Grassroots Groundswell

Although the initiative campaign for the Self-Governance Ordinance failed first go-round, we learned a hell of a lot in the process.

The time is getting ripe to put those lessons to good use.

I’m working on petition drafts and forms to support four ballot initiatives for the November General Election. These ballot measures, if approved by a majority of voters, would:

• Change the elections for local offices from partisan elections (held in June and November of each election year) to non-partisan elections (held in May of each election year).
• Change the Shade Tree Advisory Board into a Shade Tree Commission, giving the Commission the authority to intervene to protect the shade tree canopy of the Borough.
• Establish and collect a Municipal Open Space Tax of one-half of one cent for every $100,000 of assessed value, to render the Borough of North Plainfield eligible for Somerset County and New Jersey open space preservation grants.
• Establish a Minority Commission to facilitate smoother, quicker integration of North Plainfield’s ethnic and cultural minorities.

To get on the ballot, each one will need to be signed by at least 243 properly registered North Plainfield voters (10% of the November 2007 turnout), and the packages will have to be turned in to the Borough Clerk by about mid-August.

And this time, they’re all straightforward, widely used ordinances or charter provisions, with no chance of being kicked out by the lawyers like last time.

If they get a majority in November, they’re new law for the Borough.

If they don’t get a majority, the old laws stand.

Here’s a little background on each ballot measure:

NON-PARTISAN LOCAL ELECTIONS

Many, many local residents are totally sick and tired of the backroom party politics that goes into local candidate campaigns. I did some back of the envelope calculations on party affiliation in the Borough using a registered voter list from a couple of years ago, with about 8,300 names.

The breakdown is 17% Republican, 17.5% Democrat, 0.4% Independent and 65% unaffiliated, with a couple of Libertarians (4) and Green Party members (2).

The amendment to the charter would be governed by the Faulkner Act (Optional Municipal Charter Law) 40:69A-25.1:

a. Any municipality governed by a [Mayor Council] plan of government, may, by referendum, amend its charter to include any alternative permitted under that plan of government. The question of adopting an alternative may be initiated by the voters [by collecting signatures on a petition equal to 10% of the number of voters who cast ballots in the most recent off-year General Election...]

b. At any election at which the question of adopting an alternative is to be submitted to the voters pursuant to this section, the question shall be submitted in substantially the following form:

“Shall the charter of North Plainfield be amended, as permitted under the Optional Municipal Charter Law Mayor-Council plan, to provide for the holding of regular municipal elections in May?”

The state law governing municipal elections includes N.J.S.A. 40:69A-150: “Regular municipal elections shall be held in each municipality on the second Tuesday in May in the years in which municipal officers are to be elected, where the election of such officers is not provided to be at the general election. Regular municipal elections shall be conducted pursuant to the “Uniform Nonpartisan Elections Law,” NJSA 40:45-5 et seq.

Terms of office would then start in July.

Here’s a 2007 Chronology of Nonpartisan Elections, to get an idea of how it would work.

SHADE TREE COMMISSION

The current members of the Shade Tree Advisory Board are Thalia Saloukas (Chair), Bart Thomas, Rick Benson, Frank D’Amore Sr., and Bill Rathjen. Councilman Robert Hitchcock is the liaison from the Council.

Thalia was instrumental in establishing the Shade Tree Advisory Board back in the late 1990s. The group’s main goal is to implement and obtain funding for replanting shade trees throughout the Borough, to replace trees that have been cut down due to disease and age, but often for no good reason at all. The members of the advisory board have received extensive training in shade tree protective strategies, have earned two $25,000 grants to purchase and plant shade trees, and are currently preparing to conduct a comprehensive shade tree inventory of the entire Borough.

For eight years, the Shade Tree Advisory Board has been trying to get the Council and Mayor to adopt a Shade Tree Commission ordinance, and for eight years, they’ve been stalled and stonewalled, most recently at the April 28 Council meeting, after the sixth revision to the ordinance proposal. Councilman Robert Hitchcock apparently asked at the Council’s May 12 meeting for the appointment of another Council subcommittee (this time Mary Forbes, Skip Stabile and Mr. Hitchcock) to again review the ordinance, come up with another draft and put that on a Council agenda some number of more months from now.

The reason for the proposed title and authority change is that the Shade Tree Advisory Board currently has no authority to intervene and protect healthy shade trees from the chain-saw and chipper.

“The ordinance is not meant to be a punishment,” Ms. Saloukas said. “It’s a tool to prevent destruction of the canopies, to control over-development, as well as control town aesthetics.”

The reason given for the Council rejections, when a reason is given at all, is that the commission status gives the committee “too much authority” and that enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance to actually protect healthy shade trees from destruction might be construed by homeowners as violating their private property rights, even though there are numerous safeguards, including appeal provisions, within the ordinance.

Shade Tree Commissions are already in place and effectively protecting trees in communities including Green Brook, Watchung, Old Bridge, Paramus, Chatham, Millburn and Berkeley Heights. Our Shade Tree Advisory Board looked at those ordinances, and many similar ordinances to draft the North Plainfield version.

