of running for office far outweigh the negatives. I have experienced both sides and can wholeheartedly say to all who may be thinking of taking the plunge, go ahead and do it because the effort is definitely worth it.

During the most recent campaign here in Highland Park, I was the recipient of some of the most vicious, hateful attacks in both newspapers and on the Internet. These attacks had nothing to do with my stand on the issues or the stands of those candidates for whom I was working. They sometimes descended into rants of pure below the belt hate and vitriole, attacking my family, my motivations for political participation, my job, my hobbies, and anything else the opposing side viewed as fair game. One Internet blogger, Scott Shields, outrageously referred to me on his blog as a "machine puppet" while a Home News Tribune columnist who seems to think he can read minds went so far as to refer to myself, Sal Raspa, and Nancy Wolf as "gripped by hate like the plague."

It is not hate, but passion for the community that motivates people like us to put ourselves out there for the principles in which we believe. The fact that some mistake that passion for hate is truly sad.

Then there are those who have tried to force disappointment, depression, shame, or embarrassment down my throat when those emotions are no part of what I feel about this or any other campaign in which I took part. I take great pride in the campaign we ran and feel absolutely no shame about it whatsoever. It has been an honor to support such caring, dedicated, community-minded candidates.

I want to emphasize that these attacks were made by a few people, not the majority of those who supported our opponents, and by some misinformed outsiders who have little knowledge of the genuinely grassroots campaign we ran.

More importantly, they will not deter me or any members of our team from seeking public office in the future, and I urge anyone who reads this not to let such vitriole deter him or her from running for office either. Intimidation and personal attacks are the domain of bullies whose modus operandi is projection, meaning attributing their own flaws to someone else, usually a convenient scapegoat.

Running for office has been one of the greatest, most rewarding and most positive experiences of my life, something no naysayer can change. It is challenging, empowering, and inspiring. It provides opportunities like nothing else to get to know the wonderful people in our community and to serve the community. I have been extremely fortunate to have a supportive family, great friends, and amazing citizen volunteers in my public life, all of whom came together this year to form an outstanding team. And I thank the many people who have provided moral support over the past few months via emails and phone calls, always encouraging and always positive.

As a step towards an inevitable future run, I have re-established my campaign fund with the state Election Law Enforcement Commission. The voices of negativity might as well stop wasting their time, as I intend to be a lifelong political voice who will be silenced only by death.

If we want the type of government that will never commit the injustice of taking people's property, as was done to the Halper family last year, we have to step forward and be the leaders. All citizens who feel we can do better, especially women, minorities, and low income people, who are still very much under-represented in our political system, should seriously consider running for office, even if it takes multiple tries before they are actually elected.

Those who seek to keep power for themselves by creating a hostile atmosphere to discourage potential candidates must not be allowed to win. We as a country have been spending far too much time and energy on trying to bring democracy to Iraq and other countries when we need to be giving it a jump start here at home.

If you are idealistic and want to see a better town and a better world, even if the thought never crossed your mind before, consider seeking elected public office. Doing so will be a transforming gift for both you and the larger community. It is definitely a worthy endeavor.

The Next Steps

2007-06-19T14:48:00.000-04:00

First, I want to give a huge thank you to everyone who worked hard for our Team for Smart Change in this year's Democratic primary, giving their precious time, money, and moral support. And I want to thank the 1200 plus people who came out and voted for smart change in Highland Park.

Special congratulations to Nancy Wolf, George Valenta, and Sal Raspa, who very importantly won seats on the Democratic Municipal Committee.

At this point, it is common knowledge that we did not achieve our far-reaching goal of regime change in Highland Park. However, the operative word is YET. What this campaign did do is plant seeds of change by raising issues no one had previously discussed, holding the current administration accountable for its actions, and providing a real, viable alternative for Highland Park citizens who think differently than the mayor about local issues but desire to play an active role in local politics and government.

Change, especially smart change, is a process rather than an instantaneous event. This year's primary has set that process in motion here in Highland Park in a way that cannot be denied or undone. I believe wholeheartedly that 2007 will go down in our borough's history not as a heyday for Frank but as a watershed year that began a long term tide against elitism, exclusion, corruption, and the excesses of Frank and her clique, a tide that is yet to peak and that will last far into the 21st century.

To keep our momentum going toward a more inclusive, fiscally responsible, accountable, and open government here in town, those of us who made up the Team for Smart Change will be creating several vehicles to provide opportunities for like-minded citizens to stay involved. Some of these vehicles being considered include the possible establishment of a Democratic Club open to all who seek to participate; use of the http://www.highlandparkdemocrats.com/ web site to disseminate information about local government, mobilize people for action, and present an alternative for local Democrats; encouragement of those who share our views to attend council meetings and ask tough questions; media outreach to make sure our concerns are heard; recruitment and training of candidates to contest for office in every local election; fundraising; and involvement in other Democratic campaigns for candidates who share our values.

This very month, we also have a tremendous victory to celebrate. In a bold, unprecedented move, the State Supreme Court has ruled that "underutilization" or "not being fully productive" may not be used a sole criterion to declare a property blighted and therefore potentially subject to eminent domain.

According to the State Supreme Court ruling, "Because the New Jersey Constitution authorizes government redevelopment of only “blighted” areas, the Legislature did not intend N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(e) to apply in circumstances where the sole basis for redevelopment is that the property is “not fully productive.” Rather, subsection 5(e) applies only to areas that, as a whole, are stagnant and unproductive because of issues of title, diversity of ownership, or other similar conditions. Therefore, the Borough of Paulsboro’s redevelopment classification in respect of the Gallenthin property is invalidated."

While the full implications of this decision are yet to be determined, there is no doubt it is a victory for businesses in Highland Park that have been targeted for redevelopment due to their being deemed "underutilized" or "not fully productive." Mayor Frank, the Borough Council, the Planning Board and the Redevelopment Agency have very likely lost their power to force thriving local businesses to move because those in power feel they "don't belong there." The plans for four story buildings on the various sites between First and Second Avenue are likely to end up where they belong, on a shelf gathering dust with previous redevelopment plans such as those of former Mayor Harold Berman.

