Grassroots Groundswell

Entries from June 2008

Flood Control In North Plainfield – The View from 1974

June 23, 2008 · 1 Comment

From the 1974 Master Plan – Section 5, pages 78-79 (emphasis added)

Editor’s Note: In my view, 1974 is the last time the Borough put together a well-documented, comprehensive, sensible Master Plan. It was slightly revised in a fairly good 1996 document, but the 2002 document was a pathetic piece of slipshod work, in my opinion.

Since the Borough must review and revise the Master Plan this year by law, there’s a great opportunity for the Planning Board, with community support and assistance, to rectify the enormous deficiencies of the 2002 document by updating the data in the 1974 version and adding in the community’s new ideas for the future.

Master Plan Revision is a duty of the Planning Board; to date, I’ve heard no signals suggesting they’ve got plans to start the required public hearings and do the job. To review all the Master Plans including and since 1974, check out the Document Library and scroll down.

FLOOD CONTROL

Perhaps the most serious problem which North Plainfield has experienced in recent years is frequent flooding of lands adjacent to Stony Brook and Green Brook. The more extensive floods occurred in 1969, 1971 (Hurricane Doria) and 1973. The latter flood proved to be the most serious.

The damage caused by flooding in the Borough has been extensive and has exceeded that experienced by most municipalities in the State. Although there is no way of defining precisely the amount of damage caused by flooding, estimates of damage to private and public property resulting from the 1973 storm alone range from $2,000,000 to $3,000,000. In addition, clean-up and repairs following this storm cost the Borough $400,000.

The flood damage that has occurred in the past is very much the result of the fact that development has taken place in flood plain areas which should have been left undisturbed. In addition, as more area upstream becomes developed, these flood plain areas stand the chance of being expanded. Therefore, prompt action must be taken if the Borough is to avoid repeated flood damage and the resulting expense.

Flooding of Stony Brook and Green Brook is largely a regional problem which is beyond the ability of the Borough alone to solve. Cooperative efforts of other municipalities are needed and, most importantly, action by higher levels of government. To date, activities in this area by County, State and Federal agencies have been tentative and incomplete and no firm or specific solutions have been presented despite the urgency of the problem.

Obviously, immediate actions are necessary if the Borough is to avoid repetition of flood damage.

Historically, solutions to flood problems have largely involved structural improvements, including dams and piping. In all probability, the ultimate correction of flooding of Stony Brook and Green Brook will necessitate drainage and flood control structures ot this nature. In addition, facilities for upstream detention will be desirable and should reduce volume downstream.

However, such measures will be extremely costly and may not provide the complete solution in North Plainfield. The Borough has more improved properties in the floodways than any other municipality in the County and many of these properties may continue to be faced with the threat of flood damage despite structural improvements.

The alternate solution in the Borough and the one which would be most expeditious, would be to acquire properties within flood hazard areas and return them to their natural state. Such an approach could prove to be far less expensive than structural improvements and should increase the water retention capacity of land adjoining the streams.

A number of attempts to define flood hazard areas and to identify properties that have experienced flooding have been made by Federal and State agencies. Review of the results of these efforts reveal apparent discrepancies between the flood delineations and what has been actual, local experience. Therefore, there is a need for more precise information before properties which should be acquired can be identified and reflected for this purpose on the Master Plan.

This will involve further studies which should address themselves to the following:

  • (a) Identification of properties which should be acquired either as a result of final structural solutions that may be developed by the Corps of Engineers or out of consideration for safety and protection of life.
  • (b) Preparation of a plan for the acquisition of the properties so identified utilizing every available and prudent funding source at the Federal and State government levels.
  • (c) Establishment of a local, flood hazard area delineation which will serve as the basis for sound and rational land use and development regulations within flood prone areas.
  • Categories: Uncategorized

    Larry La Ronde on North Plainfield Adult Sports

    June 23, 2008 · Leave a Comment

    by Lawrence La Ronde

    ATTENTION NP Adults:

    I am looking to re-start the Adult Sports Program. I need input to find out which sports are of the most interest to the adult community within the borough.

    I would first like to focus on the formation of a co-ed softball league. This league would be playing one night during the week and Sunday afternoons. It is my hope and goal to get North Plainfield residents out to meet each other and have some fun along the way. Any further ideas and suggestions are welcome.

    Here’s the survey:

    1. What sports would you like to see be available to adults in the borough (all sports are possible)?
    2. What days are best for you to play?
    3. Would you be able to assist with any league that is formed?

