Grassroots Groundswell

By Katherine Watt

I wanted to write up a kind of goodbye message, gathering together the main points of what I’ve learned into a few pithy sentences before I move into the background as blog editor. It hasn’t been coming together in such a tidy package. So here it is, in an untidy package.

Leadership v. Dictatorship

A leader asks you to question everything and trust yourself to find answers. A dictator asks you to question nothing and just trust the dictator.

• Question everything.
• Trust yourselves.

Three main obsevations I’ve made over the past year or so.

The “System” is broken.

The People are not.

The People can fix the System, but probably only by starting over from scratch with a new set of contracts between the governed and the governing.

By the “System,” I mean the local councils, boards and commissions, the ordinances and the local government staff who implement those ordinances. I mean the county freeholders, boards and commissions, and the county staff who implement the county programs. I mean the state legislature, and the state courts, and the federal Congress and federal courts, all of whom pre-empt the local authority of ordinary citizens to make decisions on behalf of the local communities in which they live.

Those ordinary citizens are who I mean by “the People.”

I disagree with Emory Layne that the root of the North Plainfield problem is the specific people who have been in charge in North Plainfield for more than a decade. They may be incompetent morons, inept at wielding the limited tools they’ve got for local self-governance, and more interested in cementing personal friendships than governing openly and wisely in the interests of the whole community.

But the tools themselves were designed by and for a world no one lives in anymore, if we ever did - the world of infinite natural “resources” and infinite economic “growth” obtainable by resource extraction, development, utilization, exploitation, whatever you want to call it.

The only thing I hold the local politicians responsible for is not fighting back. Not having the sense to see that the tools don’t work, and not having the courage and the ingenuity to speak openly about the problems and start trying to design and build better tools.

How this all got started - Machines and Gardens

I started blogging for the Courier-News in March 2007. I did a post about Villa Maria. Villa Maria came up at the Planning Board in early May 2007, and in late May, I presented a proposal for alternative, community-supported uses of the parcel, to the Borough Council.

To be clear: Villa Maria is not the only local issue. It just happens to be one place where all the local issues converge and crystallize - the lack of local authority; ecology and planning; history; public accountability; population density; property taxes; litigiousness; affordable housing, health care, senior housing; public education, and so on.

I didn’t know, early, how very rigged the process was.

The tip-off was David Branan, Planning Board (and School Board) member, who wrote a blog comment clarifying that the Planning Board’s role in public decision-making, like the School Board’s, was and is a mere rubber-stamping formality, by statute, and that the crucial decisions are made earlier and elsewhere, by others. Land use rules were and are made by the state legislature far off in Trenton, and court decisions regularly upheld and uphold the primacy of private property rights over public community rights.

Many people misunderstand the roles and limitations placed by New Jersey state laws on various municipal governing and advisory bodies. I have found this quite common with my experience on the Board of Education and see it also holds true with respect to the role of a local town planning board. Unfortunately, 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. Unlike supreme courts, 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 which is the law establishing the existence of Planning Boards in the state of New Jersey as well as the rules govening their role. You can also find valuable information at the New Jersey Planning Officials website http://njpo.org.

I took him at his word. I looked it up. He was right.

And that was wrong.

Which launched a year of tinkering with the machinery of our so-called American “democracy,” pushing lots of buttons and pulling lots of levers, just to see what would happen, to see if the gears still move, if the machine still works, and if ordinary people are able to operate it effectively to identify and achieve common public goals.

I tapped on the microphones to see if they’re turned on, or connected to anything.

They’re not.

I sent letters to so-called decision-makers to see if they’d respond meaningfully to raised concerns and facts.

They didn’t.

The more buttons I pushed and levers I pulled, the more the machine clanked and groaned.

The gears don’t move very well. And ordinary people are not able to operate it effectively.

So I looked around for more information, and found the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a group of people - revolutionaries - who have designed an entire organizing strategy around their experiences and observations of these same undemocratic phenomena.

And that gets to the gardening metaphor, because with Antoinette, Mark and the rest of NPCCR, we’ve been breaking the ground to loosen the clods to prepare the soil, to plant a few seeds, water them, weed them, tend them, for something different: a living democracy to replace the rusted-out, broken down democratic machinery that’s not working for the People anymore.

Eggshells: Break them

In recent weeks, it’s become clear to me that Barbara Habeeb has less power as a Council member than she did as an ordinary citizen, which is an extremely important piece of information that we could not have learned without her appointment.