Copy of the proposed North Plainfield ordinance is here: Shade Tree Ordinance

and I’m working on a flier summarizing the key provisions.

Please contact me if you’re interested in being on the five-member Committee of Petitioners to collect signatures to place this measure on the ballot for all the voters to decide.

MUNICIPAL OPEN SPACE TAX

This is a reposting of a piece Barbara Habeeb posted on April 25 regarding Villa Maria preservation, with the most relevant portions underlined:

In response to “Want to Know.” Where would the money come from? That is a good question that deserves an answer.

When it comes to getting money, administrators need to be creative and use all the resources available to them. The word GRANT comes to mind here. But, that takes some research and WORK. It also takes a little foresight.

Administrators knew as early as 2002 that Villa Maria property was going to be sold. Why didn’t anyone take the bull by the horns and say “let’s see what we can do to preserve this last open space in NP?” Why didn’t our current administration try?

The only thing they tried to do was to rezone that property for condos. That was overturned by a judge. Looks like houses might be going there now, but that’s not my point.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Green Acres program offers local governments grants for the acquisition of land for recreation and conservation purposes. To qualify, NP must have a Green Acres Open Space Recreation Plan, and an open space municipal tax OR an alternate funding source equivalent to an annual tax levy. We don’t have either.

Our administrators COULD have introduced a referendum to include a small open space municipal tax ie: Pursuant to NJSA 40:12-16 of at least 1 half cent per hundred dollars assessed value.

They COULD have instituted and prepared an Open Space Recreation Plan (OSRP).

Then if NP’s financial needs were not fully met, they COULD have applied for a LOW COST loan at one quarter market rate for the remainder of the cost of the property.

Interim financing was also available at ZERO percent interest. This would be obtained from the state through the Environmental Infrastructure Financing Program (EIFP.)

Also available to North Plainfield is approximately one million dollars from Somerset COUNTY. They COULD have applied for it. (Not guaranteed to get it, but why not try?) Somerset County is BIG on open space. Other municipalities in Somerset County are getting the money. For those of you who don’t know, NP tax payers give the county 0.066 cent per hundred dollars assessed value, through our
property taxes.

What do we get for it? Maybe a new paved road now and then, or a new traffic light, but we are entitled to open space money too.

Our administrators still COULD apply for this money, if we were legally able to obtain that property. So you see, there WERE options. There might still be options.

All the things that COULD HAVE, should have, would have been done, but were not.

I realize that North Plainfielders are heavily burdened by the current taxload, and might well reject this one at the ballot, screaming NO MORE TAXES all the way to the polling places.

On the other hand, it’s possible that independent local analysts and perhaps even candidates will be able to show over the next few months, in great detail, how to stop the current waste and efficiently use the current tax revenues to provide better services.

And they might also prepare a cost-benefit analysis, showing how money spent up front to preserve open space and prevent further over-development will save the Borough much more money over the long-run, by preventing the need for additional public services like classrooms and teachers, police, fire, ems personnel and equipment.

It’s a worthwhile debate to have, and putting the measure on the ballot would encourage that debate.

MINORITY COMMISSION

Summary in the works.

By M. Emory Layne

I hope that people in this Borough don’t have such short memories as to allow a tap-dance to cause them to forget what preceded the show.

Mr. Ortega is on record as believing that Republicans are against Hispanics.

He has not had this ‘attributed’ to him … he said it on a number of occasions. To date, I cannot find any evidence that he has retracted those statements.

Incidentally, this is what a retraction would sound like:

“I was wrong to make a blanket accusation of a group of people based on their political affiliation. It is solely my belief, and mine alone, that Republicans are against Hispanics. I realize that, by saying that, I have sent a message to Hispanics in North Plainfield that they should not vote for Republicans because Republicans are racists.”

Apparently attempting to leave those positions to get buried under new commentary, he now calls for a committee of some sort to address Hispanics. All along, debate on this forum has had to do with illegal zoning violations regardless of race; Mr. Ortega has still not addressed the concept of illegal housing as an issue - but always couches it in terms of Hispanics, going so far as to imply excusal due to ‘cultural differences.’

It does not come across in any way that this committee he wants formed will address the issue of zoning violations exclusive of race; he seems to want it to be guided by race, dealing with bilingual education and the inevitable ‘welcoming’ of a group.

In the November election, Republicans will run against Democrats.

The Democrats running have all had the opportunity to address this issue. They had the opportunity to address the issue selectively if they so chose - to go after only violators that would not offend Mr. Ortega. They have done absolutely nothing.

Yet we still hear only about Hispanics from him.

While we accept that they are important to him because they are his “people,” doesn’t that fly completely in the face of people coming together as a community instead of maintaining separate status?

We hear about “what happened in Bound Brook,” yet we are not Bound Brook.

It seems that a kind of warped logic is being used that since bad things happened in one community related to illegal housing, they are inevitable in another. Using that same logic, people of the Muslim faith should never be allowed on airplanes, because once, at a couple of airports ….

The issue has been completely muddied, and I doubt Borough Hall is terribly upset about that.

