Biting the bullet

Early reports from last night's City Council Conference Marathon (gee, maybe they should have met last Tuesday and split the work load over two night!!!) indicate the following:

1. Trenton is faced with a $7 million budget short fall in fiscal 2009 (which begins July 1).

2. The E-Path presentation/resolution was pulled from the agenda by the Administration (why was it even being brought up again?)

3. Director Santiago and his crew defended their choice of a $200,000 plus investment in new guns for the department.

It shouldn't take more than a room temperature IQ to follow this logic: If we are looking at a $7 million deficit, we do not need to spend money on new guns (especially if we are being offered new guns for free from the current provider!).

It is that simple.

Realizing that we've been over this topic before in this blog, let's refresh every one's memory.

Checking around on-line for commentary and ratings on the two weapons in question, one from Glock and the other from Springfield Armory, the prevailing opinion is that they are comparable weapons. Preference for one over the other is personal choice.

Casual discussion with a few Trenton police officers of our acquaintance has demonstrated no urgent need or mad desire to switch guns. Upgrade, yes (if for free). Switch, no.

Questions that we would like to have answered:

Does the proposed expenditure include the cost of new holsters, etc.?
Are there people on-staff in the TPD trained to service and repair the Springfield guns?

As for arguments that have been made about the Springfields being safer: have there been any incidents of accidentally discharged weapons due to a mechanical failure on the Glocks?

Are the Springfields better weapons for women and less experienced officers? I'm sorry but if the Glock is the standard issue weapon of the force and you have trouble using it, then you are not qualified to be on the force are you?

While this topic will no doubt be fodder for forum posters and bloggers for awhile, let us put a suggestion on the table for consideration.

Accepting the Administration's calculation of a $7 million dollar shortfall in next year's budget, it is obvious that Trenton needs to severely cut expenses. Since, as Chief of Staff Renee Haynes is reported to have put it, "everything is on the table," let's start trimming the obvious fat and waste by not asking for ridiculous expenditures.

Let's withdraw the proposal to purchase new guns from Springfield Armory and take the offer of free upgrades from Glock (this presumes that the stated offer of upgrading the department's guns for free is legit and meets all of the appropriate regulations and guidelines governing such matters). Why spend money we don't have for a change that isn't needed?

Further, let's immediately draw up and put into place a realistic automobile use policy that restricts take home cars and such as much as possible. Let's face it, there are a lot of vehicles being used for little more than commuting to and from work that are costing us, the taxpayers, a lot of money. Those employees who might complain should consider this: they can give up/severely cut back on the use of their city vehicle or they can face possible layoffs or worse.

Let's settle the Police (and any other outstanding contracts) thereby mitigating further increases in the size of retroactive pay increases already incurred.

And, here's one more money saving suggestion for the Administration: no more "free" legal representation for Mr. Santiago or Mr. Palmer in the residency case. The taxpayers do not owe them a defense for their beliefs and actions. They broke the law, they should pay for their own lawyers.

Let's see how quick they are to spend their own dollars on these follies!

The Arrogance of Incumbency

What's ailing Trenton

After nearly 18 years in the position, it looks like Trenton’s Mayor has lost any and all sense of duty to the electorate he pretends to serve.

It is expected that the solemn news of the city’s poor fiscal condition will be delivered along with a preview of the FY09 budget at today’s City Council Conference session (5:00 pm, 2nd Floor City Hall). Rumors abound regarding potential layoffs, departmental budget cuts, and even a possible firehouse closing.

Make no mistake; the blame will be aimed at everyone and everything from the Republican White House, the War in Iraq (and Afghanistan), the mortgage crisis and the country’s overall weak economy. Everyone and everything that is except the Palmer administration.

We won’t hear anything about failed economic development strategy of our 5 term Mayor.

There will be no accounting for the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid for outside legal work (just guess what the ongoing costs are for the protracted residency fight that is getting stranger by the day).

Of course, at the same time as the bad news about Trenton’s finances is being delivered to City Council, the Administration is going to once again make its case for two sizeable yet unnecessary expenditures:

A contract with E-Path communications for a city wide WiFi mesh (that was already voted down once).

New guns for the Police Department from a new vendor (when the current vendor has offered to provide new guns for free).

The simple fact is and has been for too long, Douglas H. Palmer does not care about moving Trenton forward. He may have at one time, but he's long since past that point.

What he does care about is projecting himself as something he is not: a capable, credible, leader.

It is no secret that Doug Palmer has an eye on bigger and better things…for Doug Palmer. But he also has an eye on Trenton in 2010 because if he doesn’t get to go to Washington on Hillary’s skirt tails or get tapped for the newly created Lt. Governor’s position in Trenton (and it is the opinion here on the stoop that he will get neither of these), he will most likely run for Mayor again.

In the free-for-all that the next Trenton city elections are shaping up to be, it is conceivable that Mr. Palmer and his chosen few could maintain their death grip on local government. Palmer’s deep pockets and army of accomplices could possibly win over the mixed assortment of likely challengers.