Barbara is only one step up from the voter level, and already it’s arguable that she was put on the Council to “shut her up.” It may have been a shrewd decision, because before her appointment, she was a bold, vocal and articulate advocate for things like open space, historic preservation and community rights.

Now, she’s walking on “eggshells,” afraid to speak up for fear of drawing a lawsuit against the Borough or jeopardizing her election chances in November. She’s feeling around to find the sides of the box to see how far she can go, and I wish her well and will support her with research and writing and whatever else she needs. But it’s a box nonetheless, and Barbara, like every other living creature, was not made to live in a cage. Nonetheless, just after Barbara’s appointment, Cheryl Reardon, representative of Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions and founder of Concerned Pilesgrove Residents, warned:

Barbara now has to be careful as a Council member to not ever state that she is AGAINST this proposed 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.

That’s a preemptive gag order, imposed on free American citizens, by land developers, via the state judiciary. That’s a marker that the informed consent of the governed is a thing of the past, and the abdication of human freedom is a prerequisite for holding public office.

That’s the model of local self-governance we’re operating under: that elected officials have no judicially-recognized right to free speech, no recognized right to clearly and unequivocally state, on the record, what they believe is and is not in the best interests of the townspeople, on controversial issues of broad public concern and long-term local importance, and certainly no recognized right to implement those visions of community wellbeing that they’re not allowed to openly state to begin with.

And it’s not an accident.

Real flesh and blood lawyers, lawmakers and judges established that model, piece by People-paralyzing piece.

This is part of the System. Coopting the boldest and most vocal public advocates and neutering their power. Judicially quashing “prejudice” against builders, but not quashing prejudice against local communities interested in maintaining or improving their quality of life.

And each person can accept it, and go down mute, or go down swinging, saying: “To hell with that. God gave me a voice and I’m gonna use it.”

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. - Utah Phillips

Turning Points, Choices and Risks

We can have a revolution, or we can stand by and watch a further consolidation of corporate-state dictatorship. Like an assault victim, we can fight back, or we can lie there and take it silently and wait until it’s over.

But it’s never over.

And not fighting back has enormous consequences, both for the lifelong dignity of crime victims, who often hold themselves responsible for the abuse they’ve endured and lose the ability to call a spade a spade, and for the perpetrators of the violence, who get a free pass to escape accountability both public and private, and go on to terrorize the next victims, the next communities.

The biggest mistake anyone can make - whether governed or governing - is to think that the costs of silence are less than the costs of speaking up, that the costs of acquiescence are lower than the costs of struggle. Submissive silence has its own consequences, and submissive silence doesn’t protect you from your share of responsibility for those consequences.

Delay is not a win

Delays may keep the trees up at Villa Maria for awhile, and they may gain North Plainfielders some time to put together a workable purchase and preservation plan. But they may also end up as simply a grinding down tactic used by the builders to wear down local resistance.

The builders are few and focused.

We are many and often disorganized.

The builders have ample funding and the prospect of huge profits if they get to build.

We have little money, high taxes and the prospects of less money and higher taxes, whether they build or not, particularly under threat of lawsuits.

They can afford to wait us out.

We can’t afford to let them.

Sportsmanship

I had an opportunity recently to hear Mabel Hansen, matriarch of the local Dems and mentor to Mayor Janice Allen, and her family, talk about “sportsmanship” to the third and fourth-graders at West End Elementary School.

It struck me, at long last, that this is probably the notion that fills up all the spaces in the minds of the status-quo defenders among Allen’s administration. They don’t think it’s “sportsmanlike” to criticize. They don’t think it’s fair play to demand accountability for fumbles and poor judgment.

Here’s another way to look at that, within the Villa Maria controversy:

It’s not good sportsmanship to gag and bind and break the kneecaps of the opposing team before the game, as the builders have done to communities through the preemptive land use statutes.

It’s not good sportsmanship to walk off the field before the game, as the Borough Council and Planning Board have done.

Most importantly, self-government is not a game.

It can be fun, but it’s a very serious, very difficult, time-consuming, labor intense process, and the stakes are higher than backslapping and high-fiving at the end of the game, or even trophies at the end of the season.

The stakes are the lives and wellbeing of the people who live in North Plainfield - a gathering of souls that does not include Robert McNerney.

What is a win?

It’s a little mixed up. We’re kind of in a win-win situation, and we’re kind of in a lose-lose, damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation.

If the Borough fights hard against Villa Maria destruction, the builder will probably file lawsuits that will be costly for the Borough, and the builder will probably win those lawsuits, because builders almost always do. If the Borough doesn’t fight the new development, then all the bad, expensive stuff related to the development: flooding, traffic, school overcrowding, etc. will fall to the citizens anyway.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.

