Last week on April 2, the campaign of mayoral candidate Paul Perez staged a press conference on the steps of Trenton City Hall to announce the endorsement of Mr. Perez’s candidacy by former Trenton Board of Education Toby Sanders. This endorsement by one of the City’s leading educational figures was considered a big one by the mayoral hopeful. The occasion was reported in a note in the Trenton Times by reporter Jenna Pizzi, a full article with accompanying short video clip by David Foster in the Trentonian, and a release on Mr. Perez’s website.
Mr. Sanders spoke glowingly of Mr. Perez and his career to date, his current candidacy, and his plans for the future of Trenton. He was chock full of praise for the man.
“This man is absolutely a hero — the most heroic of all the candidates… His candidacy of all the candidacies that are out there is the most thoughtful and the most visionary about the future,” as quoted on the campaign website.
Mr. Sanders wanted to make sure that people knew that he came to his decision after careful consideration of all the other candidates. According to the Trentonian, “Sanders said he met with every candidate before making his decision. ‘None of them have the specificity, a vision, the creativity, and the attention to detail that the Perez campaign has,’ he said. ‘Their platforms leave a lot to be desired.’
And, just to be sure that we understand that Mr. Sanders makes his endorsement on the basis of his experience and Moral Authority, he also said (as recorded on the video clip accompanying the Trentonian’s print story):
“I come to you as a citizen of Trenton, as an Activist in the city, as one of the Educators here, as one of the Leaders here, one of the Pastors here.”
What the man did NOT say – at least in any of the video or print reports I have read – is,
“I come to you as a relative of Paul Perez, as the husband of his niece, a niece who helped to write part of his Platform, the very same platform I praise so highly while I criticize those of all the other candidates!”
Kind of puts quite a different spin on Mr. Sanders’ endorsement, doesn’t it?
Another Jenna Pizzi article in the Trenton Times, a profile of Mr. Perez in today’s edition quotes one Leslie Sanders. Ms. Pizzi calls her “Perez’ niece” and goes on to say “The two have worked together to help craft Perez’s education policy, with Sanders, who is a school literacy leader in the city’s public schools.”
The article today, and all of the press over the last week, fail to note that Leslie Sanders is also the wife of former School Board President Toby Sanders.
I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with Mr. Sanders endorsing the candidate of his choice. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with Ms. Sanders offering to help on the policy formulation of the candidate of her choice. And I don’t believe that Paul Perez did anything wrong in accepting a personal endorsement.
What I do mind, and think is frankly pretty sleazy – even by Trenton standards – is that this endorsement was made and reported without any disclosure of any of these pre-existing bonds among the Sanders and Mr. Perez.
Without disclosing these bonds, I can only resent the self-righteousness of Mr. Sanders when he said last Wednesday, “I don’t stand here as a church, I stand here as a citizen. I have every right to offer my opinion about what’s best for Trenton. What’s best for Trenton is Paul Perez.”
Yes, Mr. Sanders, you have the absolute right to your opinion. But when you share that opinion with us, you also have an absolute obligation to let the public know of this background. You stood on the City Hall steps “as a citizen,” but also as Family. And, what’s more, Family with both former and current professional, employment and policy-making relationships with Trenton’s public schools and its Board of Education.
We should have been told that.
Had Mr. Perez and Mr. Sanders let us know of these connections – and had the media reported them – at the time of the endorsement, the public would be fully informed and able to make up their own mind as to whether Sanders’ backing was influenced at all by bonds of family or by his wife’s work on the Perez platform he is so very fond of.
But he did not. And therefore this endorsement, and Mr. Perez’s campaign strategy, must be viewed as suspect.
I expected more from both of these gentlemen, than to see them both play these kinds of games.
When Eric Jackson accepted the endorsement of a large group of local clergy, among whom were several who had previously endorsed Tony Mack, and one who actually took a job from the man after the election, I criticized his campaign for it. Now that Mr. Perez seems to be playing his own endorsement games, he should be called on it as well.
At this point, Mr. Perez needs to open up and fully disclose his connections with the Sanders, and whether there is any expectation that their bonds of family and their contributions of support and endorsement may follow through with any roles, formal or informal, in a future Perez Administration.
Similarly, it is probably appropriate at this point in the campaign for Mr. Perez, and all of his fellow candidates, to fully disclose any and all familial connections they may have who either currently work for the City and its various departments, or who we may expect (0r not) to see working for the City under their Administrations.
We are just coming off of four years that featured not only the excesses of Tony Mack, but those of his brothers Stanley Davis and Ralphiel Mack. All three got in to the game and grabbed what they could, while they could, until they were caught.
I for one do not want to see even a hint that we are going back to those bad old days.
Again, I want to stress that I do not believe that what Paul Perez and Toby Sanders did this week measures up at all with the outrageous criminal excesses of the Mack Family.
But it was and is entirely inexcusable for a man to offer public support to a candidate, and offer it so extravagantly! - “This man is absolutely a hero — the most heroic of all the candidates!” – without letting us know that his “hero” is an Uncle by marriage, and that at least some of those “most thoughtful” and “most visionary” ideas came from his own wife!
In the section of his mayoral campaign platform on Economic Development, Eric Jackson concludes with a strong statement titled “Focus on the Fundamentals:”
We will work relentlessly to provide eﬃcient, eﬀective municipal services, from public safety to education, from garbage pick-up to development plan approvals, from building inspections to snow removal and pothole repairs. My Administration will seek to restore the morale of the city work force by providing the focused, ethical leadership that public employees deserve.
My administration will build Trenton’s reputation as a city that works hard and works smart for its residents, businesses and visitors. Success at the fundamentals will be key to realizing my larger vision of economic progress and growth.
This is a sound statement, and one which is appropriate and realistic at this point in Trenton history. The City and its government is broke and broken. An emphasis on fundamentals, the nuts and bolts of day-to-day municipal business, is what’s needed. I am pleased to see this acknowledgement and pledge by Mr. Jackson here.
However, I would have been more pleased had that principle of Focusing on Fundamentals been applied throughout his platform. Alas, this is not the case. In other areas of his plan, Mr. Jackson lays out ambitious – in some key instances, over-ambitious in my opinion – proposals for new initiatives. These typically take the form of new departments and offices in City government, at a time when the existing ones need to be rehabilitated.
The first example I will cite is Mr. Jackson’s proposal for a Cabinet-level “Mayor’s Office on Education.” He sees a mission for a new department to coordinate and “align the actions and resources” of the City with every major educational player in the City: the city’s School District as well as charter and parochial schools, parents and neighborhood associations as well as non-profits and other city agencies. He would have this done via yet another new entity, a “consortium” to be operated out of the Mayor’s Office.
Now I don’t claim any special understanding of city educational issues. I do know that the city’s students and schools are generally under-performing, with test and achievement scores low, and dropout rates high. I would suggest that a more realistic, and I will also use the word “humble,” goal for the first term of a Jackson Administration would be to work on fixing the City schools first. If after four years you can point to some real measurable successes, perhaps then and only then might you presume to be able to offer something to all of the other schools and students in the city.
Mr. Jackson proposes a closer working relationship with the state’s School Development Authority, as it proceeds with rebuilding Central High School and other facilities in the city. That’s the sort of effort that could be meaningful and practical. Before we start talking about new Cabinet-level “Offices” and “Consortia,” how about we Focus on Fundamentals, OK?
In his section on Ethics, Mr. Jackson wants, again, to establish a new position to restore competence and integrity to City Hall, an “Independent Inspector General.” I discussed this proposal a few weeks ago, when the candidate wrote an opinion column for the Trenton Times. Along with a similar proposal by Paul Perez that I discussed yesterday, I find such plans unnecessary for a city as small as ours. I flat out disagree with Mr. Jackson that “An Inspector general will ensure that taxpayers’ hard earned dollars are not wasted and expended in compliance with all applicable laws.”
THAT’S what we elect a Mayor to do. THAT’S what we appoint a Business Administrator to do. Those are responsibilities and trusts that cannot and should not be delegated away to another office in a small city of 85,000. For Mr. Jackson and Mr. Perez to suggest otherwise of one of the most important – if not THE MOST important – duties of a mayor essentially negates their viability as candidates. Why should we elect them, if they will abdicate one of their most important duties and delegate it to another?
In Mr. Jackson’s case, a proposal to charge the “authority to investigate of corruption, fraud and inefficiency throughout city government” to another officer resonates strongly with his previous tenure with the city as Director of Public Works. Over the last several years we have read a lot of press stories about deep and widespread corruption at that department, for years pre-dating the Mack Administration. Last year, in courtroom testimony at a case involving allegations of punitive and illegal treatment of Trenton Water Works employees, Mr. Jackson spoke of many instances of just such corruption, fraud and inefficiency.