From where we sit here on the stoop, it seems that there is one course of action open to the people of Trenton who wish to see meaningful change in their city.

It is admittedly quite drastic and would take a lot of organization and effort. Serious consideration should be given to a recall of the Mayor. And along with that recall, a likely (not just “likeable”) replacement must be identified and supported.

It may be the only possible cure.

What part of "NO, THANK YOU" don't you understand?

Well it seems like our old friend E-Path is back on the agenda for City Council again.

According to Jim Coston's blog the CEO of this company that is desperate to build a city-wide WiFi mesh here in Trenton will visit Council and listen to their questions.

Questions, by the way, that the Palmer Administration has asked be submitted to them by Friday.

Ok, Mr. Pintella and Ms. Staton; Ms. Feigenbaum and Mr. Gonzalez; Douglas and Renee; in case you didn't get it the first few times we ran this by you:

Municipal WiFi models have yet to live up to their hype and promise.
E-Path has yet to deliver a system anywhere (read this or this -- including the comments or this).

Larger, more advanced and experienced corporations with deeper pockets have pulled out of the Municipal WiFi market.

These are facts, plain and simple.

Knowing and understanding all of the above, please tell us why the cash-strapped City of Trenton should commit to a contract with company that hasn't and probably won't build the system to deliver the services specified in the contract?

If you all are so damn sure that this will fly...let E-Path build the system and demonstrate it's total functionality and reliability. Then, and only then, should you have reason to come before Council and request approval of a contract for services.

Got it?

Caught! Again!

Seems as though long-time Palmer puppet Paul Michael Pintella has been caught in a prevarication yet again.
The multi-term Councilman At Large and two term Council President claimed in yesterday's press that South Ward Councilman Jim Coston had taken the sole initiative to invite dubious developer K. Hovnanian to present to council (and the public)on the status of the Champale site development next week. Claiming that Coston did not follow protocol in this matter, Pintella took it upon himself to cancel the appearance.

Now it comes to light that an actual resolution was presented to and passed by City Council as a body to have K. Hovnanian come in and present its case.

So Paul Michael, you've been caught lying. Again.

And you've been shown to be the servant of the will and whims of the Palmer Administration who has continually secured your seat on council rather than the people you pretend to represent. Again.

Are you proud of yourself, sir?

Riding the wave

"Crime is down!"

"Crime is down!"

So goes the mantra of the Palmer/Santiago acolytes.

And despite questions about how crimes are reported,it appears as though crime just might be down.

But not just in Trenton.

New Jersey's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) for the first six months of 2007 show a statewide decrease in violent crime. (read about it here)

State Attorney General Anne Milgram rightfully acknowledges the hard work and dedication of the law enforcement agencies across the state for their commitment to improving public safety. The UCR figures show that urban areas experienced the largest drop in reported crimes.

So it makes us wonder, is Joe Santiago really the world's greatest crime fighter who's management of the TPD is solely responsible for the improved crime statistics in Trenton?

Or has he been lucky enough to catch the wave of positive results we're experiencing statewide?

April foolishness

Trenton's wayward administration is still at it.

On the docket again this week is a resolution to enter into a $250,000 contract for services with E-Path Communications. E-Path, you will recall, is the small, Florida-based company who wants to build a city-wide WiFi mesh in Trenton. They promised they would do this at "no cost" to the taxpayers. The costs of building and maintaining the system will be paid for by selling access and services to government entities.

Enter the $250,000 contract with Trenton.

The "free" construction and implementation of the network is dependent upon having paying customers. E-Path is essentially asking the City of Trenton to commit to buying access to the (as yet unbuilt) system. With a signed contract in hand, we presume E-Path's management will then try to leverage that deferred income into financing for this project...and probably the yet to be completed system they are supposed to be building on Long Island in New York state.

Today's city council conference session is to include another presentation by the Wizards of WiFi from E-Path as they desperately try to make their case for the city to grant this contract.

We've said it before and we say it again...No, Thank You!

No doubt there will also be talk about the Mayor's request that Council amend the city's current residency ordinance to allow exceptions and waivers.

Haven't we been over this before?

If council had wanted to amend the residency ordinance to allow exceptions and waivers, wouldn't they have done so before entering into a law suit on the side of the citizens who wanted the law upheld? Would they/should they have spent all that money on legal representation to fight the Mayor only to turn around and acquiesce to his child-like demands of "My Way! My Way!"

Doug Palmer and his administration need to stop all of this foolishness right now.

No WiFi. No amendment to the residency ordinance.

This is not about you, Doug Palmer, and not about "defining moments" of your time as Mayor.

This is about common sense and doing the right thing for the City as a whole. Stop worrying about running around the country trying to line up your next step and take care of business here in Trenton.

When and if you come back to work for the people you claim gave you a mandate, I'd suggest leaving your ego at home with your pettiness and your spoiled brat tantrums. Accept that you don't have all the answers and the ones you do have aren't always right.

If that doesn't suit you, then step aside and let those who truly care about the people who live and work in Trenton take charge and stop this nonsense.