No one is objecting to property owners deciding to redevelop their own properties or consensually agreeing to sell to a developer or another owner with a vision for new low density buildings that will fit well into Highland Park's business district and attract new ratables into our town. That form of redevelopment is welcome because it is motivated by a desire for positive change rather than fear of the heavy hand of eminent domain.

Mayor Frank may claim that people redeveloping their own properties was her vision all along, but the truth is that her vision went way beyond that. In 2001, a council member specifically stated at a meeting of the council's Economic Development Committee that if property owners did not want to sell for redevelopment, the borough would simply take their properties. We, who organized and alerted the public to the spectre of eminent domain over the past two and a half years, had made it virtually impossible for the administration to use eminent domain against local businesses even before the State Supreme Court decision. We raised this concern so early in the process that the use of eminent domain became tantamount to political suicide by those in power.

The point here is that even though we may not have won the mayoral and council primary, we scored a major victory where it counts, in protecting local business and property owners from having their properties unjustly taken and given over to politically connected developers.

There is no time better than now to get involved in fighting eminent domain abuse statewide. This Friday, June 22, at 7 PM, the New Jersey Coalition to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse will commemorate the second anniversary of the US Supreme Court's Kelo decision in Ocean Grove with a screening of the film "Greetings from Asbury Park." Titled "A Celebration of Cinema and Citizen Action," the film screening and subsequent panel discussion will commemorate Kelo Day, the landmark U.S Supreme Court decision that greatly expanded the use of eminent domain for private development.

“Greetings from Asbury Park” is a feature film that reflects on the one-time postcard paradise of the Jersey Shore, the consolation of memories, and the price of progress. It documents the filmmaker’s aunt’s experience facing the loss of her home as well as the community’s loss of its sense of place. A panel discussion featuring Dana Berliner, litigator for the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm and co-counsel on the Kelo vs. New London case, will be held immediately following the film. The Stop Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition of New Jersey (Stop EDA) will recognize key leadership throughout the state. A reception will follow. The Jersey Shore Arts Center is easily accessible by train, bus and private transportation. A limited number of tickets are available. Event organizers are seeking a suggested donation of $20 to cover costs of the event. To reserve seats, call 732-380-1592.

This event is co-sponsored by the following groups and individuals: The Castle Coalition, The Institute for Justice, The Social Action Ministry of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Monmouth County, The Stop Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition of New Jersey (StopEDA.org), Carlin & Ward, P.C., Childhope International, Commerce Bank, The Institute for Public Affairs at Temple University, John C. Conover Agency, Monmouth County Arts Council, Neighbors United, New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, Shop-Rite Supermarkets, Michelle and Howard Bobrow, Johna and Rich Karpinski, and Lori Ann Vendetti.

After this event, the next meeting of the New Jersey Coalition to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse will take place on Sunday, July 15 at 2 PM in Redeemer Lutheran Church, 3531 State Route 33 at Jumping Brook Rd, Neptune, NJ 07753-3003. The Church is located at 3531 State Route 33, at the corner of Jumping Brook Rd in Neptune, about 1/2 mile east of GSP Exit 100 (Rt 33 east, Ocean Grove) and about 2.5 miles west of the interchange for Rt 18 and Rt 33.

Finally, look to this blog over the next few months for additional information about how you can make your voice heard in Highland Park.

It's Time

2007-06-05T02:02:00.000-04:00

"One day more. Another day, another destiny..." So begins the song sung by brave revolutionaries in the musical "Les Miserables" who put their all on the line to fight tyranny and inequality, to give their all for a better world.

One day more. For Highland Park, it's time. It's time to take back our town for the people, for the businesses, for the seniors, for the children, for the disenfranchised, for everyone who has been unfairly excluded or targeted because he or she does not worship Mayor Frank or share her urbanization vision for our borough.

It's time to take back our town from elitists who think that having more money and/or more degrees makes them better qualified to be leaders and better people than the average working man and woman.

It's time to take back our town from hypocrites who can dish out negativity so full of vitriole that it makes long time hard working public servants retreat permanently from community involvement yet cannot take it themselves when their own misdeeds are brought out into full public view.

It's time to take back our town from a sham of "good government," "ethics reform," and "openness" that in reality is as Orwellian as Big Brother's statement, "war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength," an administration that treats the public with contempt, refuses to accept responsibility and answer legitimate questions about how our money is being spent.

It's time to take back our business district from a leadership that overburdens it with excessive assessments only to funnel those assessments to expensive politically connected public relations consultants, event planners, and private firms all connected one way or another with those in power.

It's time to enact an ordinance that reassures all our businesses and residents once and for all that their properties will not be taken by eminent domain, even as a "last resort."

It's time to elect a mayor and council who will make full funding and support of our police, Fire Department, and First Aid Squad a top priority.

It's time to elect a mayor who will support environmental initiatives for their own sake, not as a gimmick for self promotion or lining the pockets of a firm she and her husband own. It's time for a green initiative that leaves no one behind, recognizing that this town and this planet belong to us all, are the heritage of us all, and both need and require the efforts of us all, no matter what our political persuasions or views of the people in power.

It's time to expand our programs for seniors, children, and all residents in a way that does not jack up the price for those services, as has been done with the school/borough summer camps.

It's time to say no to the imposing of a blanket "smart growth" dogma promoting higher density development when that is wrong for our town.

Have you ever tried to comment at public meetings only to be treated in a heavy handed, contemptful, and disrespectful manner? It's time now to talk back to those who looked and spoke with contempt at you. It's time to speak to them and say, in a democracy, ultimate power rests with the people, and government operates only with the consent of the governed. We can withdraw that consent at any time. Tomorrow, I urge all in this town who have ever felt wrongly excluded or targeted, who have felt afraid to publicly express their views, who have been looked down upon by those with a classist, elitist mentality worthy of the Dark Ages to take back your power and bring regime change to Highland Park.