Janice Allen just got done being presented with an award for how wonderful she is, an award that no resident of North Plainfield would give her who has had to deal with the ramifications of illegal housing.

As long as Mr. Ortega keeps blathering about Hispanics, when the problem is about law violators, no matter what their heritage, he not only keeps things from getting done but also serves Borough Hall with the never-retracted implication that the Evil Republicans must be avoided at all costs.

I do not see a Norman Ortega blog link, where he is energetically seeking documentation a la Katherine Watt, and energetically holding meetings, a la Mark Williams and Ms. Watt. What I see is yet another flanking attack on the GOP in this town.

History is always repeating itself.

Back in 1996, there was a rampant rumor in the borough, in an election year, that Mayor Haggerty wanted to “tear down the apartments on Route 22 and put up a mall.”

Twelve years later, the story has become “the Republicans want another Bound Brook, and want to go after Hispanics.”

Same approach with the same intended result.

And now I’m beginning to understand why there hasn’t been any enforcement of illegal housing violations in North Plainfield.

In that sense, maybe Mr. Ortega has, unintentionally, done us all a favor.

Making something ‘understandable’ to all of us, instead of just to 32% of us.

QUESTION: When considering and conveying the perspectives of local Latinos, do you draw a distinction between the law-abiding behavior of large multi-generational Hispanic families who all live together because they’re all related and that’s a cultural tradition, and the law-breaking behavior of Hispanic (and non-Hispanic) property-owning landlords who partition and then rent illegal apartments to unrelated tenants? If so, describe the differences. If not, why not?

Yes there is a difference, but regardless of the reason, culture or economics, there is an ordinance preventing it and while the ordinance is in force, it is not justifiable. The ingredient brought by culture is the ability to live with many people, friends, renters, or families without taking into consideration the difficulties associated. The next ingredient is economics. We know the minorities are at the bottom of the economic ladder. Owning a home is a dream most have, but owning a home takes more than two people working two jobs, thus some rent to family, friends and total strangers. Then there is education. Homes and businesses owned by minorities are increasing at great speed. There is no time to dig through ordinances, there is not time to integrate (remembers to achieve this they have to work harder than you and I) and there is no time to consider the implications, debt have to be paid.

These may be some of the reasons why minorities are identified as the most cases of overcrowding and illegal housing in the DWP report. So, why not integrate emerging minority communities through education and immersion programs to ensure their fast assimilation into North Plainfield culture and to ensure that they know ordinances and why they are in place. Remember, immigrants are coming in at a great speed, by the time one generation establishes; there are three or more in the process. This is why I proposed the minority commission.

QUESTION: Would a bilingual brochure, mailed out with the next quarterly leaf-pickup calendar, be sufficient baseline public education for enforcement to be restarted again in earnest, assuming that by that time, DPW Director James Rodino will be fired or demoted for incompetence, and a new DPW director with good professional and interpersonal skills, and a solid understanding of the property maintenance and zoning codes, will be in place and responsible for implementing a respectful, properly-documented enforcement program?

It will be helpful, but no, it will not be sufficient. The kind of effort needed to deal with this and many other issues is an ongoing effort made up of different ways to reach the community. Remember, the new wave of immigrants is around the corner. I would not expect a program from the administration, if they had intention of doing it, they would have done it by now. I would support the commission because is a legally mandated and supported body run by volunteers not by intrinsically indifferent government. But again, every bit of effort helps.

“Some readers are concerned that I’m being “played” by Mr. Ortega. My take on Norman is not that he’s dangerous, but that he’s awkward - an awkward community organizer.”

Sheesh, I have never been described as an “awkward community organizer”. Thanks for the title though, I will add it to the rest. 

Yes, some readers may think I am playing you and I understand why. When it comes to thoughts and ideas, I am not a simple person. Like most, I am all over the place. At the same time, I am not that ambivalent either.

Here is my dilemma:

I believe that in terms of empowerment and political influence minorities are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one side Democrats pretend to give us what we want and need, minority council, a minority member in a commission, etc. That is the end of it, given a selected few who have pledged alliance.

Then there are Republicans, don’t give opportunity to anything that is not GOP and goes further with attacks on language and immigration. This is no issue for those who are democrats or republicans including minorities. For them the issue is solved.

But there are those me, who do not want a show and tell from Democrats and who do not want attacks from Republicans. There are those me like who want meaningful participation for all, in particular minorities whom are the most disenfranchised.

Where do we fit?

So, I tried with the Democrats, it did not work.

I tried with Republicans, not even a reply.

Now I am trying with NPCCR because, whether some readers like it or not, we have common goals.

But before I did that, I had to test the water. NPCCR is mainly Republican and our experience with Republican had not been productive, it has been the contrary.

What should I do? Nothing specific, lets engage and see what happens.

I had private emails with Ms. Watt and discovered that she is as serious as I am about empowerment and participation. Yet, I was afraid of the Republican connection. So, I engage her privately and subsequently publicly; brought in Republicans along with everyone else to solve our differences.