Rock and the hard place.

Lose-lose.

But…

If a significant proportion of the Borough’s residents get extremely active and involved and start pushing buttons and pulling levers all over town, all over the county, all over the state, there’s a chance, a tiny chance, that a few of those gears will actually engage and it will turn out that traditional democratic mechanisms are functional when well-maintained and regularly used. You might get what you want - local control, smart local decision-making - by using the regular channels.

And…

If a significant proportion of the Borough resident’s do all those things, and are thwarted at every turn (as we have been so far), then it will become increasingly, blindingly clear to many more people that the system is broke, it’s time, and they’re ready to create something new, something that fits the current realities and meets current and future needs.

My working hypothesis is that that last scenario is the most likely.

But being wrong would be as good as being right.

Win-win.

Anarchy

Many people have apparently been convinced over the last year or so that I’m an anarchist, interested in nothing other than tearing down the existing structures so there’s nothing.

Not true, in a couple of ways.

The enemy dictates the choice of weapons, and if the enemy here is a corporate-state structure that completely disempowers people and communities trying to step up and govern themselves using the tools and trappings of “democracy” to petition the government for the redress of wrongs and secure the public health, safety and welfare, then the corporate-state is driving the people toward anarchy, not the other way around.

More importantly, there’s never nothing.

There’s always change.

The question is, who’s leading the change, and in which direction? The dominant form of change is now being led by corporations, in the direction of greater consolidation of corporate power, by continuing a centuries-long process of withholding and/or stripping that power from ordinary people.

One of the most pithy summaries of rights that I’ve ever heard is: “My right to swing my arm ends at your nose.”

But it implies a few other questions.

Whose noses matter to the courts and the police?

Whose noses don’t?

The builders’ noses matter.

North Plainfielders’ noses don’t.

But with enough effort and enough organization, here and in other communities, people may be able to reclaim our inherent rights, lead the change, and lead it toward true local self-governance.

Resistance and Organization

Out in TV Nation under darkening skies/the resistance is just waiting to be organized. - Ani DiFranco

My provisional conclusion?

Ani DiFranco is right. Out in TV Nation under darkening skies, the resistance is just waiting to be organized, and more importantly, it’s organizing itself. North Plainfield is proof positive.

But it doesn’t go in a straight easy line.

Kris Kristofferson wrote it and Janis Joplin sang it:

“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

John Mayer’s carrying it forward:

Even if your hands are shaking,
And your faith is broken.
Even as the eyes are closin’,
Do it with a heart wide open.

Say what you need to say…

A second Meet the Candidatesʼ Night will be held at the August NPCCR meeting on August 7th at 7 p.m. at Vermeule Community Center. All candidates must be present to be recognized. No written statements will be accepted.

By Richard Grossman

Editor’s Note: Mr. Grossman cofounded POCLAD (Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy) and is currently legal historian at CELDF (Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund). He and Ben Price of CELDF presented a Democracy School in Plainfield in Summer 2007, attended by North Plainfielders Antoinette Rinehart, Thalia Saloukas, Gary Lewis, Laly and Alex Kuga, Councilwoman Mary Forbes and several other people from other communities.

Following that meeting, members of NPCCR finished drafting the Self-Governance Ordinance which was circulated for petition signatures last fall and then rejected by the Courts - not by the People of North Plainfield, who never got an opportunity to decide for themselves.

Mr. Grossman has been following local democracy developments in North Plainfield ever since.

My two cents on a “community impact study:”

The essence of such an undertaking is its definitions, its assumptions, its framing, its purpose.

This is because there’s nothing built-in to “impact study” laws or traditions that is about DEMOCRATIC ACTION, about people building upon data to declare YES to what they want, NO to what they don’t want.

Absent intentional organizing and pressures, such studies are about “data.” And such studies are about “due process” only insofar as community residents are given opportunities to inject their feelings and emotions, to testify, to be heard.

Many communities have learned the hard way - after the fact - that unless they control the framing, the definings, the assumptions, - and the writing of the text - the final products rise up to bite them in the
rear, to make their tasks more difficult.

And those in charge are able to truthfully declare: We heard you. You testified for hours. We listened
to your technical experts. Thank you so much for participating in this exercise in democracy. Now, let us move on.

I don’t recall that your Planning Board is friendly to your Villa Maria aspirations. Maybe they would be more open than the Borough Council. But no matter what government body is in charge, it’s never too early to think about how you will want to USE this product, and not allow yourselves to be used.