The team for Smart Change, running on Line C, lead by mayoral candidate Nancy Wolf and council candidates George Valenta and Michael Kornfeld, does not seek to blanket
target everyone in local office now for ouster, as the current administration did. Instead, the team for Smart Change seeks to change the way government in this town does business by welcoming people of all political persuasions and beliefs if they have a genuine desire to serve our community.

If you believe in this genuinely inclusive vision instead of the sham that has been perpetrated in its name, please join us in bringing smart change to Highland Park by voting Line C so that on June 6, 2007, our community can truly face a new day.

It's June 5, 2007. It's time.

Citizen Action Endorsement Inappropriate

2007-06-02T20:59:00.000-04:00

New Jersey Citizen Action is an advocacy group that does wonderful work on behalf of consumers and our most vulnerable people. They advocate for national health care, affordable utility rates, campaign finance reform, and other very needed policy changes. However, they have made a very serious mistake in involving themselves in Highland Park's mayoral primary by endorsing Meryl Frank.

Citizen Action has on numerous occasions been approached by candidates for endorsements and each time staff members articulated the policy that the organization does not endorse candidates in elections. The group did endorse Frank in 1999 but one year later changed its official policy to prohibit endorsements of any kind.

There are many issues at stake in this election in Highland Park, including the refusal by Mayor Frank to rule out the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment. The Sierra Club and the New Jersey Environmental Federation have both taken a formal stand opposing such use of eminent domain, which almost always benefits wealthy, politically connected developers at the expense of low and middle income homeowners and small business owners. Unlike Frank, candidate Nancy Wolf is committed to taking formal action restricting any use of eminent domain for private redevelopment in Highland Park. It is disappointing that Citizen Action would choose to side with a politician who in her own words wants to maintain the "tool" of eminent domain over one who is committed to statutory action to prohibit its use against vulnerable home and business owners.

If open government is the issue, Highland Park is hardly a model. The borough has two outstanding complaints before the Government Records Council for violations of the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). OPRA requires local officials to respond to requests for public records within seven days. If obtaining the records will take longer than seven days, local officials must contact the person requesting them within that time and explain the status of the request and when it is expected to be fulfilled. Here in Highland Park, on two separate occasions, the administration blatantly violated this law. A request for copies of correspondence between the Department of Transportation and the borough on Centennial Park took a whopping two and a half months to fulfill while a second request for a copy of a videotape of a council meeting took two months to obtain.

Highland Park is one of the only municipalities in the area that postpones the public comment section at Borough Council meetings to the meetings' very end, after all reports are given and ordinances and resolutions passed. Meeting agendas call for two public comment sessions, one early in the meeting and one at the end, but Mayor Frank almost always eliminates the early session, forcing residents who seek to comment to wait until the end of sometimes long meetings to have their say. An inevitable consequence of this is that senior citizens and/or those who have to get up early the next day for work end up leaving without having a chance to speak.

Frank's work on family leave a decade and a half ago is both exaggerated and not pertinent to local issues facing the town today. It is exaggerated in that Frank misleads the public to believe she alone worked on this legislation when the reality is she was one of thousands of activists across the state and country who did so. Family leave legislation is to be commended, but it is a state and federal issue, not a local one.

It is unacceptable for New Jersey Citizen Action to operate under a double standard where in some cases a policy of not endorsing candidates is invoked while in other cases that policy is tossed aside. There must be a uniform policy that applies to all candidates and campaigns across the board. If Citizen Action does make endorsements, then it is only fair that they establish a procedure of sitting down and meeting with all candidates, allowing all to make their cases before any endorsement is issued.

Please contact Citizen Action and urge the organization to uphold its tradition of fairness by creating a uniform policy and sticking with it and, if the group does decide to do endorsements, create a procedure that gives all candidates a chance to seek it. You can reach the directors and staff of Citizen Action at the following web site:

http://www.njcitizenaction.org/staffandoffices.html

Addendum on Jaffe Spending

2007-05-29T14:03:00.000-04:00

Mayor Frank insists that the HP Quarterly costs taxpayers not one cent. How is that possible when the taxpayers are paying to produce copy for the product? Plus, this work was not put out to bid. And, Jaffe has a no-bid contract, which grants him an exclusive business franchise, the HP Quarterly, on which he sells advertising keeping all proceeds and such to himself. The Mayor has stated the entire HP Quarterly production cost would be the responsibility of Jaffe, again at no cost to the taxpayers. Having Jaffe write content and be paid for it proves yet another lie from the Mayor's mouth.

Is This Responsible Spending of Taxpayer Dollars?

2007-05-28T15:57:00.000-04:00

Is This Responsible Spending?

From December 2004 to the present, the Frank administration has paid a grand total of $30,863.33 to the politically connected public relations firm Jaffe Communications for work on the borough newsletter, press releases from the mayor’s office, and other promotional materials centered around Mayor Frank. This use of our tax dollars includes planned press releases and photo opportunities coordinated with the office of the governor of Alabama to promote Mayor Frank’s trip to the south in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, writing of the mayor’s State of the Borough address, and of the council members’ columns for the Quarterly. It does not include approximately $17,500 per year paid to Jaffe by Main Street Highland Park for its newsletter and general public relations. That money comes from the Business Improvement District, whose main source is an average $1,000 additional annual assessment, i.e., tax, on businesses in the designated area (Raritan Avenue, side streets off Raritan with commercial establishments, and parts of Woodbridge Avenue and Route 27).

Jaffe Communications Total Spending:

$2,500 for December 2004
$18,670 for 2005
$3,593.33 for 2006
$6,100 for 2007

Total: $30,863.33

For the eight months from December 2004 through July 2005, the borough paid Jaffe Communications $2,500 a month for what the official borough invoice simply states were “communications services.” The $2,500 per month for the first seven months of 2005 put the amount paid to Jaffe just at the state’s bid threshold of $17,500 per year. Vendor services above and beyond that amount are required to be put out to bid.

After being confronted at a public meeting about this spending, the administration began to itemize the list of services for which it was paying. Below are several examples of services rendered and their costs. You decide if this is responsible spending of hard working taxpayer dollars.