Yes, I have changed and you have changed. We are learning about you and you, NPCCR, Republicans and participants- are learning about us.

The good effects of good old American debate! Now we are collaborating in some things and I hope it goes further. I am happy for that. I mean who would have thought? It would not have been possible without you Ms. Watt, that we would get word from Gatto about immigration and overcrowding and how it is affecting one aspect of the population.

Yes, most of it was cryptic and it had to be solved- but again, nothing was planned things just had to run their course.

My objective is integration of minorities which is good for everyone. North Plainfield is mostly of Italian descent, aside from Italian restaurants which have become part of the American landscape, they integrated though generations. Well, let’s speed up that boat and get everyone integrated as soon as they come.

As far as ass-kissing, don’t hate Ms. Watt. It’s unnecessary. If I wanted to kiss your or anyone’s ass, I would have proceeded in a different way and I would have accepted all the offers of power for loyalty I have gotten through the years. My father says am an idiot, but I know is his way of beating himself on the head because when it comes to integrity, I don’t compromise it for power or anything that is not the good of the public, neither did he.

The compliments have merits so let me tell you why so there is no confusion. You, whatever the reason, brought Republicans to support a totally liberal, left from the far left and more than left ordinance and you sorted through my arguments simply to understand.

So don’t be modest, take them- you earned them.

[Editor's Note: This dispatch is a point-counterpoint piece when read alongside Norman E. Ortega's post (below). However, Mr. Layne wrote it without having seen Mr. Ortega's post, and Mr. Ortega wrote his post without having seen Mr. Layne's post.]

By M. Emory Layne

Okay, I guess 2008 political-correctness demands that I start this dispatch with all the standard disclaimers.

I am not a racist. Some of my best friends are [fill in your favorite ethnic designation].

I feel the pain of [ibid].

Let’s all hold hands and live in peace and harmony.

Pardon me while I clean up the vomit from my laptop.

I am under no obligation to say that, and neither is anyone else. It’s done because no one wants to be branded a racist, the ultimate crime of the 21st century. In my mind, the situation crossed the boundary of ludicrousness when the right Rev. Al Sharpton decided he wanted to determine what the rules of language usage would be for the general population (who can and can’t say what).

I do, however, discriminate.

I discriminate against idiots.

I can’t stand idiots. I don’t believe idiots should have the right to vote. I don’t believe idiots deserve the constitutional protections that non-idiots have earned. And how, you may ask, do I define an “idiot?” It’s simple, really. Anyone who chooses not to see the common sense of a concept, but instead begins inserting moronic arguments into the process for no other reason than to bolster their idiotic pointless point … is an idiot.

I (and friends of mine) lived in apartments for years. Some of them weren’t half bad. They had running water and the vermin were tame.

Others were, well, lower in the Michelin guide. We used to comment, at the time, that the best job in the world must be being a landlord - you only have to ‘work’ one day a month, rent collection day.

Wait! you say. (You being a landlord.)

We have to repair things! We have taxes to pay! We have planes to catch and bills to pay!

Great, I’m happy for you - I never had the luck to rent from you.

I remember the portrayal of landlords in society at the time. White men. Shysters. Rich guys who lived in luxury while their tenants had collapsing floors. When they made that movie about a landlord being sentenced to live in his own flophouse, they cast Joe Pesci in the lead role, not Damon Wayans. No one complained. No one screamed “Racism!” when a big city busted a landlord - they screamed “More! More! More!”

The whole reason I was renting was that I was too poor to own. When I finally was able to own, the space was livable … but room enough for one family. I never had the access to capital to own more than one residential property, and there were no special loans available to me to make that happen because of the color of my skin. I owned one house, I lived in it.

It never crossed my mind to rent out my attic or my basement.

First of all, I needed that space to store stuff. Second, my life wasn’t all about more money, more money, more money. And third, and this is the big one, I admit, it was illegal to do so. Was I a saint? No. If I was ever tempted to consider doing that as an additional source of income, I knew it would be my luck that some meter reader would report me, or some problem would break out and a cop would notice.

I never had any concern about a zoning officer figuring it out because, well ….

Funny thing, though, now I’m hearing about people who own multiple single-family homes, and who are renting out those homes as apartments.

Must be those white shysters, right?

I’m hearing about people who own single-family homes, but charge other, non-related people money to live in parts of those homes.

Must be those greedy white guys, right?

But whenever I hear someone complain about it in a public forum, what I’m not hearing are the cries of “Woe is me! Woe is us! Get ‘em! Toss ‘em in jail! Fine ‘em!” I used to hear. I wonder why?

I don’t have to wonder anymore. People who contribute to this forum have answered the question for me. It’s no longer wrong for landlords to do these things! What’s wrong now is for people to complain about it, and for officials (if they were ever so inclined) to enforce the laws!

And why is that?

Because the shyster landlords aren’t white.

Oooooh, I just committed the ultimate sin, didn’t I? I just transgressed the unwritten law (though I can actually imagine that it will be written in the not-too-distant future).

I said a baaaaaaaaad ting about the ‘R’ issue!

