SUPPORT PAY TO PLAY REFORM IN JC

Guest Viewpoint
By Daniel Levin

“In Jersey City, the dirt ran deep. Corruption was so ingrained over the decades that adults thought as I did, that every place was the same and that you couldn’t escape it ..."
-- Helen Stapinski, Five Finger Discount

Let’s face it: Jersey City has an image problem. Years of indictments and scandals have taken their toll. There’s no getting around it.  Jersey City is virtually synonymous with political corruption.  Even a recent laudatory article in New York magazine pointed out that Jersey City is “known for its string of ethically flexible mayors who eventually wound up in jail.”

Was this reputation undeserved, we could simply let it bounce off our already thick skins. (For who of us hasn’t on occasion been met with and incredulous “you live in Jersey City?”)  But, as we all know, there’s more than a kernel of truth to some of the bad press. Jersey City really has had more than its share of corruption.

Finally, there’s something we can do to throw off the legacy of Frank Hague and send a message that Jersey City has changed. We must strongly support the adoption of the “Redevelopment Pay to Play Reform” ordinance, recently proposed by Councilman Steven Fulop, and coming up before the City Council in coming weeks. This ordinance, previously submitted to the Council by Civic JC and similar to the Redevelopment Pay to Play ordinance recently passed by Woodbridge will make “pay to play” a thing of the past. It will ban contributions to local elected officials and municipal and county political parties by developers and their professionals who wish to do redevelopment work in Jersey City.   

Why is this important? It’s simple. Jersey City is experiencing a redevelopment boom of historic proportions that will impact our city for generations. Under New Jersey law, local officials have the authority to exercise eminent domain, irrevocably change zoning and land use, and award tax abatements and other financial benefits to developers performing redevelopment work. With this much power, the temptation for developers to exercise undue influence over our local officials is simply too great. Redevelopment decisions must be made on the merits, not on who gave the most to a political campaign.

Daniel Levin is president of Civic JC, a non-partisan, community-based initiative, designed to promote good government practices and a comprehensive, positive vision for the future of Jersey City as a “World Class City.”

Fulop's ordinance has been put on the City Council's agenda for Jan. 24.

ON THE WEB:
Civic JC
Councilman Steven Fulop

E-mail the editors

Comments

[tris mccall]

hi!

curious: let's say that eric silverman wanted to make a campaign contribution. would he be prohibited from doing so under this ordinance? or would the law just screen contributions from exeter properties, and allow personal contributions in his name? not to single out the silvermans or exeter properties; for all i know, they support the ordinance.

does the proposed pay-to-play law treat mister panepinto and mister one-unit redeveloper equally? in other words, will the simple act of redeveloping any property in jc put me on a no-fly list for political contributions?

rock,
tris

[Editor]

Tris,
Good questions all. Perhaps Dan could shed a little light on that? Dan? Hello???? Bueller?

We've also got a reporter working on a story on the proposal, I think the second question puts in light a distinction that must be addressed in the ordinance.

[Daniel Levin / Civic JC]

Tris,

Re-

#1, Personal contributions are banned by the ordinance. A Redeveloper is defined as

"As defined in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3, ( the “Act”) a “Redeveloper” means any person, firm, corporation partnership or limited liability company that shall enter into or propose to Enter into a contract with the City or its designated Redevelopment Entity for the
Redevelopment or rehabilitation of an area in need of redevelopment, or an area in need of rehabilitation , or any part thereof, under the provisions of the Act, or for any construction or other work forming part of a redevelopment or rehabilitation project. For purposes of this ordinance the definition of a Redeveloper includes an individual, including an individual’s spouse, an any non-emancipated child living at the same address; firm; corporation; professional corporation; partnership; organization or association, including all principals who own ten percent (10%) or more of the equity in the corporation or business trust, partners and officers employed by the entity as well as nay subsidiaries directly controlled by the Redeveloper, and excluding sub-contractors or subsidiaries in which Redeveloper has a ten (10%) percent or more ownership interest."

