A Focus on the Positive

by Heather Jones DeGeorge

Since this blog is heavily devoted to navigating the obstacles that face our community, it can tend to feel negative.  After all, problems are not pleasant.

There are plenty of initiatives I would love to take on in an effort to make things better that I am stretched too thin to do.  I’m sure many of you feel that pain.  But the one thing I can do is write… and to that end, I’ve started a new blog that will highlight the positives of North Plainfield.

It’s not that I feel the issues discussed here aren’t important or that they shouldn’t be addressed–quite the opposite (which is why I started a separate blog).  But I feel like the only media dedicated to our community is all negative… always about the problems.  The newspapers, the blogs, the message boards, the general populus and their constant association of North Plainfield to Plainfield and their crime, etc.  It’s really frustrating.

How do we attract positive people to a community if we can’t market and celebrate the things that make us WANT to be here?  I mean, we’re HERE, right?  I realize some people are not financially able to leave right now–but many of the people frequenting this blog have been here for a number of years.  There’s clearly something keeping you in town.

This blog has a different focus and I don’t feel it’s right to detract from it–because it’s important and significant in it’s own right.

Hopefully, the other blog will become a marketing tool for local real estate agents who are less familiar with our community and seeking the positives to focus on.  Frankly, I meet people who have lived in town any number of years who had no idea some of the good things in town even exist (self included, and I’ve been here for 12 years).  So it can be a great resource for current residents, too.

I hope that some of you will contribute to that blog as well–and share comments or write short articles about what you love about the Borough… and help balance the bad with the good.  By no means am I aware of or knowledgeable about all of it.  But I will be kicking it off best I can.  You can see the new forum at:

http://positivelynp.blogspot.com/

You can submit your comments to add info to an existing article or you can e-mail a short article to positivelynp@yahoo.com

 

Annual Clean Up of Parkview Ave

The North Plainfield Shade Tree Advisory Board will conduct our annual clean up of Parkview Ave,. between Harrington Ave. & Clinton Ave. on Saturday, November 7, starting at 9:00 A.M. Anyone wishing to join us is welcome, just show up and sign in.

For more information, please contract Frank D’Amore at frankdsr@comcast.net

Candidates for North Plainfield – NJ.com

Experience vs. fresh ideas in North Plainfield council race

By Stephen Stirling/For The Star-Ledger

October 25, 2009, 6:05AM

Jim McGarryNORTH PLAINFIELD — A North Plainfield Republican is making a renewed bid for a borough council slot he held nearly a decade ago.

Jim McGarry will face-off against Democratic incumbent Everett Merrill for the sole open position on the North Plainfield council in the Nov. 3 election. Though McGarry has more council experience, having served from 1995 to 2000, Merrill, who was appointed to the post in January, says he brings fresh ideas and will work to continue what he says has been a progressive Democratic administration.

“There’s a lot of good things happening in North Plainfield,” Merrill said. “I feel very strongly about how the mayor and how our administration have guided the borough. Although we’re in a tough economic climate, these are very exciting times and because of the work we’ve done I’m very optimistic about our future.”

McGarry contends just the opposite.

“My boss has an expression that I’m very fond of: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging,” he said. “Well one party rule in this community over the last 12 going on 13 years has left us in a hole, so that’s just what we need to do.”

McGarry blasted the Democratic administration, saying they have increased spending annually, which he said is short-sighted in a troubled economy.

“It’s remarkable to me that our community leadership continues every year to run up the debt, run up the spending,” McGarry said. “It has to stop.”

Everett MerrillBut Merrill said in his time on the council he has worked to help insulate North Plainfield from the economic challenges plaguing the state.

“We have an aggressive tax collection in town at 97 percent. Our debt reduced by 7 percent in 2008. Our town is in very good fiscal shape,” he said. “This year the average taxpayer is going to receive a $300 tax reduction. So the argument that we’re overspending, I don’t agree with at all.”

Merrill said, if re-elected, he hopes to bolster relationships with not only surrounding communities, but also increase cooperation with the North Plainfield Board of Election so that the two governing bodies can work together to insure the fiscal stability of the borough.

“Sometimes we’re so immersed in individual issues that we forget that we can serve a greater value working together,” he said. “We’re having our our second joint meeting with the Board of Education on [Oct. 26]. I think that’s very important because we can not only broaden that relationship but get a feel for where the largest amount of tax dollars are going.”

