WolfeNotes.com

Open Space, Farmland & Historic Preservation, State Parks, & Urban Advocates at Each Other’s Throats

Competition and Conflict Replace Mutual Support and Cooperation

Divide and Conquer: In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) (derived from Greek: διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε, diaírei kaì basíleue) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up.  ~~~ Wiki

“Shooting the messenger” or “killing the messenger” is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of lashing out at the (blameless) bearer of bad news. ~~~ Wiki

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight reports today on the latest development in the open space funding clusterfuck, the release of Governor Christie’s budget message:

• ADMINISTRATION, LAWMAKERS COULD CLASH OVER WHO GETS OPEN-SPACE FUNDING – As predicted by some environmentalists and legislators, various potential recipients are getting testy about how much money they’ll receive

… The budget proposal also allocates $32.7 million to programs previously funded by corporate business taxes — cleanup of toxic sites and underground storage tanks, as well as an assortment of water-related programs. The administration’s figure is down from $103 million in the current budget, which led some to oppose the ballot question.

“As we expected, there were deep cuts in water resources, site remediation, and land-use regulations,’’ said Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Wolfe was one of the biggest critics of the ballot question for precisely those reasons.

Given that we made the prediction, I need to update my own most recent engagement in this snake pit:

• All I Can Say Is: HECKOFAJOB Keep It Green!

Think about it:

What better way to divide a community than to engage a $1 million PR campaign to mislead people, inflate expectations of future funding, prohibit discussion of any negative consequences, and then dramatically slash historic resource levels and force each member group to compete with each other for very scarce resources?

Is there a more destructive dynamic possible?

It didn’t used to be this way: planning and regulation complemented open space acquisition. But how Smith and KIG have chosen to finance open space has forced competition and conflict, creating collateral damage instead of mutual support. ~~~ “Open Space Funding: Holy Grail – or White Whale?

A Koch Brothers strategist could not have done a better job.

[Actually, there are other Neoliberal features of KIG’s initiative, see: “Stewardship” Becomes The Charter School of the Environmental Movement]

Well, that’s exactly what the Keep It Green Open Space campaign has done – and the disappointment, irreversible bad blood, and damage now underway from that campaign was predicted.

Before the ballot measure was voted on, virtually the only public interest group in NJ, we opposed it. On October 6, 2014, we warned voters:

Trenton — A November ballot measure would amend the New Jersey constitution to siphon $10 billion out of park facilities maintenance as well as toxic site cleanup and state water infrastructure over the next 30 years solely to finance real estate purchases for open space. Billed as a “green” proposition, it would devastate bread and butter environmental programs while lining the pockets of some key proponents, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“This is utterly irresponsible eco-policy cynically masquerading as an investment in our future,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, pointing out that it will likely trigger layoffs of state Department of Environmental Protection staff working in both waste and water programs. “Green Acres and open space preservation are good ideas but not to the exclusion of everything else.”

Well, here we are now, after the tremendous  (Pyrrhic – or “White Whale“) “victory” on a dedicated source of open space funding  – listen to the angry voices now:

• “The bottom line is that this would basically mean an end to serious [historic] preservation in New Jersey.” ~~~ Albert B. Kelly, Mayor of Bridgeton, NJ

• “The imminent disappearance of the NJ Historic Trust and its funding for historic preservation capital projects is not what I voted for in November, and I don’t think it’s what you thought you voted for either.” ~~~ Cate Litvak, President, Advocate for New Jersey History

• “It’s not because I don’t support open space,” Gaddy said. “It’s because of the fact that I also support funding for environmental programs that this ballot question cuts.” ~~~  Kim Gaddy, Environmental Justice Coordinator, NJEF

• Robert Swanekamp, vice president of the State Board of Agriculture, agreed. “Why should the farming community receive short shrift now?’’ he asked the committee. ~~~ Open Space Fight Pits Farmland Preservation Against Environmentalists

I could provide many more such angry quotes from people who are shocked by the cuts to various programs that were traditionally funded at much higher levels from open space funds.

And people still have yet to figure out what the devastating impacts will be to core DEP programs, who have suffered over $80 million in cuts to CBT funded programs – a topic I will write  about as FY’16 budget details emerge.

Unfortunately, a lot of angry people are mis-focused and blaming the wrong people.

They are all saying “I didn’t vote for these cuts in the November ballot” and are attacking the implementation legislation.

But they DID vote for these cuts.

They were duped, misled, and/or lied to by the Keep It Green Coalition.

Those, like myself and others, who tried to bring the facts to public light were shouted down, attacked, and or marginalized and ignored.

The KIG Coalition should be the target of people’s wrath.