In his testimony, Jackson explained how he handled each matter with internal disciplinary hearings and actions. What Mr. Jackson did NOT describe was any action he took to refer allegations of items we now know were severe and criminal to either our City Police Department, or the County Prosecutor. I remarked on this last December, and asked several questions about Eric Jackson’s tenure as Director of Public Works that have not yet been addressed by the Candidate, and which are still highly relevant to this campaign.
In that context, I find his proposal for an “Independent Inspector General” not only redundant to the proper responsibilities of a good Mayor, but also as potentially stonewalling real, credible investigations into any future misbehavior. Rather than calling for a new city bureaucrat, I would have welcomed a strong statement from the candidate that “Allegations of corruption, fraud and other illegal behavior that are referred to the Office of the Mayor or to the Business Administrator will be swiftly referred – in every case – to Police and Prosecutors.”
We do not hear, and do not read such a call from Mr. Jackson. Jackson is asking voters to consider his candidacy very strongly on his call for restoring Ethics and Integrity to Trenton;s government. From his Times Op-ed to his platform, his concept of the Inspector General is key. To me, the idea is a Fail. As a result, I suggest that his candidacy may be evaluated very substantially on this one plan alone.
In another area, Jackson’s platform suggests yet one more office for the City. He announces his idea for an “Office of Public Engagement,” whose two main responsibilities would be both to provide information on city services to citizens, and receive feedback from Trentonians about local problems and conditions. Among other duties, he says, “This Office will be required to evaluate the City’s use of technology and recommend improvements that will enhance services and reduce costs.”
Mr. Jackson does not state so, but I hope that this new Office reduces costs enough to pay for itself, as well for the New Inspector General, and the New Office on Education!
With all of these new initiatives, there isn’t a lot I can find in Mr. Jackson’s platform that discusses in any detail how he intends to “Focus on the Fundamentals.”
In the concluding paragraphs of his platform, he promises “We will work relentlessly to provide eﬃcient, eﬀective municipal services, from public safety to education, from garbage pick-up to development plan approvals, from building inspections to snow removal and pothole repairs.” Most of these tasks are actually performed by employees of our Public Works department, the agency Eric Jackson ran for many years. It’s the department he presumably knows the best. It’s also the department, as we know too well, that has seen more than its share of problems including instances of crime and corruption as well as basic technical competence.
Mr. Jackson specifically mentions garbage pick-up and snow removal and pothole repair as the fundamentals, but he doesn’t talk about them at all other than that brief mention. He doesn’t address the very, very serious situation at the Trenton Water Works that frankly threatens the future of city ownership of this vital utility. He does mention Trenton’s “Strategic Location” as being key for attracting business and residential development, and promotes the city’s “exceptional transportation infrastructure.” But, surprisingly for someone with his background, he omits to say anything about reassuring potential investors that our water mains won’t break and that our water will be clean and clear, not brown. I’d like to have heard some promises that roads and streets will be kept clear of snow on a timely basis, and that private cars and commercial trucks won’t have wheels and axles destroyed by running on our city streets, many of which resemble a Tough Mudder obstacle course!
I wanted to read something in his Public Safety section about how the Police Department is structured. Apart from his call for “effective partnerships with County, State and Federal Agencies to leverage and enhance the capacity of the Trenton Police Department,” what can he do as Mayor to improve our Department? We’ve had appointed Police and Fire Directors for several years, rather than Chiefs. How does he think that’s been working out? Does he think we need to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement with our police officers, who are long overdue for one?
We don’t read anything about that in his written plan. This morning, we read that Jackson will give a speech on his crime plan Monday. Perhaps he may give us more details on his Fundamentals at that time.
I hope also that Mr. Jackson may improve his grasp of certain “fundamental” facts. I previously remarked that in his Times op-ed last December he called for the City to adopt an ethics plan – despite the fact that the city’s brand-new Ethics Board has already adopted one. In his section on Public Safety, Jackson promises that:
“I will explore the practice instituted in several other New Jersey cities which relieves the police department of the obligation to detain possible undocumented immigrants for deportation by federal immigration officials, allowing for more appropriate use of our limited law enforcement resources.”
Mr. Jackson is describing the “Sanctuary Cities” program, a loose nationwide network of towns and cities that do exactly what Mr. Jackson proposes. Such Sanctuary cities operate under these policies in open, but tacitly acknowledged, violation of several federal immigration regulations and laws. Mr. Jackson seems to be suggesting that he will examine the experiences of Sanctuary Cities in New Jersey such as Camden, Fort Lee, Jersey City and Newark for lessons that could be learned in Trenton.
However, Mr. Jackson doesn’t need to look very far. Trenton appears on a list of “Original Sanctuary Cities” right along with the other towns named above, meaning it has adopted and been operating under these policies since at least 2007.
Had Mr. Jackson expressed an intention to examine and review Trenton’s record under this program, I could understand that. But by referring to “exploring” the experiences of other New Jersey towns, he sounds like he is proposing their policies as models he may consider introducing under Administration while neglectful of the fact that they have already been in force for the better part of a decade!
Out of touch on a brand-new Ethics Code is one thing, but missing a major policy affecting thousands of city residents for 7 years is something else!
Overall, Mr. Jackson has made a great effort to address his plans and priorities for a Jackson Administration. He covers a great deal of the problems and challenges facing the City after a singularly catastrophic four year term, but also in the context of decades of decline. His platform is an admirable effort.
But the several contradictions built into his plan – the unacknowledged and unreconciled tensions between a “Focus on Fundamentals” alongside over-ambitious new initiatives; failure to devote much attention or detail to his plans to rehabilitate and restore functionality, competence and trust in essential municipal departments and duties; and embarrassing gaps in basic city knowledge – as well as important but unanswered questions about his previous tenure in Trenton’s government, lead me to conclude that Mr. Jackson’s plan – and his candidacy – are good, but not nearly good enough for what we now need in Trenton.
Discussing Mr. Jackson’s proposals has taken more space than I had originally planned. I intend to talk about Jim Golden’s plans, and those from Council candidates, but I don’t want to cause any more eyestrain for my readers on a beautiful weekend.
To be Continued.
If our Municipal Election is held as scheduled – a big IF this morning – we are now only 39 days away from selecting a new Mayor and (hopefully mostly) new City Council. Most of the mayoral candidates have by now issued some kind of campaign platform, laying out what they believe are the important issues and how each of them are uniquely suited to solve Trenton’s problems.
I say “most” because of the six people running for mayor, five are running campaign websites or hosting other presences on social media. Only Oliver “Bucky” Leggett appears to be missing any presence online. There is nothing that I can find or have seen from the man or about him. He has been pretty good at maintaining an extremely low profile during this election so far.
Considering that the man has been invisible in this city since his last election loss to Doug Palmer in 2002, I’d say he’s certainly staying in character. That is inexcusable in a candidate to replace Tony Mack. I hope we are racing for the top this year, and not the bottom. There is not one single thing to recommend Bucky Leggett as our next mayor, so I will not say one more word about him for the remainder of this election unless he can present some ideas and plans.
After the last four years, we hardly need any more reminders about how bad things have gotten around here. But over the last few days, we have seen two more stories about the abysmal state into which the City of Trenton has fallen.
Yesterday, the Trenton Times reported that the NJ Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has criticized the city for the many extreme delays and bottlenecks in its contracting process. “The city needs to find a way to address bids on a more timely basis,” DCA told us in February, as they were asked to green-light proposals for projects based on bids and proposals several months old and, in the term used by the state, “stale.”
Wednesday, in another Trenton Times article, we read that due to years of delayed or faulty maintenance the Trenton Water Works (TWW) loses a full 28 percent of the water it pumps every day from the Delaware River to leaks on its way from the source to the faucets and pipes of the utility’s business residential customers around Mercer County.
And another article yesterday, this one in the Trentonian about TWW describes the great difficulties the utility is having just recruiting and training qualified service personnel from the City of Trenton.
These stories show just how bad the normal, everyday, basic but essential functions performed by the City have become. By no means, however, are all of these problems the sole responsibility of the former disgraced Administration of the former felonious Occupant, although he and his cronies greatly accelerated trends that pre-dated them.
These stories show just how acute these problems have become. The City’s failures to properly manage its contracting and purchasing systems will mean a further deterioration in the city services we still receive; they will be harder to deliver and more expensive. And experiencing yet more problems at the Water Works further strengthens the argument that TWW is too important to the public health and economic life of Mercer County to leave it in the hands of a bumbling, in competent City of Trenton. As I have said for most of the last four years, we are in danger of losing city control of the utility and the income it provides for this broke town unless we can clean up our act!