McGarry, meanwhile, said it is integral for the borough council to take a proactive role in the coming years to not only attract new businesses to the area but work with existing businesses who may be struggling.

“Look at the closing of Pathmark. Losing that store is a problem,” McGarry said. “I was surprised to learn there wasn’t an effort to reach out to the ownership. You have to be willing to listen and be proactive. If there’s an opportunity for the town to do something, we need to take it.”

© 2009 NJ.com. All rights reserved.

Joint Meeting of Borough Council, Board of Adjustment, Planning Board: Crystal Ridge – Possible Dropping Of Age Restriction

The meeting will be held Monday, October 26th at North Plainfield Community Center, 614 Greenbrook Road at 7:30pm.

The attorneys, for the property owners of the Crystal Ridge development, have approached the borough to eliminate the age restriction. The impact on the borough, with respect to education costs, should concern all North Plainfield residents. It is important to note that a similar age restricted development has been proposed for the ‘Villa Maria’ property, now referred to as Watchung Hills. What follows the Crystal Ridge ruling could set precedent with regard to Watchung Hills and have significant impact on North Plainfield’s municipal and education expenses.  The Crystal Ridge zoning change was intended to be on the agenda for tomorrow night’s joint meeting of Council, Board Of Adjustment, Planning Board. According to Jim McGarry’s letter (below), the zoning change was removed from the agenda despite his objections. Mr. McGarry was kind enough to allow us to post his letter and he urges all residents to attend Monday night’s meeting at Vermeule Community Center, 7:30pm.

Jim McGarry is the Republican Candidate for Borough Council. The posting of Jim’s letter is in the interest of the residents of North Plainfield and not meant to be partisan.

Jim’s Letter:

You will recall that the owners of the Crystal Ridge property have applied to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) to drop the age restrictions on their property.
 
In the first public hearing before the BOA, the attorney for Crystal Ridge stated on the record that he has previously spoken with Mayor Mike Giordano, who indicated that he would favor the application, as long as it included a number of low-income housing units in the development.  I paraphrase the attorney here, but believe a full transcription of the meeting will bear me out.
 
Aside from the legal question of whether the Mayor has tainted the application and our proceedings, I am concerned as to whether a decision in favor of the Crystal Ridge application would become a matter of binding legal precedent, perhaps in favor of the developer of the Villa Maria property?  If so, the impact of the resultant increase in the public school enrollment could be enormous, contrary to Borough Attorney Eric Bernstein’s comments a few months ago.
 
Accordingly, I requested that this matter be included for full discussion during the October 26 Joint Meeting of the Borough Council, Mayor, Board of Education, Planning Board and Board of Adjustment.
 
Today (Friday, October 23rd – ed.), it became obvious that this subject has been pulled from the October 26 agenda, at the last minute, despite my objections.
 
I believe the members of NPCCR and every other concerned resident of North Plainfield should be made aware of these proceedings, attend the meeting on Monday and let our public officials know how they feel about this kind of decision-making.
 
Thanks
 
Jim

Audio: NPCCR October 20 Meeting – Candidates Night

Here’s the audio from last night’s meeting.

Bob Gatto provided an update on the NPCCR Sunshine Law petition. NPCCR contends their version of the petition is significantly different from the one passed by the borough council and wants their version of the ordinance to be voted on by the residents. In order for that to happen, Somerset County needs to rule in favor of NPCCR, in that the petition is significantly different. The ruling was originally intended to take place on October 19th. However the judge postponed the ruling because the municipal court clerk needed to recuse himself, due to his coincidental acquaintance with some of the petitioners.  The judge wants no perception of bias. The new ruling date has yet to be filed.

Following Mr. Gatto’s comments, Republican candidate Jim McGarry introduced himself to audience and spent the next hour taking questions. Incumbant democratic candidate Everett Merrill declined the invitation to participate, on advice from borough attorney Eric Bernstein, given the outstanding Sunshine Law litigation.

Clothing Bin Ordinance – Borough Council Meeting, October 13th 2009

At the BC meeting last night, a new clothing bin ordinance was discussed. The state has issued an allowance for municipalities to regulate the use of clothing bins. It was reported, some clothing collection areas (not necessarily in North Plainfield) are used by organizations other than charities. An example was provided that told of a company shipping the clothes overseas to be shredded for pillow stuffing for a profit. 

