WolfeNotes.com

Press Reports as a Money Story – Gives Christie Spin Opportunity

As we expected and due to limitations in the federal HUD block grant programming requirements, the Governor’s Plan is driven by “Rebuild Madness” – rebuilding and economic development are its exclusive focus, with literally no consideration of climate change, sea level rise, extreme weather events, natural resources, land use planning, or coastal vulnerability. ~~~ Bill Wolfe   3/14/13

I was going to write about the Sandy recovery expert recommendations by various flood plain management, insurance, building, planning and environmental professionals presented last week at an interesting Trenton panel discussion.

Virtually all the expert recommendations are being ignored in the Christie Administration’s rebuild dominated Sandy Recovery effort.

But,  I’ll hold off on writing that for a few days and instead just focus on today’s Asbury Park Press story, which involves a related set of issues (see: State retains $84M from Sandy grant to run programs).

In that APP story, the lack of any planning in Sandy recovery efforts we have been trying to get injected into the policy discussion was again ignored.

But, aside from this longstanding media oversight, remarkably, our criticism of the Christie Administration’s rush to rebuild and failure to plan was turned into an opportunity to favorably spin the Administration’s planning!

The Christie Department of Community Affairs (DCA) spokesperson tells us:

“New Jersey has opted to also spend a significant portion of the allowable administrative dollars on critical planning activities,” Petty said. “The state intends to build back better and stronger. This may require specific planning activities at both the state and local levels. HUD has required states build to green building standards and with a particular consideration for resiliency, which will require planning assistance to achieve successful implementation throughout the recovery.

Wow! Talk about turning lemons into lemonade!

So, again we must remind readers of a few important facts that contradict the DCA spin:

1) NJ has coastal planners, a planning process, and plans at the DEP and the Office of State Planning – all of which are being ignored:

a) DEP’s Coastal Management Program has been decimated and disabled.

b) The NJ State Planning Commission just (again) postponed their regularly scheduled meeting allegedly for lack of planning work! The State Plan still has not been adopted. Why is that not a suitable planning process? (we have opposed the Christie State Plan framework, which has been transferred into a corporate strategic economic development plan, not a land use plan).

c) The Gov. has opposed Assemblyman Barnes’ bill to establish a Coastal Commission to do the required regional planing work.

d)  Some have called for an update of the 30 year old 1980 DEP Shore Protection Master Plan.

So, there is no shortage of planning options out there. Again, all are ignored.

2) We have a sharply different take on the policy and planning issues implicit in the very favorable DCA quote in the above APP story, see:

Christie May Not Be A Total Denier, But He Is A Radical Dismantler of Climate Change Programs

[Updates below]

Climate change is of  NO CONCERN to Gov. Christie and he’s said so himself and demonstrated that by his actions multiple times for over 3 years.  ~~~~ Bill Wolfe, March 15, 2013

A story in today’s Bergen Record prompts the question:

Why is it so hard for NJ Media to accurately portray the Governor’s record or call out Christie on Climate Change?

Today, very similar to what we have written (see this Jan. 11 post), the Record story compares Gov. Christie’s Sandy Recovery Plan with NY Gov. Cuomo’s plan, see: Rebuild vs. retreat: Christie and Cuomo offer contrasting plans in wake of Sandy

We won’t focus on the bias in that headline – i.e. disparaging sound, cost effective, regional land use planning recommended by the overwhelming majority of scientific experts and a diverse set of professionals as “retreat” shows absurd bias. We’ll save that debate for another day.

But, I do want to focus on how that story characterizes Governor Christie’s stance on climate change.

Here’s how the Record reporter describes that:

Christie, a Republican who said immediately after superstorm Sandy struck in October that climate change was not his “main concern,” is offering owners of flood-damaged homes $10,000 in exchange for a promise to do repairs and stay in their homes for at least two years.

Not his “main concern”? What? Are you kidding me?

Climate change is of  NO CONCERN to Gov. Christie and he’s said so himself and demonstrated that by his actions multiple times for over 3 years.

Both the Gov.’s rhetoric and his policies – over a 3 year period – show that climate is of no concern, not a just a lower priority isssue, i.e. not a “main concern”.