So, we are 39 days from the election. Who among our Mayoral candidates acknowledges how significant the problem of providing essential yet routine city services has become? Who has the best feel for the nuts and bolts of running a small Northeastern post-industrial city?
Not many, I’m sorry to say.
We’ve already dismissed Leggett. Let’s continue with the candidateI most recently discussed, current Council Member Kathy McBride. Turns out she is the easiest one to talk about, because she says so little on her website about the problem.
On the Platform page of her website, she fails to discuss any issues having to do with Trenton’s city government. The closest she comes to the subject is to talk about “Infrastructure.” This is her platform plank on the subject, in its entirety:
Kathy believes that infrastructure investment will enhance the quality of life for Trenton residents, and create safe, clean and aesthetic neighborhoods. As Mayor Kathy will…
- Re-build city bridges
- Repair damaged roads
And that’s it. She doesn’t explain how she will do this: she doesn’t explain any financing for this, any timeline for this, any sets of priorities for this, or even whether she believes this work will be done by city employees or contractors. It comes across, as does most of her platform, as a set of buzz words offered to allow her to say that she has a “plan” for her mayoralty, but without suggesting that she knows anywhere near enough about the problems themselves in order to offer credible solutions.
Based on this, do I believe Ms. McBride would be able to untangle the mess in our contracting and purchasing functions? No way.
How about Walker Worthy? His platform does contain a section labeled “Governance,” although it describes several laudable objectives very general in nature: “operate a clean, honest , transparent government;” appointing competent Cabinet members (what a novel idea! and how sad that such a thing has to be explicitly stated); talk to the State about restoring significant and permanent revenue flows to the city in the form of Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTS); stabilize city property taxes; “restore revenue generating departments,” such as Inspections and Parking Enforcement.
These are all good objectives, but I don’t get a sense that Mr. Worthy has a real road map in mind on how to get there. Along with his other areas of concern – “Jobs and Economy” (discussed by me here), “Education,” and “Crime and Public Safety” – Mr. Worthy displays a pretty good sense of what needs to be done. I just don’t think he knows how to go about it.
Paul Perez’s platform is slimmer than Mr. Worthy’s, although he has a few more concrete ideas about city operations:
- Provide professional development programs for City Hall employees that includes performance measurement, supervision and leadership training.
- Create an Office of Integrity and Accountability responsible for oversight of city programs and combat Fraud, Waste and Abuse.
- Restore the public’s trust through transparency that promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what the city is doing.
Mr. Perez is getting a little closer to the mark. But these and his other platform proposals, while good and desirable, sound to me awfully generic. For instance, in what town would citizens NOT want to “Transform City Hall into a customer friendly operation?” Where would a city NOT want to “Provide professional development programs for City Hall employees?”
The main criticism I have of Mr. Perez is that as a recent returnee to the City, he is not familiar enough with the particulars of our specific situation and our specific problems to be able to effect meaningful solutions. As a manager with long and distinguished service in the Federal government, is his experience and training in environments as vast as the Federal bureaucracy truly appropriate for the small scale of our city’s operation? Local government, after all, is not simply a scaled-down US Government; it is an entirely separate world with real-life constraints that an executive manager whose nearly entire career with the Feds might not be well-equipped to handle, frankly.
Take, for instance, his proposal for an Office of Integrity and Accountability. That his remedy for the rampant corruption and incompetence seen in city departments over the last few years is yet another city department strikes me as unnecessary. We are a small city of only around 85,000 souls. The City of Trenton’s government is not so large that we need another functional department whose stated purpose would be oversight of City programs and to fight abuses in the system.
In a town like ours, we elect a Mayor to ensure Integrity. We elect a Mayor to oversee the city’s departments. We elect a Mayor to fight abuse, supported by a Business Administrator.
The fact that we elected a disaster four years ago does not negate what the office of mayor is for. The fact that we have gone through a series of ineffective and unproductive Business Administrators does not prove we need a brand-new layer of additional overhead.
We don’t need to create new positions; we need to elect and appoint the right people in the first place. If we don’t, a “Director of Integrity and Accountability” won’t make a dime’s worth of difference.
Mr. Perez’s lack of specific references to Trenton’s conditions, and his overly generic platform solutions, such as his earlier expressed proposal to provide high-speed Internet throughout Trenton, bother me.
I’ll move on to Jim Golden and Eric Jackson’s plans tomorrow.
Oh, this is rich!
One of the persons least justified in climbing on a high horse in this Trenton election season is Councilman-at-Large Alex Bethea. On a body blessed with an abundance of mediocrity and mendacity, with a pitiful 4-year “record” of accomplishment to show for their terms, Bethea surely stands out as being the most useless. And that is saying something!
But, there he is in this morning’s news. In a Trentonian article by David Foster, he is described as having “seen enough” of the ongoing election snafu in the City: Bethea “called for embattled Clerk Richard Kachmar to submit a letter of resignation by the end of the business day Wednesday due to ‘his incompetence’ stemming from his election mistake. ‘Let’s hold people accountable,’ Bethea said after the council meeting. ‘If you’re not doing the job, then submit the resignation.’”
I am not a fan of this Clerk. His fumbles in office, along with those committed on an ongoing basis by Trenton’s Law Department headed by City Attorney Caryl Amana, deserve their dismissal in favor of someone who knows what they are doing. But I can’t stand to hear Bethea of all people on this subject.
Had only Mr. Bethea taken such a stance earlier in his term, we might have heard similarly stern and impassioned calls to resign directed at the incompetence of other City figures. But a Google search for such items won’t turn up other statements blasting the incompetence of the likes of Anthony Roberts, Harold Hall, or Tony Mack.
In fact, what will turn up for Mr. Bethea is a long record of statements and votes supporting the Convicted Ex-Occupant.
For instance, in August of 2012, weeks after the FBI raids on Mack’s house and City Hall that would lead to federal felony indictments and convictions of several people, Bethea claimed “We don’t have the right to tell the mayor how to do his job.” God forbid he should have suggested of the mayor, “If you’re not doing the job, then submit the resignation.”
I could go on at GREAT length about Mr. Bethea, but will only add this one reminder that on one of the few occasions when City Council attempted meaningful action to rein in the Administration of the Felonious Punk, Bethea had Mack’s back. Remember the effort in Fall 2012, when Council voted “No Confidence” in the mayor, and also voted to cut his salary in half? Guess who voted against both? Yep, Alex Bethea.
To be fair, Mr. Bethea has little to no chance of being re-elected to his at-large seat in the spring election – whenever that will be – so I won’t bother to call for him to do the honorable thing and resign. It will be soon enough that we won’t have to put the words “Councilman” and “Alex Bethea” together again. Good riddance to him! That day can’t come fast enough.
You can say the same thing about his colleague and fellow Council obstructionist Kathy McBride. One can say with an absolute certainty that she won’t be a Council member after her term is over. But in her case the reason is that she feels that her record on the Council is so good that she is running for Mayor.
She is joining her colleague Bethea in calling for the resignations of Mr. Kachmar & Ms. Amana, and has even requested the state Department of Community Affairs (who vetted and approved the appointments of both) to intervene and terminate the employment of both.
Like Mr. Bethea, McBride was a firm and active backer of the Convicted Fraudster and Bribe-taker, who also blocked the 2012 votes of No Confidence and mayoral salary reduction. She, too, is a born-again Good Government type as the election is getting closer. Her calls for Council and State to do the right thing regarding ridding the city of incompetence are increasing in number at a rate that seems to be inversely proportional to the number of days before the election. So for 3 1/2 years, we have heard and seen little from her other than support for the previous Administration. Now, she hopes we all have short memories.
In her campaign for Mayor, I think she knows she can’t run on her Council record. Instead she is running on her record as a community activist and private citizen. Here is a select list of what she presents on her campaign website as her “Record” over the last four years:
- Hosted an expungement seminar that provided Trenton residents with information about the expungement process.
- Advocated for union workers to maintain their employment with the Lafayette Yard
- Raised awareness of mental health problems in collaboration with former NBA basketball player Luther Wright. All proceeds were donated to the Greater Trenton Behavioral Healthcare.
- Hosted an annual movie night for the entire community.
- Sponsored a trip to Orangeburg, South Carolina for high school and college students to participate in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary Election. The goal was to introduce students to the political process.
- Celebrated and united Trenton’s various cultures by hosting an annual Multi-cultural/Holiday program. This program offered an olive branch to different ethnicities to highlight the rich diversity of the City. During this event, hundreds of children received gifts for the holiday season.
- Worked closely with the Police Benevolence Association during Hurricane Irene to provide clothing and gift certificates to displaced families.
