The Mayor Dropped the Ball - -Part Two

Regarding my remarks concerning Council President Burney’s behavior at this past Thursday’s special meeting, I stand by what I wrote about the attempted violation of the Sunshine law. I was frustrated by Council President Burney’s lack of knowledge about how many votes are needed for any resolution to pass, especially after he has spent so many years on the council. The meeting was taped and will be transcribed and I believe it will second my statements about the sequence of events. Be that as it may, I do not feel that it will harm our working together on behalf of the residents of Plainfield.

Here are some additional thoughts as to why I say, “The Mayor Dropped the Ball!”

Later in the evening, at the special meeting of Thursday, September 24, I informed my colleagues and the administration that it was my position that the city-owned property upon which the Monarch was constructed was illegally conveyed by to the developer by the city’s redevelopment agency, the Union County Improvement Association (UCIA). I arrived at this conclusion based on two documents in my possession:

1) Resolution 281-06, adopted on June 21, 2006, that required Mayor Robinson-Briggs to execute an agreement with the UCIA; and

2) Resolution 402-06, adopted on August 23, 2006, amending the original resolution and requiring the Mayor to execute another agreement with the UCIA. The following facts are critical to this discussion:

The Inter-local Service Agreement (ILA) between the City and the UCIA, which was part of Resolution 281-06 that was to be executed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk, was never executed.

Resolution 402-06, which made reference to an ILA dated July 05, 2006, in its first paragraph was flawed because no such properly executed ILA exists;

Resolution 402-06 attempted to amend resolution 281-06 to add the Monarch city-owned site to the sites intended to be controlled by the UCIA, but this amendment, which was required to be executed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk was never executed.

In summary, none of the agreements between the City and the UCIA in its role as the city’s redevelopment agency were ever executed.

The Mayor dropped the ball. This deserves an explanation and a cure before any further action or discussion on a proposed abatement occurs.

It should be noted that I made a request for signed agreements from the administration, but none were presented. I obtained the documents that formed the basis for my conclusion from the office of the City Clerk, who serves as the Custodian of all city records.

Regards, Adrian

The Public Speaks at Town Hall Meeting on Tax Abatement Proposal

Dear Friends,

I want to thank you all (attendance count: 54) for coming out on a humid and gray Thursday evening to share your thoughts on the proposed residential tax abatement ordinance at the public town hall meeting I sponsored. The purpose of this forum, which was attended by residents from all four wards of our city, was to provide you with an opportunity to express your views, pro or con, on the abatement proposed by the Robinson-Briggs administration for the 63 condominiums on East Front Street. Those of you in attendance held some very strong views on this controversial issue; judging from your comments (both spoken and written), it would be safe to say that the vast majority of Plainfielders are united in their opposition to residential tax abatements. I will be forwarding the list of the many questions raised at the forum to the mayor and her staff to give them an opportunity to provide answers to all questions prior to any further action on the proposed abatement. I will also be providing the list of questions to my colleagues so that they will be fully aware of their constituents' concerns. It is important that the city council, as the governing body of Plainfield, hear your feedback on the issues affecting our city, so I am glad that so many of you were able to attend.

In the spirit of transparency and ethical leadership in government, I have posted the video documentation of the meeting on YouTube for the widest dissemination possible.I will also find out when the video can be shown on Plainfield's public access channel on Comcast of Plainfield (PCTV-74) and will let you know the specific air dates. The first segment (of 6 episodes) is posted below, and I have included the links to the others. Additional questions were asked after the tape stopped rolling. Some of these questions were asked of the administration, so I am hopeful that they will have some answers for all of us at the council meeting. There is no reason, in my opinion, to give this proposal a second reading without these and other questions being answered to the full satisfaction of the governing body. I strongly urge you all to come to the Monday, August 17 meeting at the Municipal Court (Watchung Avenue and Fourth Street) at 8:00 pm to voice your opinion on this proposed ordinance.

--What happens if the building goes into foreclosure?
--Shouldn't the deed restrictions outlined in the original agreement prevent the units from being turned into rentals without prior city council approval?
--Can the senior citizens and veterans sections of the building open in September, as promised, even if all the units are not sold?
--I keep hearing that the project cannot be allowed to "fail." What is the definition of failure with regard to this project? Also, how do you define success?
--How many of the units have contracts and when are they supposed to close?
--How many of the units have closed as of today (Thursday, August 13, 2009)?
--Is the word "abatement" really just a substitution of the word "bailout," meaning the developer is seeking help from the city?
--When the seniors move into the new center, how much of the rent we pay for the old senior center will be put back into the city budget?
--Given the stalled projects that this developer has in Rahway and elsewhere, what assurances do we have that he won't abandon the project?
--Can the administration and the city council give an update on the financial "health" of this particular developer, given his other projects and in light of the Connolly bankruptcy?
--Will the city order an independent appraisal of the units to determine their true worth in the current market?
--What can the city do to make the surrounding area more attractive, i.e., controlling the loitering near the Ben Franklin Liquor Store?

In the coming days, I will be posting the impact of the tax abatement on the average homeowner. Finally, I would like to thank the elected officials and the residents who attended the forum, as well as the many volunteers (Dorothy, Carmencita, Will, Carol, Dan, Rebecca) who assisted me in putting it together.




I wanted to post the video as quickly as possible, so the slight problem with the sync (the audio lags) will be corrected within the next day or so.