The proposed ordinance, discussed last night, included a permit fee and dollar penalty for any ‘unkept’ location. The permit and penalty would only apply to the organization providing the bins, not the property owner.  It was also suggested to set a very high permit fee in order to discourage general clothing bin use, given the tendency for these areas to be abused.

If North Plainfield doesn’t want these areas, the council should just have a ‘no bins allowed’ ordinance. There are plenty of other ways for individuals to donate clothing.  Problem solved.

If the municipality wants to offer this service to reputable charities, the fee should only cover the administrative cost of issuing the permit, including a required standarized background check.  The municipality shouldn’t ‘profit’ from permit fees when the use is for charity. The municipality should also require the signature of the property owner (where the bins are located), so the municipality can have a back up, if the bin organizer can’t be reached when there’s reports of abuse. The property owner should also be held liable for any penalties, in case the organizer fails to pay.  That may make the property owner think twice about allowing a fly-by-night company to put bins on their property. In cases when the organizer wasn’t a respectable charitable organization, it wouldn’t surprise me if the property owner received a kick back. 

The big challenge, again, would be enforcement.

Hal Hirsch, co-editor

H1N1 (Swine Flu) Vaccination Status – Board Of Health Meeting, October 13th 2009

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FLU SHOTS AVAILABLE ON OCTOBER 17TH ARE **NOT** THE SWINE FLU VACCINATION.

John Horensky of Somerset County Health Department and Brian Martin, Coodinator, Office of Emergency Management were at the Board Of Health meeting and provided a status report for the availability of the swine flu vaccination.

The H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine should make it’s way to North Plainfield between the end of October and beginning of November. In addition to getting the vaccine from your private health care provider, vaccinations will be available at local temporary clinics. North Plainfield’s middle school was discussed as a location. A number of logistics are still being worked out. Most likely there will be a reservation system to allow the process to run smoothly and keep crowds and waiting time at a minimum. In addition, there will be tier groups so those at higher risk levels can have priority.   Supply should cover anyone who wants the vaccination.

This just summarizes what was said at the meeting. For the full report, you can listen to the audio. For more information about the virus and vaccination, you can contact Mr. Horensky at the Somerset County Health Department 908-231-7155 or access their website (http://www.co.somerset.nj.us/health/index.htm). For more information about where and when the vaccinations will be available in North Plainfield you can also speak with Councilman Bob Hitchcock, who is North Plainfield’s liason to Mr. Martin at OEM.  You can probably reach Mr. Hitchcock by way of the borough clerk’s office at 908-769-2910.

Flu shots available Sat. 10/17

Mark your calendar,

Saturday, October 17, is the date of the “North Plainfield Health and Safety Day” at the Community Center (the corner of Greenbrook Road & Clinton Avenue–the beige building).

From 8:00 A.M. to 12 noon.   Flu shots will be give from 10:00 A.M. 12 noon. There will be a $5.00 charge for residents and $10.00 for non residents.  There will be no charge for Medicaid Part B recipients. This is *NOT* the swine flu vacine.

Any questions–contact Somerset County Department of Health before October 10, at 908-231-7155

Artificial Turf Health Concerns and the “Precautionary Principle” – submitted by Mark Williams

How many of you are familiar with the “Precautionary Principle”? The primary tenet of the principle is that we have a moral responsibility to take a proactive posture in response to a threat to human health and the environment when it is reasonably perceived that a threat exists despite the lack of scientific proof. Follow link for Precautionary Principle in its entirety: http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.html.

 

Those of us, who are old enough to have lived the experience, remember when medical professionals carried the message that cigarettes were harmless or could actually improve your health. We all now know how horribly misleading the tobacco industry has been for decades about the health effects of their product. History has shown that the harmful effects of exposure to environmental toxins may take years or decades to show up and assigned causality. We knew, even if just anecdotally, that the toxins in tobacco smoke caused cancer and other serious health problems long before the causal link was proven in a lab. Are similar health consequences in store for the users of artificial turf fields?

 

If we take just a moment to consider what we have read so far or researched, for ourselves, on the potential health risk associated with artificial turf, no one has said definitively that there is no health risk associated with the use of artificial turf fields. It has been concluded however that, more research needs to be conducted, current research finding indicate minimal health risk and the establishment of production standards is urged.

