[Update: 8/3/08- the press finally covered this story. See:
DEP’s lease program disorganized — but at what cost?
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/B3/20080803/NEWS0301/808030350/1123/NEWS02
State loses money on leases
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080803/NEWS/808030434
Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine recently correctly took me to task for not doing my homework before making inaccurate comments on his recent column. I was held accountable for and as a result quickly acknowledged my (minor) error. Case closed. Academics and science work in a similar fashion: peer review discloses errors – errors are then corrected.
But, I wish someone would do basic research on the issue of whether the threat to close State parks due to lack of money – and the recent diversion of beach replenishment funds to fill the funding gap – was even necessary. If my facts are accurate, current, and complete, someone has a lot of explaining to do.
Follow this brief chronology:
1. December 2005: I was asked to make recommendations to the Corzine Transition Team on environmental policy. One recommendation – based on prior OLS audits and internal DEP information provided to me – was to look for uncollected revenues in the DEP Office of Leases and Concessions. I provided documentation to Corzine’s staff to back this up.
2. February 2006: These recommendations were presented to the Assembly Budget Committee (see question #10, page 17 of this link:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/budget2007/DeptResponse/EvnProtection%20responses.pdf
3. April 2006: The Department was asked and provided written response to legislative questions on the FY 2006-2007 budget on leases and concessions revenues, specifically in response to Question #10 (page 17)
“Have any leases been renegotiated or back rent collected during the past year, and if so, how much more revenue is anticipated as a result of these actions in FY 2006 and FY 2007?”
DEP response to that question concluded:
“… we do not foresee the collection of back rent and the renegotiation of existing leases generating “millions” of dollars of revenue for the state.”
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/budget2007/DeptResponse/EvnProtection%20responses.pdf
So, it looks like the end of the story about DEP leases and concessions, right?
WRONG. Lets get current.
4. April 21, 2008 – Anticipating the huge debate about closing the parks, I filed an Open Public Records Act request (OPRA) at DEP to get current data on collection of EXISTING leases and concessions revenues. I was blocked by DEP, who asserted OPRA loopholes and threatened to levy “extraordinary charges” for the information sought. Frustrated by the OPRA barriers and the DEP’s apparent failure to consider my Transition recommendations on leases and concession revenues, I released this:
NEW JERSEY PARKS LOSE MILLIONS IN UNCOLLECTED LEASE PAYMENTS — Park Closures Could Be Averted by Reaping Concessionaire and Easement Revenue
Trenton — Questionable deals to reduce or waive rental payments from private leases and concessions throughout New Jersey’s State Parks is costing taxpayers a bundle, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The state has ignored repeated warnings that it is forfeiting millions of dollars each year by failing to collect what is owed by easement-holders and concessionaires, including some of the state’s largest corporations.
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1030
5. May 11, 2008 – the NY Times reported a compromise that involved leases and concessions:
“[DEP Commissioner] Ms. Jackson said options for coming years include seeking money from private leases and concessions,…..”
A Reprieve for State Parks, but Not a Solution
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/11parksnj.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
6. May 12, 2008 – I wrote DEP Commissioner Jackson, outlined the above chronology, and asked this pointed question (never received a reply):
“I request that you update this [April 2006] testimony, as appropriate in light of current data and your May 11, 2008 NY Times statement. I ask that you specifically clarify the status of revenue collection and renegotiation of access easements across State park lands.”
7. June 30, 2008 – According to the Governor’s press release, Corzine signs legislation which “allows in FY2009 up to $9 million from “Shore Protection Fund” to be used to help defray State park and forest operation and maintenance costs; requires DEP to study State park and forest fee structure and revenue sources, and modify fees accordingly.”
http://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/2008/approved/20080630c.html
While the term “and revenue soruces” is vague in the press release, a close reading of the bill he signed reveals that this includes EXACTLY the EXISTING (not NEW) easements, leases and concessions revenues that are uncollected! Section 4 directs DEP to::
(2) conduct a re-appraisal of the rents and fees charged for all
residences and other buildings and structures, and for utility
easements and right-of-ways, located on State park or forest lands
to ensure they reflect current fair market values and will continue to
do so;
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A3000/2806_R1.PDF
8. July 5, 2008 – The Gannett papers reported opposition by republican lawmakers regarding the diversion of beach replenishment funds to keep state parks open. According to that story:
“The bill allows for funding to be shifted for one year only; by year’s end, the DEP is supposed to complete a study of its park system and identify ways — such as higher admission and parking fees, new amenities or better collections of existing leases and easements — to use parks to fund parks.”
http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/B3/20080705/NEWS0301/807050302/1123/NEWS02
We know that DEP denied any problems in the Office of Leases and Concessions in April 2006, but did the Governor threaten to close parks with the full knowledge that DEP had not collected revenues or upgrades leases, easements, and concessions to reflect current market rates, as recommended by a series of prior OLS audits?
How did DEP get in so wrong in April 2006? How has DEP dodged accountability and suffered zero criticism for this?
How could Corzine have known this and threatened to close parks?
Will entrance and parking fees for people at State parks be increased while this corporate revenue goes uncollected?
Who will hold these folks accountable? I sure have tried.
And someone please correct me if I am wrong – I diligently tried to get current facts and asked the DEP Commissioner as well.
-
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
-
Meta
Folks sometimes ask why I am so persistently critical – here is one of the better responses to that question I just came across:
“Why I keep underlying bad news
…
“But more importantly, this is about identifying causes and allocating responsibility for what’s happening today. The crises I have been describing are a direct – and in many cases, desired – result of political choices that have been imposed on us, and it is fundamentally important that the underlying ideology be (i) identified and (ii) blamed for what happened, rather than amorphous and uncontrollable things like “globalization” or “economic cycles.” There is a crime, there is a culprit, and there is a motive. ”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/6/65026/45211/912/547245
I get that all the time; “you’re so negative”, blah blah blah; The truth hurts, but it should be told nevertheless; there is nothing worse than false optimism while the train is derailing;
They could also save some money by collapsing some of the layers and layers of mgmt at DEP and/or reducing the outrageous salaries some of them make, particularly those who got their jobs by who, not what, they know.
I suspect Corzine wanted to close parks in order to make this budget as painful as possible, as suggested by all the political commentators, so that he can drag out his toll plan again. He also doesn’t seem to mind wasting taxpayer money fighting the court-ordered release of those emails to and from Carla Katz. There could be a lifeguard at a lot of state beaches for that coin.
unprovincial – good points on DEP management, but on the parks issue, you restate the conventional wisdom.
But my point is: suppose Corzine didn’t know that revenues were uncollected and that he never had to announce parks closure?
It is conceivable that information was withheld.
Either the Office of Leases and Concessions withheld info from Commissioner Jackson (this would explain the April 2006 DEP budget testimony: no revenue avaialble).
Or Jackson witheld it from Corzine.
Or it is possible that the bean counters are totally irresponsible and/or incompetent. The Site Remediation Program admitted to staff a few months ago that invoices to Responsible Parties had not been calculated or mailed for work done dating back to the 1980s! That was only because the Treasury had done an audit and found this out. And instead of hiring some good accountants, they continue to place people with no experience or training in accounting practices in the billing bureaus in order to create positions for people who got tired of technical work and/or want a fast-track to a higher mgmt position. In other words, the people that can’t do their jobs get rewarded by being placed in a position with more responsibility, not less. No wonder things are screwed up.