- Educated Trenton students about municipal government and guided students on a tour of city hall.
That’s right, Trenton. Kathy McBride thinks she should be Mayor of this city because she’s hosted Movie Night, and guided students on a tour of City Hall!
She is, apparently, quite serious.
In her defense, she does state quite clearly that this record describes her “service on the Council and as a Community activist,” so she is not claiming all of those milestones solely as her Council legacy.
Her expressed dissatisfaction with the City’s Clerk and Law Department is just not credible, given her record – on Council – of enabling the incompetent and criminal excesses of the previous regime, and obstructing all efforts of her body to control and reverse the worst of them.
Given her “record,” then, what does she propose to do as Mayor? Her platform is full of vague objectives vaguely expressed and poorly argued. Her website claims that, “As Mayor, Kathy will…”
- Maintain safer streets and safer neighborhoods.
- Improve community policing policies that are geared towards reducing our crime rate.
- Work to increase foot patrols and enhance the channels of communication between police personnel and city residents.
- Secure funding to provide adequate staffing and resources to the Police Department.
- Offer Police Officers and Fire Fighters salary incentives to establish and maintain residency within the city.
- Work with the Board of Education for system wide improvement of the school district.
- Provide additional resources to schools with innovative programs that strive to advance academic growth.
- Heighten our children’s preparation for the workforce with quality career and technical educational programs.
- Attract educators who are STEM literate (”Science, Technology, Engineering and Math”), and incorporate STEM learning in every subject.
- Promote bilingual education city-wide through peer tutoring programs.
- Work with business interests to make the city amenable for investment opportunities.
- Partner with corporations to attract new business and create employment opportunities for Trenton residents.
- Sell abandoned city-owned properties to qualified developers and city residents.
- Continue to work with the State of New Jersey to redevelop surface parking lots into commercial real estate.
- Impose wage contribution for all employees who live outside of the city.
- Re-build city bridges
- Repair damaged roads
Nowhere in her platform does she explain just how she proposes to do any of these things, or if she even comprehends how some of these actions can even be attempted.
For example, does she really think she could “impose wage contribution for all employees who live outside the city?” What does this even mean?
How will she “secure funding to provide adequate staffing and resources to the Police Department?” Her last “plan” on the matter was to incoherently beg the Governor to “deputize” law enforcement officers from outside the City to patrol our streets.
Is she the best person to “Attract educators who are STEM literate (’Science, Technology, Engineering and Math’), and incorporate STEM learning in every subject?”
Her only public foray into science education, after all, was her attempt from the Council dais to warn Trenton’s citizenry about the danger of that dangerous new public health threat, Blue Waffle Disease?”
What, you thought I could resist an opportunity like that? Not a chance!!
Alex Bethea and Kathy McBride are two Council members who have no business lecturing us about the need for incompetent Trenton public officials to resign.
If they want to be taken seriously on this matter, the first resignations to be tendered would be theirs.
[Below is a adaptation of a note posted on a Facebook group page this morning. I think it is of general interest, so I post it here as well. - KM]
Members of the Committee formed to recall Tony Mack back in 2011 yesterday announced a formal endorsement of their preferred Mayoral candidate for this year’s election, Jim Golden. This is an announcement that has led to a great deal of criticism in some of the local grumbling and shouting pages of Facebook, and elsewhere.
What I find odd about much of the criticism about the Recall Committee’s endorsement announcement – ok, ONE of the things that I find odd – is that a recall effort would somehow have ended when enough signatures had been collected for an election. This concept was summarized in the words of one commentator as “… just the purity of removing former mayor Tony F. Mack from office.”
Purity of removal? That’s weird. The way a recall works in New Jersey, as a quick refresher, is that it’s a 2-step process in the voting booth. The first step is the so-called “pure” step, the question that asks “Should this incumbent be recalled?”
The second step, right there at the same time, is “Who shall replace the incumbent?” with the incumbent having the opportunity to run again.
A successful recall effort, in New Jersey and elsewhere, is joined at the hip with an election effort. It has to be. If a recall committee is successful at recalling an official – but has no one in the bullpen to replace him or her – that is a 100% wasted effort.
The Recall Committee recognized that at its formation. I was more closely associated with the recall at its formation and early months, then again in its latter weeks as I had just begun what is my current job in the middle of the summer of 2011.
I saw and heard and discussed with the Committee that at the beginning of the effort the focus was to be put on getting Mack out of office. But it was understood that sooner or later the Committee would have to – HAVE TO – put up its preferred candidate, as the alternative to Tony.
One other, vitally important note to make is that the Committee did its math. At a recall election, the winner would not need a majority of votes. There would be no runoff. That meant that if there was more than one candidate running against Tony, Tony could win with a vote of only 35%, if the other candidates split the vote. Simple arithmetic.
No one wanted a chance of that outcome. So there were three imperatives to the Recall Committee at the time. One, get Tony recalled; the “Pure” motive. Two, unite behind and endorse a credible and desirable alternative candidate. Three, use whatever persuasion possible to keep the number of candidates down to a minimum.
Only persuasion would have been possible, since there was no absolute way to keep other people from jumping in to run. Like we have this Spring.
As it turned out, the recall effort was unsuccessful. Not enough signatures were attained.
But the Committee won a great moral victory. At a time when the deck was stacked against an effort like it – NJ law made it prohibitive from the start; there was a lot of instinctual defense of Tony’s tenure on emotional grounds (”Give him a chance!” “It’s a conspiracy to squeeze him out”) – the Committee got more signatures on their petitions to remove Tony Mack than voted for the man in May of 2010.
And the history of the last four years proved that the Committee was right. Tony was a disaster: an incompetent, mean, vindictive and petty criminal we would have been better off getting rid of in 2011 when we had the chance.
The Recall Committee earned a great moral victory in 2011. If they choose to endorse a candidate in 2014, they are doing no more than what they did in 2011 – making their choice known for the person to replace Tony Mack, and start to reverse the damages of the last four years.
The members of this Committee are doing no more than finishing the job they started 3 years ago.
I think they have earned the right to do so.
Does anyone in Trenton presume the right to tell them they don’t?
I doubt it.
This is the time of the political season for Trenton’s May elections when some candidates feel they have to present their Big Ideas, their Vision Thing for Trenton’s future. The week before last, we read Deputy County Clerk Walker Worthy’s “Plan for Jobs and Economy;” we were not impressed. The Big Idea for Trenton’s economic re-building as proposed by Mr. Worthy was development of the City’s waterfront area, including a Casino. The benefit of a Big Idea like a Casino is that it is an easily understood proposal, able to be summarized quickly and succinctly. The devil, of course, is in the details, few of which were forthcoming from Mr. Worthy.
At the end of last week, Jim Golden released a summary of his plan, which I am looking forward to discussing. But before that, Paul Perez released a proposal that is getting some attention this morning, and which I think counts as his own Big Idea. And that makes it worth a look.
According to an article by Davis Foster in this morning’s Trentonian, “Paul Perez wants everyone in the city connected. The mayoral candidate revealed plans to create a citywide, ultra-high-speed broadband internet network to spark economic development.”
The plan, dubbed with its very own acronym TBS, for Trenton Broadband Initiative, is “to deliver speeds of 1Gbps and higher to attract IT startups, investors and businesses, in addition to providing Wi-Fi to schools, colleges and the residents at affordable prices. ‘Through a public-private partnership we can develop an affordable broadband network and create the conditions for schools, colleges, businesses and even the state offices to have a reliable and resilient IT infrastructure, ‘ Perez stated. The mayoral candidate said cities such as Chattanooga, Tenn., Provo, Utah, Kansas City, Miss. and Austin, Texas are already developing the networks.” [Emphasis mine - KM]
This proposal is certainly ambitious, and even audacious in Mr. Perez’s suggestion that a Trenton Initiative could provide broadband access to New Jersey state offices.
Ambitious and audacious may attract headlines, and perhaps sway votes, but how realistic is this plan? Looking at the municipal examples that Mr. Perez himself cited as leading the way, I have to answer, “Probably not very realistic at all.”
According to an op-ed written last August in the Baltimore Sun by Maryland State Senator Catherine Pugh, “Taxpayers in Provo, Utah, for instance, spent $40 million to build a relatively small and modest network only to sell it for $1 a few years later because they underestimated the massive costs of operating, upgrading and maintaining it.” The new owner of the Provo system, Google Fiber (more about them below) according to Senator Pugh will need to invest another $20 Million into the system – which we are told is barely ten years old – before it is considered “fully operational.”
Yikes! So Provo’s experience really does not recommend the idea very favorably to Trenton. Let’s move on.