All these cuts and the bad blood they have created was predicted. We predicted it. We tried to stop it.

We were ignored. We were called “enemies”. We won’t forget.

[Update – 11/22/15 in text below, we review speculations in light of current reality]

I wrote about last Friday’s Pinelands Commission meeting, mostly just to describe what transpired (if you are interested in what went on at Friday’s meeting, see this).

So, today, we do some informed speculation on what might be coming down the pike:

1) Surprise Guest Suggests Another Manipulative Move

There was a surprise guest who spoke to the Commission during the public comment session to offer his time and expertise to assist the Commission’s nascent efforts to reform the MOA regulations in the CMP.

That guest was none other than Tony D. of the NJ Builders Association:

Tony DiLodovico Chosen NJBA Associate of the Fourth Quarter. Tony DiLodovico, Director of Regulatory Compliance for Omland Engineering has been named as NJBA’s Associate of the Fourth Quarter. He has been an active member of NJBA and the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey (SBACNJ) for over 20 years.

Tony just happens to be a friend and former colleague of Nancy Wittenberg, currently the Executive Director of the Pinelands Commission.

Wittenberg previously served as a NJBA lobbyist.

Here’s what we had to say back in 2006, when Gov. Corzine’s DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson selected Wittenberg as Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Regulation:

BUILDERS’ LOBBYIST TAPPED AS TOP STATE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATOR

“This appointment shows that the revolving door of business lobbyists exerting undue influence on environmental regulation will be swinging briskly,” said New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe. “While professionally and academically qualified to fill the post of Assistant Commissioner, Ms. Wittenberg’s appointment is not in the public interest and sends the wrong message to the public and professional staff and scientists in the Department.” […]

“Her extreme positions and statements as a NJBA lobbyist raise legitimate questions about her judgment and capacity to fairly and objectively administer environmental laws,” Wolfe added, noting that, as Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Regulation, Wittenberg will be a member of the DEP Management Team and influence Department-wide policy, budget, staffing, and enforcement decisions.

We reiterated those concerns in 2010, when Gov. Christie appointed Wittenberg to the Pinelands Commission ED post, see: Christie Names Former Builders Lobbyist As Head of Pinelands Commission

But others were far less concerned about Ms. Wittenberg: (see 11/30/10 Asbury Park Press story by Kirk Moore):

“I think Nancy is a very knowledgeable and talented person,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club’s New Jersey Chapter, who describes her as a friend. But “she looks at land use very differently than environmentalists do.”

Carleton Montgomery of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance said he thinks Wittenberg can be effective at managing the Pinelands’ land-use plan that covers 22 percent of New Jersey’s land mass.

“I’m optimistic that she will turn out to be a good choice. She brings a wealth of skill and experience to the job,” Montgomery said. Wittenberg has a reputation for intelligence and savvy management that could stand her well in the new job, he added: “The Pinelands Commission is in a weakened state, and its budget has been cut to the bone.”

If nothing else, the South Jersey Gas pipeline debate absolutely proved that Ms. Wittenberg is “savvy” and “talented”.

Getting back to Tony D.

I’ve known Tony for years and we spoke in depth during the Commission’s 30 minute executive session on Friday about the pipeline debate. I asked him why he was getting involved.

Based on that discussion, first of all, it seemed clear that he had been talking with Nancy, because while Tony agreed that the MOA process was seriously flawed, he praised Nancy and blamed Chairman Lohbauer for pulling the rug out from under her and Commissioner Lloyd for throwing a monkey wrench into the process at the last minute.

Second, putting 1 plus 1 together, after hearing Tony volunteer to serve on any Ad Hoc Committee to reform the MOA process, I strongly suspect that Nancy  may have given Tony a call and asked him to come and get involved.

I suspect that the overall game plan is to not oppose Chairman Lohbauer’s proposal to form an Ad Hoc MOA rule reform Committee, but rather to install Tony on the inside, delay and co-opt the MOA reform process, and divert the focus while SJG pursues an alternate pipeline route outside the Pinelands.

[Update: The ad hoc MOA Committee is still not finished its work. There has been little opposition. So, I was half right about delay. But I was wrong about Tony D. and hopefully I can take some credit here for derailing his involvement.

I was right that SJG would pursue an alternative, but not an alternative PIPELINE ROUTE. SJG pursued an alternative REGULATORY ROUTE.]

2) Governor’s Office Monitoring

During the course of the SJG pipeline debate, the Commission was criticized as appearing to be a puppet of Gov. Christie, who strongly supported the pipeline and was exerting political pressure behind the scenes in several ways.

