Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, March 07, 2008
Cop offers chilling tale at ex-mayor's trial
James' bodyguard recounts installing air conditioner at woman's apartment
BY JEFF WHELAN AND MARYANN SPOTO
Star-Ledger Staff
A police bodyguard for former Newark mayor Sharpe James testified yesterday that he was ordered to install an air conditioner in the Jersey City apartment of Tamika Riley while he was on duty.
Adelino Benavente, a Newark police officer for 21 years, was the fourth witness prosecutors put on the stand this week in the corruption trial of James and Riley, his co-defendant.
Prosecutors are trying to prove James rigged city land deals for Riley between 2000 and 2006 because she was his girlfriend and are calling witnesses in an attempt to establish that romantic link. Benavente was one of a handful of officers who worked on James' executive protection detail during that period and is one of several of the former mayor's bodyguards expected to testify.
Under questioning from Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Perry Primavera, the veteran police officer often appeared uncomfortable, speaking in clipped sentences and repeatedly saying his recollections about specific dates and details were hazy.
Primavera showed Benavente documents regarding an air conditioner purchased from a P.C. Richards store in July 2002. James' Visa card was billed $409.47 for the purchase, according to statements prosecutors showed the jury.
"I don't recall paying for it, but I recall seeing my signature on one of the receipts," Benavente said, confirming that James authorized him to make the purchase. He said he and two other aides were ordered -- he couldn't recall by whom -- to pick up the air conditioner, deliver it to Riley's Jersey City home, and install it.
Benavente described Riley as a "personal friend of the mayor. An acquaintance." He also said Riley would call his cell phone -- at one point twice a day -- to reach the mayor, but that he did not view such calls as a high enough priority to interrupt the mayor in meetings.
Pressed for details, he said, "I have no recollection of the dates or times." He also said he recalled James once refusing to take Riley's call, saying, "Miss Riley is dating someone. I don't want to talk to her right now."
Benavente is due back on the stand today in federal court in Newark.
Riley's defense attorney has acknowledged she and James had an intimate relationship, but said it was brief and began after Riley had already begun purchasing city land. Prosecutors say the relationship began at least as early as 2000 and that Riley's access to city land dried up during rough patches in the couple's romance.
Rose Marie Posella, James' longtime personal secretary, testified earlier this week that it was her impression Riley became the former mayor's girlfriend as far back as 1999. Under cross-examination, she acknowledged that recollection was different than what she said during her grand jury testimony and in interviews with the FBI. She said she remembered more the more she thought back to that time.
Posella completed her third day on the stand yesterday. Under cross-examination by Gerald Krovatin, Riley's attorney, she acknowledged that in addition to her support of the mayor, Riley was a supporter of City Council members and attended their political events.
Defense attorneys contend the council, not the mayor, has ultimate control over the land deals, which are intended to spur redevelopment.
Prosecutors say James illegally steered nine properties to Riley, a publicist and businesswoman. She purchased the properties for $46,000 and quickly sold them for more than $600,000, usually without any rehabilitation, authorities said.
Prosecutors also called City Clerk Robert Marasco to the stand yesterday to explore those purchases.
Riley's applications for the land deals were lacking required information when they were approved by the council between 2001 and 2004, Marasco said. He also said he perused several packages of resolutions passed by the council approving the sale of the properties to Riley.
Under questioning from Assistant U.S. Attorney Phillip Kwon, Marasco said three of the packages did not contain project proposals, preliminary site plans, estimated total development costs or amount of financing. The fourth contained something similar to a proposal, but still did not have all the elements required of the applicants, he said.
Marasco also said council members don't meet with developers until after a resolution is placed on their agenda by the administration.
During cross-examination of Marasco, the defense presented 11 municipal ordinances and resolutions that authorized land sales to various developers, all for $2,000 per unit, the same price Riley paid for her properties.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Showing posts with label Newark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newark. Show all posts
Friday, March 07, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Police Director - Ledger - Attorney General urges compromise
Published in the Star-Ledger, Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Compromise urged in Newark police feud
State Attorney General's Office issues opinion in case
By JONATHAN SCHUPPE
STAR-LEDGER STAFF
The state Attorney General's Office yesterday waded cautiously into the legal battle over Newark Police Director Garry McCarthy's powers, saying he should get access to key operational and crime-reporting data.
But the opinion, written by Division of Criminal Justice Director Gregory Paw, did not say whether McCarthy could remain involved in day-to-day decisions of the Newark Police Department. Instead, Paw encouraged the warring sides to work things out.
McCarthy, a retired New York Police Department deputy commissioner, said the opinion "shoots down as irrelevant" claims by the Superior Officers Association that he had usurped powers granted by state law to the city's sworn police chief.
But SOA President John Chrystal, who represents 259 sergeants, lieutenants and captains, said Paw "didn't address the issues" directly. He vowed to press on with a lawsuit seeking to strip McCarthy of his ability to run most aspects of the force.
Chrystal said he found Paw's timing curious. Written in response to a May 2007 complaint by the SOA, the opinion came down just six days after the SOA filed its lawsuit in state Superior Court alleging McCarthy had overstepped his legal bounds by making deployment decisions, disciplining officers and running weekly crime-strategy meetings.
"Why did it take so long?" Chrystal said.
David Wald, a spokesman for Paw, declined to comment.
On another front, Chrystal has also tried to block McCarthy's ability to issue promotions by citing a long-forgotten 1982 city ordinance that caps the number of people at each rank. McCarthy must now ask the city council to change the ordinance, or demote three captains to fall in line with the law.
Whether Paw's decision will influence the SOA's lawsuit remains uncertain. But Paw clearly favored McCarthy. And he was dismissive of the SOA's argument involving similar cases in other New Jersey municipalities where judges have ruled against a civilian director's ability to directly run their departments.
Paw said the rulings don't necessarily apply in Newark, which is bigger and faces much more complex crime problems than the other municipalities. To do his job well, Paw said, McCarthy needs access to information about the department's daily operations and the city's crime problems.
But Paw said the director and the chief need to get along for the department to run well. McCarthy and Police Chief Anthony Campos have a strained relationship. Paw encouraged all sides to resolve the issues as "partners."
Chrystal said he has asked for a meeting with Paw and McCarthy. If that fails, he said, "we'll see what the courts have to say."
Jonathan Schuppe may be reached at jschuppe@starledger.com or (973) 392-7960.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Compromise urged in Newark police feud
State Attorney General's Office issues opinion in case
By JONATHAN SCHUPPE
STAR-LEDGER STAFF
The state Attorney General's Office yesterday waded cautiously into the legal battle over Newark Police Director Garry McCarthy's powers, saying he should get access to key operational and crime-reporting data.
But the opinion, written by Division of Criminal Justice Director Gregory Paw, did not say whether McCarthy could remain involved in day-to-day decisions of the Newark Police Department. Instead, Paw encouraged the warring sides to work things out.
McCarthy, a retired New York Police Department deputy commissioner, said the opinion "shoots down as irrelevant" claims by the Superior Officers Association that he had usurped powers granted by state law to the city's sworn police chief.
But SOA President John Chrystal, who represents 259 sergeants, lieutenants and captains, said Paw "didn't address the issues" directly. He vowed to press on with a lawsuit seeking to strip McCarthy of his ability to run most aspects of the force.
Chrystal said he found Paw's timing curious. Written in response to a May 2007 complaint by the SOA, the opinion came down just six days after the SOA filed its lawsuit in state Superior Court alleging McCarthy had overstepped his legal bounds by making deployment decisions, disciplining officers and running weekly crime-strategy meetings.
"Why did it take so long?" Chrystal said.
David Wald, a spokesman for Paw, declined to comment.
On another front, Chrystal has also tried to block McCarthy's ability to issue promotions by citing a long-forgotten 1982 city ordinance that caps the number of people at each rank. McCarthy must now ask the city council to change the ordinance, or demote three captains to fall in line with the law.
Whether Paw's decision will influence the SOA's lawsuit remains uncertain. But Paw clearly favored McCarthy. And he was dismissive of the SOA's argument involving similar cases in other New Jersey municipalities where judges have ruled against a civilian director's ability to directly run their departments.
Paw said the rulings don't necessarily apply in Newark, which is bigger and faces much more complex crime problems than the other municipalities. To do his job well, Paw said, McCarthy needs access to information about the department's daily operations and the city's crime problems.
But Paw said the director and the chief need to get along for the department to run well. McCarthy and Police Chief Anthony Campos have a strained relationship. Paw encouraged all sides to resolve the issues as "partners."
Chrystal said he has asked for a meeting with Paw and McCarthy. If that fails, he said, "we'll see what the courts have to say."
Jonathan Schuppe may be reached at jschuppe@starledger.com or (973) 392-7960.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Police Director - Ledger - Newark officers sue to reduce powers
Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday , February 01, 2008
Superior Officers' move could bring demotions
Union has filed a lawsuit to reduce police director's powers in Newark
By JONATHAN SCHUPPE
STAR-LEDGER STAFF
The Newark police union trying to curtail Police Director Garry McCarthy's powers is also blocking his ability to issue promotions -- and may force him to demote three trusted captains.
The moves have frustrated McCarthy, who predicted that the consequences could be "enor mous" because he may not be able to continue reforming the troubled Newark Police Department.
"This is keeping us from moving the agency forward," McCarthy said yesterday. "If they have a plan, it's hard to see what it is."
The Superior Officers Association on Wednesday filed a lawsuit accusing McCarthy, a retired New York Police Department deputy commissioner, of going beyond the scope of his legal authority to oversee the force.
