A proposed day laborer center in a vacant storefront downtown may or may not be needed, but as it is framed, it raises a number of issues.First of all, it relies on cooperation and coordination among several entities: A legislator, a property owner, a commercial tenant and an as-yet unidentified group or individual to operate it.
We can guess why this eye-catching proposal is hitting the headlines a month before the filing date for the June primary, in which said legislator is likely to be seeking re-election. (Clarification: I'm told this story was in the works for some time and it has no intentional relation to the filing date.) The property owner, like others in Plainfield, might tend to be agreeable to any suggestions from the third most powerful person in the State Assembly. The tenant surely would warm to the idea of having the rent paid through a sub-lease arrangement. But judging by the length of time this issue has been unresolved, the last party - an operator/manager - might be hard to find.
Having sat through some recent Planning Board meetings where new or currently illegal uses for commercial property have been explored at length, Plaintalker finds it hard to envision conversion of a storefront from a retail use to a place where many people come for a quasi-social service. It's unlikely that a certificate of occupancy could be issued for something that is not on the books. If this was an application before the board, questions especially on traffic circulation most likely would arise. Could this proposal be accomplished by handshakes all around without reference to the Property Maintenance Code?
We also don't know when the present lease is up and thus how long this plan could be in effect at the proposed location. What community organization would sign on to such an unknown, open-ended commitment? In July 2009 when this type of proposal was last explored, a Hispanic group felt it was best to teach day workers to organize themselves, not slot them into some program.
So the location, duration and operation of this proposed center are problematic. The headlines look good, but what would be the reality on the ground?
--Bernice Paglia
Bernice....Jerry manipulating the media and the public perception simply to be reelected ??? Jerry getting the rules bent so it looks good for him?? I just couldn't imagine that. That would be like our Mayor spending $20,000 without authorization...just couldn't happen!
ReplyDeleteFor years we have been reading about jerry green and his puppet Sharon Briggs. This latest idea, a legal place for illegals is just one more example of why he's no good for Plainfield. You think both of them would try to clean up the town of this problem, along with drugs/gangs. Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry there's no crime or drugs associated with these folks, they're just honest people who came here illegally to help better us.....
ReplyDeleteAll Jerry and the” mayor" are interested in is feeding for free as much as they can.
Link?
ReplyDeleteBernice,
ReplyDeleteI used to ignore other blogs and only read your articles because they actually looked like real reporting. Now I'm starting to believe you've been away from the unbiased reporting life for too long which has made you more personally concerned and politically motivated. revisit your neutral reporting position and maintain your goal of reporting facts instead of your opinions and observations. Dont become Dan!
The City could run such a program in its condo space in the Tepper Bldg.
ReplyDeleteRe: the whole Day Labourer question, who goes after them or their employer(s) for SSI tax payments? I worked for a time as a free-lancer and the Feds came after me like H.E. double hockey sticks to get me to pay up!
ReplyDeleteIdeas, anybody?
To 9:40 p.m.: In the newsroom there is a bright line between news and editorial writing. On a blog, not so much. Please note the post was labeled as "commentary." At times, Plaintalker may provide some context as commentary on a topic.
ReplyDeleteTo Dr. Yood (Olddoc): One reason that space could not be used for police CCTV monitoring is that there is no secure, separate entry. A door would have to be created in an outer wall. Not sure the UCIA would open its front door to random individuals, even if they were going down to the basement. Also, would that be the highest and best use for a $500,000-plus space owned by the city? The center operator would then be a tenant of the city and the sentiment lately is that the city should get out of social services.
ReplyDeleteTo 8:58 p.m.: Here is a link (copy and paste):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20110308/NJNEWS/110308015/1201/NJTOWNS1803/Day-laborers-center-planned-Plainfield
Progressive definition of illegal immigrant . . . law abiding criminal! Maybe Jerry should be cited for harboring criminal fugitives!
ReplyDeleteThis will bring the perception of Plainfield up a notch. No low income housing, just low income mentality. But then again, we are speaking of .......
ReplyDeleteThere has been discussion of this issue for quite some time. A lot of Plainfielders are bothered by the presence of day laborers on certain corners and they are not really safe there anyway. If something like this can be put together and these people have a place that is safe and accessible both to them and to the people who want to hire them, what's the problem? As for Social Security payments, that's up to the employer who is exploiting these day laborers. In this economic times people are desperate for any work that pays, and these folks are among the most vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteI understand the concept behind this program.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the thought of one more social program being initiated in Plainfield, is an insult to every tax paying resident of this City.
The fact that a publicly elected official considers this option as the only way to solve this problem is disgraceful and downright mind-boggling; and that our tax dollars, somehow, would be funding this type of project is outrageous.
This is an invitation to every day laborer from surrounding communities to come into Plainfield and take shelter here; similar to all the other social-service seeking folks that already visit us.
This is the very type of idea that will discourage the businesses that Plainfield is seeking in order to develop a more attractive and desirable downtown.
I'm all for helping those who need assistance in order to move forward in a positive and productive manner; however, more social services is not the answer.
The welfare state that exists in Plainfield has got to end!
And, if I remember correctly, the first time this idea was floated, there were plans to offer "Legal" services to the illegal immigrants. Great, the taxpayers will now pay for the workers to receive legal advice.
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't our elected officials pressuring the Mexican government to get their own country in order. These workers have a right to remain in their own country with the ability to make a living. Instead, we let the Mexican president reprimand the US for not allowing those that he is responsible for from coming into this country, earning money and sending it home. Where is the outrage against Calderone?
To 10:04am - I could not have said it better myself. Perhaps we can move this office to North Plainfield in one of the empty buildings on Rt. 22.
ReplyDeleteBernice --
ReplyDeleteYour commentary focused on the practical and political considerations of the Assemblyman's proposal, yet most of the responses are anger directed at immigrants and indirectly the nation's inability to come up with sound immigration policies.
Why is it that people so quickly forget that other than native Americans and the descendants of people brought from Africa as slaves, we are ALL immigrants who came in search of a better life.
The day workers on the streets of Plainfield looking to earn a few bucks, just like my own grandparents, came here from eastern Europe to make a better life for themselves and their families. Why do we so quickly forget the hardship of that experience and the determination required then as well as now? Why do we fear the worst and forget the good in people?
To 1:46pm - I agree totally with your first paragraph. However, I do have a different perspective. I will say that I am also a product of immigrant parents. The difference with them is that they did not demand that the government help. They helped themselves. There were no pamphlets translated into their language - they learned English. There were no daycare centers where they took their babies - the community helped, and there was no expectation that the government would create or support their lives for them.
ReplyDeleteThe Day Laborers in Plainfield did not ask for a Day Labor Center. They should not be accused of demanding anything. This is another election year ploy by Jerry Green to make himself look like he is all of a sudden concerned about Latinos in Plainfield. Did he consult the Latino community about this idea? Didn't they reject this idea a few years ago?
ReplyDeleteAnd randy, we prefer to be called Indians or the People . . . native americans is akin to an insult!
ReplyDeleteOf course there is anger! When I find some criminal has broken into my home that doesn't belong there . . .I fume!
There is no difference between that and the illegals here!
TAP, I presume you want to deport all the white people who "broke into your home." Your fuming seems pretty selective.
ReplyDelete