Try as I might, I could not make enough sense of either the Housing Authority ordinance or the Health Officer residency controversy to write about them over the weekend.
I do think those who have found fault with MC 2014-16 are warranted in being suspicious, if only because of all the twists and turns associated with it. It has been brought forward and rejected in one form in November, put forth in July, withdrawn in a letter from Housing Authority Executive Director Randall Wood, endorsed by Wood in a last-minute conversation recounted by Councilman William Reid, held to be out of Wood's purview by Council President Bridget Rivers, deemed worthy of passage by HAP Acting Chairperson Pamela Dunn-Hale, found problematic by redevelopment counsel Robert Renaud and Mayor Adrian O. Mapp and described as illegal by citizen watchdog Alan Goldstein.
Councilman Cory Storch, the council's longtime liaison to the Planning Board and a strong supporter of economic development, said of the ordinance in July, "The only thing transit-oriented about this proposal is that it's being railroaded."
Tonight (Aug. 18) it is up for second reading and final passage, but there are large unanswered questions such as when the conveyance of the property will take place and at what price. Because the proposal was not submitted to the administration for vetting, Mapp has vowed to veto it if it is passed, but the council can override a veto with five votes.
The other issue may be decided tonight when the council goes into closed session to interview Health Officer Denise Proctor. The presumed issue is whether or not she has met or will meet the residency requirement. Residency waivers were the rule rather than the exception during the previous eight years and some waivers have been granted for cabinet members in the Mapp administration. The city is supposed to search first for candidates who live in Plainfield, but if no qualified person is available the search may broaden. According to the Municipal Code, without a waiver a new hire has a year to take up residence in the city. Proctor has only been on the job since May.
Obviously, the residency question is masking other considerations on Proctor's status. The problem is that obligations of the Health Division were not being met through a contractual arrangement with Elizabeth to furnish services and inspections of food establishments fell way behind, according to Ron West, director of the department that includes the Health Division. The dilemma became front-page news, with more emphasis on the lapses than on the attempt to set things right.
The meeting tonight is 8 p.m. in Municipal Court, 325 Watchung Ave.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As with the Inter Local Agreement between the City and its agency the PMUA, there is a notion that no one actually reads what it says. That mindset permitted a reversal in cash flow, only weeks after the agreement became effective, which turned an annual multi-million dollar solid waste lease payment owed by PMUA to the City into a $100,000 monthly stipend paid by the City to the Authority. No one knew any better about that secret deal, and it has been such ever since.
ReplyDeleteToday, much the same game is going on with the Housing Authority conveyance ordinance. The original ordinance was deemed illegal by Corporation Counsel David Minchello and Redevelopment Counsel Robert Renaud, but the new version was scrubbed of several 'whereas' clauses to make it appear less of a redevelopment scheme. But it is just the same.
Of the remaining 'whereas' clauses, the new ordinance says the Housing Authority is empowered to acquire property by NJSA 40A:12A-22. Acquisition of property is certainly dealt with, among other things, in 'Section 22'. But the pertinent portion of the law resides in 'Subsection i', and it says a Housing Authority can acquire property in a Redevelopment Area. In point of fact a Housing Authority cannot operate outside the law that creates it, in this case the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, but that is precisely what is being attempted with this conveyance in the absence of a redevelopment designation and the adoption of a redevelopment plan.
Furthermore, neither the original or current ordinance takes any heed of the portion of the LRHL that concerns itself with the Effectuation of a Development Plan. 'Section 8' begins by saying that a municipality or designated redevelopment entity becomes empowered to take certain actions upon the adoption of a redevelopment plan. 'Subsection b' permits property acquisitions pursuant to 'Section 22, subsection i', which I referred to above, (and is further illuminated by 'Section 16, subsection a3- Powers of municipality, county, housing authority). 'Subsection g' is also right on point. The conveyance of property without public bidding is predicated on the conveyance being made in conjunction with a redevelopment plan.
Again and again the LRHL spells out the process leading to a redevelopment plan. As an aside, tax abatements such as a PILOT agreement, or the utilization of various publicly funded loans and grants, require the official adoption of a plan. So one has to wonder why certain parties are still hell-bent on circumventing this process and getting from Point A to Point Z with no checks or balances. And, if some city officials are so willing to break the law, as has been the case time and time again in Plainfield, should we expect better behavior from the citizenry-at-large?
http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dlgs/programs/au_docs/40a_12a_1.pdf
Addendum to my previous comment:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu6oiXG77wM&list=UUmbPZwPOOW0eKAuSbBpMXJQ#t=46m
It is a shame and a sham that members of this Council seem to want to subvert the law and have their way for reasons obvious to many of us who have been paying attention. I think if they pass this resolution they should be held in contempt by the court and the citizens of Plainfield. I also think that they are asking to be sued with their interview this evening. I hope some morals begin to show in the four stooges at some point. It seems that Bridget, Vera, Taylor, and Reid can't do enough to harm the citizens of Plainfield. Let's vote out Jerry when he runs and be done with this group of internal carpetbaggers.
ReplyDeleteAlan and the City Counsel are spot on here. This is ILLEGAL! A city many NOT "convey" sell or transfer a piece of property without following the law. Changing the wording does not make it legal. If the City is looking to make the land available for development, it must make a public notice of its intention to do so and request bids and plans from prospective developers as to their intentions for the site. This must be voided in its entirety. Time to call in Christie and or the feds if the City cant run itself properly. Adrian, you need to veto this if it gets approved.
ReplyDelete