Citing a state law that gives the power over most day-to-day operations to the sworn police chief, the union asked a state Superior Court judge to bar McCarthy from run ning most aspects of the department. That would leave it to Chief Anthony Campos, with whom McCarthy has a strained relation ship.
On a separate front, the SOA unearthed a long-forgotten 1982 city ordinance that caps the number of people who can hold certain ranks. When McCarthy revealed his intention this month to promote more than two dozen officers to sergeant, the union pointed out the ordinance, forcing him to limit the sergeant promotions to five.
McCarthy also noticed that the ordinance limited the number of captains to 30 -- even though the force has 33. So now he is contem plating demoting three captains to the rank of lieutenant while he tries to persuade the city council to change the ordinance.
The SOA's two-pronged attack on McCarthy surprised many police brass because the union represents sergeants, lieutenants and captains -- and therefore doesn't appear to gain any obvious benefit.
The ranking officers also noted that the Newark Police Department has been running the same way for decades -- including several instances in recent years when the roster violated the 1982 ordi nance -- without any complaints from the SOA.
That has prompted speculation about the union's motives.
Daniel Zieser, president of the deputy chiefs association, accused the SOA of "throwing a stumbling block in our efforts to increase supervision" within the department by promoting more sergeants.
SOA President John Chrystal said he simply wants the department to be run according to law.
"There's no ulterior motive other than to right a wrong," Chrystal said. "I have nothing personal to gain from this. I just want the department to be run properly. We want our members to get promoted the right way."
Chrystal said the union found the ordinance about a year ago after seeing similar issues arise in other New Jersey towns. He filed a grievance this week with the state Public Employment Relations Commission, claiming McCarthy transferred a union member who brought up the ordinance in a discussion about the promotions.
The head of the union representing patrol officers declined to comment.
The three captains facing demo tion -- the last three to get promoted to that rank -- are Niles Wilson, currently serving as deputy director in charge of recruiting, discipline and community relations; Antonio Perez, commander of the second precinct; and Inez Gonza lez, commander of the communica tions bureau.
If demoted, Perez and possibly Gonzalez will have to be transferred, McCarthy said.
"We are examining with our legal counsel whether we will be forced to demote them," McCarthy said.
Councilman Ronald C. Rice said he and McCarthy have discussed the old ordinance and he agreed to review it and consider changes.
"If it's a concern for him it's a concern for me as well," Rice said. "I want him to be able to do his job for the citizens of Newark."
Jonathan Schuppe may be reached at jschuppe@starledger.com or (973) 392-7960.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Superior Officers' move could bring demotions
Union has filed a lawsuit to reduce police director's powers in Newark
By JONATHAN SCHUPPE
STAR-LEDGER STAFF
The Newark police union trying to curtail Police Director Garry McCarthy's powers is also blocking his ability to issue promotions -- and may force him to demote three trusted captains.
The moves have frustrated McCarthy, who predicted that the consequences could be "enor mous" because he may not be able to continue reforming the troubled Newark Police Department.
"This is keeping us from moving the agency forward," McCarthy said yesterday. "If they have a plan, it's hard to see what it is."
The Superior Officers Association on Wednesday filed a lawsuit accusing McCarthy, a retired New York Police Department deputy commissioner, of going beyond the scope of his legal authority to oversee the force.
Citing a state law that gives the power over most day-to-day operations to the sworn police chief, the union asked a state Superior Court judge to bar McCarthy from run ning most aspects of the department. That would leave it to Chief Anthony Campos, with whom McCarthy has a strained relation ship.
On a separate front, the SOA unearthed a long-forgotten 1982 city ordinance that caps the number of people who can hold certain ranks. When McCarthy revealed his intention this month to promote more than two dozen officers to sergeant, the union pointed out the ordinance, forcing him to limit the sergeant promotions to five.
McCarthy also noticed that the ordinance limited the number of captains to 30 -- even though the force has 33. So now he is contem plating demoting three captains to the rank of lieutenant while he tries to persuade the city council to change the ordinance.
The SOA's two-pronged attack on McCarthy surprised many police brass because the union represents sergeants, lieutenants and captains -- and therefore doesn't appear to gain any obvious benefit.
The ranking officers also noted that the Newark Police Department has been running the same way for decades -- including several instances in recent years when the roster violated the 1982 ordi nance -- without any complaints from the SOA.
That has prompted speculation about the union's motives.
Daniel Zieser, president of the deputy chiefs association, accused the SOA of "throwing a stumbling block in our efforts to increase supervision" within the department by promoting more sergeants.
SOA President John Chrystal said he simply wants the department to be run according to law.
"There's no ulterior motive other than to right a wrong," Chrystal said. "I have nothing personal to gain from this. I just want the department to be run properly. We want our members to get promoted the right way."
Chrystal said the union found the ordinance about a year ago after seeing similar issues arise in other New Jersey towns. He filed a grievance this week with the state Public Employment Relations Commission, claiming McCarthy transferred a union member who brought up the ordinance in a discussion about the promotions.
The head of the union representing patrol officers declined to comment.
The three captains facing demo tion -- the last three to get promoted to that rank -- are Niles Wilson, currently serving as deputy director in charge of recruiting, discipline and community relations; Antonio Perez, commander of the second precinct; and Inez Gonza lez, commander of the communica tions bureau.
If demoted, Perez and possibly Gonzalez will have to be transferred, McCarthy said.
"We are examining with our legal counsel whether we will be forced to demote them," McCarthy said.
Councilman Ronald C. Rice said he and McCarthy have discussed the old ordinance and he agreed to review it and consider changes.
"If it's a concern for him it's a concern for me as well," Rice said. "I want him to be able to do his job for the citizens of Newark."
Jonathan Schuppe may be reached at jschuppe@starledger.com or (973) 392-7960.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Recidivism - Ledger - OpEd by Mayor Cory Booker
Published in the Star-Ledger, Sunday, July 29, 2007
[OpEd - Recidivism]
When neither crime nor punishment pays
BY CORY BOOKER
In barbershops and boardrooms, in newspaper headlines and presidential debates, Americans are questioning the billions of dol lars a month being spent on a failing war, and the current "surge" in Iraq.
But we, policy-makers at every level of government, should also be questioning the "domestic surge" at home in the so-called war on drugs and urban crime. There are more guns, more technology, more cameras scanning streets, and more money spent on jails, prisons and juvenile facilities every day. The cost to American taxpayers also rises every day.
The way we have chosen to deal with crime is leading our nation away from its highest ideals and producing results that stand in stinging contradiction to who we claim to be.
In the land of the free, we lock up a greater percentage of our population than any nation. The U.S. prison population has increased 91 percent in the past 15 years. More than 7 million Americans are under some form of state or federal cor rectional supervision, and this does not include the legions of Americans in county and city facilities.
Is this the America of which we dream?
Our societal resources pour into prisons and police budgets -- the numbers are staggering. Billions of dollars are spent annually around our state, with budget growth at a pace far beyond that of our economy. Newark spends over a quarter of its budget on police, courts and jails.
Is this the America of which we dream?
Our legal system is plundering conceptions of equality. In our America, one in three African- American men in their 20s is under some form of correctional supervi sion. New Jersey leads in racial disparities in incarceration; while 14 percent of New Jersey's population is black, more than 60 percent of its prison population is African-American.
Is this the America of which we dream?
Our correctional system does not correct. We are the worst nation on the globe for recidivism. After spending billions incarcerat ing people, we release them only to see one in every two ex-offenders return in three years. We are forcing our proud law enforcement community to engage in a profound cyclical absurdity of arrest ing, re-arresting and re-re-arresting the same individuals time and time again.
Is this the America of which we dream?
Our nation is not expending all of these national resources on violent offenders. The majority of the Americans clogging our courts and prisons are nonviolent offenders primarily engaged in the use, sale or distribution of drugs. Violent or not, offenders should face punishment -- whether they throw litter on a Newark street or come to a Newark street to buy heroin. But when the punishment perpetuates the problem, when it destroys lives instead of correcting them, when it saps taxpayers of their precious resources, when it perpetuates the hideous legacy of racial injustice, when it aggravates cycles of poverty and undermines the very principles we seek to uphold, we must seek change.
Is this the America of which we dream ./. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?
We arrest teenagers for drug dealing and drug use at an alarming rate. But we make little, if any, investment in alternatives to exist ing detention programs, or in drug treatment, counseling, or intensive mentoring and education. Instead, we lock up these young people and release them back into our communities and the cycle begins anew, with re-arrest often within a matter of days or weeks.
New Jersey's largest juvenile facility is in Essex County and based in Newark. The former warden told me that three of four incarcerated youth have been at the Essex County facility before. Yet upon re lease, we put them right back into the environment that created the juvenile drug user or dealer. As a nation, we then wash our hands of any obligation and shake our heads when that 14-year-old youth offender becomes a 20-year-old offender and is once again clogging our jails.
When an adult is released and sincerely wants to stay out of prison, he faces a host of barriers to success that we do little to address. Ex-offenders are ineligible for numerous public assistance programs. They are stripped of their driving privileges, which might allow them to get to work; even if their driving privileges have not been revoked, they cannot obtain a commercial driver's license. They are entangled in a host of legal challenges, from parking tickets that turned into warrants for their arrest while they were in jail to child-support payments that have accrued to tens of thousands of dollars.
These Americans have a host of urgent needs, from housing to hunger and, of course, to children and families that desperately need their help. And as they try to meet these needs, they face a nearly insurmountable hurdle -- a community stigma that prevents many employers from hiring them.