August 2005: Total of $832.50, with Jonathan Jaffe charging $75 per hour and his employees John Yocca and Laura Knutelsky charging $55 per hour:

These are only a few highlights of the items adding up to the $832.50 total:

Jaffe editing articles for the HP Quarterly, 100 minutes, $125.00
Yocca and Knutelsky writing articles on Centennial Park and Council Column for HP Quarterly, 90 minutes, $82.50
Yocca and Knutelsky revisions to Quarterly articles and email with Donna Como, 15 minutes, $13.75

October 2005: Total of $337.50, same rates as above. Highlights include:

Jaffe phone calls with Mayor Frank, 30 minutes, $37.50
Jaffe phone calls with Mayor Frank and reporters at Home News Tribune, Jewish State and other media plus coordination of photos with Alabama Governor’s Office, 80 minutes, $100
Jaffe development of press release regarding New Jersey Municipality Partnership effort (relating to Project Hope and Hurricane Katrina relief), 80 minutes, $100
Jaffe working with press offices in New Jersey and Alabama for quotes, messaging and approval and speaking with League of Municipalities Magazine for quotes, 60 minutes, $75
Jaffe phone calls with Star Ledger and other media to discuss League story (on Katrina trip), 20 minutes, $25

November 2005: Total of $894.58, same rates as above. Highlights include:

Jaffe wrote and edited four stories for HP Quarterly, 180 minutes, $225
Jaffe wrote story on renovations to Borough Hall and the Senior Center, 75 minutes, $93.75
Jaffe rewrote article on Woodbridge Avenue improvements, 60 minutes, $75
Jaffe wrote shuttle bus story for Quarterly, 60 minutes, $75
Jaffe wrote story on New Jersey Project Hope for Quarterly, 60 minutes, $75

March 2006 for communications services for Jan. 22-Feb. 22: Total of $440.83, same rates as above. Highlights include:

Jaffe wrote articles for HP Centennial Ad Journal, 80 minutes, $100
Jaffe wrote articles about two local artists for Century Celebration special edition, 90 minutes, $112.50
Yocca wrote press release for Century Celebration event, 120 minutes, $110

March 2006 for communications services for Dec. 22, 2005-Jan. 22, 2006: Total of $902.50, rates same as above. Highlights include:

Jaffe revised and edited Mayor Frank’s State of the Borough address, 180 minutes, $225
Jaffe edited Councilwoman Foster Dublin’s column for the Quarterly, 45 minutes, $56.25
Jaffe edited condensed version of Mayor Frank’s State of the Borough address for the Quarterly, 45 minutes, $56.25
Jaffe edited Nick Trasente story and Road Improvement Grant story for Quarterly, 60 minutes, $75
Yocca discussed missing Quarterly copy with Mayor and Jackie Stuart and edited Councilwoman Foster Dublin’s column for Quarterly, 90 minutes, $82.50
Yocca interviewed borough employees for story on Nick Trasente and revised Mayor’s State of the Borough for the Quarterly, 120 minutes, $110
Yocca emailed and interviewed borough employees for story on Nick Trasente and wrote an article on the Road Improvement Grants for the Quarterly, 120 minutes, $110
Yocca finished writing Nick Trasente and Road Improvement stories for Quarterly and emailed them to the Mayor and Jackie Stuart, 90 minutes, $82.50
Yocca communicated with Donna Como regarding Highland Park Ad Journal information, 30 minutes, $27.50
Yocca sorted and emailed documents and photos of Ad Journal to Donna Como, 90 minutes, $82.50

September 2006: Total of $2,250 for the design, printing, and town wide distribution of 7,000 programs for the borough and school board

January 2007: Total of $2,250 for mailing of Department on Aging shared brochure

January 2007: Total of $2,000 for mailing of Recreation Department shared brochure

February 2007: Total of $2,100 for three pages of the January issue of the Quarterly at the rate of $700 per page, specifically for messages by the Mayor and Council.

Note: All this information is available in the form of public documents at Borough Hall.

All of these services could be provided by either volunteers or by interns paid approximately $10 per hour, making use of our many talented residents in town, including high school and college students who could gain valuable work experience performing these tasks. Why isn’t the borough exploring these alternatives as cost savings measures? Why is the administration hiring a firm that publicly admitted in The Courier News to working for municipalities to “sell” redevelopment to their citizens, whose owner admits to having met Mayor Frank at a League of Municipalities meeting and having been impressed with her political takeover of Highland Park government eight years ago? Why was a supposedly humanitarian mission to the Gulf states after Hurricane Katrina organized to focus on photo opportunities, media attention, and individual quotes from the Mayor?

Is all this responsible spending of our money? You decide.

An Open Letter to Democrats in HP's 10th Election District

2007-05-22T00:32:00.000-04:00

Dear Neighbors in the 10th District,

I am writing to ask for your support for the 10th District Democratic Municipal Committee seat, which I am seeking in the June 5 primary. For those who may be unfamiliar with district boundaries, the 10th district ranges from the eastern side of North Fifth Avenue (across from the high school) all the way to the Edison border on the north side (through Highland Ave, Lexington Ave, Washington Ave, and along Route 27).

Highland Park is divided into 13 election districts, each of which elects one Committeeman and one Committeewoman to the Democratic Municipal Committee, which makes up the party organization in town and ultimately decides which mayoral and council candidates get the party's official endorsement.

I am proud to be running with the Highland Park Democrats, the team for Smart Change, on Line C. I also ask residents of the 10th district to support my running mate Sal Raspa for Democratic Committeeman and for residents in the following districts to support our Line C team--Barry Seiden for Democratic Committeeman in District 1, Alan Salit for Democratic Committteeman in District 2, Michael Kornfeld for Democratic Committeeman in District 4, Mary Laney for Democratic Committeewoman in District 7, George Valenta for Democratic Committeeman in District 11, and Nancy Wolf for Democratic Committeewoman in District 11.

As your Democratic Committee District Representative, I will work to open meetings of the Democratic Municipal Committee to all who are interested and include time for public input. I will promote active support of Democratic candidates at all levels, creation of subcommittees to involve more people in the party, and welcoming of diverse opinions. I envision our local Democratic Party as a place with room for all who want to participate. Most importantly, I will work to facilitate a fair and open process of selecting mayoral and council candidates and district representatives.

