Council-o-Meter, Petition-a-Tron

Update 1/28/08 – These questions were sent to Council members in July. To date, no Council member has ever responded on the record. 

Council Member Positions:

Sent to each of the Borough Council members today (7/26/07) via e-mail:

“What is your position on the proposed Self-Governance Ordinance, and why?”

Awaiting responses.

Council President Frank “Skip” Stabile -

Councilman Frank Righetti -

Councilman Michael Giordano -

Councilman Douglas Singleterry -

Councilman Robert Hitchcock -

Councilwoman Mary Forbes -

Councilman Santiago Soto -

Petition Signatures

As of 9/19/07: Approximately 650.

Clarification: While drafting the ordinance, with help from the Pennsylvania people, members of our group had many of the same concerns as outlined in the comment below.

First off, we absolutely are not trying to impede economic progress in the town; we all understand that commerce is vital to thriving communities, and that North Plainfield needs to generate and welcome new economic activity, whether from locals or from outsiders.

But, speaking for myself (just to make sure I don’t misrepresent other members’ views), I think there is healthy economic development and unhealthy economic development.

Healthy economic development is driven primarily by the needs and skills of the townspeople, without harming the townspeople while meeting those needs. Unhealthy development is driven primarily by the greed of the developers, with no concerns about harm to the local people whether environmental, financial (i.e., lowering residential property values) or other things.

The ordinance boosts the relative power of local entrepreneurs, and restricts the relative power of outside developers, to try to level the playing field, which currently heavily favors large corporations with large amounts of investment capital.

Also key to the whole thing is the definition of “Engage in Land Development,” as defined in the ordinance: “any actions taken to construct a group of two or more residential buildings…or a single nonresidential building.” The ordinance is designed to permit corporations (local and nonlocal) to buy or lease, and renovate and use, existing buildings, but protect open space and forested areas from being razed and cluttered with new buildings. I agree, there are a lot of vacant storefronts, both on Route 22 and on Somerset Street. And if a Whole Foods or a Starbucks wanted to come to town, they would be able to buy or lease those buildings, renovate them for their purposes and open for business. They would not be able to tear those buildings down and start over, a provision specifically geared toward preventing destruction of fragile neighborhoods like the downtown historic area, where the character of the commercial neighborhood is very much connected to the history of the buildings.

On the limited liability piece, my understanding is that the ordinance was crafted to hold violators of the ordinance liable for violations, meaning that if an outside corporation came in and destroyed a forest or polluted our water in violation of the law, they couldn’t hide behind corporate personhood or limited liability as a way out of compensating the Borough for the harms caused to our residents, our ecosystems and our natural communities. I don’t think it means local people couldn’t create partnerships with Green Brook folks to form a small LLC to open a coffeeshop, although it could mean that if that small partnership dumped dangerous chemicals into a wetlands, they would each be personally liable for that harm to our community. I’ll check with our contacts at CELDF to make sure I’m understanding it correctly.

A good resource for learning more about these topics is the documentary film The Corporation: it’s very informative and entertaining at the same time, although also disturbing. I have a copy, if anyone wants to borrow it, although I think someone from our church currently has it.

Anyway, the overall goal is more community control over local economic development, not less economic development. We want to make sure that North Plainfield citizens have the rights, and the legal tools, to decide what kinds of development fit with our vision of the town, and our town’s character, and what kinds of development don’t fit our vision and character. Clearly, defining our vision and our character are collaborative processes, to be made by as many residents as possible, working together. The point of the ordinance is to make sure shareholder boards of outside corporations don’t have the rights and legal tools to force their vision for us, and their ideas of what our character is, on our residents.

It may well be too late to save Villa Maria, but there are other parcels in town that are vulnerable, like the stand of trees on the south side of Route 22, near North Avenue, where Exit Realty signs popped up in recent weeks. And in light of Mr. Hollod’s remarks last night about the regional and state development plans, North Plainfield may well have a bulls-eye painted on it, for even more dense development proposals in the next few years. All to say, if we want a genuine, powerful local say in our own economic development, the tools we have now are just not strong enough.

Das Rad

Unanimous resident opposition to the Villa Maria condo project at the hearing.

Unanimous developer support for the Villa Maria condo project at the hearing.

Unanimous Planning Board support for the Villa Maria condo project after the hearing.

Cool animated short film.

Update 7/26/07: Interesting reader comments below. I’m also posting the statement I gave at the hearing last night. I’m disappointed in the result of the meeting, and the process, not because I didn’t expect the proposal to be approved, but because I had some hope that more members of the Planning Board would not only see the underlying problem, but find the inner strength to speak and vote based on that understanding.

It’s absolutely true that the Planning Board, under current law, has no power to do anything but beg rapacious developers to agree to minor revisions to slightly limit damaging development activities. In fact, according to the Municipal Land Use Law that Planning Boards function under, a gathering of rocks could have sat behind those microphones for all the hearings, failed to vote at all (lacking vocal chords) at the final hearing, and the development plans would still have been approved, by default, when the prescribed time had elapsed since the applications’ filing date of May 9.

Bill Campbell’s court case throws a bit of a monkey wrench into things, so we’ll have to see what happens there, and there may be minor procedural things people could sue about. I was also intrigued by Borough Administrator David Hollod’s remarks about a regional and state plan – of which North Plainfield is a part – which seems to designate our community as a high-density metropolitan development zone designed to limit sprawl. In other words, housing will be sited here, so green spaces can be kept open in other towns farther from the main traffic arteries into New York City.

The basic problem is that people and human communities do not run any corner of America anymore; dollars alone count, and the folks with the most dollars count on people with a few dollars being more concerned about their own little stash of dollars than about the overall problem of dollar rule. Compromise is great, and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good (as Mr. Rudy wrote) is fine too. The problem is, people with no power can’t compromise. They can only acquiesce.

We do not live in a self-governing democracy; we live in a corporate dictatorship, and while I knew that in theory prior to last night, I saw it in naked, brutal experience while watching the members of the Planning Board pretend they had some control – even as the developer’s attorney repeatedly stated in his summation, along with a revealing remark to the effect that America is all about property: “The Planning Board has no authority to…”

By the by, I checked the Declaration of Independence again today; it does not say “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all property is created equal, that property owners are endowed by their property with certain unalienable Rights, and that among these are property, property and the pursuit of more property.” The Declaration of Independence is about free and equal people.

I confess, I had vague hopes that all that contempt from the developers would gall a few Planning Board members into stubborn acts of resistance, to bark out a sharp, civilly disobedient “No” when the roll call came to them.

Hope dashed. Sobering lesson learned.

Keep an eye out for the post above this one, which will be the last regular post: the Council-o-Meter and the Petition-a-Tron tracking Council member positions and signatures on the community self-determination ordinance.

I think at some point, public leaders are going to re-learn how to gauge and harness the will of the people for the benefit of the people. It may not happen soon enough, but eventually the arrogant and destructive chaos of corporate rule will put enough backs up to make a change, or human civilization will collapse.

Either way, the trees will be fine. They were here long before us, and they’ll be here long after we’re gone. That’s probably why I like to hang out with them so much; they have a far better perspective on time and life than my scared little mind, haunted by the dark future looming in the decades ahead but driven on by the thought that, with some effort and some courage, we might be able to make something brighter instead.