Chattanooga, Tennessee, is the location of a municipal broadband system serving 56,000 customers according to the Wall Street Journal, and offering speeds of 1 Gigabit.
But Chattanooga’s system was helped along by several crucial facts. For one, the city-wide Internet broadband was an outgrowth of a plan by the city-owned electric utility to improve the reliability of its electrical grid. With an electrical infrastructure already reaching into every home, school and business in the Chattanooga region, this gave the City a headstart.
Trenton does not own an electrical utility. It does own the Trenton Water Works. A water utility, even one that has struggled to provide dependable basic water service to its customers, is not suited to add on this kind of added functionality.
Chattanooga funded its municipal system in part by $111 Million in Federal Stimulus dollars, and a $220 Million Taxpayer-approved bond. That is One-Third of a Billion Dollars to construct a system for a metropolitan area with about twice Trenton’s population. Using a similar yardstick to estimate the cost for Trenton, one comes up with a number of at least $160 Million.
In her Baltimore Sun op-ed, Senator Pugh tells us “To pay-down these massive costs and to break even year-to-year, municipal networks need to sign up tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of customers… [Chattanooga signed] up just 34 customers (eight residential!) to its $350 per month 1 Gbps offering. Chattanooga residents saw little use for a 1 Gbps connection, particularly at such a premium cost.”
Has Mr. Perez run the numbers for Trenton?
Did he even look very closely at the experiences of the other cities he cited?
In today’s Trentonian article, Mr. Perez does talk about utilizing a “public private partnership” to embark upon a program such as he is proposing. In that, he may be thinking about the examples of the other two cities he mentioned.
Kansas City (the one in Kansas & across the river in Missouri, NOT Mississippi as the Trentonian reports!) and Austin, Texas are cities that are being upgraded to advanced broadband services by working with a division of Google, Google Fiber. In Kansas City, the “private” part of the partnership is estimated as costing Google about $1 Billion to build out its system.
This kind of investment from a company such as Google is just the kind of commitment Trenton would love to see.
However, this private investment requires a lot n return. For its part in the project, Kansas City is providing several in-kind items and services: “Free office space, free power for Google equipment, and use of ‘all assets and infrastructure’ in both Kansas Cities… including fiber, buildings, land, and computer tools for nada. And to sweeten the deal more, both cities are giving Google a team of government employees dedicated to the project. ”
Would Mr. Perez be willing to offer this kind of investment from Trenton? He didn’t say in his talk with the Trentonian. He should be asked if that is his intention. Trenton’s recent record of public investment in private enterprises (Hello, Lafayette Yard!) is not exactly a good one, you know!
Austin, Texas is the other big metro area seeking to upgrade its municipal infrastructure with Google Fiber, but that is an effort running into a lot of difficulty, not least of which is that Google’s plans for Austin would require it to have access to the city’s existing utility poles. 80 percent of those are owned by the City, but 20% are owned by competitor AT&T, which is not exactly pleased by Google’s entry into their market. AT&T is challenging Google’s ability to build out its system, claiming that Google is not qualified as a Telecoms services provider by either Texas or Federal regulators.
In Trenton, a similar attempt by a Perez Administration to bring in a company such as Google into a “public private partnership” would likely run into similar objections by the companies that are now here, namely Comcast and Verizon. Not that that should be an obstacle in itself. The prospect of competition in one of its markets might encourage Comcast and/or Verizon to make improvements to its service and pricing. This is certainly something Trentonians would benefit from.
But that hasn’t happened yet. A survey of the industry on Wired.com written last year reviewed developments nationwide including expansion plans by corporations such as Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, as well as the public private partnerships towns such as the ones discussed above along with Google Fiber, and found problems with the timely rollout of our Big Connected Future
The search giant [Google] insisted it had no intention of becoming an internet service provider. It just wanted to encourage existing ISPs, including Verizon, to run higher speed lines across the country. But although Google Fiber has now arrived in Kansas City, Kansas, the big name ISPs aren’t exactly following suit.
Verizon has stalled the expansion of FiOS indefinitely, and other companies have been slow to invest in ultrafast broadband. Time Warner Cable is rolling out fiber to office building in New York City, and Comcast’s Xfinity Platinum service offers a 305 megabit cable service in some locations for $299.95, but that’s the extent of it…
‘Competitors have been overbuilding, investors are wondering where the returns are,’ says Mark Ansboury, president and co-founder of GigaBit Squared. ‘What you’re seeing is an entrenchment, companies leveraging what they already have in play.’
Mr. Perez is correct that the future competitiveness of Trenton as a community that can attract investment by businesses and families depends on an improved infrastructure. I can’t blame him for thinking big by proposing that Trenton move into the 21st Century and provide a first rate information infrastructure.
But his proposal as presented this morning is a poor one. Trenton has a long way to go to repair and upgrade too much of its brick-and-mortar infrastructure before we can hope to compete with a fiber optic one.
His proposal today is poorly thought-out. He provides no details on what a “public private partnership” of this sort may look like.
There is no estimate offered on what the “public” investment (taxpayer funds) required by Trenton might be, and what the return on that investment might be.
The other cities he cited as examples to follow in fact offer caution and warnings, clearly not what he intended.
His proposal is certainly a Big Idea, intended to distinguish himself from the rest of the mayoral field, and attract voters looking for a candidate with Vision.
Sadly, Mr. Perez’s vision of the “Trenton Broadband Initiative” is no more serious and practical than Mr. Worthy’s waterfront Casino.
The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) last week filed a complaint against Hoboken Council Member Beth Mason, alleging several violations of the state’s campaign laws dating back to her 2011 election campaign. That complaint, and the nature of the charges, should be of concern to current Trenton Mayoral candidate Eric Jackson and his campaign.
It’s also a matter that should be of concern to Trenton voters who are being asked to vote for Mr. Jackson based on a presentation of the candidate as being the most professional, the most ethical, honest and transparent of the eight candidates running. The conduct of his election efforts in both 2010 and this year – at least in regard to their observance of state campaign finance laws, suggests far less than conscientious compliance.
The State ELEC filed a complaint against Ms. Mason and her husband (who was her 2011 campaign treasurer), charging the council member with six counts of late and incomplete reporting, all in connection with her 2011 council campaign. According to the Hudson Reporter, “In all, ELEC alleged that Mason’s campaign failed to report a total of $126,199 on time, with the information submitted anywhere between 98 and 276 days late. The amounts should have been reported on reports that were due beginning in October 2011 and April 2012, but were not revealed first until July 2012.”
According to the account in PolitickerNJ.com, the Councilwoman and her treasurer husband have the option of contesting the charges at a hearing, or they can accept the the determination of the Commission and likely end up paying fines. Although not spelled out in either of these articles, the amounts of such fines can easily total thousands of dollars. Last year, for instance, the political action committee for Union City Mayor and State Senator Brian Stack was fined $68,725 by ELEC for late campaign filings dating from 2003 to 2005.
That’s some serious money, for serious campaign finance violations.
So, what’s the connection with Eric Jackson?
Jackson’s current 2014 campaign has been in the news over the last few weeks for a few campaign-finance related irregularities. One involves an alleged violation of Trenton’s Pay-to-Play Ordinance by a current contractor with the City of Trenton. The second concerns the failure to properl;y account for and disclose the identities of the donors of nearly $2000 in cash donations given to the Jackson campaign in December of 2013. These two instances cover only the ongoing 2014 mayoral effort by Mr. Jackson.
Where Eric Jackson shares some exposure to charges by ELEC, similar to Beth Mason in Hoboken, is from his prior mayoral campaign, in 2010. Beth Mason is facing charges from filing several of her reports very late . Eric Jackson’s prior campaign failed to even file many of his required reports.
In connection with his 2010 campaign, Mr. Jackson filed 4 reports with ELEC. As required, he submitted both a “29-Day Pre-Election report” and an “11-Day Pre-Election report” prior to the May 11, 2010 election, which detailed all of his donations and expenses up to the point at which the reports were submitted. As of his latest report, the “11-Day Pre-Election report” filed on 4/30/2010, Mr. Jackson had raised a total of $45,371 for his campaign, and had spent only $16,517.
And there the story ends. No further reports were ever filed by Mr. Jackson for his 2010 campaign.
He failed to file a required “20-Day Post-Election report” itemizing all of the income and expenses from his campaign as he incurred them before and after Election Day.
He failed to file Quarterly Financial Reports for the periods ending March 30 and June 30, 2010.
He failed to file any “48-hour” notices of expenses or donations in amounts exceeding $1400, as he would have been required to. Now it is possible that his campaign may not have had any donations or expenses that exceeded those amounts; but given how busy his campaign got toward Election Day, and immediately after when he contested his very tight 3rd-place finish alongside Manuel Segura, that is somewhat unlikely.