My background, political experience and qualifications for this position include the following:

· Member, NJ Natural Areas Council, Appointed by former Governor Richard J. Codey
· Member and 2008 Board Candidate, Democratic National Committee Women’s Leadership Forum
· Member, Middlesex County Chapter, Democracy for America, played leading role in local voter registration drives and Get Out the Vote efforts for the 2004 Kerry/Edwards campaign
· Life Member, Raritan Valley Chapter of Hadassah
· 2007 Environmental Steward, Rutgers Cooperative Extension Program
· 2006 Graduate, Governing Institute of New Jersey
· Finalist for 2006 NJ Environmental Leadership Award, with score of 81 out of possible 100.
· 2005 Fellow, Leadership Somerset (year-long leadership training program)
· Graduate, Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC) Inaugural Leadership Training, 2005
· Completed Main Street New Jersey Downtown Revitalization Institute, 2003
· Graduate, Women’s Campaign School at Yale, 2001
· Member, NJ Coalition to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse
· Member Center for the American Woman and Politics (CAWP) Bipartisan Coalition on Women’s Appointments.
· Member, Northeast Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA)
· Member of Highland Park Board of Health and Food Pantry Committee. Served 11 years on HP Environmental Commission, 10 as Secretary
· Employed as Somerset County Editor for The Somerset Spectator and as Writing Instructor at Mercer County Community College
· Coordinator, Unofficial Highland Park non-partisan email newsletter, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friends-of-laurel since 1999

This blog is an independent site that solely represents my opinions. For more on the Highland Park Democrats, please visit the official site at:
http://www.highlandparkdemocrats.com/

On June 5, 2007, Vote Line C for Smart Change
Nancy Wolf for Mayor, Michael Kornfeld and George Valenta for Borough Council
Polls Open 6 AM-8 PM

Thank you, and here's to a bright future for our community.

Mayor Speaks with Forked Tongue

2007-05-18T17:20:00.001-04:00

"I don't take money from developers."

Over and over again, Mayor Frank has reiterated this statement, emphasizing it as part of her "good government" stance.

Of course, the reality has always been a bit murkier. Frank and the Democratic Municipal Committee have never hesitated to accept funding from the county and state Democratic organization, whose chief donors include developers such as the very environmentally unfriendly Jack Morris and Michael Kaplan. It seems that in Frank's mind, if the money comes through a middleman, namely the official party, somehow it is washed clean from the taint of the original developer donors.

Does Frank plan to take money from Jonathan Jaffe of Jaffe Communications? This is the man who recently published an op-ed column in The Courier News explaining how he "sells" redevelopment to the public on behalf of governments and redevelopers.

Now, it seems Frank has abandoned all pretense of not taking money from developers. Her campaign's own web site lists teas at the homes of several developers. Are we to believe these are only hosts and have no plans to give Frank's campaign any monetary donations? They are already providing their homes for the events, which according to state election law is considered an in-kind contribution.

And it is important to note that these teas are being held in conjunction with Meryl's emphasis on "residential redevelopment." No pay to play here? You decide.

If she wants to stick to her word and her integrity, Frank should immediately cancel these events. Otherwise, the voters of Highland Park can come to no other conclusion than that our mayor speaks with a forked tongue.

Highland Park: Suburban or Urban?

2007-05-18T01:00:00.000-04:00

Four years ago, at the April 2003 groundbreaking for the Environmental Education Center, Mayor Frank stated regarding Highland Park: "We're not suburban. We're urban." This statement should be viewed not as descriptive of our borough now, but as proscriptive, as a very telling statement of Frank's vision for the borough's future.

Most residents of Highland Park do not consider themselves residents of a city or urban area but of a friendly borough with a small town character, a place with a sense of community, where people know and look out for one another, a home of tree-lined streets away from the noise and overdevelopment typical of cities. And most residents would like Highland Park to stay that small town.

In spite of this, the mayor proudly proclaims that Highland Park is urban. Her vision, expressed through her 2020 plan, calls for increased density in both the commercial and residential sectors. She seeks four story mixed-use buildings on Raritan Avenue and possibly condominium high rises on Cleveland Avenue and at the site of the YM-YWHA. She speaks of residential redevelopment. What exactly does that mean, and to which areas is it supposed to apply? Without specifics, any part of town, including our homes, could be so designated.

Interestingly, it was Frank's administration that in the 2003 Master Plan recommended changing the zoning of the Y property from quasi-public to riverfront residential, allowing a high rise of up to six stories.

A pedestrian and traffic safety study currently being considered by the mayor and council calls for lowering the speed limit on Raritan Avenue to 20 miles per hour and drastically changing the configuration of our side streets, making many of them one-way instead of two-way. Again, here is a vision of urbanization. Having many one-way side streets is a characteristic of a city, congested with traffic, not of a small town.

Highland Park is 96 percent developed, and 25,000 cars a day travel down our main street, Raritan Avenue. Imagine the additional congestion with several new stories of apartments or condominiums and offices on Raritan Avenue, Cleveland Avenue, and South Adelaide Avenue.

When questioned about her support for high density development and residential redevelopment, Frank reiterates the dogma that higher density is "a principle of smart growth." "Smart growth," or new urbanism, is a trendy doctrine currently being preached in the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University and at various urban planning schools throughout the country. If you listen to the rhetoric of politicians across the country, their words are almost identical, as if they are reading from a script.

The problem is that instead of promoting what 19th century writer John Stuart Mill called "an open marketplace of ideas," these schools of planning are instead doing a great disservice by pushing one theory as the gospel truth. Students of urban planning are not so much educated as indoctrinated. The reality is that "smart growth" or "new urbanism" has a questionable rate of success. It frequently amounts to little more than the same pro-development policies that originally got us into suburban sprawl. It favors wealthy, politically connected developers and often becomes a weapon against poor people and minorities, who are displaced from their homes and businesses by eminent domain so local governments can bring in high end developments that they see as bringing in more ratables. And it ends up re-creating the cities that many moved to the suburbs to escape.