I meet dozens of men every week with dramatic and painful stories of what they have been doing to survive, stay out of trouble and try to maintain financial stability. I see their sense of personal vic tory that they have resisted the easy, yet dangerous, call back to criminal activity that can afford quick but costly answers to their financial needs. However, I also see their frustration that, despite years of walking the right path, they still face a persistent punishment that costs them the right to return to society as a full and productive member and is depriving America of an enormous swath of its poten tial human talent. New Jersey's narrow expungement laws have men caught selling drugs in their 20s still paying the price in their 30s, 40s and 50s.
Enough. As mayor of our state's largest city I have decided to join with others to do whatever is necessary for a dramatic change in crime and prisoner re-entry policy at every level of government. In the coming weeks, we will announce a series of changes we will make here in Newark to reverse this travesty; however, as important as they are, they will not be enough to adequately alter the devastating course on which we find ourselves.
We live in a profoundly intercon nected world, with interwoven des tinies. This is not an urban problem or a suburban problem. It is not a black problem or a white problem. If we continue on the path we have chosen in the years and decades ahead, all of New Jersey will feel greater and greater pain and be forced to pay the ever- increasing price. American greatness has always required sacrifice, but we have been sacrificing and bleeding in the most senseless fashion, diminishing our nation's glory and strength. Now more than ever we must be united for broad- based reform. Now more than ever we must be the America of which we dream.
Cory Booker is mayor of Newark.
Online story link here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
[OpEd - Recidivism]
When neither crime nor punishment pays
BY CORY BOOKER
In barbershops and boardrooms, in newspaper headlines and presidential debates, Americans are questioning the billions of dol lars a month being spent on a failing war, and the current "surge" in Iraq.
But we, policy-makers at every level of government, should also be questioning the "domestic surge" at home in the so-called war on drugs and urban crime. There are more guns, more technology, more cameras scanning streets, and more money spent on jails, prisons and juvenile facilities every day. The cost to American taxpayers also rises every day.
The way we have chosen to deal with crime is leading our nation away from its highest ideals and producing results that stand in stinging contradiction to who we claim to be.
In the land of the free, we lock up a greater percentage of our population than any nation. The U.S. prison population has increased 91 percent in the past 15 years. More than 7 million Americans are under some form of state or federal cor rectional supervision, and this does not include the legions of Americans in county and city facilities.
Is this the America of which we dream?
Our societal resources pour into prisons and police budgets -- the numbers are staggering. Billions of dollars are spent annually around our state, with budget growth at a pace far beyond that of our economy. Newark spends over a quarter of its budget on police, courts and jails.
Is this the America of which we dream?
Our legal system is plundering conceptions of equality. In our America, one in three African- American men in their 20s is under some form of correctional supervi sion. New Jersey leads in racial disparities in incarceration; while 14 percent of New Jersey's population is black, more than 60 percent of its prison population is African-American.
Is this the America of which we dream?
Our correctional system does not correct. We are the worst nation on the globe for recidivism. After spending billions incarcerat ing people, we release them only to see one in every two ex-offenders return in three years. We are forcing our proud law enforcement community to engage in a profound cyclical absurdity of arrest ing, re-arresting and re-re-arresting the same individuals time and time again.
Is this the America of which we dream?
Our nation is not expending all of these national resources on violent offenders. The majority of the Americans clogging our courts and prisons are nonviolent offenders primarily engaged in the use, sale or distribution of drugs. Violent or not, offenders should face punishment -- whether they throw litter on a Newark street or come to a Newark street to buy heroin. But when the punishment perpetuates the problem, when it destroys lives instead of correcting them, when it saps taxpayers of their precious resources, when it perpetuates the hideous legacy of racial injustice, when it aggravates cycles of poverty and undermines the very principles we seek to uphold, we must seek change.
Is this the America of which we dream ./. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?
We arrest teenagers for drug dealing and drug use at an alarming rate. But we make little, if any, investment in alternatives to exist ing detention programs, or in drug treatment, counseling, or intensive mentoring and education. Instead, we lock up these young people and release them back into our communities and the cycle begins anew, with re-arrest often within a matter of days or weeks.
New Jersey's largest juvenile facility is in Essex County and based in Newark. The former warden told me that three of four incarcerated youth have been at the Essex County facility before. Yet upon re lease, we put them right back into the environment that created the juvenile drug user or dealer. As a nation, we then wash our hands of any obligation and shake our heads when that 14-year-old youth offender becomes a 20-year-old offender and is once again clogging our jails.
When an adult is released and sincerely wants to stay out of prison, he faces a host of barriers to success that we do little to address. Ex-offenders are ineligible for numerous public assistance programs. They are stripped of their driving privileges, which might allow them to get to work; even if their driving privileges have not been revoked, they cannot obtain a commercial driver's license. They are entangled in a host of legal challenges, from parking tickets that turned into warrants for their arrest while they were in jail to child-support payments that have accrued to tens of thousands of dollars.
These Americans have a host of urgent needs, from housing to hunger and, of course, to children and families that desperately need their help. And as they try to meet these needs, they face a nearly insurmountable hurdle -- a community stigma that prevents many employers from hiring them.
I meet dozens of men every week with dramatic and painful stories of what they have been doing to survive, stay out of trouble and try to maintain financial stability. I see their sense of personal vic tory that they have resisted the easy, yet dangerous, call back to criminal activity that can afford quick but costly answers to their financial needs. However, I also see their frustration that, despite years of walking the right path, they still face a persistent punishment that costs them the right to return to society as a full and productive member and is depriving America of an enormous swath of its poten tial human talent. New Jersey's narrow expungement laws have men caught selling drugs in their 20s still paying the price in their 30s, 40s and 50s.
Enough. As mayor of our state's largest city I have decided to join with others to do whatever is necessary for a dramatic change in crime and prisoner re-entry policy at every level of government. In the coming weeks, we will announce a series of changes we will make here in Newark to reverse this travesty; however, as important as they are, they will not be enough to adequately alter the devastating course on which we find ourselves.
We live in a profoundly intercon nected world, with interwoven des tinies. This is not an urban problem or a suburban problem. It is not a black problem or a white problem. If we continue on the path we have chosen in the years and decades ahead, all of New Jersey will feel greater and greater pain and be forced to pay the ever- increasing price. American greatness has always required sacrifice, but we have been sacrificing and bleeding in the most senseless fashion, diminishing our nation's glory and strength. Now more than ever we must be united for broad- based reform. Now more than ever we must be the America of which we dream.
Cory Booker is mayor of Newark.
Online story link here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Redevelopment - Ledger - Judge rules for Mulberry Street owners
Published in the Star-Ledger, Sunday, August 5, 2007
In Newark, a question of blight or wrong
Some see a section beyond help, while others like it
BY KATIE WANG
Star-Ledger Staff
For Michael Saltzman, the abandoned dirt lot across the street from his Scott Street home in Newark is an eyesore, a symbol of wasted opportunity in the downtown area.
The neighborhood, says Saltzman, who uprooted from Manhattan and moved to Newark five years ago, is definitely ripe for redevelopment.
Three blocks over on Elm Street, Augusto Mariano says the neighborhood is a thriving one that he and other Portuguese residents helped rebuild in the 1980s when no one else was willing to move into Newark. As far as he is concerned, the area is fine as it is.
The two divergent views strike at the heart of a protracted four-year legal scuffle involving the city, a redeveloper and the Mulberry Street Association, a group of 22 property owners who fought to protect their land against eminent domain. The case hinged on this question: Are the 14 acres of land, which are covered with houses, small businesses, parking lots and a handful of desolate tracts, considered blighted?
The developers and city said yes and declared the area in need of redevelopment in 2004, clearing the way for a 2,000-unit condominium complex just blocks from the new Prudential Center and City Hall.
The Mulberry Street Association disagreed and sued, challenging the designation in order to protect its land.
A week ago, Superior Court Judge Marie P. Simonelli in Essex County sided with the property owners.
"There is no substantial evidence that the Mulberry Street area has reached a state of deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding areas," Simonelli wrote in her decision.
Alluding to views laid out earlier this year in the precedent-setting state Supreme Court decision Gallenthin Realty Development Inc. vs. Borough of Paulsboro, Simonelli said the city cannot seize property just because it does not feel the land is "fully productive."
Both the city and developer, Newark Redevelopment Corporation, have not decided whether they will appeal the decision, but the City Council last week passed a resolution "strongly urging" the administration not to appeal.
The tract in question is squeezed between the federal courthouse and McCarter Highway, which carries rivers of traffic in and out of Newark. It also sits near the train tracks, where PATH trains lurch through every few minutes. Visitors to the new Prudential Center, scheduled to open in October, will pass the neighborhood on the way to Route 78, making the property one of the most attractive and valuable parcels in the city.
Too valuable, said the city and developers, to be used for parking lots and small businesses -- an argument they made in court. In addition to those businesses, there are churches and homes in the area.
"(The project) would provide a new mix of retail and entertainment services not currently available in the downtown," said Bruce Wishnia, a principal of Newark Redevelopment Corporation, the company behind the condominium project.
Saltzman, the owner of a real estate services company, said he was disappointed by the judge's ruling. Saltzman's house sits on the rim of the disputed area. He bought a house, banking on the promise of a bustling downtown in the future.
Over the years, he has stared out at an empty lot filled with stray cats, homeless people and prostitutes, waiting for the redevelopment wave to arrive in Newark.
"If an area is filled with vacant lots and vacant parking lots and barely any retail in the area, then to me that's not a thriving neighborhood," said Saltzman. "It's not maximizing the value of the area."
At the same time, Saltzman said he empathizes with the residents who have lived there for years. The problem in this case, he said, might have been the way the city and developer proceeded with their project.