It’s also never to early to acknowledge to yourselves that for the process and product to be useful to YOUR GOALS, YOUR PEOPLE need to structure it - to be on top of things at every step and stage - so that it is not simply about “data” and “process.”

If your people are not exerting pressures daily, exploiting teachable moments, etc., public officials, the corporate developer and the experts will snatch it from your group’s hands, beyond the community’s reach.

The essence of “environmental impact laws” - and accompanying hearing processes - is technical experts identifying and assessing potential “problems.”

And then the process becomes: WHAT MUST BE DONE TO MAKE THESE PROBLEMS LESS BAD?

In other words, it’s all about “ameliorating” “side effects” of a project that everyone assumes will be constructed, and that everyone assumes the corporate developer has a RIGHT to construct.

What it’s NOT about is the whole community coming together to assess the “wisdom” of some corporate developer’s idea, and make a decision about what should or should not be done at a particular site.

A generation ago, the THEORY (or perhaps more accurately, some people’s hopes) of environmental impact processes, was that they were about a community choosing among alternative concepts/plans/approaches. It was thought that if a community had the “data” about various ways of doing things for a range of proposals on the table, people could then democratically choose what they wanted.

This process quickly became bastardized to: Well, let’s congratulate ourselves (including the developers
who had to pay for much of the data-gathering). We identified the negative side effects. And then, as a community, we agreed to make those side effects less bad.

In the end, an impact study is not about WHO DECIDES (in Ben’s famous phrase) what project should be under consideration, or whether identified “side effects” are “fixable” and hence “acceptable.”

A community impact study is usually centered around helping the developer ram his proposal into a community.

Without community uprising, the impact process comes down to a duel over conflicting data, not struggle for self-governance.

So beware.

One thing your group could do is to force the framing of this “impact study” to be about the Villa Maria SITE - about the various options of what COULD be done there (as you all have been shouting about from the
beginning), as opposed to helping the corporate developer identify potential problems with HIS plan and empower the developer to bring in his experts promising that these problems can mostly be rendered “acceptable.”

Such an approach would be less of an “impact” study, more of a “So what do We the People want” process.

Rest assured that this is not what politicians, technical experts for hire, and judges have in mind with regard to “impact study.”

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.

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.]

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.

“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.

by Councilwoman Barbara Habeeb

This week, I called and spoke to a woman named Courtney Wald-Wittkop; she is in charge of the  Somerset County land acquisition programs for the  NJ Department of Environmental Protection Green Acres projects and funding.

I asked her about the money that’s available. Basically, she told me I need to first find out if that land will be available to North Plainfield to purchase.

She suggested talking with Borough Administrator David Hollod, Borough Engineer Daniel Swayze and Borough Attorney Eric Bernstein to find out if they can approach the landowner, Robert McNerney, to see if he would be willing to sell us the land.

We DO have a right to take the property through eminent domain (with the support of the townspeople) and Green Acres WILL fund eminent domain property. It’s a long legal process though.

If the land is accessible, we’d need to find out if the town is willing to put up a temporary bond, until we get the money back from Green Acres. The process takes up to a year to get the funds approved.

If we work to get an open space tax on the ballot in November and work on an Open Space Recreation Plan, they will consider us for the 50% matching grant. As long as they see we are working on it, they will do this.

She said we would have a good chance to receive funding because of our dense population.

Ms. Wald-Wittkop is willing to come and talk with us about what we need to do IF we know we can get that property.

If you don’t write it, they won’t.

Citizen-journalists are needed for the following scheduled Borough Council and School Board meetings for the rest of 2008, listed below.

Sign up for one (1) date, attend the meeting, take some notes, write a couple paragraphs to let blog readers know what you learned.

That’s it.

No big whoop.

This list will also be posted under the “Volunteer” page, above, and updated as new citizen journalists sign up.

Borough Council - All meetings start at 7:30 p.m. at Vermeule Community Center. Most are held on Mondays, except for the October 14 meeting (Tuesday).

• June 23 - Morgan Shevett
• July 14 -
• July 28 -
• August 11 -
• September 8 -
• September 22 -
• October 14 -
• October 27 -
• November 10 -
• November 24 -
• December 8 -
• December 22 -

School Board meetings - All meetings happen on Wednesdays, and start at 7:30 p.m. at the School Board building, 33 Mountain Ave.

• July 23 -
• September 3 -
• September 17 -
• October 2 -
• October 17 -
• November 19 -
• December 3 -
• December 17 -

“Nothing has ever changed from bad to good in this country without someone first saying ‘This is bad.’ ” - Keith Olbermann