What is also overlooked is that higher density means more schoolchildren to educate, a need for additional infrastructure, and the requirement of additional police, emergency, and public works services and personnel, all of which wipe out the financial gain the new developments are supposed to bring. Also, those new developments are often given tax abatements of up to 30 years. Those that arrange PILOT or Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreements pay only to the municipality, and their money does not go towards the town's schools or to the county.

The concept of sustainability itself, which Mayor Frank so often repeats, has effectively been hijacked by proponents of this dogma called new urbanism. Sustainability originated as one of the Ten Key Values of the Green Party and was intended as a paradigm shift in which societies focus on sustaining our natural resources rather than emphasizing economic growth. It was never meant as a justification for high density development.

The Green Party defines Future Focus/Sustainability with the following words: "Like the Iroquois Indians, Greens seek a society where the interests of the seventh generation are considered equal to the interests of the present. Every generation should, minimally, seek to leave the planet no worse off than when it was bequeathed to them. We must act in the present in such a way as to reclaim the future for our children and their children."

That, not the same old pay to play sweetheart deals with developers, is the true meaning of sustainability.

Last November, when asked to support a public referendum on the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment, as Edison did, Frank responded, "I don’t believe that everything needs to go on a referendum before the public. This is a complicated issue. We were voted into these offices to make these decisions."

Is Highland Park's future suburban or urban? Is it about dogma repeated over and over by politicians or about what best fits the needs of our unique community? Frank thinks these decisions should be made only by her and those she handpicks. On June 5, it's our turn to make these decisions. Want your voice heard? Then get out and vote, vote for Line C, and tell this administration loud and clear that Highland Park is not and never will be a city.

Mayor's Lunch or Campaign Brunch???

2007-05-09T12:21:00.000-04:00

Mayor Frank has been holding a monthly Mayor's Lunch at the Senior Center for several years now. In 2007, the event has regularly been scheduled for the second Monday of each month. However, for June, the event was moved up to the first Monday, June 4, which happens to be ONE DAY before the June primary. Coincidence? You decide.

The event is being billed as a Fathers' Day Celebration and includes a barbecue and picnic with a Scottish-based duo, Master Fiddler Sarah Naylor, and pianist Douglas Miller of the Isle of Skye, Scotland, performing, courtesy of Artists Now. Yet Fathers' Day does not take place until two weeks later, on Sunday, June 17. So why isn't this Mayor's Lunch following the regular schedule and taking place on Monday, June 11?

Artists Now is supposedly funding the Community Arts Center planned for the site where the cell tower is currently located. Are they providing entertainment on June 4 to help Frank get re-elected? Artists frequently perform at campaign events, which is all well and good when those events are billed as the partisan events they are and not an innocent outreach to seniors. It is hard to believe this is all happening by coincidence.

This is not the first time a Mayor's Lunch looks to be suspiciously timed for the eve of an election. Frank pulled the same stunt in 2005 with a Mayor's Lunch one day before the council primary. Two years earlier, she violated the ordinance against campaigning in public buildings when, in November 2003, she prominently displayed a "Meryl for Mayor" sign and balloons in the Senior Center lobby.

Scheduling this event to conveniently give herself a public platform one day before the election is a cheap shot and a desperate act. Frank has always blurred the lines between governing and campaigning, deliberately staging supposedly non-partisan events in ways that just happen to promote her, her candidates, and her agenda right before elections. In this case, the lunch should be considered a potential violation of the borough ordinance against campaigning in public buildings. All the mayor has to do is urge one person at the event to vote for her, and she has clearly violated the law.

Therefore, I call upon the Department on Aging to change this date in order to avoid potential illegal campaigning. And I urge seniors, don't let yourselves be "bribed" with food and entertainment. The direction of Highland Park's future is at stake here. Frank has hardly been responsive to seniors' concerns. She has monopolized senior lunches with her choice of topics, not allowing seniors to voice their questions and concerns on issues of their choice. She has taken more time and space in the Senior Center away from seniors and allocated it to programs for other constituents, especially children, in ways that shortchange the seniors who gave their money and hearts to build this Center.

For seniors who do attend this event, please be as vigilant as possible to note efforts on the mayor's part to bring attention to the election and to her candidacy. If and/or when this happens, even once, call attention publicly to the fact that the mayor is breaking the law by campaigning on borough property.

This abuse of scheduling is typical of the disingenuousness that has characterized Frank's entire tenure as mayor. Let's recognize it for what it is--a campaign event, pure and simple.

Always "I, I, I"

2007-04-26T11:41:00.000-04:00

Can Meryl Frank ever turn over the spotlight to anyone other than herself? At a public reading of excerpts from The Ditchdigger's Daughters, part of the Library's and Arts Commission's jointly sponsored "One Book, One Highland Park program," Frank once again snagged the spotlight from author Dr. Yvonne Thornton when she inappropriately compared her 1996 public appearance with President Bill Clinton with Dr. Thornton's graduation from Columbia University.

Thornton grew up poor, took on her father's dream for her of becoming a doctor, and successfully navigated the grueling path of organic chemistry, medical school, 36-hour shifts, etc. Comparing this long term accomplishment with a one-time campaign appearance that is largely theater is an insult to Dr. Thornton and the obstacles she has overcome.

Graduation from college and medical school are the culmination of long, hard work that requires incredible stamina, perseverance, and determination. A one-time public appearance, even with the president, is none of these. I can vouch for that personally because I too introduced President Bill Clinton in front of a large crowd, this time in 2000 when he appeared in New Jersey to endorse Congressman Rush Holt. Yes, it was exciting and fun; yes my parents were proud, but I would never compare it to becoming a physician.

Is it really so difficult for Frank to refrain from inserting herself into everybody else's moments in the sun? Why was it necessary to use this occasion to tout herself and her so-called accomplishments? For once, can't she let someone else have the limelight?

King Louis XIV of France once said, "I am the state." With Frank, like with Louis, it's always I, I, I. Someone needs to remind her that she is not the borough of Highland Park and that the rhetoric of a leader in a democracy should center around the word "we."