Latasia Elliott, 16, a neighbor who has lived on Scott Street for a year, also said the area could use some sprucing up. Still, she said it is better than her former home on Seventh Avenue in Newark.
"Besides the hookers and transvestites, everything is all right," she said.
But longtime residents such as Mariano, 56, have a radically different opinion. Mariano bought a three-bedroom, pale yellow house on Elm Street in 1987 for $7,000. When he moved in, the neighborhood was unsafe to wander around at night.
Years later, he said, it is "awesome" compared to what it used to be. His block is lined with narrow homes, occupied by Portuguese, Brazilian and Spanish immigrants. At the end of his block, abutting Mulberry Street, is the club QXT, which he says does not cause any problems at night.
"It's clean, it's honest," he said.
Even so, if a developer gave him a fair offer for his house and to move, he would consider it. The judge's ruling, he said, pleased him, but it was far from vindication.
"There's still a lot of bad blood with us because of the way they treated us," said Mariano.
George Mytrowitz, the owner of Market Body Works and leader of the Mulberry Street Association, said he does not think his organization would have prevailed in court five years ago. The members of the association have spent $250,000 on legal bills and attended countless council meetings over the years.
Mytrowitz said the tide started turning in their favor at the federal level, with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against private property owners in Kelo vs. City of New London. In that case, the court ruled in favor of eminent domain for economic development -- a decision that did not sit well in the court of public opinion. Kelo, said Mytrowitz, opened people's eyes to what he calls eminent domain abuse.
Separately in New Jersey, the state's highest court offered a different opinion on the issue in the Gallenthin case in Gloucester County. In that case, the court ruled municipalities cannot declare "underused properties" as blighted ones for the sake of redevelopment.
Contrary to what the developers and city say, Mytrowitz said the Mulberry area is still a viable one.
"Surface parking plays its part here," he said. "Those lots are completely full. There's nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It's safe. We're not afraid to walk around here."
Mytrowitz said he does not think the city has much grounds for an appeal.
And if they do, he said they will continue to fight.
"This thing has consumed the last 4 1/2 years of my life that I can't get back," he said. "I've been put through the wringer."
Katie Wang covers Newark City Hall. She can be reached at kwang@starledger.com or (973) 392-1504.
Online story here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
In Newark, a question of blight or wrong
Some see a section beyond help, while others like it
BY KATIE WANG
Star-Ledger Staff
For Michael Saltzman, the abandoned dirt lot across the street from his Scott Street home in Newark is an eyesore, a symbol of wasted opportunity in the downtown area.
The neighborhood, says Saltzman, who uprooted from Manhattan and moved to Newark five years ago, is definitely ripe for redevelopment.
Three blocks over on Elm Street, Augusto Mariano says the neighborhood is a thriving one that he and other Portuguese residents helped rebuild in the 1980s when no one else was willing to move into Newark. As far as he is concerned, the area is fine as it is.
The two divergent views strike at the heart of a protracted four-year legal scuffle involving the city, a redeveloper and the Mulberry Street Association, a group of 22 property owners who fought to protect their land against eminent domain. The case hinged on this question: Are the 14 acres of land, which are covered with houses, small businesses, parking lots and a handful of desolate tracts, considered blighted?
The developers and city said yes and declared the area in need of redevelopment in 2004, clearing the way for a 2,000-unit condominium complex just blocks from the new Prudential Center and City Hall.
The Mulberry Street Association disagreed and sued, challenging the designation in order to protect its land.
A week ago, Superior Court Judge Marie P. Simonelli in Essex County sided with the property owners.
"There is no substantial evidence that the Mulberry Street area has reached a state of deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding areas," Simonelli wrote in her decision.
Alluding to views laid out earlier this year in the precedent-setting state Supreme Court decision Gallenthin Realty Development Inc. vs. Borough of Paulsboro, Simonelli said the city cannot seize property just because it does not feel the land is "fully productive."
Both the city and developer, Newark Redevelopment Corporation, have not decided whether they will appeal the decision, but the City Council last week passed a resolution "strongly urging" the administration not to appeal.
The tract in question is squeezed between the federal courthouse and McCarter Highway, which carries rivers of traffic in and out of Newark. It also sits near the train tracks, where PATH trains lurch through every few minutes. Visitors to the new Prudential Center, scheduled to open in October, will pass the neighborhood on the way to Route 78, making the property one of the most attractive and valuable parcels in the city.
Too valuable, said the city and developers, to be used for parking lots and small businesses -- an argument they made in court. In addition to those businesses, there are churches and homes in the area.
"(The project) would provide a new mix of retail and entertainment services not currently available in the downtown," said Bruce Wishnia, a principal of Newark Redevelopment Corporation, the company behind the condominium project.
Saltzman, the owner of a real estate services company, said he was disappointed by the judge's ruling. Saltzman's house sits on the rim of the disputed area. He bought a house, banking on the promise of a bustling downtown in the future.
Over the years, he has stared out at an empty lot filled with stray cats, homeless people and prostitutes, waiting for the redevelopment wave to arrive in Newark.
"If an area is filled with vacant lots and vacant parking lots and barely any retail in the area, then to me that's not a thriving neighborhood," said Saltzman. "It's not maximizing the value of the area."
At the same time, Saltzman said he empathizes with the residents who have lived there for years. The problem in this case, he said, might have been the way the city and developer proceeded with their project.
Latasia Elliott, 16, a neighbor who has lived on Scott Street for a year, also said the area could use some sprucing up. Still, she said it is better than her former home on Seventh Avenue in Newark.
"Besides the hookers and transvestites, everything is all right," she said.
But longtime residents such as Mariano, 56, have a radically different opinion. Mariano bought a three-bedroom, pale yellow house on Elm Street in 1987 for $7,000. When he moved in, the neighborhood was unsafe to wander around at night.
Years later, he said, it is "awesome" compared to what it used to be. His block is lined with narrow homes, occupied by Portuguese, Brazilian and Spanish immigrants. At the end of his block, abutting Mulberry Street, is the club QXT, which he says does not cause any problems at night.
"It's clean, it's honest," he said.
Even so, if a developer gave him a fair offer for his house and to move, he would consider it. The judge's ruling, he said, pleased him, but it was far from vindication.
"There's still a lot of bad blood with us because of the way they treated us," said Mariano.
George Mytrowitz, the owner of Market Body Works and leader of the Mulberry Street Association, said he does not think his organization would have prevailed in court five years ago. The members of the association have spent $250,000 on legal bills and attended countless council meetings over the years.
Mytrowitz said the tide started turning in their favor at the federal level, with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against private property owners in Kelo vs. City of New London. In that case, the court ruled in favor of eminent domain for economic development -- a decision that did not sit well in the court of public opinion. Kelo, said Mytrowitz, opened people's eyes to what he calls eminent domain abuse.
Separately in New Jersey, the state's highest court offered a different opinion on the issue in the Gallenthin case in Gloucester County. In that case, the court ruled municipalities cannot declare "underused properties" as blighted ones for the sake of redevelopment.
Contrary to what the developers and city say, Mytrowitz said the Mulberry area is still a viable one.
"Surface parking plays its part here," he said. "Those lots are completely full. There's nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It's safe. We're not afraid to walk around here."
Mytrowitz said he does not think the city has much grounds for an appeal.
And if they do, he said they will continue to fight.
"This thing has consumed the last 4 1/2 years of my life that I can't get back," he said. "I've been put through the wringer."
Katie Wang covers Newark City Hall. She can be reached at kwang@starledger.com or (973) 392-1504.
Online story here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Newark - Ledger - Rethinking redevelopment after Paulsoro ruling
Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, June 15, 2007
Newark rethinking redevelopment plans
Eminent domain ruling forces a new look
BY JOE MALINCONICO
Star-Ledger Staff
A state Supreme Court ruling this week has forced Newark to re-examine its plans to redevelop 182 acres of industrial property near the harbor and airport.
The court ruling limits the way that local governments may use eminent domain to acquire land for redevelopment, making it much tougher for them to take property simply because they say it's not being used to its fullest.
That is precisely the criterion on which Newark based its argument for acquiring many of the properties in its seaport and airport redevelopment plan.
"We're going to have to go back and review the parcels that may be affected by this ruling," said Lupe Todd, a city spokeswoman. "We intend to continue to pursue the redevelopment of all parcels that meet the law."
Some property owners who were resisting the city's redevelopment plan see the Supreme Court ruling as a reprieve.
"It's very clear the city is going to have to go back to the drawing board on this," said Kevin O'Connor, an attorney for a dry ice distribution center on Frelinghuysen Avenue.
Frank Giantomasi, another attorney for businesses affected by the redevelopment program, said the ruling won't prohibit the city from using eminent domain to take properties, but he said it will impose "a more objective test."
"In certain cases, I think this is going to stop the city from redeveloping, in others it won't have any impact," Giantomasi said.
Most of the 182 acres in the plan are along Frelinghuysen and Doremus avenues. In some cases, the land is occupied by decaying, abandoned buildings. In others, businesses continue to operate on the property.
The city's planning board is holding a hearing on the redevelopment plan next Thursday. That meeting will go on as scheduled, Todd said. In the meantime, city officials have been meeting with the property owners since June 7, when a previous hearing on the issue was cut short.
"The city is taking a real let's-work-together attitude," Giantomasi said. "They're trying to achieve a middle ground."
In conducting its review of the court ruling, the city may opt to cut some of the properties from the redevelopment program. Or officials may simply use different criteria to make their case for taking the land.