Remarks to the Planning Board:

Faith or Resignation?
I stand and speak against the proposed condo development, and in favor of the NP Citizens for Community Rights proposal, because I believe in democratic self-governance. I think forests, open space, wildlife, and historical identity are essential for human wellbeing. And I have faith that the people of this town can come together and choose a better way forward for the Villa Maria site and thus for the town as a whole.

The Borough Council and Planning Board have done a tremendous amount of hard work over the last five years, pushing and pushing to make the best of a bad situation. But the rules of that game were written by corporate developers, and despite all that hard work, there was never any other possible outcome than the situation we find ourselves in today, where, playing by their rules, the best we can do is to make things slightly to significantly worse. The land use laws were not written to protect the health, safety and welfare of people in this town. They were written to protect the profits of corporate developers.

There is another way forward. Our group has done the research, contacted support organizations and written an ordinance that would change the rules, and return power over local development to local people, perhaps for the first time in more than a century. More than 100 Pennsylvania towns have already passed ordinances with some or all of the provisions in our ordinance, telling the world that the wellbeing of their people comes first, and shielding their residents from corporations intent on poisoning their air, land and water with waste from industrial pork farms, toxic sludge, from underground mining that digs the land right out from under the homeowners so the houses sink into sinkholes, and from many other deeply harmful activities. Groups in 23 other states are working on similar ordinances.

If North Plainfield’s Borough Council or voters pass the ordinance between now and November, we will probably be among the first, if not the first New Jersey town to follow Pennsylvania’s lead. Doing that will require lots of different people in this town to unite: the citizens, by showing their support through petition signatures, public comments, phone calls, letters and conversations; our representatives on the Borough Council, by gaining courage from the citizen pressure to take a strong stand for the community against the corporations, and all the other boards and commissions, by doing their parts to push ahead for real local control.

Tonight your vote is a crucial step in that process of uniting in the faith that we the People, are ready, willing and able to take full responsibility for our own destiny as a community. A “Yes”” vote, approving the condo application, is a resigned admission that, as a community, we don’t have a meaningful say on our own health, safety and welfare.

But a “No” vote would take us one giant step further down the faith path, paving the way for the self-governance ordinance to pass and for the Council to look at rezoning undeveloped land in this densely-populated town as “open space.” Both of those moves would drive the value of the land back down within reach of either the town, via eminent domain, or the many small-scale buyers who simply want to renovate and use the historic buildings, without harming the history, the land or the forest, and who have been rebuffed, time and time again, because they couldn’t compete with the deep pockets of the corporate condo developers. If our townspeople choose the eminent domain route, we’ll open up even more options: to look for ways to permanently support a park and historical landmark, or to look for tenants, like historic apartments, small hotels, restaurants or bed and breakfasts, private schools or other uses that would, again, protect the history, the land, the forest and the community.

Some might say this approach is radical. It’s as radical as the American Revolution, fought for the idea that all people – not all corporations, not all dollars, but all people – are created free and equal; that all power comes from the People, and that all people have the right to govern themselves to protect their life, liberty and happiness.

I’ve brought my children here tonight, because I’m involved in this issue on behalf of them and all the other children who will grow up to live here and in other American towns. I want them to see how democracy works, and I want them to see you vote, not in resignation to the forces of concentrated wealth that are harming communities and people all over America and all over the world, but in the faith that regular people can organize to resist those forces of community destruction, and can build a better world for the future, one person, one neighborhood, and one town at a time.

Step by Step

Planning Board member David Branan posted the following comment on the McNerneyville post:

There are many good points raised by you and others in opposition to [the Villa Maria] development. The reasons are as varied as is the makeup of the main people opposing the project. The expression “Politics makes strange bedfellows” never seemed more appropriate in my experience.

There is one simple question that I have wanted answered by those opposing this project, but have never heard voiced. How much more per $100,000 in assessed value are the property owners of North Plainfield willing to pay to preserve Villa Maria as it sits today? I ask this because a large portion of the group that opposes the present plan are also those who vociferously oppose any increase in their taxes to fund things such as children’s education…a topic rather dear to my heart each April as a member of the Board of Education and with children in the school district.

Please note, I am not touting the present proposal as any form of relief or betterment to the town. I am just saying, that the alternatives that were presented to me did not innumerate how the costs would be funded other than vague statements of “there are grants we could get”. I would like to know what grants, and from whom. Unless someone can tell me this would be fully funded, I would like to know how much the taxpayers will have to fund. What is reasonable, and why is funding this more reasonable than funding our schools seems to be (this past April being a notable exception in budget passing terms)?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and funding for children’s education is a subject also very important to me. I don’t know why specific people speak out against funding public education, but my guess is that some of them are concerned that money is currently not being spent well, and would like to better understand where all the money goes. School budgets – all giant budgets – are very complicated. My own view is that a lot of money is being wasted, or at least not super-efficiently spent – on unfunded mandates and on energy costs, and on ever-more-costly health insurance for teachers and staff (check out Sicko for excellent background well presented). I’d like to see more cooperation among municipalities to pressure the state and federal legislators who create the mandates to cough up the money to pay for them, or give up the programs. I’d also like to see a very coordinated effort to get some of the solar energy technologies installed. Almost all the school buildings here in town have flat roofs that the sun beats down on all day, just about every day, and solar technology has come a long way in recent years, so that might be a way to make an initial investment early that would pay off big time over the long haul as oil and gas prices rise. And I think there will soon be a strong national movement for universal healthcare, taking that burden off of employers and municipalities, cutting costs for healthcare delivery and improving overall health of the American population.

As for the Villa Maria funding, I personally would be willing to kick in $500 to $1000 as a one-off payment (bond, tax assessment, donation, whatever) for the town to buy the Villa Maria property. I don’t know what others would be willing to do.

I say “one-off” because I think there are ways to put together a good arrangement of public, private and nonprofit money to maintain the property, but it will take time, research and organized people to locate those resources and put them together.

Step One would be to stop the current development, with a “No” vote on the Planning Board tomorrow, based on the grounds that there are no visible benefits to the town from this particular proposal. This might be helped if we get a favorable ruling on Bill Campbell’s case; the overall point would be to gain time.

Step Two would be to pass the no-corporate-development ordinance, either by Borough Council vote or by ballot initiative, and/or rezone all undeveloped, wooded or open, land in town as “open space,” again, to pre-empt spot zoning challenges. The point here would be to take steps to drive the value of the land back down within reach of either the town, via eminent domain, or small, local organizations who are exempt from the ban in the ordinance. So long as there is a parcel of land available to the highest bidder in a real estate market with fewer and fewer available parcels, the price will go up as the heavily capitalized investors try to outbid each other and leave towns and small-scale buyers in the dust. Decreasing the value, in turn, would put pressure on the Holy Order to negotiate with our Borough Council and less wealthy, less ambitious buyers; the ordinance specifically denies that corporations have a Constitutional right to “lost future profits,” which would provide a first line of defense against lawsuits.

Step Three would be to put the eminent domain question on the November ballot too, to answer the question Mr. Branan’s asking: how much will North Plainfielders pay to keep this parcel intact? But I think it should be a one-time fundraising effort, not a question about “how much would you pay year after year to maintain it” (more on that later). If the town votes “Yes,” then the Council would know there was public support to go ahead and do it. If the town votes “No,” we’re still ahead of the game, because we’ve limited who could buy the land to small, local organizations, so they don’t have to compete with big corporations way beyond their means.