A key focus of the public debate was that the Commission had to protect the integrity of the CMP AND the independence of the Commission.

As I’ve written, the Pinelands Commission is an independent regulatory agency.

Under section 4 of the Pinelands Act, the Commission is legally “in but not of” the DEP, and thus independent form both the DEP and the Gov.’s Executive Branch management control.

For the purpose of complying with the provisions of Article V, Section IV, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, the commission is hereby allocated within the Department of Environmental Protection, but, notwithstanding said allocation, the commission shall be independent of any supervision or control by such department or by the commissioner or any officer or employee thereof.

Under the Pinelands Act, the Governor has three type of powers to influence the Pinelands Commission:

a) nomination of 7 Commissioners, but that power is checked by the Senate who must confirm his nominees. And there is no question that the Executive Director serves the Commission, not the Gov. (section 5):

g. The Governor shall designate one of the members of the commission as chairman. The commission shall appoint an executive director, who shall be the chief administrative officer thereof. The executive director shall serve at the pleasure of the commission, and shall be a person qualified by training and experience to perform the duties of his office.

b) budget, but again that power is checked by the Legislature who must vote to pass the Gov.’s budget; and

c) on the CMP and overall policy, the Gov. has “negative” power, i.e. procedurally, the Gov. is provided a copy of the CMP after its adoption by the Commission. The Gov.’s effective policy power is limited to the Gov.’s power to veto the minutes to block any action by the Commission. The Gov. exercised that power to block a staff raise approved by the Commission.

But while the Gov. can block actions by the Commission, he can not direct the Commission to Act.

So, given the independence of the Commission and the Governor’s limited powers, why would the Commission allow the Gov.’s Office to attend  and listen in on their confidential deliberations in executive sessions?

The Commission went into Executive Session on Friday to discuss litigation. The parties to that litigation are the Pinelands Commission and the Pinelands Preservation Alliance. Some of the legal issues involve potentially embarrassing – or even incriminating – emails involving the Governor’s Office.

The Gov.’s Office and the Pinelands Commission have potentially conflicting interests and the Gov. is NOT a party to the PPA lawsuit.

So, why would the Commission allow the Gov.’s Office to sit in on confidential Executive Session deliberations on the PPA OPRA litigation?

At a minimum, that raises a perception issue, e.g. the Commission bending to the will of the Gov.

But it also raises serious legal ethics issues. The Attorney General is representing the Pinelands Commission. The Commission is the AG’s client, not the Gov.’s office.

Just like it would be improper for the BPU or the DEP to attend Executive Sessions, it also is wrong for the Gov.’s Office to be allowed in the room.

What I think this means is that the Gov. is still pressuring the Commission – the Gov.’s attempts to replace Commissioners who defied him and voted against the SJG pipeline is one very public and obvious threat.

Whether they will fold is unclear.

But, at a minimum, the Commission should kick the King out of their Court.

3) Pipeline Around pines?

I am getting vibes that some pipeline opponents are seeking to have SJG pursue and alternate route that skirts the Pinelands and would not require Pinelands Commission review, and that they might SUPPORT such an alternative pipeline route.

That would be a very bad idea – see many of the 10 reasons to oppose the SJG pipeline.

An alternative route would be far more damaging to natural resources; as fossil infrastructure, would have the same climate change impacts of re-powering BL England plant; would undermine economic investments in renewable energy; and have the same air pollution impacts.

I really hope that my gut is wrong on this.

[Update: I was wrong about this – SJG pursued another regulatory option. Glad I was wrong and that opponents have remained unified.]

4) Military Madness loophole?

The new issue of the New Jersey Natural Gas proposed pipeline was discussed on Friday.

There were suggestions that the location on Dix/McGuire Joint Base could be used to dodge CMP restrictions.

Do I smell a military loophole being manufactured?

Something to get clarified, ASAP.

[Update:  Got this one right –  It seems like NJ Natural  Gas did indeed concoct a false military need.]

CHRISTIE SIGNS LAW GREENLIGHTING FAST TRACK SALE OF NJ PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS

A notable political contribution was made in between the vote’s passage and Christie’s signing of the measure. American Water of Voorhees, the largest publicly traded U.S. water and sewer company, contributed $50,000 to the Republican Governors Association in the final days of the New Jersey governor’s chairmanship of the organization.

As the Bergen Record reported last week:

“We joined Choose New Jersey simply because we want to see New Jersey succeed,” said Rich Henning, senior vice president of communications for United Water, one of at least four companies that have gotten tax breaks approved by the state’s Economic Development Agency under Christie. Brown was CEO of the state agency while two of the subsidies were approved.