The targeted properties include:
Joe Malinconico may be reached at jmalinconico@starledger.com or (973) 392-4230.
Link to online story.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Newark rethinking redevelopment plans
Eminent domain ruling forces a new look
BY JOE MALINCONICO
Star-Ledger Staff
A state Supreme Court ruling this week has forced Newark to re-examine its plans to redevelop 182 acres of industrial property near the harbor and airport.
The court ruling limits the way that local governments may use eminent domain to acquire land for redevelopment, making it much tougher for them to take property simply because they say it's not being used to its fullest.
That is precisely the criterion on which Newark based its argument for acquiring many of the properties in its seaport and airport redevelopment plan.
"We're going to have to go back and review the parcels that may be affected by this ruling," said Lupe Todd, a city spokeswoman. "We intend to continue to pursue the redevelopment of all parcels that meet the law."
Some property owners who were resisting the city's redevelopment plan see the Supreme Court ruling as a reprieve.
"It's very clear the city is going to have to go back to the drawing board on this," said Kevin O'Connor, an attorney for a dry ice distribution center on Frelinghuysen Avenue.
Frank Giantomasi, another attorney for businesses affected by the redevelopment program, said the ruling won't prohibit the city from using eminent domain to take properties, but he said it will impose "a more objective test."
"In certain cases, I think this is going to stop the city from redeveloping, in others it won't have any impact," Giantomasi said.
Most of the 182 acres in the plan are along Frelinghuysen and Doremus avenues. In some cases, the land is occupied by decaying, abandoned buildings. In others, businesses continue to operate on the property.
The city's planning board is holding a hearing on the redevelopment plan next Thursday. That meeting will go on as scheduled, Todd said. In the meantime, city officials have been meeting with the property owners since June 7, when a previous hearing on the issue was cut short.
"The city is taking a real let's-work-together attitude," Giantomasi said. "They're trying to achieve a middle ground."
In conducting its review of the court ruling, the city may opt to cut some of the properties from the redevelopment program. Or officials may simply use different criteria to make their case for taking the land.
The targeted properties include:
- 13.9 acres on the east side of Frelinghuysen Avenue, between McClellan Street and the Elizabeth border.
- 11 acres on the east side of Frelinghuysen Avenue just south of Route 22.
- 36.5 acres around Olympia Drive, near New Jersey Turnpike Interchange 14.
- 34.7 acres between Doremus Avenue and the Passaic River, just south of Routes 1&9.
- 27.2 acres on Doremus Avenue, just north of Delancey Street.
- 58.6 acres on Doremus Avenue, just south of Delancey Street.
Joe Malinconico may be reached at jmalinconico@starledger.com or (973) 392-4230.
Link to online story.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Race Reporting - Ledger - OpEd
Published in the Star-Ledger, Sunday, July 15,2007
[OpEd]
Race reporting 40 years ago, and its legacy today
BY LINDA OCASIO
On July 13, 1967, as the Newark riots began to unfold, The Star- Ledger's lead story described "carloads of Negroes" surrounding City Hall, and "large roving bands of Negro youths." Three days later, the newspaper's analysis focused on "unrestrained marauding teenagers," restless youths who "came forth with the muscle and manpower to transform a localized inci dent into a rampaging riot."
It was loaded language, convey ing threat and intimidation. There was a palpable mix of fear, anger and bewilderment in the reporting -- a lot of heat and very little light.
The Star-Ledger wasn't the only publication to take that tone. Magazines such as Time and Life -- still-powerful players in a long-ago media environment, before cable news and the Internet -- devoted cover stories to the riots. Reading their coverage of the Newark un rest is revealing of how race was discussed back then.
Time magazine's July 21, 1967, cover carried the banner, "Anatomy of a Race Riot," and featured Newark cab driver John Smith on the cover -- the man whose ru mored death at the hands of the police was one of the factors that ignited the riots. Inside, the text and picture captions treated the mayhem as beyond comprehen sion, and took a dig at the social programs launched by President Lyndon Johnson.
Under a picture of a gutted store, a caption read: "After -- not before -- the Great Society." Another caption, below pictures of Gov. Richard Hughes and Newark Mayor Hugh Addonizio, read: "Even the improvements fueled the grievances."
Time's writers concluded that events in Newark unfolded for reasons "not fully foreseeable before hand nor easily explicable afterward."
Interestingly, Life, Time's sister publication, on July 28, 1967, had the exact opposite viewpoint. Its cover headline was "Newark: The Predictable Insurrection." On the cover of Life, a black child laid in his own blood on a street. The child, Joe Bass, 12, of Newark, was caught in the crossfire as a National Guardsman took aim at a looter.
Analysis by writers like Shana Alexander and Hugh Sidey begins to slowly connect the dots: the growing gap between white afflu ence and the black ghetto, the ascendance of a more militant approach to civil rights in the North, and prescient questions about Great Society programs.
"Some $30 billion ... will be poured into the cities and their people in one form or another this year," Sidey wrote. "And yet it may not be enough or it may not be properly directed."
Many readers might attribute the uneven coverage and analysis to the make-up of most newsrooms 40 years ago: They were overwhelmingly white and male. But many white reporters and editors distinguished themselves with their coverage of segregation in the South and the nonviolent resistance of the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. Somehow, the press dropped the ball when it came to racial unrest in the North.
"I had this feeling that some (editor) high up had to say, 'Why didn't we see that coming,'" said Hank Klibanoff, the managing editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "We were looking at the South so intently."
Klibanoff is the co-author with Gene Roberts, a former top editor at the New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer, of "The Race Beat: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation." Their book, which won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for history, documents how the press brought the injustice of the segregated South to the forefront of public consciousness. But when Watts exploded in 1965 with six days of rioting, followed by Newark and Detroit a few years later, none of that experience in the South mattered.
In fact, the newspapers of the North had already failed to note a related story, one of the most im portant of the 20th century -- the great post-World War II migration of African-Americans from the small rural towns of the South to the big cities of the North, just at the moment when those cities were starting to lose their industrial muscle and political clout.
The Northern press simply had not done its homework, and had no meaningful and reliable sources to draw on when people took to the streets.
It took the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders -- more popularly known as the Kerner Commission, after its chairman, Illinois Gov. Otto Kerner -- to lay out the indisputable facts that the media was not equipped to fully grasp at that point. The Kerner Report found the uprisings in Watts, Newark, Detroit and other cities was evidence that "Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white -- separate and unequal."
"What the rioters appeared to be seeking," the report stated, "was fuller participation in the social order and the material benefits enjoyed by the majority of American citizens. Rather than rejecting the American system, they were anxious to obtain a place for themselves in it."
And the Kerner Report included a scathing critique of the news media, both print and broadcast, for sensationalizing riot coverage, even hyping damage and in jury estimates in some cases. The Kerner panel called on the news media to diversify their ranks, and to commit resources to covering black communities on a regular basis.
Anyone picking up a newspaper today can see evidence that the in dustry heard the panel loud and clear. "The presentation of the diverse culture we live in is much more of a mainstay in newspapers," said Klibanoff. "The prominent role of African-Americans in our lives manifests in the media in a more ordinary way." We're "absolutely" more aware of the importance of inclusiveness, he said. "Not just African-Americans, but the whole melting pot."
Still, even today, newsrooms must guard against complacency. A good question in any newsroom, said Klibanoff, is "Who aren't we covering?"
"And not just a one-hit," Kliba noff added, "but capturing and freeze-framing the world around us, the impact of those people on our culture, being curious about the world around us."
In "Race Beat," Roberts and Klibanoff note that "Watts coverage read as if it were written from a distance, from outside the ghetto looking in."
The same could be said of the coverage that followed the Newark riots. For the media, the greatest legacy of 1967 might very well be how events in Newark and other cities forced the news industry to examine its own practices, and to embrace the intrinsic value of diversity, both for the people who staff the nation's newsrooms and the communities they cover.
Linda Ocasio is a New Jersey freelance writer.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
[OpEd]
Race reporting 40 years ago, and its legacy today
BY LINDA OCASIO
On July 13, 1967, as the Newark riots began to unfold, The Star- Ledger's lead story described "carloads of Negroes" surrounding City Hall, and "large roving bands of Negro youths." Three days later, the newspaper's analysis focused on "unrestrained marauding teenagers," restless youths who "came forth with the muscle and manpower to transform a localized inci dent into a rampaging riot."
It was loaded language, convey ing threat and intimidation. There was a palpable mix of fear, anger and bewilderment in the reporting -- a lot of heat and very little light.
The Star-Ledger wasn't the only publication to take that tone. Magazines such as Time and Life -- still-powerful players in a long-ago media environment, before cable news and the Internet -- devoted cover stories to the riots. Reading their coverage of the Newark un rest is revealing of how race was discussed back then.
Time magazine's July 21, 1967, cover carried the banner, "Anatomy of a Race Riot," and featured Newark cab driver John Smith on the cover -- the man whose ru mored death at the hands of the police was one of the factors that ignited the riots. Inside, the text and picture captions treated the mayhem as beyond comprehen sion, and took a dig at the social programs launched by President Lyndon Johnson.
Under a picture of a gutted store, a caption read: "After -- not before -- the Great Society." Another caption, below pictures of Gov. Richard Hughes and Newark Mayor Hugh Addonizio, read: "Even the improvements fueled the grievances."
Time's writers concluded that events in Newark unfolded for reasons "not fully foreseeable before hand nor easily explicable afterward."