Step Four would be, with the value back down to $1 to $2 million, and/or town ownership (keeping in mind Somerset County’s offer to chip in $1 million in open space money), we could go back to the drawing board and restart conversations with all the people rebuffed in the past few years: hotels, restaurants, conference centers, private schools (I heard Sundance School was interested at one time). One option would be for the town to retain ownership and lease the buildings and grounds to tenant organizations. The tenants would be able to renovate and perhaps demolish the newer buildings to put in tennis courts, a pool or other features on the existing footprints, but they would have to work with the town to decide those changes, thus involving the Historic Preservation people, the Environmental Commission, the Planning Board, the Shade Tree Advisory Board and any other stakeholders, to protect the trees and the history. While we were working out all those details over the next year or so, the land could sit there and wait until we’ve got a really good plan put together. We could even put together an ad hoc citizens’ advisory committee to do the research into funding streams, and networking with interested parties and the rest, and I’d be willing to serve on that committee.

Just some thoughts. If any readers have other thoughts, send them along and I’ll tag them on to this post as updates.

Healthy Back and Forth

I presented the following information at the Borough Council meeting last night. It’s a collection of statements by public officials and responses to those statements. I post in the interests of continuing meaningful public debate on the subjects of both Villa Maria and local democratic self-governance.

1) ALTERNATIVES and NEGOTIATING LEVERAGE:

Nathan Rudy said the Council did look at what the town wanted to do, and he personally brought two developers who were willing to put in assisted living facilities along a similar footprint. Another developer was interested in building a business/event center, and another was willing to halve the property and make it part business park. “Every single approach made to the holy order that owns the property was sent to their lawyers, and their lawyers declined to meet or discuss the proposals by any of these developers. The municipality offered to enter into discussions to buy the property, and even got $1M from the County as start up funds, but the $11 million the Holy Order named as their starting price is more than we collect in taxes in a year. In short, the property isn’t available to the highest bidder as you suggest. The owners of the property did not put it on the market, but determined to maximize their benefit by developing it themselves into housing units.”

I’ve never suggested that the property be sold to the highest bidder, nor that the town has the capacity to be the highest bidder in the open market. My position is that, so long as the Holy Order stonewalls the town, the town should stonewall the Holy Order, using all leverage at our disposal to influence the negotiation in our favor, including applications for environmental and historical protection designations, zoning ordinances (i.e. zoning all the undeveloped land in town as “open space” to pre-empt spot zoning charges), and now passing a local ordinance prohibiting corporate development and stripping corporations of Constitutional rights that were intended – by the Constitutional framers – solely to safeguard real human beings from power abuses.

Instead, the town rezoned the property to increase its value. One other note: we (NP Citizens for Community Rights) are currently seeking a copy of the Charter under which the Holy Order incorporated as a non-profit in the 1930s. It may be that, as a nonprofit corporation, they are not authorized by the State of New Jersey to engage in profit-making transactions. We’ll find out within the next week or so.

In very raw terms, negotiation requires leverage, and passing a zoning ordinance to increase the value of the land took bargaining power away from the town and gave it to the Holy Order and the developer. I don’t doubt that the Holy Order is stubborn, profoundly understands the nature of power, leverage and negotiation, and that their attorneys shield them very effectively. Nuns, monks and many other religious institutions are in financial and demographic freefall, and I can totally see why they would want to maximize their profits.

That does not explain why the town would take concrete steps to bolster the position of their opponents in a fight about the best interests of the town. The nuns may be in their 80s, they may be nuns, they may have spent their whole lives giving and serving others, but that does not give them the right to screw us and our children and grandchildren to make a bigger buck for their retirement, and it doesn’t give us any obligation to help them do that. In financial terms, sale of the property for $2 million for open space and historical preservation, or some other low-impact purpose, would net each of the 19 surviving nuns $105, 263.16 cents, and they probably live rent free on tax-exempt convent property right now. The point is: The Borough of North Plainfield is not responsible for the fiscal health of individual nuns or Catholic institutions. The borough is responsible for the health, safety and welfare of North Plainfield residents.

2) SCHOOL OVERCROWDING and TAX IMPACT:

Nathan Rudy said: “Under the original zoning, they could put 75 or more single family homes on the property. At a conservative estimate this would have added 100 or more kids to our already full schools. That was unacceptable.” So the council worked very hard to whittle the Holy Order down from 700 low-income condominiums, to 430 age-restricted units on the property, to 380 age-restricted units, to 225 units including 25 COAH units and, if requested, first dibs on the units for NP seniors.

Nothing that the Council has done took into account the overbuilt age-restricted condo market (due to high property taxes in NJ and fleeing retirees) and nothing that the Council did precludes the possibility that the developers will seek a variance to allow the general public to buy those condos. If the condos sit empty, and the developer, Robert McNerney, asks for a variance, claiming that he’ll go bankrupt trying to pay the taxes himself, the Planning Board will give the variance. At a recent Planning Board hearing, Planning Board Chair Tom Fagan explicitly refused to entertain an idea floated by Frank D’Amore to prohibit such a variance ever being granted by a future Planning Board. Mr. Fagan said that a current Planning Board could not “tie the hands” of a future Planning Board, without citing any law to back up that assertion. Maybe there is a law, maybe not.

3) TAX REVENUE

Nathan Rudy stated that “Currently the property provides no tax revenue to the town, schools or county and pretty much takes up no services. 225 units averaging $150,000 (a low estimate when you look at age-restricted units in the area) is valued at almost $34 million, and that’s not even taking into account the property itself. $34 million will raise at least $1.5 million in revenue a year. There will be no additional kids in the schools, public works will not have any additional duties since it is a gated community, and our police and fire estimate there will be little additional requirements on their sides…” Elsewhere, he projected that 225 units averaging $200,000 times a tax rate of 1.36 is almost $2 million in taxes (and that leaves out assessments on the land and shared buildings and the fact that the condos are expected to go for more than that).”

The developer has said he intends to sell the properties for $325,000 to $375,000, not $150,000, even if that’s the value at which tax assessments would be made. The property has provided no tax revenue to the town for almost 70 years, and has pretty much required no services. But the $1.5 to $2 million per year, when divided among approximately 7,200 households, equals a tax savings of about $208-$278 per year per household, and no Council member has ever said that local property taxes will go down about $208-$278 per household, because the odds are that the other factors affecting property tax rates – especially education costs in light of unfunded mandates and energy costs – will go up far faster, so there will never be an actual reduction in property tax bills from this project. Moreover, there’s a high likelihood that the town’s taxpayers will pay heavy costs for increased flood damage, soil erosion, and traffic mitigation efforts, even if there are no more children added to the schools, which I addressed previously, and that there will be lost opportunity costs: for improved physical and mental health that come, not only with preserved green spaces and historical landmarks, but with experiences of meaningful self-governance and community control.

4) EMINENT DOMAIN:

Nathan Rudy stated: “In short, this is not the best thing for North Plainfield regarding the Villa Property. I wish we could have done more with it, but short of taking the property through eminent domain the ordinance we passed was the best we could do.” He asked: “How about the big picture that the ONLY legal power the town had to do any of the dream solutions – nursing home, pastoral park, community pool, athletic fields, convention center, etc. – was to condemn the property through eminent domain. Condemnation would have incurred incredible expense of a lawsuit fighting the condemnation and made our town a state and national joke for foreclosing on nuns at a time when eminent domain is losing court cases all the way up to the Supreme Court?”