    Please contact me with any questions, suggestions or comments. I can be reached via e-mail at: npadultsports@comcast.net

    Thank you for your time and help.

    Best Wishes,

    Larry La Ronde

    [Editor's Note: Anticipating reader questions: Larry cleared his plan with the Rec Commission before posting this announcement.]

    Categories: Uncategorized

    Greg Hatala on “Driving Anarchy” and Traffic Safety

    June 23, 2008 · 3 Comments

    by Greg Hatala

    I wrote a letter to the mayor, police chief and council president a while back about the driving anarchy around the schools at pick-up times.

    Council President Stabile responded to me and agreed that the situation is pretty bad each and every day.

    Chief Parenti eventually emailed me back, and while he seemed to agree there was a problem, didn’t give me too much confidence that it was seen as anything more problematic than any other traffic situation.

    There was a brief … and I mean brief … period where police were more visible and made a few more stops; then, things reverted to what they’d always been.

    These are our CHILDREN. The complete arrogance of the drivers in this area is a disaster waiting to happen.

    Today (June 9), I watched a car throw a ‘K’ turn and back directly into a parked car. This would have been right in front of a policeman, except there wasn’t one in his usual position on the corner. Then, the car took off down a side street, and completely blew a stop sign, nearly colliding with two cars on that street.

    I don’t accept the information I’ve been presented. Contrary to the stats and figures, there does NOT seem to be more enforcement around the schools at dismissal; I don’t care about percentages and annual figures – they’re not there, and they’re not writing tickets.

    I don’t believe there is a lack of manpower. I think it’s something else, and I wish to God someone would tell me why our children don’t deserve a half-hour of stern enforcement of traffic laws for their safety each day.

    Editor’s Note: A friend told me recently that a young officer told her the officers are held back from doing the competent job performance they’d like to give to their work, by Police Chief William Parenti’s instructions.

    Also, sorry this post is up so late (kids are out of school for the summer).

    I don’t like to bury things far down the page so quickly, but if there are one or two big stories every day, the openings to put things at the top are very short-lived.

    KEEP SCROLLING DOWN!

    Categories: Uncategorized

    St. Joseph’s Elementary School

    June 23, 2008 · 1 Comment

    Closed now. What will happen next? Borough Hall Annex? Youth Center? School for Adult English as a Second Language? Library? Affordable senior housing? Medical or professional offices? Charter school? Razed for single-family home construction?

    Categories: Uncategorized

    Local Businesses

    June 23, 2008 · Leave a Comment

    Photos taken along Somerset Street on Saturday – natural foods store (above), children’s consignment shop, florist (below).

    Categories: Uncategorized

    Dottie Gutenkauf on Muhlenberg Hospital

    June 23, 2008 · Leave a Comment

    Dottie Gutenkauf is a Plainfield activist. This is an e-mail alert from her about Muhlenberg Hospital’s closure and other health care issues.

    HOT FLASH: We’ve received information that Solaris is announcing “clinical changes” to take place within the next two weeks. As of today “there will no longer be resident coverage to the Critical Care Units or to respond to emergencies elsewhere in the hospital.”

    There’s more: after June 27 there will be no more Colon/Rectal procedures or consults available to members of the medical staff as the physicians are relocating to JFK; and “labor and delivery patients will no longer be admitted to the Maternity Unit at Muhlenberg” as of June 30. “Other medical/surgical specialties…will experience changes to service, coverage and consults over the next several weeks.”

    AND THIS IS BEING SENT TO MUHLENBERG STAFF EVEN BEFORE THE STATE HEALTH PLANNING BOARD “CONSIDERATION” OF SOLARIS’ APPLICATION TO CLOSE THE MEDICAL CENTER!

    DON’T FORGET THE STATE HEALTH PLANNING BOARD meeting/hearing on Thursday–June 26–to decide on their recommendation to Commissioner Heather Howard on Solaris’ application to close Muhlenberg; 9:30 am to 2 pm at the National Conference Center auditorium at the Holiday Inn in East Windsor.

    Buses are being chartered–for information call Steven Hatcher (908-731-1518), Plainfield chapter chair of the People’s Organization for Progress, which has led the struggle to save Muhlenberg.

    Yesterday, the POP/Save Muhlenberg Coalition’s “Community Watch” got a great reception from the public and was covered (with photos) by the Courier News.

    PHOTOS

    COURIER NEWS EDITORIAL

    John Gostel’s letter

    You’ll have to buy the paper to see Nancy Piwowar’s full-page ad on page 8 of the local section–it’s terrific! Thank you, Nancy, on behalf of all of us.