Actually, what I said is pure, simple common sense. The racists are the ones who are throwing out all their ‘discrimination’ and ‘xenophobia’ sputum these days.

The same people who applauded the prosecution of evil Caucasian landlords (and probably, selectively, still do) don’t want the exact same process applied to other people doing the exact same things because of their last name or their skin color!

And that makes me racist?

Let’s take this very slowly and very simply, okay?

1. Someone owns a building. Got that? Someone.
2. The building is zoned as a single-family residence. Zoned, got that? Through a constitutional process creating a law pertinent to all people regardless of race, color and creed.
3. That “someone” who owns the building that is “zoned” as a “single-family residence” BREAKS THE FREAKING LAW by renting it out, in whole or in part, and accepting rent (”payment,” “income”) from those to whom he or she rents.

Now, please explain to me what part of that I overlooked that says it’s okay for “someone” to do that if they are members of a particular race or ethnic group?

Or that it’s discrimination if those empowered to enforce the laws enforce them against someone who is a member of a particular race or ethnic group?

Go ahead - just remember, you’re stepping into the “idiot” position.

Great googly-mooglies, can it be any more cut-and-dried? If anything, it’s the ultimate Rainbow Coalition goal - anyone, regardless of race, color or creed, can now own a building or property … and anyone, etc. etc., can choose to abide by or break the law. So how brain-damaged do you have to be to attempt to make it into racism or discrimination?

Quite, apparently.

Find instances of racism in North Plainfield and post them on this blog.

I guaran-damn-tee you that residents will be up in arms, and will support you.

But what’s next? Are you going to claim racism each time a drug dealer gets busted if you find his last name is ethnic? Are you going to suggest that home-invaders and murderers walk because of the color of their skin? How idiotic are you?

Houses are not selling for three easy payments of $99.95 in North Plainfield. They cost big bucks. So someone already has enough money - or access to it — to purchase the property, right? Is that some poor, underprivileged soul?

Then, unlike all the people in town who buy a house to raise their family, mow their lawn, and park their 2 or maybe 3 cars, someone decides to make even more money by renting out a basement or an attic or a garage (there’s a house in town that installed a toilet in the garage, I kid you not; it was reported but never busted by the zoning office) to people, right?

Now, they’re even poorer?

You’ve just got to stop eating those mushrooms that grow on your front lawn.

The apartment buildings in town don’t have “sorry, no vacancy” signs posted on them.

This isn’t a ‘supply versus demand’ issue.

This is a “finally got my piece of the pie” issue. A crook is a crook is a crook.

You want racially-diverse law enforcement? No one, regardless of race, color or creed, should be allowed to break the law in North Plainfield by using single-family homes as apartments. Yet the only outcry I hear from these self-righteous activists is that it’s racist to bust people if they are minorities.

Please - go back to Idiotville. Leave the discussions and solutions to people who have an ounce of common sense. Or, better yet, call me a racist. Prove my point.

[Editor's Note: This post is part of a point-counterpoint pair, along with the next post (above) by Emory Layne.]

by Norman E. Ortega

Again, I am going back to the issue of Illegal Housing and Overcrowding because, as candidates have shown, many are interested in this issue and dealing with it is as varied as the issue itself. Nevertheless and despite its variations and conundrum of opinions around it, illegal housing and overcrowding enforcement must be balanced and sensitive to the realities surrounding it.

Council Candidate Frank D’Amore (R), advocates for “strict enforcement” only and Council Candidate Skip Stabile (D), wants the same, “continue stricter enforcement of property maintenance codes.” These positions should be worrisome to residents of North Plainfield because they show an apparent lack of understanding of the issue.

Yesterday the New York Times published an editorial piece based on studies which show a definitive disparity in Racial Inequity and Drug Arrests. According to the New York Times, “These reports show large disparities in the rate at which blacks and whites are arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses, despite roughly equal rates of illegal drug use.” The same premise was used to determine Police Profiling in New Jersey’s highways and urban areas where minorities are stopped and arrested at a higher rate than the majority.

Currently, this is not the situation in North Plainfield, but as I mentioned before, if 75%, (according to the 2006-2007 DPW report) of identified cases of overcrowding and illegal housing has been attributed to a single minority (32% of the overall population), strict enforcement only, is a reason to worry because of the implications for minorities and repercussions it may bring to our town.

Strict enforcement without education and assistance was the main reason the Federal Government issued a Consent Decree against Bound Brook. In Bound Brook the situation would have been different if Code Enforcement Officers had received sensitive training and implemented other ways to correct the issues prior to strict enforcement only.

We do not want what happened in Bound Brook taking place here.

So far there is reason to worry because at this time, we have one ingredient working against us, the disparity of minorities affected by this issue. If strict enforcement only is introduced, it would add another ingredient to a recipe for disaster.

This is what Council candidate Frank Righetti (D) and Mayoral Candidate Mike Giordano suggest. According to Righetti, the “Borough needs to do more education to the public about the codes”.

On the same page, Mayoral Candidate Mike Giordano (D) says that “When codes are violated, it’s bad for the Borough, both for aesthetics and for safety.” He is “proponent of strict but fair enforcement” and believes education about codes must be stressed.