 

Two previous blog articles focused on the lead content of Artificial Turf as a safety concern for users of turf fields. According to the New Jersey Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC there is no evidence to suggest that the non-nylon polyethylene fiber content, if used in artificial turf, releases harmful levels of lead. Specifically, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission found that “although small amounts of lead were detected on the surface of some older fields, none of these tested fields released amounts of lead that would be harmful to children.” http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08348.html

 

The CPSC further stated that, although their evaluation found no harmful lead levels in products tested “CPSC staff is asking that voluntary standards be developed for synthetic turf to preclude the use of lead in future products. This action is being taken proactively to address any future production of synthetic turf and to set a standard for any new entrants to the market to follow.” Perhaps they recognize that lead and lead compounds are persistent bio-accumulative toxins and that no amount of preventable lead exposure is acceptable.

 

Another controversial material content of artificial turf is “crumb rubber” which is ground up recycled automobile tires. Crumb rubber is used as in-fill material and according to the NJDHHS is “composed of a variety of synthetic organic chemicals”, some of which can leach from the material into ground water. Chemicals such as Benzothiazole, eye and skin irritant and Butylated hydroxyanisole a known carcinogen.

 

Research conducted by Dr. Junfeng Zhang of UMDNJ’s School of Public Health concluded that several samples of rubber picked up from New York City parks contained elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which were found to be in concentrations above levels considered “sufficiently dangerous to human health to require their removal”. http://sphweb02.umdnj.edu/sphweb/files/dbb/2007/082007.pdf

 

Crumb rubber heat stress association

Synthetic turf fields absorb heat, resulting in surface temperatures that are much higher than the temperatures of the surrounding air. In studies at BYU surface temperatures on artificial turf athletic fields were measured at 117 degrees F compared to a natural surface temperature of 78 degrees F. Similar measurements were also seen at the University of Missouri. At Penn State University artificial turf temperatures were taken on three different occasions from 9 different types of infilled turfs resulting in measured air temperatures of 79, 78, and 85 degrees F compared to a synthetic turf surface temperature of 120, 130 and 146 degrees F. It is typically recommended by the manufacture that hosing down the field with water will effectively and significantly lower the field temperature. True, but surface temperatures at Missouri returned to 120 degrees in 5 min and 164 degrees in 20 min. http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/outdoors/synthetic_turf/crumb-rubber_infilled/fact_sheet.htm

 

The New Jersey Department of Health and Human Services offers other Artificial Turf Health concerns. Please access link below.

http://www.state.nj.us/health/artificialturf/documents/other_concerns.pdf

CDC Issues Artifical Turf Health Advisory – submitted by Mark Williams

Mark will be submitting additional posts on this topic (ed. note)

In response to test results by the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) on artifical turf fields in New Jersey the CDC issued a health advisory on June 18th, 2008. In addtion to the background story on what prompted the testing by NJDHSS and limts/scope of testing, there were recommendations for testing artifical turf and general recommendations on the use of fields with Artifical Turf.

 

This is an official

CDC HEALTH ADVISORY

Distributed via Health Alert Network

Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 16:10 EDT (4:10 PM EDT)

CDCHAN-00275-2008-06-18-ADV-N

Potential Exposure to Lead in Artificial Turf:

Public Health Issues, Actions, and Recommendations

 

Public Health Issues

 

In the course of conducting a routine health investigation at a metal facility in Newark, NJ, the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (NJDHSS) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) tested a nearby community athletic field for lead contamination. Samples taken from the field showed high levels of lead in the field dust, but the lead did not come from the scrap metal facility.

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is partnering with its sister-agency, ATSDR, to monitor this situation because of CDC’s expertise in lead poisoning prevention.

 

After determining that the lead source was the artificial turf, NJDHSS began to test other artificial turf fields looking for similar high lead levels in artificial turf fibers. These findings raised concerns about potentially high lead levels in artificial turf used in other locations including fields and playgrounds. NJDHSS tested a limited sample of athletic fields in New Jersey. Any questions regarding the specific fields tested should be directed to NJDHSS.

 

As determined by NJDHSS, limited sampling of additional athletic fields in New Jersey and commercial products indicates that artificial turf made of nylon or nylon/polyethylene blend fibers contains levels of lead that pose a potential public health concern. Tests of artificial turf fields made with only polyethylene fibers showed that these fields contained very low levels of lead.