A few thoughts on residency

It is not about the person, it is about the law…and the benefits to the city.
Prior to Judge Feinberg handing in her decision in the Santiago case, there was a lot of back and forth about the policy of granting residency waivers to select individuals employed by the city.

Some people insist that residency requirements should be done away with completely. They don’t feel it matters in the least where anyone who works for the city lives.

Others say waivers should be allowed in certain circumstances.

One phrase we hear often in these arguments is that “we need the best person for the job, not the best person who will reside here to take the job.”

That just doesn’t make sense and here’s why:

If residency is a requirement for the job and a candidate is not willing or able to meet that requirement, then simple logic dictates they are not the best candidate for the job.

It makes you wonder what these “we don’t need residency requirements” folks think of the people who have voluntarily chosen to reside here in Trenton. If “the best” won’t relocate here, are those of us who have second rate? Isn’t that a slap in the face of the many, residency-law-abiding city employees?

Let’s make something else perfectly clear: residency requirements were enacted by the people of this city to help mitigate the loss of the middle class (and above) residents to the surrounding area. The idea was to maintain a resident base of people who could support the economy of the city by earning and spending their money here.

It’s interesting to note that the Palmer Administration’s policy of “selective enforcement” of the residency ordinance has coincided with an increasing amount of Trenton tax dollars flowing out of the city in the form of paychecks and professional service contract payments to non-residents.

Just look at the city law department. There was a time when the City Attorney and staff handle the vast majority if not all of the city’s legal work. The members of the department were required to live in the city from which they drew their paychecks. They paid taxes on their homes here; they patronized the restaurants, stores and movie theatres (remember them?) here. The dollars stayed in circulation in town. Business was supported; jobs were supported so more people could earn a living wage.

A picture of the law department today tells a completely different story. We have a City Attorney (I believe it may be a statutory requirement). But we also have the highly compensated “Special Counsel” who is essentially a non-resident contract employee. We also regularly retain several other outside attorneys to handle labor cases and contract negotiations; defense for the many damage and injury claims that are filed against the city (take a look at a council docket sometime), most from outside of the City.

In this most recent example of the residency waiver challenge, only the citizen plaintiff’s had local representation. City Council, the Mayor, Director Santiago and corporate entity of the City of Trenton all had separate legal representation and all were from out of the area.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees paid by the city each year to contract out services to providers who don’t live in the city.

Why not make sure we had an adequately staffed, professionally capable law department comprised of city residents. Then the wages paid would have at least half a chance of staying within the community and doing good where it is needed most (rather than Cherry Hill, or Livingston or Keyport etc.

Our so-called leaders tell us repeatedly of the need to attract people with expendable income to reside here; seek entertainment here; shop here; dine here.

And then they contradict themselves by giving money by the wheelbarrow load, not to mention cars, cell phones, etc., to outside attorneys, “gang” consultants, and the like.

Trenton will continue to suffer until and unless those who have been elected to office are held accountable.

Residency is one tool by which we can do that.

Doing away with it, amending it, waiving will only exacerbate our problems.

Help me with this

Contradiction and confusion between 319 E. State St and 225 N. Clinton Ave
The Mayor and his well-paid North Jersey attorney want Judge Feinberg and the residents of Trenton to believe that if Joe Santiago is ordered to vacate his office immediately, the Capital City will be at grave risk of being overrun by the criminal element. Therefore, they argue, the termination of Joe Santiago's tenure as Trenton Police Director because of his non-resident status should be stayed pending an appeal or until an orderly transition of authority can be made.

Of course, the legal wheels on this residency issue have been grinding for a couple of months. Why haven't the city and police administrations made prior plans for this transition, "just in case?" Seems to me the inaction of our leadership has put the public safety at risk by not having succession planning in place.

And didn't we just go through this with Barry Colicelli case?

Just for the sake of argument, let's consider that the Mayor is correct and the city is at increased risk without the steady hand of Joe Santiago at the command of the Police Department. Attorney George Dougherty, who represented the citizens in their fight to have the residency ordinance upheld (and who is himself a Trenton resident), rightfully asks if the safety and security of Trentonian's was then compromised every time Mr. Santiago was absent from his desk due to illness, vacation, or just plain not being around.

Excellent point, of course.

And if we weren't "unsafe" enough, now comes the issue of the request for City Council to authorize an expenditure of $200,000 for new police firearms. Currently the city city uses Glock handguns. The proposed contract would be for new guns from Springfield Armory. Through a police spokesman, Santiago has said that City Council can opt not spend the $200,000 and go for the free, "inferior weapon" and intimated that doing so would be unsafe for the police as well as the public.

But with safety a concern, was the Police Director himself or a designated representative present at the City Council meeting to make the case for the switch?

Of course not.

So to sum up:

Trentonians are at risk if Joe Santiago is summarily and immediately dismissed as Police Director. There will be presumed chaos in a police department that functioned quite well (arguably better) for over 200 years prior to Santiago's appointment as Police Director. The public will be at risk.

Since his appointment five years ago Santiago has been at best a part-time city resident and for the last two or more years has made no pretense about living 50 plus miles away from Trenton. His frequent absences do not put the public at risk.