And, perhaps most importantly, Mr. Jackson failed to file any reports to formally close out his campaign committee after it had ended the 2010 campaign.
By law, any unspent balance in his campaign accounts would have either had to have been transferred to his 2014 campaign, or returned to donors. If he never formally closed his 2010 account, he would have been liable to file financial status reports at the end of every quarter from 2010 up until now.
Mr. Jackson’ s campaign filed no reports from April 30, 2010 until July 15, 2013, over three years later. That July report, which can be viewed here, is the first for his 2014 campaign, and begins all balances for his new campaign from zero.
According to his last report filed, Mr. Jackson had a balance of $23,770.94 in his account. He has never filed a report, as required by law, to disclose what he did with that money after the 2010 election was over. As far as NJ ELEC and state campaign finance law is concerned, the fate of that $23,770.94 – plus any additional 2010 campaign donations and expenses since April 30, 2010 – is unknown and way overdue to be reported.
Back to Beth Mason. According to the article in PolitickerNJ, she has been formally charged with violations and is now subject to fines for reports that were late by 276 days, 276 days, 184 days, 184 days, 98 days and 98 days.
How late are Mr. Jackson’s reports? One of them, the report for expenses through and including the quarter ending June 30 was due on July 15, 2010. That was 1,334 days ago. Many of his other reports are even more overdue.
Will Mr. Jackson be held liable by ELEC for any of this? I don’t know. But given the examples cited above, Councilwoman Mason and Senator/Mayor Stack, he certainly is vulnerable. And his campaign could be exposed to pay significant penalties and fines, should he be charged.
To me, though, these disclosures are relevant and important for several other reasons.
In reaction to press reports about the pay-to-play violation and the mis-reported cash donations, both the Jackson campaign and the candidate himself have seemed pretty dismissive of the problems. As quoted by the Trenton Times, Jackson attorney David Minchello denied any violation of ELEC law. “There definitely hasn’t been any violation of the ELEC law,” he said, ”but we will make sure that the cash contributions are reported with names as required by law.”
Mr. Minchello’s denial of an ELEC violation is kind of undercut by what he said after “but:” We didn’t violate the law, but we will make sure we will follow it in the future! Hmmm.
Mr. Jackson himself sounded rather dismissive of the problems in his current campaign reporting. According to the Trenton Times, “Although he has to sign the reports before they are submitted, Jackson said he is not solely responsible for any inconsistencies. ‘I don’t see every check that is coming in,’ he said.”
He sounds somewhat less of the hands-on, dedicated professional manager who is the best qualified to bring ethics back to Trenton that his campaign is making him out to be, doesn’t he?
Mr. Minchello and Mr. Jackson could possibly afford to take this kind of position, as long as the conversation was just about one or two minor violations and discrepancies in his current campaign, isolated instances in an otherwise well-run campaign.
But, when viewed in the context of several omissions, oversights and violations conducted by not one but two of his mayoral campaigns four years apart, these isolated instances begin to look more like a pattern of repeated behavior, doesn’t it?
Eric Jackson failed to properly report on, disclose and close out his 2010 mayoral campaign. He has already admitted to violations in campaign record-keeping and reporting in his current one. He admits as well to a certain distance from day to day operations – “I don’t see every check that is coming in” – in a campaign for which he is ultimately responsible.
Does this suggest to you that, as far as observing campaign finance law is concerned, Eric Jackson may be a little less than dedicated? Does he and his campaign believe that there will likely be little chance of being held accountable by ELEC, or the voters, for his campaign reporting lapses?
Perhaps Hoboken’s Councilwoman Beth Mason felt the same. As of last week’s charges against her, I’m sure she feels differently now.
Should all this concern Trenton’s voters? I think it definitely should. Eric Jackson’s unfinished business from his 2010 campaign should certainly be relevant to voters in 2014 as they consider who to elect Mayor to repair Trenton after the past four disastrous years.
Last summer, I wrote a piece that discussed the continuing problems with timely ELEC compliance that several sitting Trenton City Council members were having. What I felt then, I still feel now, and I will finish today with a reprise from that piece.
[A] candidate’s – or office holder’s – record of compliance with the commonly-known and pretty easily-followed ELEC Rules of The Game is a pretty good way to predict how conscientious that person will be to following the rules in office… If [candidates] can’t handle their own campaign finances properly, can we expect them to do so for Trenton’s?
Yesterday I discussed the poorly thought-out and argued “Plan for Jobs & Economy” released this week by Trenton mayoral candidate Walker Worthy as a central element of his campaign platform for the May election.
Altogether I find it very unconvincing, on several levels. Yesterday I selected only four of his points for any kind of discussion, and I found them all seriously wanting in terms of credibility, feasibility, and lacking estimates of potential benefits to Trenton and its citizens.
Although I could easily discuss some more of Mr. Worthy’s proposals, instead I would like to drill a little further into just one of his ideas. One of the main planks in his economic platform is “developing the city’s waterfront as a tourist draw, including a casino.”
As I wrote yesterday, I thought the proposal of a casino in Trenton sounded like a bad idea. I put my comments in the context of what I suggested may be a saturated market of too many Northeast casinos chasing what may be a limited number of gambling dollars. I also suggested that online gambling, legalized just last year in New Jersey for state residents, might further damage the prospects for a Trenton gaming establishment.
After some further thought and reading, I find that my notes yesterday were too focused on the business prospects of the casino, on the impact of a new entrant into an industry in which it would be hard-pressed to compete.
On reflection, I think that – although I still agree with all of the points I made yesterday – I did not address what probably should be the main reasons that a casino would be a singularly bad idea for Trenton.
Apart from it being a major component of Mr. Worthy’s campaign platform and of his economic development philosophy, I want to make the case that a casino is such a horrid idea for Trenton so strong that no other candidate for Mayor or Council will be tempted to pick up the idea for their own campaign. I don’t want any other candidate to say “A casino is a good idea. Let’s do it!”
Because gambling in Trenton would be an utter catastrophe.
There has been a lot of research and a lot of press on the impact of gaming on urban environments lately, in the midst of what has been over the last 20 years an explosion of gambling throughout the US.
Not all of it is good. Let’s start with this article about casino development in nearby Philadelphia, in which Dan Keating, the project manager for Wynn Philadelphia, a huge project proposed for that city’s Fishtown neighborhood, was quoted. Speaking about other proposed casinos suggested for Philly, he was reported as saying “while the Market 8 and Provence casinos [the other projects] are looking to create jobs and development in their neighborhoods, Keating said that they shouldn’t ‘no one should plan on a casino to bring about urban renewal,’ because that’s not what casinos do.” [Emphasis mine - KM]
If that’s the case, as admitted by a casino developer, then what benefit would such a business bring to a place like Trenton, and why in the world would a candidate suggest it in the first place?
But wait a moment! That quote came in an article written a few months ago in September 2013. Could Mr. Keating’s admission be considered sour grapes, or a rather unpolitic tactless admission of an inconvenient truth known by those inside the gambling business but never admitted in public?
Perhaps it is sour grapes. Because in November 2013, just two months after Keating’s quote, Wynn Resorts abandoned its plan to expand into Philadephia. Oh, well then.
But there is more! As reported in November on Philly.com the main reason that Wynn canceled its Philadelphia casino is, as included in a printed statement
“The board [of Directors] took a host of factors into consideration, including the Philadelphia market performance over the past year and the competition which will result from the recent approval of gaming in the State the [sic] New York. Consequently, the company will withdraw its licensing applications in Pennsylvania.”
Translation: There are already too many casinos in the region, and there will soon be more in New York. Wynn won’t make any money in Philadelphia. See ya!
So, where is any possible rationale for a Trenton casino?? Nowhere, that’s where!
But, I am sidetracked. I went off on another business argument. Back to “no one should plan on a casino to bring about urban renewal.”
Here is another article, titled “Top Urbanists Agree: Casinos Ruin Cities.” The arguments here cover a range of city experiments in gambling, citing examples ranging from well-off towns like Toronto to desperate contracting communities such as Detroit. From this article, let me just include this one statement by leading urban economist Richard Florida:
“Toronto’s business leaders like to think that they are helping to build a great global city, but casino building is city-ruining of the highest order. Virtually every serious study that has ever been done of the economic impacts of casinos shows that their costs far exceed their benefits and that they are a poor use of precious downtown land.”
“City-ruining of the highest order.” Keep that in mind in case you hear anyone in Trenton say that a casino might be a good idea!
I leave for last one more nail in the coffin.