Interestingly, Life, Time's sister publication, on July 28, 1967, had the exact opposite viewpoint. Its cover headline was "Newark: The Predictable Insurrection." On the cover of Life, a black child laid in his own blood on a street. The child, Joe Bass, 12, of Newark, was caught in the crossfire as a National Guardsman took aim at a looter.
Analysis by writers like Shana Alexander and Hugh Sidey begins to slowly connect the dots: the growing gap between white afflu ence and the black ghetto, the ascendance of a more militant approach to civil rights in the North, and prescient questions about Great Society programs.
"Some $30 billion ... will be poured into the cities and their people in one form or another this year," Sidey wrote. "And yet it may not be enough or it may not be properly directed."
Many readers might attribute the uneven coverage and analysis to the make-up of most newsrooms 40 years ago: They were overwhelmingly white and male. But many white reporters and editors distinguished themselves with their coverage of segregation in the South and the nonviolent resistance of the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. Somehow, the press dropped the ball when it came to racial unrest in the North.
"I had this feeling that some (editor) high up had to say, 'Why didn't we see that coming,'" said Hank Klibanoff, the managing editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "We were looking at the South so intently."
Klibanoff is the co-author with Gene Roberts, a former top editor at the New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer, of "The Race Beat: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation." Their book, which won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for history, documents how the press brought the injustice of the segregated South to the forefront of public consciousness. But when Watts exploded in 1965 with six days of rioting, followed by Newark and Detroit a few years later, none of that experience in the South mattered.
In fact, the newspapers of the North had already failed to note a related story, one of the most im portant of the 20th century -- the great post-World War II migration of African-Americans from the small rural towns of the South to the big cities of the North, just at the moment when those cities were starting to lose their industrial muscle and political clout.
The Northern press simply had not done its homework, and had no meaningful and reliable sources to draw on when people took to the streets.
It took the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders -- more popularly known as the Kerner Commission, after its chairman, Illinois Gov. Otto Kerner -- to lay out the indisputable facts that the media was not equipped to fully grasp at that point. The Kerner Report found the uprisings in Watts, Newark, Detroit and other cities was evidence that "Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white -- separate and unequal."
"What the rioters appeared to be seeking," the report stated, "was fuller participation in the social order and the material benefits enjoyed by the majority of American citizens. Rather than rejecting the American system, they were anxious to obtain a place for themselves in it."
And the Kerner Report included a scathing critique of the news media, both print and broadcast, for sensationalizing riot coverage, even hyping damage and in jury estimates in some cases. The Kerner panel called on the news media to diversify their ranks, and to commit resources to covering black communities on a regular basis.
Anyone picking up a newspaper today can see evidence that the in dustry heard the panel loud and clear. "The presentation of the diverse culture we live in is much more of a mainstay in newspapers," said Klibanoff. "The prominent role of African-Americans in our lives manifests in the media in a more ordinary way." We're "absolutely" more aware of the importance of inclusiveness, he said. "Not just African-Americans, but the whole melting pot."
Still, even today, newsrooms must guard against complacency. A good question in any newsroom, said Klibanoff, is "Who aren't we covering?"
"And not just a one-hit," Kliba noff added, "but capturing and freeze-framing the world around us, the impact of those people on our culture, being curious about the world around us."
In "Race Beat," Roberts and Klibanoff note that "Watts coverage read as if it were written from a distance, from outside the ghetto looking in."
The same could be said of the coverage that followed the Newark riots. For the media, the greatest legacy of 1967 might very well be how events in Newark and other cities forced the news industry to examine its own practices, and to embrace the intrinsic value of diversity, both for the people who staff the nation's newsrooms and the communities they cover.
Linda Ocasio is a New Jersey freelance writer.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Friday, July 20, 2007
Redevelopment - Ledger - Newark's Mulberry Street Plan Overturned
Published in the Star-Ledger, Friday, July 20,2007
Setback for Newark condo project
Judge rules city failed to prove that the 14-acre site
on Mulberry Street is 'blighted'
BY KATIE WANG
Star-Ledger Staff
A Superior Court judge in Essex County has dealt a major blow to a plan to build 2,000 condominiums in downtown Newark, saying the city failed to prove the area in question is deteriorating and in need of redevelopment.
The 71-page decision, issued yesterday, cites the watershed state Supreme Court decision, Gallenthin Realty Development Inc. vs. Borough of Paulsboro, handed down earlier this year that limits the government's power to seize land.
In the Newark case, Judge Marie P. Simonelli said the city cannot designate the 14-acre Mulberry Street area "blighted" simply because the property could be used for better purposes. Property owners fought the designation, saying the area was still thriving and that they did not want their land to be seized through eminent domain.
"The court finds that the city declared the entire Mulberry Street area as an area in need of redevelopment solely because it is not properly utilized and fully productive," Simonelli said in her decision. "Under the Gallenthin holding, this declaration does not meet the constitutional requirement of blight and must be invalidated and set aside."
The decision puts the future of the condo project in jeopardy, though all parties involved disagreed on whether the project is dead or viable in an amended form. The Mulberry Street condo project, which was to be developed by the Newark Redevelopment Corp., is slated for a prime tract one block from the Prudential Center arena, scheduled to open in October.
Stefan Pryor, the deputy mayor in charge of economic development, said the Booker administration is analyzing the judge's decision and refused to say whether it will appeal.
"The outcome of the case will not affect the arena project," he said.
John Buonocore, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, declared the condo project dead.
"We are delighted that the court saw through this pre-arranged land grab on behalf of politically favored developers," Buonocore said. "The ruling sends a message to politicians across the state that the courts will not sustain economic development takings under the guise of the redevelopment laws."
Bruce J. Wishnia, one of the principals of Newark Redevelopment Corp., said the decision is a sad day for the city and the state. He said he is not sure what this means for the overall project.
"If the Mulberry Street area is not in need of redevelopment, then the court needs to tell us what kind of area would be," Wishnia said. "If this decision if not reversed, it will effectively shut the door on urban redevelopment in our state."
The Mulberry decision comes at a time when land and redevelopment issues are under intense public scrutiny in a city that has struggled for decades to rebuild itself.
One week ago, Sharpe James, who served as mayor for two decades, was indicted on charges he steered lucrative land deals to companion Tamika Riley. The property owners in the Mulberry case have long alleged political contributions from the developers swayed council members to vote in favor of declaring the area in need of redevelopment.
The judge concluded her opinion with a tart reference to James' criminal charges.
"This evidence certainly provides cause to question the results and validity of the redevelopment investigation," she said. "However, the court mentions it for historical purposes only and makes no determination of the merits of plaintiff's corruption claim. It appears that such a determination may be made in the recently initiated criminal proceedings involving former Mayor James."
The Mulberry Street Redevelopment project made its debut five years ago during James' administration. In November 2002, Wishnia and his partner, Emile Farina, a former aide to then Councilwoman Bessie Walker, pitched the idea to Nathan Allen, director of the city's Department of Economic and Housing Development.
Plans called for the Newark Redevelopment Corp. to negotiate with property owners for their land. If negotiations failed, the developers planned to ask the city to use its condemnation powers to seize those properties.
According to Simonelli's ruling, there is no evidence any negotiations took place.
Instead, she said, the city pursued an investigation into declaring the area in need of redevelopment, paving the way for condemnation.
In her decision, Simonelli leveled stinging criticism at the snug relationship between developers and officials in the city. Attorneys, relatives and consultants affiliated with Wishnia and Farina donated an additional $53,325 to some council members when they were making critical decisions about the project, according to the plaintiffs.
"There is evidence in the present case that the Mulberry Street Redevelopment project and NRC's role as its developer was "a done deal," a fait accompli, before the required statutory redevelopment process began," Simonelli said.
City-hired planner David Roberts issued a report in April 2004 declaring the area in need of redevelopment because the parking lots, storage yards and businesses in the area "consumes land that could otherwise be available for much more productive uses."
But Simonelli faulted Roberts' report, saying it lacked empirical evidence to support his conclusions.
On Oct. 14, 2004, the planning board passed a resolution recommending the city declare the Mulberry Street area in need of redevelopment. The city council agreed and on Nov. 3, 2004, it passed a resolution declaring the area in need of redevelopment.
Katie Wang may be reached at kwang@starledger.com or (973) 392-1504.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Setback for Newark condo project
Judge rules city failed to prove that the 14-acre site
on Mulberry Street is 'blighted'
BY KATIE WANG
Star-Ledger Staff
A Superior Court judge in Essex County has dealt a major blow to a plan to build 2,000 condominiums in downtown Newark, saying the city failed to prove the area in question is deteriorating and in need of redevelopment.
The 71-page decision, issued yesterday, cites the watershed state Supreme Court decision, Gallenthin Realty Development Inc. vs. Borough of Paulsboro, handed down earlier this year that limits the government's power to seize land.
In the Newark case, Judge Marie P. Simonelli said the city cannot designate the 14-acre Mulberry Street area "blighted" simply because the property could be used for better purposes. Property owners fought the designation, saying the area was still thriving and that they did not want their land to be seized through eminent domain.
"The court finds that the city declared the entire Mulberry Street area as an area in need of redevelopment solely because it is not properly utilized and fully productive," Simonelli said in her decision. "Under the Gallenthin holding, this declaration does not meet the constitutional requirement of blight and must be invalidated and set aside."
The decision puts the future of the condo project in jeopardy, though all parties involved disagreed on whether the project is dead or viable in an amended form. The Mulberry Street condo project, which was to be developed by the Newark Redevelopment Corp., is slated for a prime tract one block from the Prudential Center arena, scheduled to open in October.
Stefan Pryor, the deputy mayor in charge of economic development, said the Booker administration is analyzing the judge's decision and refused to say whether it will appeal.