    And here’s the Star-Ledger’s story on the DHSS staff recommendations:

    Star Ledger Story

    You can read Dr. Harold Yood’s comments on the recommendations at http://dpotpourri.blogspot.com/.

    The entire package is posted on the web here.

    IN THE LEGISLATURE: On Wednesday, I attended the Assembly Budget Committee meeting and testified on our Muhlenberg crisis in the context of the proposed state budget’s drastic cuts in hospital and health care funding. Also testifying on issues of hospital distress resulting from cuts in “charity care” funding were representatives of other hospitals and nursing homes, as well as the head of the NJ Hospital Association and other hospital representatives, who are well aware of our situation in Plainfield and the surrounding area and its potential impact.

    Two relevant stories appeared on page 11 of the June 12th Star-Ledger. Here are the headlines: “U.S. life expectancy climbs past 78 years” and “Underweight newborn rate spikes in U.S.”

    I cited both stories in my testimony on Wednesday–they bolster our case for the need for adequate and available health care for our most vulnerable patients.

    My husband, Joe Gutenkauf, joined me on Thursday for another session of that Committee, and we both testified on A-2809, which establishes a process for special grants to hospitals in fiscal distress that have a chance of recovery. (The proposed budget includes $44 million for this Hospital Stabilization Fund; there is a $35 million federal match.)

    Our position in a nutshell: it places too much power in the hands of the Commissioner of Health & Senior Services with little accountability and no fiscal, legal, or legislative oversight. Acknowledging the good intentions motivating the legislation, I pointed out the usual destination of the road paved with good intentions, and said that if this bill had been passed last year Muhlenberg and the Plainfield area would not be in our current position.

    Joe cited the DHSS staff’s recommendations to the State Health Planning Board and Commissioner Howard’s earlier statement to the Senate Budget Committee, saying they reminded him of the trial in “Alice in Wonderland” — “sentence first, verdict afterwards.”

    We were both impressed with Assembly Budget Committee chair Louis Greenwald, and we appreciated the positive feedback from him and a number of other committee members including Joe Cryan, Nellie Pou, Gary Schaer, and Joan Quigley, who is getting a copy of the Kean/United Way study and will share it with the committee. Assemblyman Cryan, while voting to release the budget bill from committee, expressed his concern that budget cuts would hit Union County hospitals hard, and added, “I really have a problem with this budget…We’ve got a lot of work to do before Monday.”

    MORE ON THE BUDGET: Budget comes to screeching halt, says the Star-Ledger: A $32.9 billion state budget that imposes no new taxes but cuts homestead rebates and aid to towns and hospitals stalled in the Senate Budget Committee last night after it had cleared its counterpart in the Assembly.

    The Assembly panel approved the spending plan by a party-line vote of 7-4, with all of the Republicans voting against it. It recessed about 7:30 p.m. and is scheduled to reconvene this afternoon, as is the State Senate Budget & Appropriations. Both houses expected to vote on the final version of the budget Monday, but today’s extraordinary committee sessions may interfere with those plans–and both houses have scheduled meetings for next Monday and next Thursday.

    For the Star Ledger story, click here.

    HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION: Health care coverage for all is moving in the Legislature–one step at a time: New Jersey took another step toward providing universal health care as both the Senate and Assembly budget committees approved a bill yesterday that mandates all children have coverage and permits 20,000 middle-class parents to participate in a low-cost state program.

    The cornerstone of the plan is the expansion of FamilyCare, which already provides some 200,000 children and working-poor parents with HMO-style health care. The budget that is expected to go into effect July 1 includes $8.9 million for this effort.

    I have scheduled a meeting next week with Senator Joe Vitale, the sponsor of this bill. For the Star-Ledger story, click here.

    I suspect that both houses of the Legislature may be wrapping up the budget next Thursday–at the same time as the State Health Planning Board meeting–if they are unable to finish on Monday (which seems unlikely at the moment).

    AGAIN – DON’T FORGET THE STATE HEALTH PLANNING BOARD meeting/hearing on Thursday–June 26–to decide on their recommendation to Commissioner Heather Howard on Solaris’ application to close Muhlenberg; 9:30 am to 2 pm at the National Conference Center auditorium at the Holiday Inn in East Windsor.

    Buses are being chartered–for information call Steven Hatcher (908-731-1518), Plainfield chapter chair of the People’s Organization for Progress, which has led the struggle to save Muhlenberg.