Any candidate undertaking this issue should understand it well. For instance, what are the differences between strict enforcement only and education supplemented by enforcement? Normally, one would not undertake these steps, but when 32% of the population is singled out by a particular issue, it must be carefully decided what is the objective of policy, punishment or correction. Strict enforcement only is about punishment and punishment is after the fact. In other words, it does not attempt to correct the problem, its objective is to punish one and continue to the next.

Education, on the other hand, amounts to prevention. Education prevents cases of illegal housing and overcrowding not just on a case by case basis, but on a mass basis that may expand through generations.

There are other differences such as fairness and intellect. Fairness because education supplemented by enforcement takes into consideration that the issue is disparately affecting one side of the community in particular and intellect because education supplemented by enforcement mitigates both needs, education and enforcement, to resolve the issue.

So what is the best approach to prevent overcrowding and illegal housing and any other issue related to immigration and integration?

I believe a well crafted commission to deal with this and any other issue related to integration is the answer.

North Plainfield is home to some of the fastest growing immigrant communities in New Jersey, Hispanics and Asians among others. A commission dedicated to soften the integration process by educating our immigrant communities about the goals and objectives of North Plainfield as a community is the right approach.

What do I mean by the goals and objectives of North Plainfield?

Take overcrowding and illegal housing for instance; in immigrant communities this is an issue of economics, but more so is an issue of culture. It is ok for us to have and live in one home with large families. When our sons and daughters marry, they don’t leave. They stay and live with us as any other family member. At the same time, what may be economical, cultural and normal to us, is a violation of housing codes here. As any other productive section of the community, why not have a mechanism to educate our newest members so we can have a better community?

Currently, NPCCR and I are discussing the creation of such commission for introduction. Any political candidate interested in solving this issue and any other issue related to our growing communities should be working and supporting us in developing and implementing a commission of Community Integration to address issues such as overcrowding and illegal housing.

“Now, in its entirety (so I can’t be accused of being hypocritical by pulling things out of context) is an article from the Courier-News, December 1, 2000.”

You are right on context here Emory, but not as much as you want to be. The claim of hypocrisy (I have not used this word to describe your positions) may be because Republican candidates and some members of the NPCCR keep using issues of illegal housing irresponsibly. The issue is being use to score political points against the administration. This is fine, but there are implications which are not being taken into consideration.

For instance, a look at the DPW’s list of property maintenance violations in North Plainfield for 2007 gave a clear picture of these implications. In North Plainfield, 32% of the population is Hispanic. One would assume or think that the DPW’s list of property maintenance would reflect this; none of that. There are 86 entries under the categories of overcrowding, illegal renting, etc. Of those 86 instances where illegal housing has been allegedly detected, 75.5% are in homes belonging to Hispanics. This is counting 9 entries which had no records.

Based on the numbers, this issue affects Hispanics more than any other ethnicity or race in North Plainfield. In other words, it could be argued that the extremist political views behind illegal housing and how they are being used is because they may be related to this fact or because politicians don’t have a clue of the underpinnings of this issue. I prefer the latter, but it is common knowledge that it is a mixture of both.

Let’s be clear, no one supports illegal housing and everyone knows it happens here and everywhere regardless of who is running City Hall.

Yes, it is understandable that some politicians and residents are concerned with this issue.

But here, in this particular municipality, this non-issue is being used preposterously. It’s agitation. Why? Because, as you asserted in your post, the administration is currently addressing issues of illegal housing, apparently in an appropriate manner while current candidates, to their advantage, are advocating tougher insensitive measures which could lead to a debacle similar to that which took place in Bound Brook.

Let’s be responsible. If any candidate is going to address this issue, they should do it in good faith, expressing good intentions to resolve any issue of illegal housing. Education, training, awareness, and assistance are the most effective ways to resolve this issue. Threatening jail time, tougher penalties and other such irresponsible measures is practically acknowledging a specific disdain for those affected and not a good faith intention to resolve the issue.

Part of the Minority Commission was to address such issues through awareness, training, assistance and education. Please, be responsible and sensitive when addressing this and any other issue. The implications merit it.

The first two comments on the Bound Brook post crystallize two of the perspectives on this issue; I take that as a good sign that we’re making progress toward consensus as a prelude to effective action.

Bigotry is bigotry.

There are bigots in this community, as there are in any other. However, it’s just as unacceptable for people to claim that all Hispanics are lawbreakers as it is for people to claim that all Republicans are anti-immigrant.

So I’m publicly asking Mr. Ortega (again) to stop making those anti-Republican assertions.

It’s perfectly fine to say, “Robert Gatto and Frank D’Amore have not yet made clear public statements about their views of how they plan to enforce zoning laws while protecting immigrants from harassment.” Because that’s true.

It’s not acceptable to say “Because Robert Gatto and Frank D’Amore are Republicans, and haven’t yet made public statements or taken public action about zoning enforcement and immigration, and some national Republican leaders are bigots, if elected Gatto and D’Amore will use zoning laws to persecute local immigrants.”