Last year, the New York-based non-partisan Institute for American Studies released a 56-page, highly-sourced and footnoted paper on the economic and social impact of modern casinos. Titled, “Why Casinos Matter: Thirty-One Evidence-Based Propositions from the Health and Social Sciences,” this paper (you can download it here’ Press “Read PDF”) should be required reading, if the proposal of Trenton casinos takes on a life of its own apart from Mr. Worthy’s campaign. Which I hope to hell it doesn’t!
This post is long enough, but I think it is important to list each of this report’s 31 propositions, just in summary form. For full arguments and the footnoted sources backing them up, as well as the names of the scholars who wrote the study, you can go to the report itself.
I don’t think it will take much imagination when reading some of these to imagine the particular damage some of these propositions would cause, were they to come about in Trenton!
- Casino gambling has moved from the margins to the mainstream of American life.
- Today’s regional casinos are different from Vegas-style resort casinos.
- The new American casino is primarily a facility filled with modern slot machines.
- A modern slot machine is a sophisticated computer, engineered to create fast, continuous, and repeat betting.
- Modern slot machines are carefully designed to ensure that the longer you play, the more you lose.
- Modern slot machines are highly addictive.
- Modern slot machines are engineered to make players lose track of time and money.
- Casinos depend on problem gamblers for their revenue base.
- Living close to a casino increases the chance of becoming a problem gambler.
- Problem gambling is more widespread than many casino industry leaders claim.
- Problem gambling affects families and communities as well as individuals.
- Young people are viewed as the future of casino gambling.
- Working in a casino appears to increase workers’ chances of having gambling problems.
- Working in a casino appears to increase workers’ chances of having health problems
- The benefits of casinos are short-term and easy to measure while many of the costs are longer-term and harder to measure.
- Casinos extract wealth from communities.
- Casinos typically weaken nearby businesses.
- Casinos typically hurt property values in host communities.
- Casinos are the creation of state government and its public policies.
- State regulation of casinos creates a conflict of interest, in which the state is charges with protecting the public from the very business practices that generate revenue for the state and which the state is co-sponsoring.
- States are typically failing to protect their citizens from the harms of state-sponsored casino gambling.
- States are typically failing to provide adequate help for the treatment of problem and compulsive gambling.
- Some states are propping up failing casinos.
- Over time, casino expansion within a state and in nearby states can create a downward economic spiral of market saturation, sluggish state revenues, and failing casinos, marked by an ever-growing competition in which each state tries to lure other states’ citizens into its casinos.
- Regional casinos are a regressive source of revenue for the states.
- Research on gambling is largely funded by the gambling industry.
- Research on gambling funded by the gambling industry focuses overwhelmingly on the individual pathology and pharmacology of gambling addiction while avoiding research into machine design, player profiling, and other industry practices and technological innovations that foster gambling addiction.
- State sponsorship of casinos is a policy contributing to patterns of inequality in America.
- State sponsorship of casinos raises troubling ethical questions about fairness and equal treatment of citizens.
- Encouraging people to put their money into slot machines has historically been viewed as unethical.
- Encouraging legal gambling as “fun” entertainment and an all-American pastime is a historically new development.
Whew! After all these (and remember, for more detail on these propositions and citations on sources, you can go here) points, who all wants a casino in Trenton? Please raise your hand.
I thought so.
Walker Worthy is kind of tied to his proposal at this point. He only released it this week, and he can’t exactly abandon it now. He has to run on his plan, and be judged on it. Which doesn’t bode well for his chances, in my opinion.
I do hope, though, that I have at the very least raised enough of a concern, and created enough doubt about this, that no other candidate for Mayor or Council will touch the idea of legalized gambling in Trenton with a ten-foot pole.
After so many words on the topic, perhaps I could have summarized things much more succinctly:
If you liked the experience with Trenton’s Hotel, then you’ll love having a Casino!
I think that a casino would be even more disastrous for Trenton and its people than the hotel has been, hard as that is to believe.
This is a really, really, really bad idea! Let us not speak of it again, OK?
One of Trenton’s octet of mayoral wannabe’s is rolling out his policy platform this week. Deputy County Clerk Walker Worthy released on Tuesday his “Plan for Jobs & Economy: Focus on Development and Opportunities.” After anxiously waiting for something like this from the various campaigns, I have to say I am not impressed.
The “Plan” is little more than a set of objectives and wishes, with no real road map for getting there, nor have any criteria or scoring been provided to estimate the benefits to the City of Trenton that these objectives will provide.
Let me explain, by quoting just a few of Mr. Worthy’s objectives, and my reactions to them.
“Worthy’s plan for Trenton includes developing the city’s waterfront as a tourist draw, including a casino…”
This is the proposal that is gaining some attention in the media this morning, and it’s what alerted me to the fact that Mr. Worthy released his “plan” in the first place. This strikes me as poorly conceived and thought out. Why a casino? Where would it be? With Trenton surrounded for hundreds of miles by other gambling meccas in Bucks County, Philadelphia, New York, the Poconos, Maryland and Connecticut – not to mention Atlantic City, whose position as New Jersey’s hub of gambling and entertainment has been badly damaged by the competition from these other locations, what would be the draw for a Trenton casino? Who would be the target market, when all of these other locations are located in closer proximity to larger populations?
Would the State allow a casino so close to AC, when its fortunes are declining? And in a state that legalized online gaming last year, what is the future for brick-and-mortar casinos? In January of this year, the state issued a report on gaming revenue results for December 2013. As reported by NJ.com, this report was the first to include results for online gaming as well as casino.
This report showed that in-casino gambling declined 7.6% from December 2012 to December 2013. That is one month’s example, and one can’t derive long-term conclusions from one month’s numbers.
But that report does suggest that legalized online gambling has the real potential to cannibalize market share from existing casinos in the state of NJ. These results suggest that the market for gaming in NJ has a ceiling; it will not expand along with the expansion of opportunities to put $100 on new craps tables. It is what is called an inelastic market. Not good news for Atlantic City, let alone a prospective casino location such as Trenton.
With that in mind, what does Mr. Worthy think the prospects of a Trenton casino might be? What kind of numbers does he forecast for this casino?
We don’t know. His “plan” doesn’t say. He didn’t even cite any positive results or examples from other casino towns to bolster his case. Like so many statements from the candidates and his supporters, he expects the benefits from his “plan” to be self-evident without any arguments nor evidence in favor.
“Worthy is also calling for the creation of a redevelopment authority in the city that will help speed the process for developers and identify critical areas of opportunity for building and growth.”
What’s wrong with the departments and agencies we already have? The City of Trenton has the Department of Housing and Economic Development. The State created the Capital City Redevelopment Corporation with exactly the same mission for which Mr. Worthy calls for a new agency?
Why? What is the case for starting a new authority? Sure, there are many criticisms one can offer up for the city’s H&ED department and the CCRC. But, before calling for a new agency, shouldn’t a candidate first make the case for scrapping the existing ones? I think so.
“Use my experience and relationships with key state and county officials to create public/private partnerships and promote the benefit of doing business in Trenton.”
Hmm, Mr. Worthy only talks about his ”experience and relationships” with public officials in the state and county. OK, I will grant him that he might be able to leverage those connections into something of benefit to Trenton.
But relationships with public officials, as good as they might be, are onlyone-half of any possible “public/private partnerships.”
What kind of ”experience and relationships” does Mr. Worthy have with those in the private sector, and how might they be relevant to developing future opportunities in Trenton? If he has few or none in the private sector, then wouldn’t that require him to be dependent on those “key state and county officials” to gain him entree to the private sector? And will those officials have Trenton’s best interests in mind?
I doubt it. Mr. Worthy’s experience is substantial in public service, on the county level at least which explains why the Mercer Democratic establishment (most of whom reside outside of Trenton) is supporting him so strongly. But he has shown he has no depth of ”experience and relationships” of the kind in the private sector that could benefit Trenton. So,
“Ensure all pending and future development provides a long-term benefit to the city.”
How does Mr. Worthy plan to ensure this? Over the last year or two, we have seen only activity on the development front that singularly fails to provide direct, long-term benefits to the city.
For example, the acquisition by Thomas Edison State College of the Glen Cairn Arms site on West State Street. The only tangible direct benefit to the City was a one-time $300,000 payment in lieu of taxes to the city. The project was touted by the City and County as having the potential of some positive spin-offs to the city: opportunities for nearby retail establishments serving the student body and faculty of the new school being built there, and the educational and professional opportunities to be offered to Trenton residents. But those benefits are intangible, in the future, and anything but assured. In the meantime, one of the prime parcels of Trenton waterfront real estate was taken off the city’s tax rolls, with the active basking of the City, County and State.