    Area physicians are being contacted by Save Muhlenberg Coalition activists Nancy Piwowar and Gayle Jones, and are being urged to attend and be heard.

    DRIVING DIRECTIONS: Take the NJ Turnpike to Exit 8 and go right after the toll on Route 33 East toward Freehold/Twin Rivers. Turn left at the first stop light (Woodside Avenue); turn right on Monmouth Street–the hotel is at 399 Monmouth Street.

    Categories: Uncategorized

    Are You Free?

    June 22, 2008 · 2 Comments

    “The state can’t give you free speech, and the state can’t take it away. You’re born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.”

    “You are about to be told one more time that you are America’s most valuable natural resource. Have you seen what they do to valuable natural resources?! Have you seen a strip mine? Have you seen a clear cut in the forest? Have you seen a polluted river? Don’t ever let them call you a valuable natural resource! They’re going to strip mine your soul. They’re going to clear cut your best thoughts for the sake of profit unless you learn to resist.”

    “The earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.”

    Utah Phillips, unsourced quotes.

    Cheryl Reardon, representative of the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions and founder of Concerned Pilesgrove Residents, in a recent e-mail message regarding Barbara Habeeb’s appointment to the North Plainfield Borough Council:

    Barbara now has to be careful as a Council member to not ever state that she is AGAINST this proposed [Villa Maria] development in any way. That could open her and your Town up to a lawsuit from the developer.

    It’s fine for Barbara to state her concern for certain issues based on possibility of environmental/water/community impacts, but NEVER should she use the word AGAINST or OPPOSED.

    It’s ok for a resident to say that, but when an elected official says it, the developers are quick to file lawsuits. Our Town currently has a lawsuit against it because our Mayor made a statement something to the affect of he would prefer not to ever see another house built here. Also, a Judge ruled against our Town in another lawsuit and part of her ruling was that our Township was prejudiced against developers and therefore made it difficult for their applications to move forward in a reasonable manner.

    I’ve been burning up the brain gears on this over the last few days.

    Will post more later, but look forward to hearing some reader thoughts on the subject.

    Categories: Uncategorized

    Borough Council Agendas – June 23, 2008

    June 21, 2008 · 1 Comment

    7:30 p.m. at Vermeule *** Agenda Meeting 6-23 *** Regular Meeting 6-23

    Categories: Uncategorized

    Street Fair Today! Noon to 5 on Somerset Street

    June 20, 2008 · Leave a Comment

    Antoinette Rinehart and Mark Williams, NPCCR Co-Chairs, at the NPCCR booth. Come on out and sign those petitions!

    View looking north on Somerset Street:

    Outgoing Democratic Mayor Janice Allen:

    NP Republican Club – Councilwoman Barbara Habeeb (temporary appointment until Nov., running for 4-year seat), Mayoral Candidate Robert Gatto, Council Candidate Frank N. D’Amore Sr.; Adam D’Amore (Frank’s son) in back row:

    Tom Mullen (at right), Republican Candidate for 2-year seat formerly held by Daniel Soto, 1/07-7/07, Santiago Soto, 7/07 – 11/07, Jenny Flynn, 11/07 – 5/08, and Barbara Habeeb, 6/08 – present:

    North Plainfield Democratic Club – Councilwoman Mary Forbes at left (in red shoes). Councilman and Council Candidate for Re-election Bob Hitchcock at right, seated:

    North Plainfield Memorial Library – librarians Christina, Elaine and Judy:

    Friends of the North Plainfield Library – Danielle Rassa setting up…

    Stony Brook Elementary School PTA:

    Councilman, Member of Special Events Committee and Democratic Mayoral Candidate Mike Giordano:

    Councilman, Member of Special Events Committee and Democratic Council Candidate Skip Stabile (blue shirt), with Everett Merrill (black shirt):

    Councilman, Member of Special Events Committee and Democratic Candidate for Re-Election to Council Frank Righetti, talking to a DPW guy:

    Larry LaRonde (in green shirt), Member of Economic Development Committee, Special Events Committee:

    Got other photos?

    Send ‘em on in!

    Categories: Uncategorized

    Mark Williams – Report on School Board Meeting June 18

    June 20, 2008 · 3 Comments

    by Mark Williams, NPCCR Co-Chair

    I attended the regularly scheduled school board meeting held at the West End School Community Room on June 18.

    Prior to the meeting there was a wonderful ceremony recognizing the accomplishments of teachers during this current school year. I attended a similar ceremony held at the Board’s first meeting of the this school year which recognized North Plainfield School District employees in areas such as educational accomplishments, years of service to the district and new hires/appointees.