Eminent domain proceedings are a possibility. But, rather than restricting eminent domain power, Kelo v. New London – arguably the most significant Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain in recent years – actually expanded government power for eminent domain takings. And, if the town united and took a clear stand, the media question would be: “Why are a bunch of retired nuns extorting the entire working-class, property-tax burdened, overcrowded resident population of a small town where they lived and worked in tax-exempt peace for seven decades?”

I think one reason the town did not pursue taking the property through eminent domain was the inflation of the value through the age-restricted condominium zoning. If there are other reasons, I’d like to know what they are. Numerous people have said it should have been a referendum issue: i.e., “If the value of the Villa Maria property is $2 million, would you support raising that much money through taxes (approximately $278 per household) for the town to purchase the property for open space and historic preservation?” But it never was put up for a public vote.

Some economic theories hold that the tax subsidies provided by the town to the Holy Order over the 70 years of their residence here may actually give the town some property rights in the matter. That’s an area that bears more exploration, but high local taxes due to high proportions of tax-exempt land within municipalities is certainly a common problem for New Jersey towns. I actually have some tax records from Somerville that show, over the years, the value of tax-exempt land in the town, but haven’t yet had a chance to analyze them.

5) NEEDS OF AGING SENIORS:

Nathan Rudy suggests that many local seniors, including three senior citizens in his street alone are “eagerly awaiting the projects completion so they can consider moving in.”

That’s very carefully worded, and begs the question: Can our own retiree population afford it, and if so, how? The average homes in our area currently sell somewhere in the $300,000s. The condos will be put on the market for a projected $325,000 to $375,000. The population is aging, as the town’s Master Plan acknowledged, and seniors would probably like to age in place. But the Master Plan was written in 2002, and the economic climate – particularly the housing market – has changed a great deal since then. The real estate bubble is deflating or bursting. Home values are leveling off or declining. Mortgage lending standards are tightening, making it harder for first time buyers to buy the homes on the market. Wages are stagnant or falling, household debt continues to climb, and energy, food and health care costs are rising.Under these circumstances, we need a new Master Plan: ways to help seniors get the supportive benefits of condo living but age in their current homes by subsidizing their property taxes once they stop earning wages, and by mobilizing younger people to do housekeeping, groundskeeping, errands and meal preparation for the elderly on either a volunteer basis (i.e. high school credits for community service) or low-cost, entrepreneurial basis, encouraging local people to start small businesses that provide these services.

6) LEGAL AUTHORITY OF THE TOWN/POWER OF THE PEOPLE

Nathan Rudy asks: “How about the big picture that adopting ordinances that obstructed the development of that property after it was made clear that the owners wanted to develop it is illegal, and the owners could win a suit against us for spot-zoning…a judge would have ordered us to do damaging development as they did with the Dell’Olio property.” He also said: “Railing against the Planning Board for working within the law passed by the country, state and town just shows a lack of understanding of the constraints local elected and appointed officials are under. The reality…is that the Planning Board cannot overturn the ordinance but must work within its parameters. The reality…is that the Council was under similar constraints when it was working on the ordinance.” Mr. Rudy stated: “the things you are railing against were decided more than a year ago when the Council passed the re-zoning ordinance. The only things that can undo that are Bill Campbell’s lawsuit or eminent domain, and not political will or public activism. An overturning ordinance would lose in court due to spot zoning, and there will be no condemnation of that building.”

David Branan (of the Planning Board) got at the same thing, when he wrote: “Many people misunderstand the roles and limitations placed by New Jersey state laws on various municipal governing and advisory bodies….we don’t have the power to block a particular development purely based on the feelings of a portion of the town populace whether a majority or minority. Our role is that of an adjudicator based on the demonstration of an applicant compared to clearly defined laws…we do not have even the implied authority to make laws or issue advisory opinions based on our adjudications. I strongly recommend that those who are interested in this issue, obtain a copy of the Municipal Land Use Law Chapter 291, Laws of N.J. 1975.”

This is where the new ordinance comes to the fore, because this is the root of the problem: over the past century, unelected and unaccountable corporate leaders have written and enacted laws that actually forbid American citizens and communities to engage in self-determination and self-preservation.

[To read the Ordinance, click here. If you want to sign the initiative petition to put the ordinance on the November ballot, contact any member of the Committee of Petitioners: Frank D'Amore, Sr., Francine Gargano, Christine Holman, Antoinette Rinehart, or Katherine Watt.]

The reality, contrary to Nathan Rudy’s analysis, is that bad laws can be challenged and changed, and have been changed in the past (regarding slavery and women’s suffrage, to cite just two examples). Change comes from public activism generating political will, and there is some public support for North Plainfield taking a lead in the state and in the country for doing that. Back in May, when the Villa Maria hearing started, I had an idea, I looked into it, and I brought a proposal forward. Within weeks, a dozen people from all over the political spectrum were interested enough to come to several lively meetings and attend a full-day course to learn more about it. Within the next few months, whether Villa Maria falls to the chainsaws, bulldozers and wrecking balls or not, we are going to get enough signatures to put the ordinance on the November ballot. And in November, even if Villa Maria’s forests and historical buildings are nothing but sawdust and rubble, we will find out if at least 51% of North Plainfield’s voters think that self-governance is better for us and for our children and grandchildren than corporate governance.If the Planning Board votes No, with support from the Council, and gains a few months of time for the town to work on this ordinance, we might even be able to save Villa Maria.

Just as Mr. Rudy pointed out about the Council members, all these people are volunteers who have stepped forward for their community. Just like Council members and the Mayor and the Planning Board , we do not get paid, we are the public, and we take an active role in our community, making the hard choices and taking the heat when our views and choices are unpopular.

Just as Mr. Rudy respects all the elected and appointed officials, including Margaret Mary Jones and Bob Hitchcock who voted against the ordinance, I respect the Mayor, every Council member and every Planning Board member. I don’t regard any of them as enemies. I regard all of them as potential allies who can be persuaded to cross the line and join our side in this fight. You live here. You have parents and children and grandchildren here, and I think you don’t want to be screwed anymore than we do.

(7) ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES from FISCAL PERSPECTIVE:

State law may, as Nathan Rudy said, require the builders to provide enough basins to actually increase the water retention on the property from its current state. Mr. Rudy also suggests that if nothing is built or demolished, the property would “lie fallow.” He wrote: “a pastoral garden and bed and breakfast are nice ideas, but people go to Bed and Breakfasts to be in beautiful areas. Route 22 as a destination for the moneyed set to vacation?”

That says nothing about loss of fertile soil, loss of shade, loss of water filtration by tree roots, loss of air temperature cooling by water evaporating from the leaves of mature trees, the noise buffering and all the other tremendously valuable things those trees, all trees, do. There are about 500 mature trees at Villa Maria, about three acres, and standing within the forest, you can’t hear Route 22 traffic just a block away. (If rich people wouldn’t want to vacation there or stay there while on business trips to New York City, why would they want to live there?)