The State is also crippling Trenton’s future revenue opportunities, for at least the next 20 years, under the terms of the “New Jersey Economic Opportunity Act of 2013,” the State has created a program of tax incentives and credits for preserving existing commercial development and jobs in the state. But the Act does so by exempting projects developed under this Act from all state and local taxes, including municipal taxes, for a period of up to ten years, and allowing for deep discounts on those taxes for up to another ten.
In the official Legislative Fiscal Estimate prepared for the State Legislature last year before passage of the bill, the impact of this program on towns such as Trenton was predicted as follows:
The Garden State Growth Zone (GSGZ) property valuation exemption will result in significantly reduced property tax revenues for the cities of Paterson, Passaic, Trenton and Camden to encourage potential development which may not occur without GSGZ incentives. [Emphasis mine - KM]
Given this context, and the environment under which the City will function over the next two decades (at least), how can Mr. Worthy – or any candidate – claim he can ”ensure all pending and future development provides a long-term benefit to the city.”
He can’t. He doesn’t even acknowledge the tremendous roadblocks put in place crippling the City and any new Administration. I’d like to see him, and any other candidate, discuss their plans for the economic future of Trenton in the context of that horrible Act of 2013, and hear their plans for objectives for amending it or otherwise limiting the damage to Trenton from the guarantee of “significantly reduced property tax revenues.”
Unless and until Mr. Worthy can speak to the realities and restraints that these and other handicaps to our development impose upon Trenton, I have to consider his promise as little more than bluster, and therefore a
I’m glad to think that this election process is finally getting to the point when campaigns are starting to talk about substance. But I am entirely disappointed by Mr. Worthy’s proposals, at least as released today. I am convinced that his candidacy for mayor of a City with whose affairs he has little relevance is ill-considered. I am further convinced that the massive support he enjoys from the County Democratic establishment is being provided for purposes other than the benefit and best interests of the citizens of Trenton. What might those purposes be? I have no idea.
But I do know it’s not because he will be the best person to be Mayor of Trenton.
There is an odd and confusing column by LA Parker in today’s Trentonian. It is rather odd because Parker, a professional writer and reporter, criticizes local bloggers and Facebook posters as ineffective do-nothings. His is a bold call for Action: “We need more hands on deck instead of mouths that roar about every penny, position, or publication.”
Yeah, like I said. Real Odd, coming from a guy whose supposed profession is to report (”roar” is reserved for opinion-writers, after all!) about “every, penny, position, or publication.” That’s called Journalism, LA.
It’s kind of confusing, for a lot of reasons. The first is… I kind of think he may be talking… at least a little… about me! But I can’t tell!
It’s very hard to tell exactly who the target(s) of his criticism might be. You see, he names none of the bloggers he finds objectionable (Irresponsible, maybe?), nor does he cite any examples of any posts on blogs or Facebook or any social media that have led to his particular outburst.
Parker follows the example I cited yesterday of mayoral candidate Eric Jackson’ Trenton Times column, similarly free of names, dates, facts, or any specific arguments intended to back up whatever argument he is making.
However, I suppose Parker felt some ingrained need to provide some specific names and dates to support his claims, because he does provide a few examples. But he must have pulled them out of his ass, because they don’t have anything to do with the matter at hand. Weird, right?
Catch this: “In Trenton, people would rather blog about a real-time murder occurring just outside their window instead of stopping the crime. They are cut from the same cloth as those who allegedly watched or listened as Winston Moseley plunged a knife into Kitty Genovese.”
When, exactly, did someone in Trenton “blog about a real-time murder occurring just outside their window instead of stopping the crime.” When?
And these anonymous individuals are “cut from the same cloth” as those who stood by when Kitty Genovese was murdered?!?!?!?
What the Fuck, LA?? How do you take that jump? Are you serious?
I’m afraid he is. Because from Kitty Genovese (and, for the record, LA, in March 1964 when she was murdered in Queens, NY, I was 8 years old in San Francisco. And blogging wasn’t invented yet), he jumps to nearby Hamilton in 2013.
Parker mentions the unsolved July 2013 murder of Shakir Williams, shot at a house party where none of an estimated 100 people reported any details or leads for a suspected murderer to police.
What in the name of Joseph Pulitzer does this have to do with bloggers and Facebookers? I have no freaking idea!
He proceeds from these gruesome examples – which, again, have nothing to do with his thesis – to state that Trenton needs people to DO Things, and not just talk:
We constantly hear from disillusionists, obstructionists, and Facebookers. This is an open invitation for those who know that building strong communities requires a house-by-house, block-by-block effort.
Trenton needs more alliances and less [sic] liars, more builders and less bureaucracy, less [sic] politicians but more people involvement.
I think LA Parker needs fewer (not “less,” LA, fewer!) weekly columns, and more editing!
Overall, this column reads as something slapped together around the barest nugget of an idea. He spun off a few paragraphs, realized they were too short, so he kind of threw in the stuff about Genovese and Williams to plump it out.
What a mess!
As I said at the top, without having any idea what is raising Parker’s bile, who the undistinguished – entirely unnamed – and do-nothing bloggers and Facebookers might be who are the subject of this anonymous attack, this cannot be taken at all seriously.
So, why do I even bother to take note of today’s piece? After all, this column is pretty typical of Parker’s work. Why does this one rankle?
Because I can’t help thinking that, in some degree, LA is talking about me. Over the last week there has been a lot of Facebook and Twitter activity. What with the final ejection of Tony Mack from office, the initial flurry of brooms cleaning City Hall under the direction of Acting Mayor George Muschal, and the (finally!) heating-up of this spring’s elections, a lot of people have a lot to say. And Facebook and Twitter is where people go to say a lot of it.
But there have been relatively few old-fashioned political “blog” posts in the last few weeks. Dan Dodson has written a few times. Ditto Mr. From the Front Stoop. Pat Stewart, may she rest in peace, has passed. Robert Chilson and Michael Walker have been pretty quiet lately. And what Dodson and Mr. Stoop have been writing about has been pretty unobjectionable.
But me? I have to say that, after several months when I have been largely quiet, I’ve been a little busier. Over the last ten days I’ve written three columns about Eric Jackson that have been fairly critical. It’s not that I have anything personal against the man, but he and his campaign have been the most active lately, and have been taking several steps that I find questionable.
His campaign has been involved in a violation of the City Pay-to-Play Ordinance, he accepted a dubious endorsement from Ewing pastor Johnnie Vaughan who personally benefited from an allegedly no-show patronage job under Tony Mack.
Both of these moves I criticized for violating the spirit of his self-proclaimed “zero tolerance” policy toward corruption. He reiterated this policy in a remarkably fact-free Trenton Times op-ed yesterday, about which I had some rather emphatic words to say.
(I suppose this is turning into my Fourth Jackson column, then!)
Hmmm… I published that blog post yesterday morning. And LA Parker publishes his incoherent rant against “some upstart city blog, another one of the countless websites in Trenton manned by people who think criticism makes them a community activist or clairvoyant” online last night at 8:57 PM.
Could there possibly be a connection, you think? Possibly, possibly. But of course, there would never be any way to know for sure.
But it is some coincidence, don’t you think?
So, even granting a possibility that there is not one word in Parker’s screed that is directed my way, is there anything in his column that I can take to heart.
No, not really. I started this blog four years ago when I ran – very unsuccessfully, I will add – for City Council. That run was after several years serving Trenton in such ways as sitting on the city’s Zoning Board for a dozen years; attempting to help the Trenton Library by attempting to establish a Foundation, raising tens of thousands of dollars in the process until blocked by the Library’s then-Chair and former Mayor Doug Palmer; and serving as a Democratic Committeeman and member of the city’s Democrats’ Executive Committee until work commitments forced me to resign.
My blog started as a result and an offshoot of the other work I was doing, not as a replacement. And that has been true of other social media commentators in this town. It’s true of Mr. Stoop, Dan Dodson, and was true of Pat Stewart.
So, to read criticism from the likes of LA Parker that refers to me and my brethren – however indirectly – as “disillusionists, obstructionists, and Facebookers” pisses me off.
Unless, of course, I read his rant as a direct response to the piece I wrote yesterday. Which means that I must have pressed some buttons, touched some nerves, and made some people angry.
In which case, I say I must be Doing Something Right!!!
But, as I said, I will never know for sure. LA didn’t bother to name any of his targets, so I will just ignore the criticism and continue to do what I do.
There is one line in which I find myself in complete agreement. His last line in today’s column.
“It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton.”
Indeed. “Put up” has to mean saying what you mean: naming your subjects, making your arguments with facts and evidence, stating plans and platforms with specifics and not warm & fuzzy appeals to emotion. And meaning what you say.
It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton, Candidates!
It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton, Press. That means you, LA!
It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton, Voters!
It’s put up or shut up time in Trenton.