The city should spend $200,000 to change weapons for the police department when the current supplier will provide new guns free of charge. Saving money by staying with an alleged "inferior" weapon* puts the police and the public at risk.

The police director has no problem if City Council decides to keep the "inferior" weapon, but he couldn't be bothered to attend the meeting and make his case for the allegedly safer choice.

Does this mean that the public is again at risk, but the Director doesn't care enough to make his case for minimizing that risk?

Through all of the contradiction and confusion one thing is clear, Joe Santiago is not interested in serving the people of the City of Trenton any more than he is interested in living here.

Guess it is just time for him to go. Now.

We did a quick Google search and came up with this discussion thread that concluded there is no real difference between the two weapons under consideration. And the cops we've checked with seem to agree. Why spend the money for something that is essentially the same as the no cost option?

But what about the horses?

TRENTON'S MAYOR CLAIMS IT IS ALL ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY

Setting aside the fact that he acted in violation of the City's residency ordinance by granting a residency waiver to Police Director Santiago, the Mayor claimed that the Feinberg ruling is jeopardizing the public safety of Trenton residents.

Right.

The loss of experienced, dedicated professionals under Santiago's heavy handed management didn't jeopardize our public safety?

The ever-increasing police overtime budgets for the first four years of Santiago's tenure that resulted in a physically and emotionally exhausted police force didn't jeopardize public safety?

And what about the money spent on worthless video surveillance cameras, redesigned badges, and multiple numbers of high-end vehicles for Santiago cronies to drive to and from work (while our street cops and detectives had to "make do" with an aging and decrepit fleet)? Did any of that improve public safety?

Let's not forget the money wasted on the mounted patrol units. Yes, they look pretty standing around on the street corners downtown on a nice day, but what about the cost of stabling, feeding, transporting, providing veterinary care? This improved public safety how?

The Mayor needs to drop any and all thoughts of appealing Feinberg's decision.

He needs to bid farewell to Joe Santiago (and Irv Bradley), and get back to running this city FOR THE PEOPLE!

If he's not willing to do that, then let's put him and Santiago each on one of those horses and send them off on their respective journey to their homes in the north lands.

With the two of them out of the way maybe we can start to feel safe again.

The luck of the Irish

Feinberg says residency matters

It’s been an interesting day.

Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg has ruled that Trenton’s residency ordinance does indeed matter and the appointed police director should indeed be a bona fide resident of the City of Trenton.

That said, there are a lot of questions.

The first is: if an appeal is made, does Santiago keep his position?

At this writing, the information at hand indicates, “No,” he loses his position until such a time as an appeal is heard and Judge Feinberg’s ruling overturned.

What about a stay of the judge’s decision?

Sources feel it’s not likely to happen.

What happens in the Trenton Police Department?

When given the news this afternoon a friend asked, “Who’ll be in charge now?”

Of course, if there were still Deputy Chiefs within the TPD, one of them would possibly be given the responsibility…at least in the interim while the dust settled and the picture clarified.

With a lack of DC’s, there are a number of Captains currently on the force, several of whom are qualified by experience and tenure to step up.

The truth is, as big an event as this is regarding the battle between the citizens and the supposed powers of the Mayor, what matters now is what comes next. What happens now on the streets and in the neighborhoods of Trenton?

There has been a lot of energy and verbiage expended on why Joseph Santiago was not an appropriate person to head up Trenton’s Police Department. Despite his alleged claim not to go until served with a legal document (and in contrast to a previous statement that if he had to move here to keep the job, he’d leave), Santiago’s tenure has timed out.

Has anyone really thought about what will come next?

Members of the TPD and the public alike need to seriously examine their approach to “life after Santiago?”

For those who felt that Santiago was doing a great job, how are you going to carry on in his absence? Will you continue to be involved or will you walk away in disgust and disappointment that things haven’t gone your way?

A similar question can be posed to those who have stood and questioned the effectiveness of Santiago’s tenure as police director. Now that his residency “waiver” has been nullified, are you going to go back inside your homes in self satisfied silence that one perceived “evil” has been eliminated from our downtrodden city?

And to the long-suffering police who have had to deal with the whims and rages of the narcissistic and egomaniacal Santiago, are you willing to commit anew to working with the community to honestly and effectively reduce crime in Trenton?

There is nothing stronger than a working community police partnership. The successful challenge to the bogus residency waiver issued by Mr. Palmer to Mr. Santiago is a perfect example of what can be done when people unite to uphold the law. But will the bond be sustained and efforts refocused on the everyday street crime?

Will the general public maintain the trust in and communication with the Police? Will they share the information necessary to allow the Police to arrest and convict those responsible for the crime in our communities?

Will the police sustain and build upon the bridges of cooperation with the community that have been built because of and in spite of Santiago’s actions over the past five years?

Today’s judicial action has a lot of potential, let’s not waste it. One of the most divisive chapters of Trenton’s community-police relations was effectively laid to rest by Judge Feinberg’s decision.

It’s time to look forward to a safer, more unified Trenton and leave the abuses of power and privilege behind.