Some tree facts: “In 50 years one tree recycles more than $37,000 worth of water, provides $31,000 worth of erosion control, $62,000 worth of air pollution control, and produces $37,000 worth of oxygen. Two mature trees provide enough oxygen for a family of four. Trees help reduce the “greenhouse effect” by absorbing carbon dioxide. One acre of trees removes 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide per year.” Cutting down one 70-year-old tree puts 3 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In one year, one acre of trees produces the amount of oxygen consumed by 18 people in one year. A single mature tree produces about 260 pounds of oxygen. Two mature trees produce enough oxygen for a family of four. In summertime, shade trees cool nearby buildings by about 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The average citizen of an industrialized country emits about 10 tons of carbon dioxide per year. One tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide per year. Offsetting a single person’s emissions requires the environmental services of 30 mature, healthy trees. Trees slow water runoff, retain soil, and filter rainwater as its absorbed into the land. In one year, one acre of trees can absorb as much carbon as a car emits driving 8,700 miles.

Anyway you look at the information, those 500 trees standing up on that steep slope above Stony Brook are working all day, every day, year round providing enormous benefits – financial and ecological – to us and to every other person living on this planet. The land is not fallow.

(8) PARTY POLITICS: Nathan Rudy said: “This started five years ago during my first term on the Council. The Democrats — of which I am one — were always identified with working on a way to pass an ordinance to develop the property. The Republicans were always identified with opposition to the development. Both parties put out literature, spoke in public, discussed with residents, wrote opinion pieces in the Courier and made their positions abundantly clear to the public. There was no hiding which party was in favor of the ordinance allowing 225 age-restricted condo units on the Villa Maria property. In 2003 the Council was split with four Democrats and three Republicans. Today, after more than four years of discussion of the Villa development the Council is all Democratic. If there were overwhelming public opposition to this development, the recent elections would not have gone to the party that supported it.”

Local control, clean air, clean water, flood control, erosion control, shade tree preservation and historical preservation and quality education are not partisan issues, and I don’t believe we can draw conclusions about public opinion on these things from partisan election results. As I’ve written before, even barring potential election fraud (my two stints as a pollworker showed me firsthand how great that potential is), huge numbers of eligible adults aren’t even registered, arguably because they regard the whole electoral process from candidate selection to vote-counting as corrupt. Huge numbers of registered voters don’t vote, arguably for the same reason. And huge numbers of registered voters who do vote are unable to find timely, useful information about local issues and candidates upon which to base their voting decisions, so they do straight party voting based on their feelings about national candidates.

During the last few election cycles, in a town like North Plainfield with more Democratic than Republican registered voters, with President Bush broadly losing support over the Iraq war, it was predictable that local Democrats would ride those anti-Bush coattails into office. And still, despite those factors weighing against Republican challengers, they’ve steadily narrowed the margins by which they’ve lost in recent elections. There is no way, in my view, that the 2004 and 2006 elections can be interpreted as referenda on Villa Maria or any of the other major local issues we face. Moreover, I attended the candidate forums in Fall 2006, and read the campaign literature, and never got the sense that Villa Maria was presented by either party as a key issue for which they proposed bold solutions that would save this important local treasure.

MORE CITIZEN INPUT:

A fellow town resident wrote: “It seems …that the town did not have much input into the land. The developer has the right to build. Why is it that as a town we are left out of the loop? I did not see that group [NP Citizens for Community Rights] knocking door to door, looking for town input…the board does not get input, neither did this group of folks…I know this [condo] project will not lower my taxes or even slow it down. It will not put more kids into our school system, that is already over taxed. The traffic is out of control, that is for sure. Are 60 to 70 single family homes going to make it better?

The developer does not yet have the right to build. That’s why the Planning Board had to review the plans, and has to vote on them on Wednesday. Furthermore, the developer doesn’t even own the land yet: the nuns do. So the show is not yet over, and a Planning Board stand against the plan would buy us time to put protective measures in place. Our group has not yet gone door to door, but we have handed out fliers at the Independence Day parade, and at council meetings, and we’ve posted extensively in a public place about what we’re proposing. We will do more door-to-door campaigning and petition-gathering, and we’ll put the ordinance on the ballot, and we’ll still need to get 51% of the votes in favor of the ordinance for it to pass. Right now, we don’t necessarily represent a majority; no one knows what the majority might want if given this option. But we’ll find out in November. The condo project may well put more kids in the schools, if the developer can’t sell to the age-restricted buyers and needs a variance. True enough, 60 to 70 homes are not going to make the traffic situation better. Lower impact uses, like a nursing home, bed and breakfast, park, or any of the other projects that people were interested (before they got rebuffed) would have a lower traffic impact.

More importantly, claiming and enforcing our community right to guide the future of our town this round will inspire and encourage us to do more creative, nonpartisan problem solving, about things like traffic, in the future.

CONCLUSION:

In my view, and the view of many other respected historians, economists, and environmental scientists, America is standing on the precipice of a major economic depression that will be exacerbated by the intense weather effects of global warming. Our national and personal finances are deeply in debt. Our manufacturing base is all but gone, our water supplies are contaminated, and our food production system is in the hands of a few major corporations and utterly dependent on cheap fossil fuels for fertilization and transport to the urban population centers.

Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in a decade, but certainly within the next few decades, every single tree and patch of fertile topsoil that we’ve managed to save will be infinitely valuable.

Maybe the people in this room won’t be here to need the oxygen and shade produced by the trees, or the water filtration and soil maintenance provided by the trees. Maybe we’ll be dead or have moved somewhere else. But the people who are here will be profoundly grateful for the decisions we made now, because we can make decisions that will improve their odds of survival.

And if me and my family don’t happen to live here, I hope and pray that right now, there is a band of dedicated citizens and local public officials wherever we will wash up, doing exactly this kind of work and preserving forests and fields so that we’ll have better odds of surviving there.

That, in a nutshell, is what this is all about.

Self-Governance Ordinance

Committee of Petitioners: Frank D’Amore Sr., Christine Holman, Antoinette Rinehart, Francine Gargano and Katherine Watt.

Borough of North Plainfield, Somerset County, New Jersey
Ordinance No. 2007-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOROUGH OF NORTH PLAINFIELD, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, PROHIBITING PERSONS FROM USING CERTAIN CORPORATIONS OR SYNDICATES FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN LIMITED EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION ON PERSONS USING CERTAIN CORPORATIONS OR SYNDICATES FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.

Section 1. Name. The name of this Ordinance shall be the “Borough of North Plainfield Corporate Land Development and Local Self-Government Ordinance.”

Section 2. Authority. This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the inherent, inalienable, and fundamental right of the citizens of the Borough of North Plainfield to self-government, and by authority granted to the municipal government of the Borough of North Plainfield by all relevant Federal and State laws and their corresponding regulations, including, without limitation, the following:

§ The Declaration of Independence, which declares that the people of the Borough of North Plainfield are born with “certain unalienable rights” and that governments are instituted among people to secure those rights;

§ The New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Section 2 a, which declares that “All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.”

§ The New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Section 5, which declares that “No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin;”

§ The New Jersey Constitution, Article IV, Section VII, Paragraphs 9(13), 10 and 11, setting forth restrictions on the Legislature’s right to regulate the internal affairs of municipalities, outlining the procedure for such external regulation, including the provision that “such law shall become operative only if it is adopted by ordinance of the governing body of the municipality or county or by vote of the legally qualified voters thereof,” and noting that “the provisions of this Constitution and of any law concerning municipal corporations formed for local government, or concerning counties, shall be liberally construed in their favor. The powers of counties and such municipal corporations shall include not only those granted in express terms but also those of necessary or fair implication, or incident to the powers expressly conferred, or essential thereto, and not inconsistent with or prohibited by this Constitution or by law.”