    Recognition for a job well done is always a good thing.

    The regular Board meeting followed this special event and proceeded along with usual protocol until it arrived at Item #7 on the agenda, Public Hearing, P.L. 2007c. 53, Section 5-N.J.S.A. 18A:11-11.

    Item #7 was basically an opportunity for the public to make comments with respect to the employment contracts of Marilyn Birnbaum, ED.D, Superintendent of Schools; Robert H. Rich, Ed. D, Assistant Superintendent of Schools; and Donald Sternberg, Business Administrator.

    The press release as read by School Board President, Linda L. Bond-Nelson was indeed eerie, as was suggested in a blog submission on June 15, 2008.

    I have to give the Board credit; they anticipated that this could be a highly-expressed, emotional issue for residents and planned for it. However, when it was time for the public to speak, no one rose to offer an opinion or observation on this issue, including myself.

    In fact, there were only eight people in the audience.

    The 50 to 75 people who attended the recognition ceremony just prior to the Board meeting had been long gone by this time.

    Next came a presentation by the Community Adult School/Adult High School, followed by Committee and Delegates Report.

    What happened next blew me away.

    Board Member, Mr. David Branan gave his report from Finance and Facilities where he stated that the facilities use committee rejected a proposal to erect basketball court(s) on school property.

    He gave as the committee’s reasons:

    1. Community opposition;
    2. Chief of Police William Parenti’s opposition;
    3. Insurance liability issues;and
    4. Presence of signs that prohibit use of school property without a permit from the School Board.

    The following exchange between Mr. Branan and Board member Mr. Drew Elliott Smith was difficult to understand, because Mr. Smith spoke in a very low tone.

    Mr. Smith questioned if Chief Parenti was actually in opposition to the installation of basketball courts on school property.

    Mr. Smith reported that he is aware of a meeting between Chief Parenti and local clergy members during which the Chief said, in so many words, that he was not opposed to basketball hoops.

    Mr. Smith then asked Mr. Branan to identify the people in the community who were opposed.

    Mr. Branan responded that there was no current survey of community residents standing in opposition of putting basketball courts on school property.

    Mr. Branan stated that the facilities use committee partially based their decision on information taken from an informal survey of people familiar with the problems associated with previous basketball hoops, particularly those that formerly stood in the back of East End School 10 years ago.

    They relied on 10-year-old information.

    Mr. Branan went on to say that the facilities use committee took no current survey to see if community feelings regarding outdoor public use basketball hoops on school property remained unchanged over the past 10 years.

    Superintendent Birnbaum stated that there had been incidents of vandalism at the East End School and that the area was difficult for police surveillance because the basketball courts could not be seen from the road.

    Next, Mr. Smith questioned the issue of increased insurance premiums associated with increased liability.

    No one from the facilities use committee had inquired of the school district’s current insurance carrier what the actual increase in premiums would be.

    In the end, the Board agreed to:

    1. Keep the matter open as an agenda item for their next meeting [July 23 at 7:30 at 33 Mountain Ave.];
    2. Ask Chief Parenti to attend the next Board meeting to clarify his postion on the issue;
    3. Check with the insurance carrier to determine how much premium would increase; and
    4. Ensure future community input on this issue.

    During the last public comment section, I reminded the Board of the growing worldwide pandemic of obesity.

    I pointed out that the World Health Organization reports that there are currently three hundred million people in the world who currently meet the criteria for being obese, that more then half of all New Jersey adults are obese or overweight and that New Jersey has the highest incidence of obesity in low-income children.

    I noted that as the risk of obesity increases in children due to increased sedentary lifestyles and poor nutritional habits, it would be wise to have as many recreational opportunities as possible in our communities.

    I am aware of all the current ways in which North Plainfield provides recreational programs for the community and I feel we do a good job.

    It’s the process of how this decision was made that disturbs me.

    If we are concerned about a rise in insurance premiums, then let’s explore how organizing basketball leagues where each member pays a use fee might defray any cost incurred.

    Additionally, I am disturbed by the idea that if I want to play catch with one of my daughters at East End School, I need a permit to do so.

    Finally, one last item that caught my eye.

    The Board of Education approved the reimbursement of almost $38,000 to 16 administrators for unused vacation days earned during the 2007-08 school year as per negotiated agreements.

    WOW!

    I want to make this clear, I am not suggesting that anything is wrong with this.

    A contract is a contract, but I still say WOW!

    Categories: Uncategorized