Also in the proposed ordinance-

"(a) The contribution and disclosure requirements in this Ordinance shall apply to all Redevelopers as well as professionals, as defined in N.J.S.A 40A:11-1 et seq., consultants or lobbyists contracted or employed by the Redeveloper ultimately designated as the Redeveloper to provide services related to the:"

#2 Size is not revelant, but whether a person or entity meets the definition above.
Generally, it is unlikely that there would be a redevelopment agreement with the city for a single unit or single small multifamily dwelling.

Please let me know if I can provide any further info.

Dan

Dear City Belt,
I agree with Dan Levin of CivicJC and sent this email to our JC Councilpeople.
Sam

Dear Councilpeople,

I urge you to support Councilman Fulop's ground-breaking Redevelopment Pay to Play Ordinance as even the appearance of money influencing decisions hurts government's image with the public who deserve elected officials who work to attack the pay to play system. Our federal and state government is prioritizing working on ethics reform now and it would be great if our city takes the lead in this new era of building trust of government. The City of Asbury Park was the first municipality to adopt this ordinance with similar ordinances being passed in Woodbridge, Edison, Belmar, Hightstown, Hamilton, West Windsor, the County of Mercer and currently under consideration in Newark. Jersey City should show the rest of NJ that our officials want to be in the vanguard of ethics reform.

It would mean that projects will be seen by the public as totally chosen on merits alone and after the waiting period is over, the developers can again support whom they want. I think that the developers may actually eventually see this in their best interest also, as they should want their project to be chosen on its merits and they can contribute to the city in other ways if they want to.

Sam Pesin
75-135 Liberty Ave.
JC 07306

[Rick Brockman]

This pay to play ordinance will change perception that Jersey City legacy is not just Frank Haig and his successors. At very least it implies that Hudson County politics is not a one way ticket to Leavenworth ;-)

[Christa Atkins]

I'm sick of the construction sites in my neighborhood, there are tons
of them coming up and it takes forever for them to be completed,
195-197 Van Horne, the sidewalk in
front of the construction has been
blocked with construction debris,
the neighbors children and adults
alike must walk in the street when passing along there, I called the
building dept. to report this and
nothing was ever done about this.
that's just one out of many another
construction site on Van Horne has
been in the making for over two years and is still not finished
the scum bags in the neighbors are
breaking into the partially finished buildings to help themselves to whatever they can steal out of the building, incl a
$5,000. airconditioning compressor.
who in the Jersey City government
is regulating the developers to make certain a clean and safe site
is being operated. the construction site right next to my proper had huge guard dogs on the
property that were periodically taking unattended walks through the neighborhood.
How long is a construction permit for? we have no one in the city overseeing the developers to make certain that safety procedures are
followed.
Like Housing Code Enforecment sends
inspector to an apartment where a
tenant is complaining about violations, they do inspections find violations, but nothing ever gets done, is someone on the take???

[matt]

would it be too socialistic to require a set percentage of a development (or redevelopment) be put aside for building a park, or public pool, or a public parking garage, a public rec center...you get the idea. I vote for sending a message, this is not Hoboken, or Manhattan, nor do we want it to be. A city is judged not only by its bars and restuarants and price per sq. ft, but also by the quality of life it provides ALL residents, not just the luxury ones.

food for thought
matt

[Editor]

Matt,

Certainly an idea worth entertaining, in our opinion. If all of the new condo developments downtown are filled, we're talking about a huge influx of residents -- all who will get to use the already shoddily maintained public spaces.

Unfortunately, the trend continues to go in the opposite direction...rather than asking *more* of developers who take up projects in JC, the city prefers to ask *less* of them, as to be *competitive* with NYC, etc.

A shame.

[tris mccall]

often these development deals *do* require the contractors to clean up after themselves and contribute something to the streetscape or to neighboring public structures. for instance, schenkman-kushner fixed up fitzgerald-holota park -- that was part of the deal for constructing grove pointe. you might not like the way they did it (i sure don't), but it was the result of a negotiation between neighborhood groups and the developer. many developers pay into the pool of money for low income housing as a part of their pilot deal. (they're supposed to, anyway.) so it's never an outrageous thing to ask. it just becomes another business cost.