Section 3. Purpose. The general purpose of this Ordinance is to acknowledge that the use of certain corporations for land development within the Borough of North Plainfield is unsustainable, due to the ability of certain development corporations to create market pressures that favor sprawling land development projects and damage to the natural environment. Those pressures, resulting from the accumulated capital within those corporations, then preclude other development entities from fostering sustainable land use in the Borough. It is a specific finding of this Ordinance that the people of the Borough recognize that certain development corporations, due to their size and capitalization, have less reason to cooperate with the Borough community to achieve its vision of sustainable land use within the Borough. The people of the Borough also recognize that the existence and viability of family-owned and controlled development entities are incompatible with land development corporations owned and promoted by a small number of persons. The people of the Borough recognize that state preemptions of local land use decisions have been masked by a system of regulations and permits, and that zoning and the provisions of the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law (NJSA 40:55 D-1 et. seq.) create the illusion of community self determination while extending privileges to certain development corporations, thus violating the rights of people, communities and ecosystems. The people of the Borough further recognize that ownership and control of land development by families and individuals who are members of the community will promote community cohesion and public accountability, and that allowing absentee control over land development will do the opposite. The people of the Borough recognize their local government has a responsibility to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community and its residents, and they find certain types of corporate land development to be antithetical to these ends. The purpose of this Ordinance is to eliminate corporate land development, which benefits the few, and replace it with land development pursued by individual and family-owned and controlled businesses, which will benefit the many who are residents of the Borough of North Plainfield. This Ordinance furthers that goal by preventing persons from using non-family owned corporations to engage in land development within the Borough.

Section 4. Interpretation. Anyone interpreting, implementing, or applying this Ordinance, shall give priority to the findings and purposes stated in §3 of this Ordinance over such accounting and business terms characterized as “economy,” “efficiency,” and “scheduling factors.”

Section 5. Statements of Law.

Section 5.1: It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, or other entity to use a corporation or syndicate to engage in land development within the Borough.

Section 5.2: It shall be unlawful for any person to assist a corporation to engage in land development within the Borough.

Section 5.3: It shall be unlawful for any director, officer, owner, or manager of a corporation to use a corporation to engage in land development within the Borough.

Section 5.4: No corporation doing business within Borough of North Plainfield shall be recognized as a “person” under the United States or New Jersey Constitutions, or laws of the United States or New Jersey; and no corporation shall be afforded the protections of the Contracts Clause or Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, or similar provisions found within the New Jersey Constitution, within the Borough of North Plainfield nor shall those corporations possess the authority to enforce State or federal preemptive law against the people of North Plainfield Borough. Within the Borough of North Plainfield, corporate claims to “future lost profits” shall not be considered property interests under the law, and thus, shall not be recoverable by corporations seeking those damages.

Section 5.5: The Borough of North Plainfield shall be the governing authority responsible to and governed by the residents of the Borough. Use of the “Borough of North Plainfield” municipal corporation by the sovereign people within the Borough’s boundaries to make law shall not be construed to limit or surrender the sovereign authority or immunities of the people to a municipal corporation that is subordinate to them in all respects at all times. The people at all times enjoy and retain an inalienable and indefeasible right to self-governance in the community where they reside.

Section 5.6: Natural communities and ecosystems possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist and flourish within the Borough of North Plainfield. It shall be unlawful for any corporation or its directors, officers, owners, or managers to interfere with the existence and flourishing of natural communities or ecosystems, or to cause damage to those natural communities and ecosystems. The Borough of North Plainfield, along with any resident of the Borough, shall have standing to seek declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief for damages caused to natural communities and ecosystems within the Borough, regardless of the relation of those natural communities and ecosystems to Borough residents or the Borough itself. Borough residents, natural communities, and ecosystems shall be considered to be “persons” for purposes of the enforcement of the civil rights of those residents, natural communities, and ecosystems.

Section 5.7: All residents of North Plainfield Borough possess a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthy environment, which includes the right to unpolluted air, water, soils, flora, and fauna. All residents of the Borough possess a fundamental and inalienable right to the integrity of their bodies, and thus have a right to be free from unwanted invasions of their bodies by pollutants.

Section 5.8: Persons violating §5 or any of its subsections in this Ordinance shall be personally liable for damages resulting from that violation, and for penalties assessed for that violation. Any corporation engaging in land development in violation of §5 or any of its subsections in this Ordinance shall not possess limited liability within the Borough of North Plainfield for the purposes of the enforcement of this Ordinance.

Section 5.9: Persons using corporations to engage in land development in a neighboring municipality shall be strictly liable for all harms caused to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Borough of North Plainfield from those activities, and for all harms caused to the natural environment within North Plainfield Borough.

Section 5.10: No permit, license, privilege or charter issued by any Regulatory Agency, Commission or Board to any person or any corporation operating under a State charter, or any director, officer, owner, or manager of a corporation operating under a State charter, which would violate the provisions of this Ordinance or deprive any Borough resident, natural community, or ecosystem of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this Ordinance, the New Jersey Constitution, the United States Constitution, or other laws, shall be recognized as valid. Additionally, any employee, agent or representative of any Regulatory Agency, Commission or Board who issues a permit, license, privilege or charter to any person or any corporation operating under a State charter, or any director, officer, owner, or manager of a corporation operating under a State charter, which would violate the provisions of this Ordinance or deprive any Borough resident, natural community, or ecosystem of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this Ordinance, the New Jersey Constitution, the United States Constitution, or other laws shall be liable to the party injured and shall be responsible for payment of compensatory and punitive damages and all costs of litigation, including, without limitation, expert and attorney’s fees. Compensatory and punitive damages paid to remedy the violation of the rights of natural communities and ecosystems shall be paid to the Borough of North Plainfield for restoration of those natural communities and ecosystems.

Section 6. Definitions.

The following terms shall have the meanings defined in this section wherever they are used in this Ordinance:

“Borough” – The governing authority of the Borough of North Plainfield in Somerset County, New Jersey, which is responsible to and governed by sovereign authority of the people living there, who at all times enjoy and retain an inalienable and indefeasible right to self-governance through their use of the municipal corporation known as the “Borough of North Plainfield,” to make law that benefits the sovereign people.

“Corporation” – any corporation organized under the laws of any state of the United States or any country, and any organization recognized under state law as possessing limited liability attributes. The Borough is not included under this definition.

“Engage in Land development” – any actions taken to construct a group of two or more residential buildings, whether proposed initially or cumulatively; or any actions taken to construct a single nonresidential building on a lot or lots regardless of the number of occupants or tenure. “Engaging in land development” also includes non-resident alien corporations contracting with or otherwise compensating a local, family-owned corporation or other individual or business to engage in development on behalf of the corporation.

“Family Land Development Corporation or Syndicate” – a corporation or syndicate engaged in land development, in which ninety-five percent (95%) of the partnership interests, shares, stock, or other ownership interests are held by members of a family or a trust created for the benefit of a member of that family.

“Family” – natural persons related to one another within the fourth degree of kinship according to civil law, or their spouses.