 

Information provided by NJDHSS to CDC and ATSDR indicates that some of the fields with elevated lead in either dust and/or turf fiber samples were weathered and visibly dusty. Fields that are old, that are used frequently, and that are exposed to the weather break down into dust as the turf fibers are worn or demonstrate progressive signs of weathering, including fibers that are abraded, faded or broken. These factors should be considered when evaluating the potential for harmful lead exposures from a given field.

 

The risk for harmful lead exposure is low from new fields with elevated lead levels in their turf fibers because the turf fibers are still intact and the lead is unlikely to be available for harmful exposures to occur. As the turf ages and weathers, lead is released in dust that could then be ingested or inhaled, and the risk for harmful exposure increases. If exposures do occur, CDC currently does not know how much lead the body will absorb; however, if enough lead is absorbed, it can cause neurological development symptoms (e.g. deficits in IQ). Additional tests are being performed by NJDHSS to help us better understand the absorption of lead from these products.

 

In general, children less than 6 years old are more likely to be affected by lead than adults because of increased contact with lead sources in the environment, including lead contaminated house dust and soil. Children also absorb lead more easily. Children’s developing nervous systems are also more susceptible to the adverse health effects of lead including developmental delay and behavioral problems.

 

It should be emphasized that although turf testing has been limited to the state of New Jersey, no cases of elevated blood lead levels in children have been linked to artificial turf on athletic fields in New Jersey and elsewhere. Concerned parents should talk to their child’s pediatrician about potential and known sources of lead in their children’s environment and whether their children should have a blood lead test. This is a simple blood test that is paid for by most private insurers and by Medicaid.

 

NJDHSS has asked the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to investigate this potential problem and CDC and ATSDR are currently waiting for information from CPSC to help guide future public health recommendations and actions.

 

Interim Public Health Actions Related to Testing Artificial Turf Products and Reducing Potential Exposures to Lead

 

NJDHHS’s testing of artificial turf fields was limited and only sampled turf containing nylon. Since NJDHHS, CDC and ATSDR did not test fields composed of substances other than nylon and nylon/polyethelene blend, we do not know if lead is also a component in other types of artificial turf. Additionally, not necessarily all turf made of nylon contains elevated amounts of lead.

 

CDC has long recommended the elimination of all nonessential uses of lead. Because it is unclear whether all artificial turf contains lead at this time, CDC and ATSDR only recommend testing artificial turf fields that appear worn or weathered.

As a precaution, until further guidance is available from CPSC and until we have more information about the absorption of lead from artificial turf products and its capability of harm, CDC and ATSDR recommend:

 

• Testing turf that has fibers that are abraded, faded or broken, contains visible dust, and that is made from nylon or nylon-blend fibers. Information about testing is provided later in this alert.

• If the dust contains more than 400 ppm lead, do not allow turf access for children under the age of 6 years.

• If access is restricted, care should be taken to ensure that alternative sites contain lead levels less than 400 ppm.

• Not testing turf made from polyethylene-only fibers. This recommendation is based on currently available data.

• Not testing turf made from nylon or nylon blends that is not worn and does not contain visible dust. These fields should be routinely monitored for wear and dust generation.

• Replacing fields as soon as practicable if worn and dusty, as a precautionary measure.

 

CDC recommends testing children’s blood lead levels in accordance with state guidelines. Concerned parents/caregivers should consult their medical providers for further information.

 

General Recommendations on the Use of Fields with Artificial Turf

 

At this time, CDC does not yet understand the potential risks associated with exposure to dust from worn artificial turf. The following precautions can be taken to minimize any potential risk.

 

• Field managers should consider implementing dust-suppression measures. Suggestions for dust-suppression methods can be found at NJDHSS’s website, which is provided in the additional information section.

• Children ages 6 and younger are most susceptible to lead’s harmful health effects. To protect the public, in particular young children, consider posting signs indicating that:

1. After playing on the field, individuals are encouraged to perform aggressive hand and body washing for at least 20 seconds using soap and warm water.

2. Clothes worn on the field should be taken off and turned inside out as soon as possible after using the field to avoid tracking contaminated dust to other places. In vehicles, people can sit on a large towel or blanket if it is not feasible to remove their clothes. These clothes, towels, and blankets should be washed separately and shoes worn on the field should be kept outside of the home.

3. Eating while on the field or turf product is discouraged.

4. Avoid contaminating drinking containers with dust and fibers from the field. When not drinking, close them and keep them in a bag, cooler, or other covered container on the side of the field.