Next up: paid parking for city residents?

Tonight's city council conference session (5:00 pm, second floor of City Hall) includes a presentation on fee structures. One of the items listed is "Parking Enforcement."

Don't be surprised if the powers that be propose a fee structure for residents in the permit only parking areas of Trenton.

Permit parking is usually granted when there is a direct conflict between residents and visitors for the limited on street parking. Areas around the hospitals, ball park, arena, train station and downtown have had permit parking ordinances enacted so that residents have first dibs on available parking spots.

The system was designed so that permits and visitor passes would be reissued every couple of years to aid enforcement efforts. As is typical in Trenton, the system was let go to the point where enforcement is nearly impossible in some areas due to the large amount of resident turnover, counterfeit passes, etc.

After years of "we're working on it" representatives of Trenton's Traffic and Engineering Division of Public Works have floated the idea of annual parking permits being issued for a "nominal fee."

If this is proposed and passed, it will be another instance of penalizing the tax paying citizens for the city's mismanagement.

Let's hope any such trial balloons are shot down immediately.

Meanwhile, over in the schools administration building

"Dumber than a bunch of rocks."

The Trenton School District has had another glorious week.

First, there was the story of conflicting understandings of what actually occurred at a meeting between District Officials and representatives of the Schools Development Authority (SDA). In an article by reporter Lisa Rich in the Times, (Mix-up swirls around TCHS), readers were "entertained" to learn that the fate of the city's 75 year old high school was still up in the air because the participants in the private meeting walked away with completely opposite understandings of what was said.

That's right. Trenton School Officials and State Representatives couldn't even agree on what their stated positions were with regard to the ongoing drama of trying to save Trenton's iconic central high school building.

This morning we were treated to another telling article by Ms. Rich wherein the school officials claim that the district's failing grades on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) test are misleading. (Trenton district says AYP data misleading)

Mandated by the Federal No Child Left Behind rules, the AYP doesn't account for fact that many of Trenton's schools house elementary and middle school students. The elementary students are improving, but the middle schools are not and that is dragging down the systems scores.

But if the elementary school kids are showing Adequate Yearly Progress, why isn't that translating into the middle schools as those students are promoted through the system?

Are you listening, Council?

Earthlink has halted all of its work in Muni-WiFi systems and is officially pulling out of the as yet uncompleted Philadelphia network after three years. Why are we contemplating a "commitment" to a $250,000 contract with a small, unknown company with even less of a track record?

We already have Automatic Vehicle Locators in our Police Vehicles. Why are we soliciting bids for a new system?

The CitySide housing units are a fiasco. Why give a second thought to helping the owners bail out of their self-made mess with City financing, PILOTs, and property swaps?

Our Civilian Police Director does not live in the city as required by law (you said so yourselves with your vote in December), took sick days Monday and Tuesday and yet appeared before the Plainfield City Council Monday night. (Remember back in December when you chastised him for not being present and accessible to you and the citizens?) Why don't you go all the way and terminate his employment by the city?

The Administration has actively pursued and fired employees for non-residency, even when they've maintained an apartment in town and only lived away on weekends. Why are you allowing Communications Director Irving Bradley to split his residency?

Personnel Director Raisa Walker, presumably under oath, stated in July of 2006 that the City of Trenton had not issued any residency waivers to any employees in six years. Business Administrator Jane Feigenbaum stated in January of that same year that Mr. Santiago had been granted a residency waiver. These statements clearly contradict one another. What are you going to do about it?

The city is broke and broken. We need you to stop the stupid, illegal and wasteful spending and start repairing the civic infrastructure.

It figures

Newspaper reports indicate that the property swap, PILOT agreement and commitment of RCA funds to Maryland's Landex Corporation may just be approved. At the very least, the pending legislation will be on the docket for Thursday's Council meeting.

As we said before, it is another instance of a bad developer seeking help and money from the city to bail out their failed scheme.

Kudos to Councilmen Bethea and Coston for trying to inject common sense into the proceedings and questioning the notion of throwing good money after bad.

And Councilwoman Staton's concern about multiple exits from the properties is great...although current construction and occupation codes apparently don't require this.

Most telling though, are Council President Paul Pintella's comments. Lacking anything of substance to say on the matter, he is reported to have congratulated the developer on an "impressive PowerPoint presentation." The deep thinking Pintella concluded that he is inclined to support the proposal because "the current situation is unacceptable."

What else would we expect from him. Let's not forget how the City stepped in and bailed out the failed housing development initiated by the now defunct Urban League of Trenton. To Pintella, the City is apparently there to help struggling developers, no matter what their track record.

Let's take a pass on this deal and parcel out those properties to worthy developers who have proven their ability to provide decent home ownership possibilities. And let's work on getting Ms. Siegel and Landex to clean up their mess here in Trenton before they come asking for any further financial assistance or property swaps.

Walk a mile in my town

Running out to pick up a tomato pie for dinner, we managed to catch the tail end of a story on NJN News (about 24 minutes in) this evening announcing that Trenton was named the country’s 8th most walkable city by Prevention Magazine.