“Local” – occurring within the borders of the Borough of North Plainfield.

“Ordinance” – Borough of North Plainfield Corporate Land Development and Local Self-Government Ordinance.

“Person” – a natural person.

“Regulatory Agency, Commission or Board” – for purposes of enforcement of this Ordinance, any licensing or permitting body created by federal, state or municipal governments.

“Syndicate” – any limited partnership, limited liability partnership, business trust, or limited liability company organized under the laws of any state of the United States or any country. A syndicate does not include general partnerships, except general partnerships in which non-family syndicates or non-family corporations are partners.

Section 7. Exceptions. The restrictions in §5.1, §5.2 and §5.3 of this Ordinance do not apply to: Persons using a family land development corporation or syndicates to engage in land development. In order to qualify for this exception, at least one of the family members in a family land development corporation or syndicate shall have been a permanent Borough resident for at least 2 years, actively engaged in the day-to-day labor and management of land development within the Borough of North Plainfield. Day-to-day labor and management shall require both daily and routine substantial physical exertion and administration. None of the corporation’s or syndicate’s partners, members, or stockholders may be nonresident aliens, or other corporations or syndicates, unless all of the stockholders, members, or partners of such entities are persons related within the fourth degree of kinship to the majority of partners, members, or stockholders in the family land development corporation or syndicate.

Section 8. Disqualification. If a family development corporation or family land development syndicate that has qualified under all the requirements of a family land development corporation or family land development syndicate ceases to meet the defined criteria, it has three (3) months (if the ownership of the majority of the stock of such corporation, or the majority of the ownership interest of such a syndicate, continues to be held by persons related to one another within the fourth degree of kinship or their spouses), to either requalify as a family land development corporation or family land development syndicate, or dissolve and return to non-corporate ownership. If a corporation no longer qualifies as a family land development corporation, or family land development syndicate, it shall be prohibited from engaging in land development within the Borough, unless it requalifies as a family land development corporation or family land development syndicate.

Section 9. Enforcement.

Section 9.1: Any corporation or syndicate that engages in land development is required to report information necessary for the enforcement of this Ordinance to either the Borough’s Code Enforcement Officer or to the Borough Council, on a monthly basis, on forms provided by the Borough pursuant to this Ordinance. The Borough shall monitor such reports and notify the Code Enforcement Officer of any possible violations, and any resident of the Borough may also notify the Borough of any possible violations. Any violation of this Ordinance shall be considered a criminal summary offense. The Borough Council authorizes a fine of up to $1,000.00 per violation. Each day of non-compliance shall be considered a separate violation of this Ordinance. The Borough may also file an action in equity in the General Equity Part of the Superior Court, Chancery Division of Somerset County, New Jersey, or any other Court of competent jurisdiction to abate any violation defined in Section 5 of this Ordinance. If the Borough fails to bring an action to enforce this Ordinance, any resident of the Borough has standing in those Courts to enforce this Ordinance.

Section 9.2: Any person, corporation, or other entity that violates, or is convicted of violating this Ordinance, two or more times shall be permanently prohibited from engaging in land development in North Plainfield Borough. This prohibition applies to that person’s, corporation’s, or other entity’s parent, sister, and successor companies, subsidiaries, and alter egos, and to any person, corporation, or other entity substantially owned or controlled by the person, corporation, or other entity (including its officers, directors, or owners) that twice violates this Ordinance, and to any person, corporation, or other entity that substantially owns or controls the person, corporation, or other entity that twice violates this Ordinance.

Section 9.3: North Plainfield Borough shall enforce this Ordinance by an action brought before a district justice in the same manner provided for the enforcement of summary offenses under the New Jersey Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Section 9.4: Any person, corporation, or other entity that violates any provision of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a summary offense and, upon conviction thereof by a district justice, shall be sentenced to pay a fine of $750 for first-time violations, $1000 for second-time violations, and $1000 for each subsequent violation, and shall be imprisoned to the extent allowed by law for the punishment of summary offenses.

Section 9.5: A separate offense shall arise for each day or portion thereof in which a violation occurs and for each section of this Ordinance that is found to be violated.

Section 9.6: North Plainfield Borough may also enforce this Ordinance through an action in equity brought in the General Equity Part of the Superior Court, Chancery Division of Somerset County, New Jersey. In such an action, North Plainfield Borough shall be entitled to recover all costs of litigation, including, without limitation, expert and attorney’s fees.

Section 9.7: All monies collected for violation of this Ordinance shall be paid to the Treasurer of North Plainfield Borough.

Section 9.8: Any Borough resident shall have the authority to enforce this Ordinance through an action in equity brought in the General Equity Part of the Superior Court, Chancery Division of Somerset County, New Jersey. In such an action, the resident shall be entitled to recover all costs of litigation, including, without limitation, expert and attorney’s fees.

Section 10. Civil Rights Enforcement

Section 10.1: Any person acting under the authority of a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection, any corporation operating under a State charter, or any director, officer, owner, or manager of a corporation operating under a State charter, who deprives any Borough resident, natural community, or ecosystem of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this Ordinance, the New Jersey Constitution, the United States Constitution, or other laws, shall be liable to the party injured and shall be responsible for payment of compensatory and punitive damages and all costs of litigation, including, without limitation, expert and attorney’s fees. Compensatory and punitive damages paid to remedy the violation of the rights of natural communities and ecosystems shall be paid to North Plainfield Borough for restoration of those natural communities and ecosystems.

Section 10.2: Any Borough resident shall have standing and authority to bring an action under this Ordinance’s civil rights provisions, or under state and federal civil rights laws, for violations of the rights of natural communities, ecosystems, and Borough residents, as recognized by Section 5 of this Ordinance.

Section 11. People’s Right to Self-Government The foundation for the making and adoption of this law is the people’s fundamental and inalienable right to govern themselves, and thereby secure their rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Any attempts to use other units and levels of government to preempt, amend, alter, or overturn this Ordinance, or parts of this Ordinance, shall require the Borough Council to hold public meetings that explore the adoption of other measures that expand local control and the ability of residents to protect their fundamental and inalienable right to self-government. It is declared that those other measures may legitimately include the partial or complete separation of the Borough from the other units and levels of government that attempt to preempt, amend, alter, or overturn this Ordinance.

Section 12. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any court of competent jurisdiction decides that any section, clause, sentence, part, or provision of this Ordinance is illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect, impair, or invalidate any of the remaining sections, clauses, sentences, parts, or provisions of the Ordinance. The Borough Council, on behalf of the people of North Plainfield, hereby declares that in the event of such a decision, and the determination that the court’s ruling is legitimate, it would have enacted this Ordinance even without the section, clause, sentence, part, or provision that the court decides is illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional.

Section 13. Effect. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its enactment.

Nighttime Renovations

This photo is from a few weeks ago, when I passed by a Rockview Avenue house at night and saw that workmen were still inside, renovating by lightbulb. I’ve heard that the house – formerly a two-family, was set up so the downstairs part of one apartment went upstairs to the other side, and vice-versa, so it was a kind of criss-cross. I thought that was neat, like a double-helix kind of thing, or an M.C. Escher drawing.

Tilling and Tending the Past

I went to visit my parents and my cousin Peter (visiting from England) in Allentown this weekend, and had an interesting conversation with my Dad about our family history.

(Meanwhile, my husband and son went to Hillview Farms to pick peaches and blueberries.)