The state agency approved incentives worth up to $3.1 million to Ferring Pharmaceuticals in late 2010; $5.5 million to United Water in April; $87.2 million to Wakefern Food Co. in 2010; and $210 million to Prudential Financial in mid-2012, records show. All are board members for Choose New Jersey.[…]

The majority of the 21 entities with a seat on the Choose New Jersey’s board pay lobbyists to advance their interests in Trenton, records show.

Lobbyists for at least five utility companies with seats on the non-profit’s board — Verizon New Jersey, PSE&G, Jersey Central Power & Light, Atlantic City Electric and New Jersey American Water — got an audience in Christie’s office last year, records show.

And with a lot of help from his corrupt Norcross – Sweeney – Greenwald friends:

• Wide Range of Critics Blast Democrats’ Water Privatization Bill

• Democratic Legislature Supports Privatization of Water Systems

 

[End Note: As suspected, given current plans to privatize Plumsted MUA water infrastructure, Assemblyman Dancer (R-Ocean) voted in favor of the bill,  while Senator Thompson at least had the sense not to vote at all given his involvement with DEP Commissioner Martin.]

Corporate Water Privatization Bill Backed By Secret Sponsors

I saw this as anonymous banner ad at NJ Spotlight last week. (click here for full add)

I immediately sent an email and asked Spotlight folks who was paying for it and got no answer.

Today, I saw it at NJ.Com – and again asked myself:  who is paying for this ad to privatize NJ water systems?

Shouldn’t that fact be disclosed as part of the ad?

Don’t the people of NJ deserve to know the source of this political advocacy?

Contrary to the ad, we strongly oppose the bill now on Governor Christie’s desk.

We are seeking a veto and urge all readers to contact the Gov. at 609-292-6000 to ask for a veto of the bill.

Here is background on the legislation for those interested:

• Democratic Legislature Supports Water Privatization 
• Privatization Bill Would Da Nothing To Address Crumbling Water Infrastructure and $40 Billion Deficit
• Wide Range of Critics Blast Democrats’ Water Privatization Bill
• Why Are NJ Democrats Trying to Privatize Public Drinking Water & Sewer Systems?

 

Senator Thompson Flips Out After Being Called Out

The Senator Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

[Update: 2/2/15 – Koch Brothers funded Americans For Prosperity just ranked Sen. Thompson #1 in NJ – Heckofajob! (h/t DM @ BJ)

A quick post on some fireworks that occurred after today’s Senate Environment Committee hearing on proposed legislation involving promotion of off shore wind and environmental justice.

The wind bill was released and the environmental justice bill was held for additional work.

There was some very good testimony you can listen to here (hit “listen to prior proceedings” and scroll to Senate Environment Committee).

But both bills certainly would be vetoed by Governor Christie and have virtually no chance of enactment.

So, instead of writing about the policy issues with the bills (which I support and have written about before, see this on wind and this on environmental justice), I’ll just share a sharp exchange I had with Senator Thompson (R-Ocean) after the hearing.

During the hearing, Thompson took strong exception to Senator Sweeney’s criticism of Gov. Christie and raised strong objections to injecting politics in decision-making.

So after the hearing, in a very soft spoken and respectful way, I asked Senator Thompson how he could reconcile his remarks opposing local political intervention at DEP with his actions in meeting with DEP Commissioner Martin and pressuring DEP to issue a NJPDES permit for a new sewage treatment plant on Crosswicks Creek in Plumsted.

He immediately got defensive and flustered and asked me exactly what was I talking about.

I replied that I had it in writing that he (and likely Assemblyman Dancer) had met with DEP Commissioner Martin and pressured DEP to issue a NJPDES permit for a new treatment plant, and to reverse longstanding DEP policies and relax regulations to do so.

Seemingly aware of the Assemblyman Fiocchi matter, he claimed that he was doing that on behalf of his constituents.

I replied that Lennar – who just signed a developers agreement with Plumsted – and other developers and NJ American Water would benefit economically as well (PMUA is actively considering privatizing both water and sewer infrastructure) and that he had injected politics into DEP decisions, not the merits as he had just rode his high horse on during the Committee hearing.

After I said that, Thompson went wild. He physically got in my face, less than 4 inches from me, as he repeatedly poked his finger in my chest. [I had to ask him to stop touching me.]

He called me an asshole and told me to “stick it up my ass” and as he repeated that phrase, he gave me the middle finger. I’ve not seen anything like it since grade school. Total meltdown.

[Update: A reader just called and said that this kind of behavior, if it were conducted by a State employee in the workplace, would be grounds for discipline, including firing. The reader said this was the next phase of “sit down and shut up”]

So let me provide the context for my question and Thompson’s meltdown, so readers understand exactly what I called Thompson out for.