In conjunction with the American Podiatric Medical Association, Prevention assembled a group of experts who evaluated the best cities for hoofing it around.

In the write up, Trenton was cited for the high percentage of people who walk to work and or walk for exercise. Trenton’s infrastructure was deemed “highly walkable” because it provided wide sidewalks without having to cross a lot of wide and busy streets.
Another positive was the cluster of walkable commercial and cultural attractions downtown.

Now it’s tempting to denigrate the study by pointing out the comparable absence of such attractions compared with the Trenton of 40 or 50 years ago. We’ll forego the cheap and easy shot to point out the positive…Trenton is an exceptionally walkable city.

The fact that Trenton still exhibits the character of its 19th century boom years is a real plus. The city’s size is quite manageable, even for pedestrians. It’s only about a mile from the county courthouse at Broad and Market Streets to Waterfront Park. It’s a similar stroll from the State House up through Stacy Park to the Island neighborhood.

The cluster of government and commercial buildings downtown is easily accessible.

And the architecture is by and large intact due to the lack of wholesale redevelopment schemes (not that there hasn’t been some proposed).

In short, Trenton is a city on a very human scale and it would behoove professional planners and developers to keep that in mind as they plot the future of the capital city.

As thinking people seek more ways to lives independent of their automobiles, cities like Trenton will become more and more attractive. We’d be well advised to keep to the plans for downtown as laid out in the Capital City Redevelopment Corporation’s Master Plan of twenty years ago. The state and the city should come to terms with the need to open up Rte. 29 so we can regain pedestrian access to the riverfront. And we need to stop courting the out-of-scale type of developments represented by the Full Spectrum project.

To be sure, we need more people living, working, shopping and playing downtown. But we can’t afford to lose the comfortable scale of the buildings and streets in the process.

Just say no!

Tuesday’s City Council Conference session will include a presentation from Baltimore-based Landex Corporation. This is the group responsible for the Cityside apartments in various locations around town.

According to a report in the Times last week, Landex has proposed a property swap with the City of Trenton. Landex wants the City to turn over 14 buildings it owns in exchange for 22 Cityside buildings around Passaic and Spring Streets. The 22 Cityside properties currently each house 2 rental units, but under the proposed plan, the homes would be converted to single family, owner occupied units. Landex also wants a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreement, as well as a commitment of some Regional Contribution Agreement (RCA) monies as part of the deal.

Speaking for Landex, Chairwoman Judy Siegle admitted that renting to Section 8 tenants here in Trenton has not worked out as planned for the company.

Council President Paul Pintella and Council Vice-President Cordelia Staton both commented on the lack of quality in the current Cityside buildings.
It appears that under the proposed deal, Landex will utilize the RCA money and PILOTs to fund the conversion of all the properties into owner occupied units.

In essence, this failed corporate landlord that has been sucking up government money in the form of Section 8 rental payments, now wants the city to underwrite its exit from the rental business and support its development of properties for sale.

Once again, we have a would be developer coming to the city with its hands out looking for a contribution/financial support from our depleted coffers.

If Landex’s business model didn’t work out in the first place, what makes us think this new enterprise will succeed?

And what of these Section 8 tenants, where will they live? If they need rental assistance, they surely aren’t going to be able to buy one of these new homes.

Even if they could somehow finagle a deal to purchase a home, if they were “bad tenants,” how are they going to fare as property owners?

Nope. This seems like another bad idea that needs to be shot down.

We keep hearing that things have changed in Trenton and how developers are seeking out opportunities here in the city. But it always seems that they are seeking opportunities to get public funding, at least in part, for their projects.

One bad idea after another is presented, and there always seems to be a member of the administration ready to go to bat for the developer.

When will we learn to just say no?

Take a hike, E-Path

Southward Councilman Jim Coston reported the following on his February 27 blog entry:

E-Path. A copy of the resolution from last November granting E-Path "right-of-way" is on the Articles of Interest page. The $250,000 contract that was pulled from the docket last week had some contingencies as part of it. I am told that it amounted to nothing more than a guarantee that the City would pay $250,000 to E-Path for wireless network service once the network was built, not before. The guarantee is to help E-Path secure a loan to actually build the thing.
This course[sic] begs its own questions. Why can't E-Path get its own financing without locking the City into a deal? Why wasn't Council given a copy of the contract? What has E-Path been doing since it got "right-of-way" several months ago? The biggest question, the one that most concerns me, centers on their track record heretofore.

Let it be pointed out that those of us gathered on the front stoop said all along that this was most likely the case. The City of Trenton was being asked to commit to this contract so that it could help E-Path secure funding to do the job.

The City of Trenton doesn’t need to commit to anything. E-Path said they could do this on their own. Trenton should not agree to anything further until a system is up and running and its capabilities have been thoroughly demonstrated.

The administration can back pedal, sing, dance and spin this any way it wants but one fact remains clear: without a commitment of City money, E-Path will not build this unproven, unneeded network.

And the word from the stoop is still “No.”

Bye-bye, E-Path.