My Dad said the Watt family’s story in America began with the arrival of George Watt, who emigrated from Scotland or Northern Ireland in 1761 and settled on a 180-acre farm near Gettysburg PA. George Watt had three sons, and when those sons grew up, they moved west of the Allegheny Mountains to Freeport. They farmed, and their descendants were born, lived and died in towns up and down the Allegheny River, working as farmers, doctors, merchants and all sorts of other things. In Puckety Church Cemetery in Allegheny Township, Dad said, there are “acres and acres of Watts,” and he knows, because his Uncle John told him to go look, and he did.Eventually, Alexander Wilson Watt became one of the “big men” around those parts, and he was the father of James Harvey Watt, who was a travelling salesman who moved to Greensburg PA. James Harvey Watt was the father of Cornelius Gill Watt, who married Miriam Turney MacIntyre, and Miriam was a Daughter of the American Revolution through her Turney ancestors. One of Cornelius and Miriam’s children was Charles Edward Watt, and his son was James Gill Watt: my Dad.

A couple of years ago, my sister gave Dad a copy of Born Fighting: How the Scots Irish Shaped America, written by James Webb well before he ran for the Senate in Virginia, and won. I read it later, and was fascinated. I had some trouble identifying with the militarism piece, because of my views about war, but the fighting spirit hit a deep nerve. My views on war and other power struggles continue to evolve, but I’ve never equated pacifism with passive-ism, and I still don’t.

For thousands of people all over American and the world, North Plainfield is a piece of their family’s history. But here, as elsewhere, Americans have a weird relationship with history and with cities as historic things. A few years ago, a French philosopher named Bernard Levy wrote a series for the Atlantic Monthly, retracing the steps of Alexis de Tocqueville, who published Democracy in America in the mid-180os.

Among many other things, In the Footsteps of Tocqueville touched on the fact that Europeans tend to care for their cities, and many European cities are hundreds of years old, with equally old buildings, but still occupied by thriving, modern human communities. In America, land of suburban sprawl, many urban cores rot from neglect, as do the people and economies left behind in them. Gore Vidal calls this country the United States of Amnesia, and his point – that as a culture, we don’t know much about our history and don’t seem to care much either – is a good one.

In North Plainfield and all around America, we need to start taking better care of our past – our oral, written and photographic histories, and our geographic homelands – because as humans, we have a need to root ourselves in our past to understand ourselves in the present and make plans for the future.

Vision Challenge

Update 1/28/08 – This offer still stands. 

In keeping with my assertion that this blog is a public forum, I’m asking everyone who wants to, to write and then send in your visions for North Plainfield. Start with your name, your age, how long you’ve lived here, and your role in the community (i.e., resident, homeowner, renter, mayor, committee member, clergy or church member, teacher, police officer, firefighter, librarian, parent…)

Then write a little about what you love about North Plainfield, and then write about how you would like the town to change over the next generation or so. As soon as I get your e-mailed statement, I’ll post it as a regular post, with the title: “(Your Name Here)’s Vision.” All are welcome to send in such a vision statement, and it’s an open-ended offer.

(Here’s a sample: My name is Katherine Watt. I’m 33 years old, I’ve lived here five years, and I am a mother, wife, community blogger, neighbor, apartment tenant, gardener and active member of a Plainfield church. I love North Plainfield’s tree canopy, parks, the tremendous cultural diversity of the population, the downtown, all the historic buildings, and the passionate artistic, entrepreneurial spirit of many of the local people I know. My vision for the town is that it will become as ecologically sustainable and as economically self-sufficient as possible over the next generation or two. In a perfect world, North Plainfield homes, schools and businesses would be completely powered “off the grid” with renewable energy, and every necessary product and service would be available on a sustainable basis from local inputs handled by local people with the wide variety of necessary knowledge and skills needed. I know it’s not a perfect world, so I look at each public and private decision in terms of whether it moves the town a little bit closer to that vision, or a little bit farther away.)

How It Works

At the Democracy School, we learned about how the regulatory system (the state and federal regulatory agencies and local councils and permit boards) actually does not regulate dangerous corporate activities like deforestation, air, water and soil pollution, traffic hazards and the like.

The chart above shows how, when a new, large, corporate project is proposed in a community, a majority of affected community members often come together to resist the project. They base their concerns on broad, usually nonpartisan and non-controversial ideas about their community’s values and character, such as environmental protection, historical preservation, clean, safe food supplies, open space, direct democracy (as contrasted with representative democracy), and they are expected to voice those concerns at public hearings.

However, the regulatory system was designed and implemented by the corporate interests through drafting and pushing the federal and state legislation that created the regulatory agencies. For example, the laws that govern the Environmental Protection Agency are not set up answer the question: “Does this community want a toxic business poisoning its air, water and soil, and giving its residents cancer?”

Instead, the EPA and every other agency set up ostensibly to regulate commerce, food supplies, the environment, communications and other human necessities, are designed only answer questions like: “How much poison can a given business spew out into a community’s air, water and soil? How many people can be exposed to how many different carcinogens?”

At the public hearings, the real life experiences, concerns and values of residents become completely irrelevant, and the expert knowledge residents have about life in their communities doesn’t weigh into agency decisions. Citizens are funnelled into technical hearings where the only “experts” are attorneys, consultant engineers, scientists, and other technical professionals, and the only permissible testimony is projected parts per million of dangerous chemicals, or projected flood levels, or projected trip generation patterns for traffic. And the agencies and local boards, under current laws, can’t say “No pollutants at all;” “No additional flood risks;” “No new traffic pressures.”

But laws can be changed.

That’s why the community self-determination movement has sprung up, and why more than 100 towns in Pennsylvania have passed ordinances, like the one proposed by NP Citizens for Community Rights, prohibiting corporate activities that endanger their residents’ health and environment, and why several towns have taken the next logical step to pass ordinances that strip corporations of Constitutional rights. Unlike the suggestions in this recent article on the movement, the goal is not to overturn the Constitution, but to better realize its ideals of self-governance by and for free and equal human beings.

Citizen-Centered Civic Engagement

Quoting from The Case Foundation:

The Make It Your Own Awards came about in response to research showing that many people feel disconnected from public leaders and institutions and don’t believe they have the power to make a real difference in their community. These findings were the reason for a paper we released last fall, Citizens at the Center: A New Approach to Civic Engagement by Cynthia Gibson, which suggests that if people are actually going to get engaged and stay engaged in their communities, one thing has to happen first — they must have more chances to connect with one another (including those they might disagree with) and figure out how they can work together for the common good.

This kind of “citizen-centered” approach represents a subtle, yet powerful, shift from asking people to simply join official programs or campaigns whose goals, agendas, and outcomes have already been identified by others, usually experts or outsiders. Instead it encourages people to create new spaces where they can come together, become connected to each other, and make a difference as a community working toward the common good.

Fortunately, this is happening more and more across the nation, but it tends to take place with little notice. That’s because these kinds of citizen-centered approaches are not easily grouped as something that’s Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, rural or urban, or black or white. They’re also tackling a broad set of issues — from school reform and the environment to graffiti and urban sprawl. The difference is that diverse groups of citizens are deciding that these are the issues that they — not outsiders, campaign directors, or experts — want to address.

This isn’t a “bottom-up” or “top-down” approach. It’s a combination of both…