Then again, what should we expect from a mayor who compares her job to that of a prostitute? That's right, she actually compared her efforts to "sell" the green community idea to those of a prostitute selling her body. To quote from The Auditor in The Star Ledger of Sunday, April 22:

"What the ...?
Mayors are often called leaders, visionaries or idealists. But at least one Jersey mayor compares the job to the world's oldest profession. Last week, about 20 civic leaders and curious residents visited various contaminated sites in Middlesex County on an environmental health and justice tour. Nearly two hours after the program began, the bus stopped on Donaldson Street in the borough of Highland Park. There, Mayor Meryl Frank told the group the current construction waste zone, situated across the street from mostly low-income immigrant residences, will become a community garden by next year. It's all part of her grand 'green' plan. One tour participant asked the mayor how long it took for others to catch on to the environmentally friendly model? 'You know, Highland Park became New Jersey's first green community four years ago,' Frank responded. 'I've been fighting this fight for years. Finally, people are noticing. It's sort of like being prostitutes, who sell their bodies. Mayors sell themselves for the good of the people.'"

Thank you, Mayor Frank, for speaking your truth. No one could have better stated just why this town needs new leadership.

It Begins...

2007-04-24T16:39:00.001-04:00

At long last, the fight to restore accountability, fiscal responsibility, open government, and genuine participatory democracy to Highland Park has begun.

I am proud to announce our outstanding slate of candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for Mayor, Borough Council, and Democratic Municipal Committee in the June 5 Democratic primary.

Leading the team under the banner of Highland Park Democrats is mayoral candidate Nancy J. Wolf, former councilwoman and council president, a 19-year state employee with a Masters in Public Administration. Running alongside her for Borough Council are my former running mate, 11th District Democratic Municipal Committeeman George Valenta, a founder of Highland Park Citizens for Property Rights Protection; and my brother Michael Kornfeld, a local business owner, active participant in Congregation Ahavas Achim, and member of the Highland Park Chamber of Commerce.

Joining the mayoral candidates are the following people seeking seats on the Democratic Municipal Committee:

Barry Seiden, first district
Alan Salit, second district
Michael Kornfeld, fourth district
Mary Laney, seventh district
Sal Raspa, tenth district
Yours truly, Laurel Kornfeld, tenth district
Nancy Wolf, eleventh district
George Valenta, eleventh district

A question some may ask is, why am I not running for a council seat, as originally planned? First, I will dispel the false notions circulating about this choice. My decision to seek a Democratic Committee seat instead of a Borough Council seat is not in any way due to any form of intimidation or "muzzling" by the mayor or due to false and ridiculous accusations she made against me one month ago. I am not in any way afraid of Meryl Frank or any "consequences" she thinks she can inflict on me personally or professionally. I was not scared out of running. And I have no interest in "imitating" a person I consider a complete failure as a mayor.

Two important goals of our campaign are fiscal responsibility regarding budget, spending and taxes to keep Highland Park affordable and working in harmony with business owners to keep them in town and avoid excessive additional tax burdens that drive them away. In the past year and a half, the borough has experienced serious fiscal mismanagement and a complete lack of accountability in justifying how our tax dollars are spent. For this reason, it is crucial that our team be made up of people with strong fiscal and business backgrounds. Keeping this town affordable to everyone, not just the wealthy, must be a top priority of local government. Nancy, George, and Michael have the skill sets to focus successfully on these issues.

We believe taxpayers' money should be spent on necessities such as equipment for First Responders, not for expensive private consultants.

Other goals of our campaign include restoring accountability by the mayor and council. We need an administration that will take responsibility for all decisions, including mistakes, instead of blaming others for its choices, as the current administration has done over and over again with issues such as the Y, the cell tower, and the missing $400,000 tax dollars.

Highland Park needs a government characterized by transparency and open government that are more than just rhetoric. This team will welcome and respect all opinions, including those different from ours, and do our best to incorporate public sentiment into decision making. For this reason, an important goal of ours is informing residents and businesses in advance of major decisions to obtain their input. This was not done with the businesses placed in the redevelopment zone two years ago, which ended up seriously alienating them.

We seek to motivate people with a wide variety of views to participate in government and welcome rather than fear dissent. The vision this campaign has of borough government is a big tent with room for all who want to contribute, including those with differing views. No one should ever be told to "go away" because he or she does not support a particular policy of the administration.

Also, we seek to continue our town’s longstanding, 20-year tradition of promoting green, environmentally friendly policies, welcoming anyone and everyone who wants to play a lead role in preserving our natural resources for future generations.

The campaign's official web site is http://www.highlandparkdemocrats.com. This blog is not an official voice of the campaign but my own observations and sentiments as a writer, activist, local resident, and supporter of this team. It will remain an independent voice and commentary throughout the campaign season.

If you are reading this, and these goals resonate with you; if you want new leadership that is open, inclusive, and conscientious about keeping Highland Park affordable, please join us. Volunteer, donate to the campaign, and most of all, vote on June 5. If you know you will not be around that day, you can apply for an absentee ballot in advance. The web site, which should be live in a few days, will direct you in how you can be part of this noble effort to bring a new day to our borough.

We all have the power to change the world. As a song from the musical "Rags" says:

"If it's wrong, you can fix it. If you can't, you can fight it. If you don't like to fight, you can learn. You don't need to be blind here. You can open your mind here. Better than see the light--help it burn!"

The Fruit of A Poisoned Tree

2007-03-22T00:42:00.000-04:00

Tonight, the Democratic Municipal Committee held its interviews of mayoral and council candidates, commonly known as screening, for endorsement in the June Democratic primary. As usual, there was no actual contest. No one bothered to come out and express interest in the positions--except the incumbents.

The party leadership will tell you that the dearth of candidates is due to public satisfaction with the incumbents. That is a convenient excuse, and more accurately, a pile of gunk.

Screenings are supposed to be an open process in which interested residents, the more the better, come to seek the party's formal support for elected office. Unfortunately, in the local Democratic Committee, they have become a farce, a mockery and poor excuse for the real democratic process.