"The outcome of the case will not affect the arena project," he said.
John Buonocore, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, declared the condo project dead.
"We are delighted that the court saw through this pre-arranged land grab on behalf of politically favored developers," Buonocore said. "The ruling sends a message to politicians across the state that the courts will not sustain economic development takings under the guise of the redevelopment laws."
Bruce J. Wishnia, one of the principals of Newark Redevelopment Corp., said the decision is a sad day for the city and the state. He said he is not sure what this means for the overall project.
"If the Mulberry Street area is not in need of redevelopment, then the court needs to tell us what kind of area would be," Wishnia said. "If this decision if not reversed, it will effectively shut the door on urban redevelopment in our state."
The Mulberry decision comes at a time when land and redevelopment issues are under intense public scrutiny in a city that has struggled for decades to rebuild itself.
One week ago, Sharpe James, who served as mayor for two decades, was indicted on charges he steered lucrative land deals to companion Tamika Riley. The property owners in the Mulberry case have long alleged political contributions from the developers swayed council members to vote in favor of declaring the area in need of redevelopment.
The judge concluded her opinion with a tart reference to James' criminal charges.
"This evidence certainly provides cause to question the results and validity of the redevelopment investigation," she said. "However, the court mentions it for historical purposes only and makes no determination of the merits of plaintiff's corruption claim. It appears that such a determination may be made in the recently initiated criminal proceedings involving former Mayor James."
The Mulberry Street Redevelopment project made its debut five years ago during James' administration. In November 2002, Wishnia and his partner, Emile Farina, a former aide to then Councilwoman Bessie Walker, pitched the idea to Nathan Allen, director of the city's Department of Economic and Housing Development.
Plans called for the Newark Redevelopment Corp. to negotiate with property owners for their land. If negotiations failed, the developers planned to ask the city to use its condemnation powers to seize those properties.
According to Simonelli's ruling, there is no evidence any negotiations took place.
Instead, she said, the city pursued an investigation into declaring the area in need of redevelopment, paving the way for condemnation.
In her decision, Simonelli leveled stinging criticism at the snug relationship between developers and officials in the city. Attorneys, relatives and consultants affiliated with Wishnia and Farina donated an additional $53,325 to some council members when they were making critical decisions about the project, according to the plaintiffs.
"There is evidence in the present case that the Mulberry Street Redevelopment project and NRC's role as its developer was "a done deal," a fait accompli, before the required statutory redevelopment process began," Simonelli said.
City-hired planner David Roberts issued a report in April 2004 declaring the area in need of redevelopment because the parking lots, storage yards and businesses in the area "consumes land that could otherwise be available for much more productive uses."
But Simonelli faulted Roberts' report, saying it lacked empirical evidence to support his conclusions.
On Oct. 14, 2004, the planning board passed a resolution recommending the city declare the Mulberry Street area in need of redevelopment. The city council agreed and on Nov. 3, 2004, it passed a resolution declaring the area in need of redevelopment.
Katie Wang may be reached at kwang@starledger.com or (973) 392-1504.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Newark - Ledger - City tries to take back lots sold cheaply
Published in the Star-Ledger, Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Newark tries to take back city lots sold on the cheap
Some in bargain-basement deals haven't built homes, lawyers say
BY IAN T. SHEARN
Star-Ledger Staff
Newark Mayor Cory Booker is looking to reclaim acres of city land sold by the previous administration at cut-rate prices to developers who have not built the new homes they promised.
City lawyers have identified more than 250 lots and have sent out letters to 32 builders, informing them that the city will "invoke the full range of remedies," including taking back the land.
"Your purchase of the property was for the purpose of redevelopment and not for speculation in land holding," the May 16 "Notice of Default" letter sent to the property owners said. "The City of Newark has elected to invoke the full range of remedies available to it under the agreement, including but not limited to the reacquisition of title."
Several of the developers enjoyed "cozy relationships" with former Mayor Sharpe James, "and have been sitting on the properties for years," Booker said in an interview.
Most of the redevelopment contracts call for new home construction within 18 months of purchase, according to Stefan Pryor, the city's director of housing and economic development. The city reviewed properties that were sold between 2000 and 2003.
Booker said his administration also is finalizing a public land policy, which will include putting city-owned land up for bid, as opposed to the $4-per-square-foot, below-market price it was selling for. The policy should be complete within a month, the mayor said. If prices are discounted, Booker said, it will be to induce benefits that come back to the city, like building parks and utilizing local labor.
During the past seven years, under the James administration, more than 5,000 city lots were sold at cut-rate prices, in some cases to developers with close ties to the mayor or city hall.
Federal agents are investigating city land sales to developers with ties to the mayor, according to sources close to the investigation, who asked not to be identified because the probe is ongoing.
One property owner who received the May 16 Notice of Default letter is Tamika Riley, a local businesswoman who bought nine parcels from the city during the James administration for a total of $46,000 and resold them -- in some cases just a month later -- for $700,000. The city also tried to sell her three more properties in James' final months as mayor, but a judge halted those plans.
FBI agents subpoenaed city records related to Riley's land deals late last year. The subpoenas, copies of which were reviewed by The Star-Ledger, instructed Newark officials to deliver the documents to the federal grand jury that has been investigating James' travel bills and city land deals during his last years in office. Federal prosecutors last month formally notified James he was the target of the grand jury probe and likely faces indictment.
Agents also have interviewed Riley about trips she made with the former mayor in the past four years, according to two sources familiar with the probe. Investigators are trying to determine her role on the trips and who paid her expenses. The sources declined to characterize the 70-year-old former mayor's relationship with Riley, except to call them "travel companions."
The phone for Riley's business has been disconnected, and she could not be reached for comment.
James did not respond yesterday to requests for comment, but last week he delivered a handwritten letter to the Associated Press, dated June 16, denying any responsibility for the cut-rate city land deals, saying they were the responsibility of the city council.
Messages left for 10 of the property owners went unanswered yesterday, while two who responded said they have developed the properties in question and have informed the city it is in error. Newark attorney Francis Giantomassi, who said he represents three of the property owners who have been sent notices, said he has responded to city lawyers and that his clients will answer the letter.
Eight of the 32 developers did not meet a May 29 deadline to respond to the city's letter, said Booker spokeswoman Desiree Peterkin Bell.
Aney Chandy, the city's corporation counsel, said that if any of the owners has a legitimate reason for not building, or if the city's findings are inaccurate, she would be happy to hear it. But absent a reasonable excuse, she will pursue putting the properties back in the city's hands.
If the city is successful in reclaiming the land, it will not reimburse the owners, Peterkin Bell said.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Newark tries to take back city lots sold on the cheap
Some in bargain-basement deals haven't built homes, lawyers say
BY IAN T. SHEARN
Star-Ledger Staff
Newark Mayor Cory Booker is looking to reclaim acres of city land sold by the previous administration at cut-rate prices to developers who have not built the new homes they promised.
City lawyers have identified more than 250 lots and have sent out letters to 32 builders, informing them that the city will "invoke the full range of remedies," including taking back the land.
"Your purchase of the property was for the purpose of redevelopment and not for speculation in land holding," the May 16 "Notice of Default" letter sent to the property owners said. "The City of Newark has elected to invoke the full range of remedies available to it under the agreement, including but not limited to the reacquisition of title."
Several of the developers enjoyed "cozy relationships" with former Mayor Sharpe James, "and have been sitting on the properties for years," Booker said in an interview.
Most of the redevelopment contracts call for new home construction within 18 months of purchase, according to Stefan Pryor, the city's director of housing and economic development. The city reviewed properties that were sold between 2000 and 2003.
Booker said his administration also is finalizing a public land policy, which will include putting city-owned land up for bid, as opposed to the $4-per-square-foot, below-market price it was selling for. The policy should be complete within a month, the mayor said. If prices are discounted, Booker said, it will be to induce benefits that come back to the city, like building parks and utilizing local labor.
During the past seven years, under the James administration, more than 5,000 city lots were sold at cut-rate prices, in some cases to developers with close ties to the mayor or city hall.
Federal agents are investigating city land sales to developers with ties to the mayor, according to sources close to the investigation, who asked not to be identified because the probe is ongoing.
One property owner who received the May 16 Notice of Default letter is Tamika Riley, a local businesswoman who bought nine parcels from the city during the James administration for a total of $46,000 and resold them -- in some cases just a month later -- for $700,000. The city also tried to sell her three more properties in James' final months as mayor, but a judge halted those plans.
FBI agents subpoenaed city records related to Riley's land deals late last year. The subpoenas, copies of which were reviewed by The Star-Ledger, instructed Newark officials to deliver the documents to the federal grand jury that has been investigating James' travel bills and city land deals during his last years in office. Federal prosecutors last month formally notified James he was the target of the grand jury probe and likely faces indictment.
Agents also have interviewed Riley about trips she made with the former mayor in the past four years, according to two sources familiar with the probe. Investigators are trying to determine her role on the trips and who paid her expenses. The sources declined to characterize the 70-year-old former mayor's relationship with Riley, except to call them "travel companions."
The phone for Riley's business has been disconnected, and she could not be reached for comment.
James did not respond yesterday to requests for comment, but last week he delivered a handwritten letter to the Associated Press, dated June 16, denying any responsibility for the cut-rate city land deals, saying they were the responsibility of the city council.
Messages left for 10 of the property owners went unanswered yesterday, while two who responded said they have developed the properties in question and have informed the city it is in error. Newark attorney Francis Giantomassi, who said he represents three of the property owners who have been sent notices, said he has responded to city lawyers and that his clients will answer the letter.