By all means, call them out on their silence; that’s exactly what we’re doing with Allen, Stabile, Hitchcock, Righetti, Singleterry, Forbes, and Giordano.

But don’t attribute views or make claims about performance without evidence.

Bound Brook v. North Plainfield.

Shortly after moving to NP in Feb. 2002, I was looking for paid work and interviewed at a pottery shop owned by a Hispanic woman in Bound Brook. She gave me an earful about the high levels of hostility toward Latinos in Bound Brook. Subsequently, from time to time I’d read Bound Brook officials’ and residents’ racist public statements and racist comments in letters to the Courier-News.

Therefore, I question Mr. Ortega’s claim that “prior to the decree, Bound Brook was welcoming for the most part.” (the Consent Decree was signed in 2004)

However, I haven’t seen that dynamic at play in North Plainfield. There may not be a whole lot of interaction between the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking communities.

But the predominant feeling that gulf seems to evoke in people is a sort of wistfulness or nostalgia for the days when the downtown was a center for the entire community, not just a portion of the community, and a desire to recreate that kind of cohesiveness again by expanding the community offerings to re-welcome the English-speakers back downtown and help Spanish-speakers learn English to be able to communicate better with their neighbors. I’m not intentionally excluding other immigrant groups here - just sticking to Spanish because it’s the most-predominant other language spoken locally.

To the extent that there’s been any “those people” type of talk, it’s all been directed toward extortionist absentee landlords profitting handsomely off both the backs of the tenants and the blind-eyes of the Borough Code Enforcement Officer Jim Rodino.

Record-keeping and oversight.

Fair enforcement will require strong Borough outreach to the whole community and strong citizen oversight of the Borough government from the whole community.

That’s why the Bound Brook Consent Decree makes such a big deal out of record-keeping, and that’s why North Plainfield’s shoddy record-keeping and withholding of records is such a disgraceful shame that has prolonged the controversy far longer than necessary.

As someone posted in a comment recently, if there’s really no problem at all, and the records show no problem at all, then the Borough and School District officials should be tripping over each other to provide those records to the public and prove that their non-action is entirely justified by a non-problem.

The fact that they don’t eagerly and voluntarily spit up some records for public scrutiny is a sign that there’s a sweeping-under-the-rug strategy going on here, as for so many other local issues.

Mr. Ortega’s Minority Commission proposal from a few years ago was one possible mechanism for providing civil rights protections within the law-enforcement context, although Maria Pellum of Plainfield and others opposed the idea, primarily in the belief that membership on such a commission would become yet another political plum, to be handed out by entrenched politicians without actually better representing immigrants.

A Minority Commission is not the only way to create citizen oversight that includes immigrant participation. The Latino Coalition members are a resource. The Property Maintenance Committee is a resource, albeit a disempowered one.

IF there were strong and responsive local leadership, lots of these resources could be coordinated to get the job done.

But it all depends on the leadership, utterly lacking at the moment, and the data.

I can’t emphasize this enough - we need the data to get to the bottom of this, and we need all the stakeholders sitting around the same table looking at the same data.

We have bits and pieces of information.

We have a list of 88 overcrowding complaints verified after investigations, but not abated, between January and July 2007. The source was the DPW, but the document was unsigned, so no one in the DPW claimed personal responsibility for its contents.

And Jack Fowler, a member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, stated during the videotaped February 2008 Town Meeting that he personally examined Municipal Court records for 2006 and 2007 to see what happened to those cases once they reached court, and found that 70% were dismissed by Mr. Rodino withdrawing the complaints, without explanation, before the Municipal Judge Raymond P. DeMarco could make rulings or impose penalties.

To my knowledge, Jack didn’t make photocopies of every single page of those, nor has the Judge gone on record with his views of the situation. I have heard that prior Code Enforcement Officers were explicitly instructed by prior Municipal Judges to leave the rulings to the Court and not get involved in withdrawing some complaints and prosecuting others, precisely because such interference in the judicial system muddies the waters and creates conditions conducive to discriminatory enforcement claims.

Here’s where we need to go next.

• Get those Court photocopies and DPW reports, going back as many years as possible.
• Convene a community meeting of law enforcement and DPW officials, agitated citizens living next-door to rooming houses, immigrant advocates and Borough officials.
• Spread all those reports all over the table, talk about them, and work out a plan to enforce the laws while protecting the immigrants.

By the way, Mr. Ortega and I are currently collaborating on a Property Maintenance Code brochure, to be published in English and Spanish, so all residents will have a handy reference to know what the local laws require as far as property maintenance and housing density. To my knowledge, no such bilingual informational brochure currently exists, because the Borough either hasn’t bothered to make one, or if they’ve made one, they haven’t bothered to distribute the information.

The English draft text is posted here: Draft Property Maintenance Brochure

This is total conjecture, but even though they’ve never said as much publicly, maybe Borough officials refuse to enforce zoning and property maintenance codes out of a fear that what happened in Bound Brook will happen here. (Fear is a crappy basis for decision-making.)