Think of it this way. Why would anyone take the time to screen when the Committee has already mailed out invitations to a fundraiser for the re-election of Mayor Frank and the incumbent council members, complete with a campaign fund bearing their name? Would you enter a contest where the victor was already chosen and honored before the actual event? How could the Committee have presumed in advance of the process what the results would be? If the Committee had already determined in advance who would get their support, why hold a screening at all? Do they really think anyone in town is being fooled by a dog and pony show that is being passed off as a fair and democratic process?

In past years, because I genuinely believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party on a national and philosophical level, I attended Committee screenings for Borough Council. Each time, I attempted to recruit several other people to screen as well even though that meant they would be competing with me for the party's support. In a real open, democratic process, the more interested candidates the better. That is because what is sacred is the process, not the outcome. Unfortunately, my efforts at getting other people to screen were abysmal failures. Even people genuinely interested in the positions understood the interviews were a show and were hardly willing to give up their precious time just for the sake of making the screening a "real" contest.

Frank's supporters and municipal party leaders will likely gleefully jump all over this entry shouting "sour grapes," claiming I am just bitter because I screened for several years and never received the party's support. But that is a cheap shot, a hollow ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are a form of logical fallacy--if someone cannot respond to an issue, in this case the phony appearance of a democratic screening process, he or she instead attacks the messenger who raised the issue in the first place. I am in no way bitter about not being chosen. In fact, I take great pride in having performed far better percentage wise in going to the public by running on my own, receiving 42 percent of the vote as compared with single digit percentages in Committee screenings. So much for the Committee being an accurate representation of Democrats in town.

However, as the child of parents who spent their early years living under dictatorships, as someone who still believes in the sanctity of people's right to choose their leaders and government that operates by the consent of the governed, I am outraged over the fact that party leaders treat the democratic process with such utter contempt.

There is absolutely no dishonor in losing a fair contest knowing one has done one's best. However, when the contest is a sham, when the process is subverted and substituted with a mockery of the genuine article, then endorsing that mockery by taking part in it at all is dishonorable and disingenuous. The results of such a phony contest are tantamount to the fruit of a poisoned tree.

I and other like-minded citizens who want an alternative to Frank will instead go to the real decision makers, the people of this town, make the case for change and let you--the ultimate custodians of democracy--decide. The election process, governed by state and federal laws and by Constitutional protections, is the only place where a real contest, a real referendum, real democracy, can take place. No candidate needs to go before a committee selected by a small group in power that has already made up its mind in a closed, backroom process. That is not what this country is about.

Whatever decision the people of this town make in both June and November deserves to be respected. But first, the voters need to decide. Don't let a small group with its own agenda decide for our whole town. If you're not registered to vote, register now. Then get out and vote. The real power, the real decision, the real "screening" is in our hands.

NOT Part of the Solution

2007-03-17T13:52:00.000-04:00

A favorite and timeless quote from the sixties states, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Unfortunately, a compromise bill crafted by State Senator Ronald Rice on eminent domain reform, which attempts to combine A-3257 and S-1975, the respective Assembly and Senate bills on this issue, contains so many changes in favor of developers that it is clearly part of the problem as opposed to even the beginning of a solution.

With the bill scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee this past Thursday, Rice surreptitiously added 63 pages of amendments to the bill after 5 PM Wednesday, changes that substantially weaken the bill and were rightly criticized by Public Advocate Ronald Chen, a strong opponent of eminent domain abuse.

Chen identified the following last minute changes to the bill as especially troublesome:

1. The new version does not limit the definition of blight and keeps language that would allow condemnation for properties that have "a lack of proper utilization."

2. The bill abandons a proposal to require government to prove eminent domain is necessary by a "preponderance" of evidence and reverts back to requiring only "substantial" evidence.

3. The bill removes a proposal to offer displaced families "replacement value" for taken homes.

Other developer-friendly changes in the bill include a provision making adoption of strict notice requirements for redevelopment areas contingent upon the passage of an amendment to Article VIII, Section 1, Paragraph 6 of the New Jersey Constitution. The proposed constitutional amendment would allow property tax-exemptions and abatements for periods longer than 5 years up and to 15 years. This latter provision means taxpayers paying their full share of taxes will effectively be subsidizing developers during the abatement period.

Additionally, the provisions of the amended bill would not take effect until four months after its passage. This provides a window of opportunity for developers and municipalities to rush through studies declaring areas in need of redevelopment, enactment of redevelopment plans, designation of redevelopers, approval of redevelopment agreements, and actual eminent domain proceedings.

The full text of the bill can be found at http://www.njeminentdomain.com/m12_0007.pdf
Chen's testimony on the original S-1975 bill can be found at http://www.njeminentdomain.com/EminentDomainTestimony022607.pdf

It is only due to the bipartisan efforts of Democratic Senator Fred Madden, Jr. and Republican Senator Nicholas Asselta, who objected to a vote before legislators had had time to read the many changes in the bill, that the vote was postponed to a later date.

This provides more time for us to make a difference. Please contact Senator Rice's office directly at 1044 South Orange Avenue - Newark, NJ 07106 or call 973-371-5665 to express your concerns about this bill and make the recommendations that will restore it to being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Join the movement to end eminent domain abuse in New Jersey. The next meeting of Stop Eminent Domain Abuse will take place on Sunday, April 15th at 2pm in Redeemer Lutheran Church, 3351 State Route 33, at the corner of Jumping Brook Road, Neptune, NJ 07753-3003. Elections for officers are scheduled to be held at this meeting.

For more information, contact Michelle Bobrow at mlbobrow@earthlink.net , or Lori Ann Vendetti at mtotsa@aol.com.

Directions: The Church is located at 3531 State Route 33, at the corner of Jumping Brook Rd in Neptune, about 1/2 mile east of GSP Exit 100 (Rt 33 east, Ocean Grove) and about 2.5 miles west of the interchange for Rt 18 and Rt 33. The group will also have T-shirts and bumper stickers for sale at the meeting, so please be prepared to buy a few if you can afford to. STOP EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE COALITION of NJ is on the rise !!!Spread the word. Visit http://www.stopeda.org/