Memo from a taxpayer

One person's twelve, oops, make that thirteen cents worth.

To: The Palmer Administration and Trenton City Council

Subject: The Budget

Ok. You danced around so long that the FY2008 budget has to be approved more or less as presented. There was no chance for City Council to find ways to reduce or eliminate the tax increase because a) the budget year is nearly 75% over and the money similarly spent and b) the Administration likes to play games with the amount of detailed, timely information given to Council so they can perform their fiduciary duties effectively.

So you won another round of “My Way.”

Well, let’s get started today on the FY2009 Budget. Let’s start with the assumption that revenues will not increase a single penny above this year’s (and it’s a pretty sure bet they won’t even meet that mark).

Let’s look at real ways to cut spending. And yes, this means jobs. But perhaps not the ones you were thinking of cutting.

For starters, let’s look at these various “Special Assistants” to the Mayor. By now we all know the saga of Barry Colicelli, the highly compensated “consultant” whose contract was not renewed by Council. Well that’s just the beginning.

How about Mr. Jerry Harris? Do we really need to pay him over $50,000 to be a part-time assistant to the Mayor? No!

How about Chief of Staff Renee Haynes? Is this position really required? A survey of most taxpayers might just show you that it is not. There’s another $100,000+ a year saved.

In fact, Mr. Palmer, if you were to “stay home” and tend to the business of running this city, you might not need all this extra help.

Oh, and let’s not forget your driver. How about we let those police officers assigned to you get back to doing the job they were hired to do in the first place: protecting and serving the people of Trenton.

I know it will be hard on your image as a highly successful municipal executive with a role to play on the national stage, but too bad!!!!

The people of Trenton need a leader. They want a mayor who is hands on, in touch and grappling with the real problems of this city. They don’t want a grandstander who is running all over the country promoting himself while the city sinks deeper into debt and despair.

So there’s your start. Check around the executive branch of Trenton’s government and see what other positions we can no longer afford. (Public Information Officer Kent Ashworth, maybe).

Next, stop spending incredible sums of money for outside professional services contracts when the work can be done in house with staff people (and if the people on staff aren’t qualified, get rid of them and hire people who are!).

Need an example?

How about all the various attorney contracts the City pays for? We have a legal department and staff. Why is so much work going out the door? Is it to “toss a bone” to your cronies and campaign contributors? (The names Peterson and Trimboli are just two that come to mind). Bet we could save some money there.

And just why are we dealing with so many legal cases anyway?

Let’s see, there are protracted union negotiations…and who benefits from those? Not the unions and their membership; not the public. That’s right, the lawyers.

And there’s the multitude of claims and lawsuits. Maybe if we didn’t arbitrarily tell the police to “look the other way” while someone shoots a movie without a permit or liability insurance; perhaps if we monitored the way we go about the city’s business, we could minimize or eliminate some of these claims and reduce the need for legal representation. I believe it’s called “Risk Management.”

And it’s not just contracts with lawyers. We need to seek out the best price on all outside professional services contracts…regardless of whether or not they are buddies or supporters of your campaigns (and those of your chosen few).

Along with this, we need to totally and honestly evaluate how the various city departments operate.

Now whatever happened to the management study being conducted in the past year? What were the results? How much did that cost? Are we reaping any benefits from that yet? Oh, and was it really necessary to hire as one of the sub-contracted consultants the wife of one of the division heads who’s staff was being interviewed and evaluated? Isn’t that a little dicey as well as pricey?

City Council, don’t turn away. You’ve got a role in this too. Apply what you’ve recently learned about the budget process to FY2009 expenditures. If you don’t have a working budget in front of you, along with the backup information and material, don’t approve any unnecessary expenditure! Especially outside contracts. It’s past time for you to exercise the power and authority that you have over the budget. Use it or lose it!

Back to the administration; stop proposing stupidly expensive and totally unwarranted spending.

The fire helmet was a bad idea from day one. It became an infamously costly bad idea as time went on. The next time it goes out, have it dismantled and sold for scrap. It’s worthless and we can’t keep spending money on it.

Municipal Wi-Fi: it is a bad idea. Scrap your dreams and whatever promises you may have made to E-Path. It will never be what you think it will. If E-Path or any other company wants to build a system, let them. Just don’t put one Trenton dime into it.

And stop buying half-assed technology just because somebody’s cousin or friend is "in the business" and will sell you stuff cheaply that you can then point to as an illustration of just how advanced and sophisticated Trenton is.

You did it with the old Computer Aided Dispatch System (CPLIMMS was it?)

You did it with the Motorola radio system for the Communications division (remember the promise that the whole County would share this system --- and the cost--- with us?)

You did it with the farce of the video surveillance cameras in the midst of the 2006 election campaigns.

Are the few minutes of positive press you get really worth the ultimate cost to the taxpayers for non-functioning equipment and systems? Not to mention the risk to life and property when they fail to perform as advertised?