Eight of the 32 developers did not meet a May 29 deadline to respond to the city's letter, said Booker spokeswoman Desiree Peterkin Bell.
Aney Chandy, the city's corporation counsel, said that if any of the owners has a legitimate reason for not building, or if the city's findings are inaccurate, she would be happy to hear it. But absent a reasonable excuse, she will pursue putting the properties back in the city's hands.
If the city is successful in reclaiming the land, it will not reimburse the owners, Peterkin Bell said.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Gay HS Student - Ledger - Comments posted to Blog
Published in the Star-Ledger Blog, Sunday, June 24, 2007
Gay pair's photo blacked out of yearbook
by Kasi Addison
COMMENTS (8) as of 9:23 PM, Sunday 6/24
Posted by JerseyJolt on 06/22/07 at 11:45PM
seems like the kids are more grown up than the adults. The superintendent needs to be fined and suspended.
Posted by hzbball34 on 06/23/07 at 12:21AM
She says it wasn't the fact that they were gay but the provocative pose. Honestly, I have no idea what she is referring to
Posted by melissalee on 06/23/07 at 2:13AM
I don't have a problem with photo,but in days of old yearbooks were of what the kids did in the year not about who was your boyfriend or girlfriend that is the problem with the schools today it should have been monitored and focused on the accomplishments not who is going with who in 5 years they will be like what was there name!
Posted by comicforhire on 06/23/07 at 2:31AM
This is the kind of stupid stuff that a country of freedom cant have all men where born equal? Apperently not if there attracted to other men. This is utter bull crap!! What kind of freedom is this? I dont stand for discrimination, the school should either reprint that page or block out all kissin in law there is no exception all or nothing. This two are in a relationship its not like it was a truth or dare kiss.
P.s- This is not what freedom is about.
Posted by justjak13 on 06/23/07 at 7:29PM
I hope he sues the school board and the superintendant and I hope she is fired immediately. Homophobia is particularily offensive in educators and should NOT be tolerated. Marion Bolden should personally have to pay to have every single yearbook replaced.
Posted by TEvans on 06/24/07 at 10:52AM
hzbball34 stated: "She says it wasn't the fact that they were gay but the provocative pose. Honestly, I have no idea what she is referring to"...
She ain't referring to anything worth paying attention to... What she IS doing is straight lying. The ONLY reason these two brothers had their photo blacked out is due to the fact it displayed a same-sex kiss, period dot!...
What kills me is the blatant contempt the superintendent shows for both gay people and the intelligence of these high school students by trying to pass off legitimate such an obviously fraudulent excuse.
Posted by futurexboy on 06/24/07 at 11:53AM
Hi, I think a good old fashioned lawsuit would be in order since Marion Bolden believes in old fashioned tradition. You can't have your cake and eat it too, in other words you can't have straight couples kissing in photos and then say its offensive for gay couples to do so, that's just plain old discrimination any way you cut it...they need a wake up call. I saw the picture too, its not offensive in any way, it's a very loving picture between two guys that love each other very much. The school should be proud it has the openness of students that can accept this and that rally behind a person's rights, the whole world would be better off to follow these students examples here. An example should be made of this Superintendent, plain and simple she should be fired, those yearbooks should be replaced with what people bought and not a offensive blacked out version, she said the picture was offensive to her, it wasn't to me in any way, shape, or forum and if it is to you then you have issues you need to address, it would be more offensive for me to receive a blacked out version of the yearbook. Someone such as this Marion Bolden has a lot of gall to have all those yearbook pictures blacked out. We look at these schools and wonder why there are mass shootings and then we see a school like this that actually gets along with each other in a big way except for of course some stupid adult that wants to throw a hammer into the whole thing to create a major mess. It looks like one of the other teachers would of or should of stood up and to her and told her it wasn't right, hey, who gave her that right? No One!! She's nothing more less than a bigot with a title. I bet if the whole truth was known we'd find out that Marion Bolden is an unmarried old hag, never dated, and if she did date then the guys or girls she dated were scared to death with her over bearing rudeness. One thing for sure, she's not a happy person and is trying to inflict her pain on everyone else at that school and this is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated...if she's the witch she seems to be then burn her at the stake, at the very least tell her to get on her old broom and to ride out of town....Lookout Kiddies, Witch Bolden has something cooking up in her pot of spells for you too, its called Homophobia!! Homophobia is offensive and should not be tolerated. The only thing I can see offensive in this school is Marion Bolden, now its up to the school to get rid of her and her old hag ways. Show her the door, she sure doesn't need to be over a school telling everyone to hate and become a bigot like her. Get rid of her!
Posted by radagast on 06/24/07 at 11:58AM
What a sad commentary, that the principle of a school would show prejudice and hatred and do deliberate harm to two teenage boys -- and then having done that, lie about it. I can only assume some sort of fanaticism on her part.
I have news for her, the Yearbook is for the students, not their parents, and it was her JOB to stand up to the parents if they didn't like the picture, EVEN MORE SO since the boy purchased the page.
The woman should be fired, and sanctioned so that she can never work in public education again. Local and Regional organizations should condemn her prejudicial act.
Link to online story.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Gay pair's photo blacked out of yearbook
by Kasi Addison
COMMENTS (8) as of 9:23 PM, Sunday 6/24
Posted by JerseyJolt on 06/22/07 at 11:45PM
seems like the kids are more grown up than the adults. The superintendent needs to be fined and suspended.
Posted by hzbball34 on 06/23/07 at 12:21AM
She says it wasn't the fact that they were gay but the provocative pose. Honestly, I have no idea what she is referring to
Posted by melissalee on 06/23/07 at 2:13AM
I don't have a problem with photo,but in days of old yearbooks were of what the kids did in the year not about who was your boyfriend or girlfriend that is the problem with the schools today it should have been monitored and focused on the accomplishments not who is going with who in 5 years they will be like what was there name!
Posted by comicforhire on 06/23/07 at 2:31AM
This is the kind of stupid stuff that a country of freedom cant have all men where born equal? Apperently not if there attracted to other men. This is utter bull crap!! What kind of freedom is this? I dont stand for discrimination, the school should either reprint that page or block out all kissin in law there is no exception all or nothing. This two are in a relationship its not like it was a truth or dare kiss.
P.s- This is not what freedom is about.
Posted by justjak13 on 06/23/07 at 7:29PM
I hope he sues the school board and the superintendant and I hope she is fired immediately. Homophobia is particularily offensive in educators and should NOT be tolerated. Marion Bolden should personally have to pay to have every single yearbook replaced.
Posted by TEvans on 06/24/07 at 10:52AM
hzbball34 stated: "She says it wasn't the fact that they were gay but the provocative pose. Honestly, I have no idea what she is referring to"...
She ain't referring to anything worth paying attention to... What she IS doing is straight lying. The ONLY reason these two brothers had their photo blacked out is due to the fact it displayed a same-sex kiss, period dot!...
What kills me is the blatant contempt the superintendent shows for both gay people and the intelligence of these high school students by trying to pass off legitimate such an obviously fraudulent excuse.
Posted by futurexboy on 06/24/07 at 11:53AM
Hi, I think a good old fashioned lawsuit would be in order since Marion Bolden believes in old fashioned tradition. You can't have your cake and eat it too, in other words you can't have straight couples kissing in photos and then say its offensive for gay couples to do so, that's just plain old discrimination any way you cut it...they need a wake up call. I saw the picture too, its not offensive in any way, it's a very loving picture between two guys that love each other very much. The school should be proud it has the openness of students that can accept this and that rally behind a person's rights, the whole world would be better off to follow these students examples here. An example should be made of this Superintendent, plain and simple she should be fired, those yearbooks should be replaced with what people bought and not a offensive blacked out version, she said the picture was offensive to her, it wasn't to me in any way, shape, or forum and if it is to you then you have issues you need to address, it would be more offensive for me to receive a blacked out version of the yearbook. Someone such as this Marion Bolden has a lot of gall to have all those yearbook pictures blacked out. We look at these schools and wonder why there are mass shootings and then we see a school like this that actually gets along with each other in a big way except for of course some stupid adult that wants to throw a hammer into the whole thing to create a major mess. It looks like one of the other teachers would of or should of stood up and to her and told her it wasn't right, hey, who gave her that right? No One!! She's nothing more less than a bigot with a title. I bet if the whole truth was known we'd find out that Marion Bolden is an unmarried old hag, never dated, and if she did date then the guys or girls she dated were scared to death with her over bearing rudeness. One thing for sure, she's not a happy person and is trying to inflict her pain on everyone else at that school and this is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated...if she's the witch she seems to be then burn her at the stake, at the very least tell her to get on her old broom and to ride out of town....Lookout Kiddies, Witch Bolden has something cooking up in her pot of spells for you too, its called Homophobia!! Homophobia is offensive and should not be tolerated. The only thing I can see offensive in this school is Marion Bolden, now its up to the school to get rid of her and her old hag ways. Show her the door, she sure doesn't need to be over a school telling everyone to hate and become a bigot like her. Get rid of her!
Posted by radagast on 06/24/07 at 11:58AM
What a sad commentary, that the principle of a school would show prejudice and hatred and do deliberate harm to two teenage boys -- and then having done that, lie about it. I can only assume some sort of fanaticism on her part.
I have news for her, the Yearbook is for the students, not their parents, and it was her JOB to stand up to the parents if they didn't like the picture, EVEN MORE SO since the boy purchased the page.
The woman should be fired, and sanctioned so that she can never work in public education again. Local and Regional organizations should condemn her prejudicial act.
Link to online story.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)