In a way, my question to Thompson is similar to the core issue in the Assemblyman Fiocchi ethics matter.

• Off shore wind: Sweeney Calls Out Christie & the Koch Brothers, Thompson cries foul

Senate President Sweeney  was the prime sponsor off shore wind energy promotion legislation passed in 2010. Sweeney began the discussion of another pro-wind bill to implement that law, S-2711 after 4 years of delay by the Christie Administration. Sweeney had some strong words (verbatim remarks by Sweeney):

In March 2011, BPU was supposed to publish the wind regulations. The  fact that the BPU has not published regulations is a clear statement from the Administration that they’re opposed to wind energy, at the cost of the economy of the state of NJ.

We would have captured 1,000 manufacturing jobs in this industry. We were so far ahead of other states, up and down the east coast.

There was a conference in Atlantic City where the Lt. Governor spoke glowingly of how wonderful this is.

Now something happened.

I think the Governor’s ambitions changed and I know that the Koch Brothers don’t like clean energy.

Wham! Sweeney rightly nailed Christie for caving to Koch brothers to kill wind and harm NJ’s economy and jobs.

After the testimony, during the Committee’s deliberation, Senator Thompson (R-Ocean) opened with a salvo taking strong exception to Sweeney’s political criticism of the Governor (verbatim remarks by Senator Thompson):

I find it regrettable that this discussion began on a political basis. The first statement made was: “This hasn’t moved – the wind industry stuff – because the Koch Brothers aren’t into renewable energy, and the Governor may have some other direction he wants to go in.”

To me, that has nothing to do with what we’re considering here …. I think it should be weighed on its own merits.

So, Senator Thompson wants regulatory decisions based on the merits, not politics.

Aside from being absurd given how Gov. Christie’s political ambitions have blocked off shore wind, remember that.

Ironically, that is exactly the issue I just raised in our ethics complaint against Assembylan Fiocchi – undue and inappropriate political intervention

The bill was approved by the Committee by a 4-1 vote and released.

• Environmental Justice: Thompson says he wants DEP permits based on science, not politics

The environmental justice bill (S1150) spurred a lot of testimony and was discussed at length by the Committee (here is my summary and analysis of that bill prior to the hearing today).

One of the key issues framed by Chairman Smith, was the role of local government. The bill would give local governments an effective veto over DEP permits in designated communities.

Senator Thompson again objected and took strong exception to the role of local government in DEP permit decisions – on similar grounds to his remarks about wind – follow this closely (verbatim remarks by Senator Thompson):

To me, the killer on this bill is when it says the bill prohibits the DEP from approving any permit without the local municipal governing body adopting an ordinance approving the permit application.

In essence, this takes away from DEP the ability to issue its own permit.

They can not grant a permit, not matter what their studies say.

So, now its going to be left to the local governing bodies.

Well, not only as a legislator but as County Chairman, I have a lot of contact with a lot of local governing bodies.

And I know that their decisions are not always based upon the facts – there are other factors that come into consideration by some members at times.

And the decisions may not be based on whether its appropriate to have this facility here, and so on, but may come for other reasons unrelated to any studies.

I’d be reluctant to take that final decision away from DEP.

I wonder what the “other factors” are Thompson was referring to?

So, let’s repeat that:

Senator Thompson says he knows that local decisions are “not always based on facts” and that he wants DEP permits to be based on “studies” not local politics.

During the wind debate, Thompson objected to injecting politics into BPU regulatory decisions.

But here is what Senator Thompson does, which is the exact opposite of what he says – here he is doing exactly what he just complained about: (from April 30, 2014 – PMUA minutes):

[Assemblyman] Mr. Dancer said Senator Thompson had recently met with Commissioner Martin at NJDEP. He said Senator Thompson had called him after the meeting and said the Commissioner was aware of Plumsted’s situation and would personally look into it and, if possible, try to expedite things.

Mr. Dancer also noted he received a call from Rick Brown of the NJDEP stating the Commissioner wanted to make sure this issue gets the attention it needs in a timely fashion.

[Assemblyman] Mr. Dancer questioned that if the DEP gives approval to the socio economic analysis, what is the next in issuing a permit for surface water discharge.

In other words, Thompson opposed exactly what he and Assemblyman Dancer – former Mayor of Plumsted – did with respect to meeting with DEP Commissioner Martin and pressuring DEP to issue a NJPDES permit with effluent limits that violate DEP’s own policies and standards.

And that is literally the definition of hypocrisy.

And when I called Thomson out on that, he flipped out – using profane language and gestures.