If you really want to improve the city’s bottom line, how about making a real and concerted effort to wrest control of the multitude of vacant buildings from their owners who are sitting on them like golden eggs that will never hatch. Take those buildings and put them in the hands of the various small developers who have been working very hard to restore and revive the market for this great old building stock. Get these building out of the hands of speculators and into the hands of people who will realize their full assessed potential.

Forget the big marquee development projects that never seem to work out or get started or become what they were promised to be.

And stop squandering our money and UEZ funds on your friends like Mr. Torricelli and his touted yet unrealized promises of “full occupancy.”

In short, the Mayor and the Administration must stop treating the City budget like their own personal treasury. Pennies must be pinched. They must do without some of the fun things (do all the various directors and such really need full-time city provided vehicles when our cops don’t have enough decent cars to use?) and perks.

If we can’t afford them, you can’t have them. (And by the way, a lot of this also applies to that money pit subset of City government, the school system. Let’s get rid of the extra assistant and special superintendents, various other dead weight positions, unneeded extras and spend money on good teachers, supplies and facilities!)

So let’s get cracking! Sharpen those pencils and fire up those calculators. July 1 is but four months away. Let’s see a fully thought out preliminary budget and all the back up detail presented to Council by then.

Have you noticed?

City Council voted in December that Police Director Santiago should comply with the Trenton’s residency ordinance.

There was some chest beating by the Administration: Mr. Palmer declared he had the power to grant a residency waiver. If Council didn’t agree, let them do what they have to do.

Then we heard the somewhat conciliatory, “Maybe it’s time to change the ordinance to allow waivers.”

Hmmm. Could it be, on further review, Mr. Palmer’s stance wasn’t as firmly rooted as he thought?

Then, just after the holidays were over, nine city residents filed a legal complaint against the city for allowing Mr. Santiago to continue on in his position of Police Director without complying with the residency requirement.

Then, towards the end of January, it was announced that the Police Department would be bringing its ComStat meeting out on the road to the residents. Appearances at the various Citizen Police Advisory Council (CPAC) meetings were scheduled. Billed as a chance for the public to see a scaled down version of the weekly command meetings, the events suddenly also included a “presentation by Police Director Santiago on the organizational structure and operation of the Trenton Police Department.”

Hmmm. Could this be a response to complaints that Mr. Santiago was remote, detached from and unavailable to the public that pays his salary?

Shortly into February the long dormant crime map on the City of Trenton website was suddenly updated (after three months) and a new one was posted this past week as well.

The local Chamber of Commerce is hosting the police director at an upcoming breakfast meeting, to explain his Crime fighting strategies for Trenton to the business community.

Hmmm. Could all of this, along with the ComStat road show, be an attempt to rehabilitate Mr. Santiago’s tarnished image?

And, he's apparently scheduled to appear before the Plainfield City Council to tell them the advantages of having a Police Director vs. a Police Chief. Strange, since they've already apparently put the changeover into motion, so why would he be making the case for a Civilian Police Director?

Hmm. Is Santiago auditioning for the Plainfield job?

Even the Palmer machine can’t be that transparent.

Or can they?

Fever dreams of a Socratic Dialogue

Mobius logic as taught in Palmer’s republic

The taxpayer funded responses to the complaint filed by citizens regarding Trenton Police Director Joseph Santiago’s non-compliance with the city’s residency ordinance rolled in last week.

Angelo Genova, counsel for the Mayor, has claimed that:
a) the city’s residency ordinance is null and void under New Jersey statutes
b) if not null and void under state law, the city’s residency ordinance
conflicts with the Mayor’s “inherent executive powers of appointment and
control”
c) The city’s residency ordinance purports to impose a residency requirement
upon Director Santiago, “a member of a police department and force” in
contradiction of New Jersey law prohibiting same.

Salvatore Alfano, counsel for Director Santiago, responded with his own claims that:
a) the city’s residency ordinance is null and void under New Jersey statues
b) if the residency ordinance is not null and void under state law and applies
to the Director, then the Mayor has the power to grant a waiver

Do these arguments make sense to you?

The city’s residency ordinance has been in effect for quite some time and has been used by the Palmer administration to remove various city employees for non-compliance. Palmer never questioned the constitutionality of it before.

Now, because he’s not getting his way, it’s suddenly in conflict with state law?

Now, because he’s not getting his way, the residency ordinance is in conflict with his power and authority as Mayor?

It didn’t seem to hinder that power and authority when he applied it to dozens of employers over the past 17 plus years.

And what about the assertion that the ordinance imposes a residency requirement upon Director Santiago as a member of the police force?

Doesn’t this contradict the very intent of the referendum changing to a civilian Police Director from a Police Chief?

Doesn’t it also contradict with the long, hard fought case preserving Director Santiago’s rights to collect his police pension because, as Director, he was not a member of a police department and force?

And didn’t Trenton’s ever so generous taxpayers foot the bill for the legal defense in that case as well?

He either is a member of the force who must forego his police pension for the duration of his directorship or he is a civilian and the residency requirement applies.

It only takes common sense to realize the defense attorneys’ arguments make no sense.

And regardless of the outcome of the legal proceedings, the taxpayers of Trenton are the losers as we pay our way out of another Palmer created mess.