Episode 2
Episode 3
Episode 4
Episode 5
Episode 6

Again, I thank you all for coming out to this town meeting, and I look forward to the next one. I will let you know the date as soon as it is confirmed.

Regards,

Adrian

P.S. There was an unrelated question about the $10.00 garage sale permit fee charged by the city, and a statement that the city hall library is simply to small for the agenda meetings, and that the meetings go on too long. A few residents complained about the changes to the meeting schedule, favoring a return to the old schedule of 2 agenda sessions and 2 public meetings per month.

Road Repairs Require Ongoing Commitment

During my recent primary campaign to become the local Democratic Party nominee for the 3rd Ward in this upcoming November election, I knocked on hundreds of doors. Dozens of Plainfield residents expressed grave concerns about many issues that need to be addressed by the council and the Robinson-Briggs administration. An issue that came up quite frequently was the condition of our roads and the worsening state of deterioration due to benign neglect.

As one walks around the city, one cannot help but notice the terrible shape of most of the streets and the hazardous conditions that pedestrians and drivers encounter on a daily basis as they try to maneuver around the many bumps and pot holes. This is a situation that cries out for attention and leadership on the part of the Robinson-Briggs administration. The section of roadway on West 8th Street by the Plainfield Public Library is a classic example of what happens when infrastructural needs are neglected.

As president of the council in 2004, I worked with the former administration and council to pass Bond Ordinance 1236, which funded the repaving of 22 city streets between 2004 and 2005. This was the beginning of what was to be an annual resurfacing program. Sadly, this repaving program has been largely ignored for the past three years.

It is crucially important for the administration and council to give priority to fixing the city’s broken streets. Additionally, the city must hold New Jersey American Water responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage caused by the many utility cuts necessitated by the current enhancements to the water lines throughout the city. I encourage the mayor and council to have immediate discussions with New Jersey American Water to ensure that the damage caused to city streets by its ongoing project is corrected to the infra-red patching standards required by city ordinance. I hope that New Jersey American has made all of the appropriate escrow deposits for the many cuts it has made to city streets. This utility company must be held accountable and Plainfield tax payers must be spared the cost of restoration.

The mayor and council must get the road resurfacing program back on track immediately, and must commit to an annual program. Such a commitment should not be made conveniently once every four years event in preparation for an election. It must be a genuine ongoing commitment.

Regards, Adrian

Remembering Al McWilliams

This past week I have been thinking a lot about my friend, the late mayor Albert T. McWilliams. Had he lived, Al would have been 55 years old this month. Although I know that he is in a better place, I continue to have the feeling that he left us much too soon. Al was the friend who paved the way for me, who opened doors when others tried to slam them shut. Al was a man of great integrity, and I believed deeply in his ability, trusted his judgment, and valued his trustworthiness. He supported my desire to become a public servant and helped to shepherd me through the political process; he was a fearless leader who put his political career on the line out of his genuine love for the city.

What would Al say about the state of affairs in Plainfield today? What would he say about the closing of Muhlenberg hospital and the failure of political leaders who stood by and watched as the state pulled the life support and transplanted the organs of this 131-year old patient into another patient, who shared responsibility for its asphyxiation? What would Al say about the city’s stalled economic development? What would he say about the current state of stagnation and about the lost promise? Al, like so many other Plainfield residents, would be appalled, I think. He would be heartbroken to see his vision for a Plainfield that is thriving and respected by all become a city crying out for leadership.

Al was a leader who always got in front; he knew he could not stand aside in a fog pretending to be leading. He, like all good leaders, knew that leadership occurred from the front. A case in point was his vision for a Medical Enterprise Zone along the Park Avenue corridor and his support for the demonstration project that had promised an infusion of over $100 million in state funds to the Muhlenberg campus. The Medical Enterprise Zone was his brainchild, and he was an ardent champion for the Demonstration Project. To the astonishment of many, Al’s dream for a Medical Enterprise Zone was abandoned by his successor and, unfortunately, Plainfield lacked the political muscle at the state level required to deliver the demonstration project. This has resulted in what could now be described as a catastrophic failure, which has led the closing of Muhlenberg.

As mayor, Al McWilliams would have taken the bull by its horns; he would have mobilized the community from the very onset of trouble (not at the eleventh hour), to put pressure on the state and our legislative representatives. He would have met with other influential state legislators to get their buy-in and to seek their sponsorship of legislation in an attempt to save Muhlenberg. Al would have exhausted every avenue; he would have turned over every stone and his actions would have been transparent to the people of Plainfield. He would have apprised the community of his efforts and he never would have left them guessing as to where he stood on this issue. Al would never have buried his head in the sand for two years and pretended not to have known of Muhlenberg’s problems.

Plainfield was the city that Al McWilliams loved; during his two terms as mayor, he brought it back from the valley of despair to the pinnacle of hope. He jump-started its economic revival with the Park-Madison building, which was to serve as a downtown anchor, complemented by the redevelopment of the former Tepper’s department store building into a thriving mixed-use facility. He transformed the appearance of the central business district.

Al developed more than just our downtown, however. He developed people and gave them opportunities to use their talents in the service of Plainfield without demanding their souls in exchange for his support. This was the measure of the man whom we lost much too soon.

Happy 55th birthday to you, my dear friend, Albert T. McWilliams.