For that explanation to be plausible, the public would need to know a bunch of things we currently don’t know:

• How does the current community level of acceptance and welcoming of immigrants in North Plainfield compare to the community level of acceptance and welcoming of immigrants in Bound Brook in the early- to mid-1990s?
• How do the provisions of the current zoning and property maintenance codes in North Plainfield compare to the provisions in effect in Bound Brook when the Department of Justice began its investigations?
• What were the factual particulars of the Bound Brook situation prior to the consent decree, and are they factually parallel to the situation in North Plainfield today?
• What are the details of the Consent Decree entered in the Bound Brook case?
• Have those provisions resolved the discrimination problems in Bound Brook?
• Do North Plainfield’s codes already include the safeguards against discrimination included in the Consent Decree?
• Do North Plainfield’s zoning and property maintenance codes need a thorough overall, to be in compliance with the Fair Housing Act as currently interpreted, so as to balance the community’s interest in promoting the health, safety and welfare of all residents, with the immigrant community’s interest in not being discriminated against?

To get started, here’s a link to the Department of Justice Complaint against Bound Brook, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act.

And here’s a link to the Consent Decree.

One thing is for sure: fair enforcement requires thorough recordkeeping and good record storage and retrieval systems by officials and ready public access to those records.

For those who don’t know him, Mike Castro is a substitute teacher at North Plainfield High School.

Subs earn about $13,000 per year.

For the past several years, Mike has gone above and beyond the call of duty, tutoring teenage kids new to the English language during the kids’ free periods, lunch periods and afterschool in the high school library. He’s even used his own money and credit cards to buy books, creating a library of appropriate reading level books for ESL kids just finding their literary feet in English.

Over the past few months, dozens of teachers and community members have written letters of support to the Board of Education, urging the Board and Schools Superintendent Marilyn Birnbaum (whose salary was over $190,000 in 2006 and set to top $200,000 last year) to find money in the budget basically to pay him for the classroom sub/ESL tutor work he’s already doing.

To no avail.

Mike, who’s been paying his rent with credit cards for the past several months, while continuing his tutoring work and applying for full-time teaching jobs elsewhere, found an eviction notice stapled to his door today.

Now, maybe it’s foolish household economics for a person to dedicate huge amounts of time to provide uncompensated community services like ESL tutoring to teens trying to assimilate into American culture.

On the other hand, I can relate. I do what I do without pay - occasionally getting donations to help reimburse me the money I spend on OPRA requests, paper, copying costs and the like. But if my husband didn’t make enough to support our family, then I wouldn’t be able to do the blog-writing, information-gathering and sharing, community organizing work I do. And I LOVE my work.

As a Cuban-born adoptee of American parents, Mike feels the same pull to continue doing his work to help the immigrant kids. And his foolish generosity is about to land him out on the streets.

So, if you’d like to find out more about Mike’s work, check this background link. Checks to help reimburse him for the debt he’s racked up volunteering in the schools (and maybe keep him from eviction long enough for him to find a full-time teaching job) may be made out to, and sent to: “North Plainfield High School Alumni Association” at 145 Cedar St., North Plainfield, NJ, 07060, with a note in the memo line that the donation is for the “Mike Castro ESL Project.”

Another way to support the program is to write a letter about it to the NP School Board c/o Board President, Linda Bond-Nelson, 33 Mountain Ave.

Gotta go write my check.

Some readers were interested in the evidence that other towns are engaging in immigrant harassment.

Following is an article about Morristown, from the Daily Record:

NOTE CAREFULLY - To my knowledge, no public figures of any party or non-party have ever advocated that North Plainfield participate in the 287G program, which would deputize local police departments to enforce federal immigration laws.

I am not accepting any comments on this post or any other immigration-related post for the foreseeable future. The dead horse of that particular debate has been beaten soundly, and the consensus from all sides appears to be: treat others the way you would like to be treated. We’ll muddle on from that starting point. Readers who object to this moratorium on immigration debate, particularly readers who have not posted previously on the subject, may write to me at communityrights@gmail.com

Article Excerpt:

Morris sheriff: Stat shows jail not needed for illegals

One of 55 aliens arrested in Morristown in ‘08 unlawful

BY MINHAJ HASSAN
DAILY RECORD
Saturday, March 1, 2008

MORRISTOWN — Town police have arrested and jailed 55 aliens since the first of the year, but only one turned out be in the country illegally.

Morris County Jail Warden Frank Corrente confirmed these figures late this week.

The statistic comes to light in the wake of county Sheriff Ed Rochford’s report to the freeholders recommending that Morris County not provide its jail for detaining illegal immigrants arrested by Morristown local police.

Morristown Mayor Don Cresitello had sought the freeholders’ support for his plan to deputize some town officers as immigration agents under a federal immigration program known as 287G.

Providing local jail space for those arrested under the program was a condition of federal approval.

Rochford’s report said accommodating such prisoners or detainees would cost the county $1.5 million.

The freeholder’s tacit acceptance of the report effectively blunts Cresitello’s drive to implement 287 G in the town…