So why is this so hard for the press to hold the Gov. accountable to that radical position?

Let me again offer a few specific examples of the Christie rhetoric and the policy:

1. In a recent February 5, 2013 Union Beach press conference, yes, technically, as the Record reported today, the Gov. did say that climate change was not his “main concern“.

But those were the Gov. words, designed to soften a rant and mask his radical policy record.

The context for the Gov.’s not my “main concern” quote was a rant in which the Gov. called climate change an “esoteric issue” that the public “did not give a damn about” and that he had not spent any time – repeat: any  time at all – considering.

“I have no idea. I’m not a climatologist and in the last hundred days I have to tell you the truth, I’ve been focused on a lot of things, the cause of this is not one of them that I’ve focused on,” Christie said in response to a question about the role climate change could have played in fueling the Oct. 29, 2012 storm. “Now, maybe in the subsequent months and years, after I get done with trying to rebuild the state and put people back in their homes, I will have the opportunity to ponder theesoteric question of the cause of this storm. …If you asked of these people in Union Beach, I don’t think they give a damn.” NJ Gov. Chris Christie, Feb. 5. 2013

2. Prior to Christie’s February 5 rant, the Gov. told WNYC’s reporter Bob Hennelly – who asked him a point blank climate question – that he had not been briefed on or considered climate change in 18 months. On Dec. 7, 2012, WNYC reported:

Nancy Solomon, New Jersey Public Radio) As Sandy gathered force and then slammed into his state, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie batted off question’s about climate change.

“I know there are some folks at Rutgers who are looking at whether climate caused all this, but I certainly haven’t been briefed in the last year, year-and-a-half on this,” Christie told WNYC’s Bob Hennelly last month.

How is it possible for the Governor of a coastal state, with the nation’s most aggressive climate change law (i.e. the 2007 Global Warming Response Act) not to have been briefed for 18 months on climate change?

So again, by the Gov. own words, climate change played NO ROLE – not a subordinate role – but NO ROLE in the Governor’s decisions.

3.  On the policy front, the evidence is even worse.

• The Governor has dismantled DEP Office of Climate Change created in the Commissioner’s Office to implement the 2007 Global Warming Response Act. (see CHRISTIE SHREDS NEW JERSEY CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAMS – Kills Emission Reporting, Diverts Green Energy Fund & Defunds Climate Office

• The Governor unilaterally removed NJ from the Northeastern States’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions program (RGGI), virtually the only NJ program to implement the NJ GWRA GHG emissions reduction goals. That radical move has come under political attack in the legislature and legal attack by lawsuit from environmental groups.

• The Governor has diverted  over $800 million of Clean Energy Fund money designed to fund critical energy efficiency, conservation and greenhouse gas emission reduction programs.

• The Governor revised the Energy Master Plan to reduce energy conservation goals, to promote construction of new fossil power plants, to build new gas pipelines to transport fracking gas and to erect arbitrary economic “cost test” barriers to renewables.

The Governor has engaged an across the board assault and dismantling of virtually anything related to climate change – it is a radical and ugly record.

That radical record can not be characterized by the misleading and lazy claim that climate change is not his “main concern”.

Why is this story so hard for the NJ media to write?

Why do they flinch from holding the Gov. accountable to this radical record?

In closing, this is one of the few news stories that come close to calling the Gov. out and accurately portraying his policy: Sandy recovery, not climate, on Governor Christie’s radar

Update #2 : 5/15/13 – Wa-Po Op-Ed by the Nation’s Katrina vanden Heuval Christie’s Broken Promise – conclusion sounds familiar:

He may not be engaging in climate denial talk — but he’s embracing climate denial policies.

In another erie parallel, Katrina also cites the 400 ppm CO2 threshold, a milestone I urged Dems to use as a millstone around Christie’s neck , on the same day she wrote the column, May 14!  – end update]

Update #1 : 4/28/13 – HALLELUJAH!!!  (listen to Leonard Cohen)

Tom Moran at the Star Ledger finally breaks the ice with this editorial:  Gov. Christie’s towering hypocrisy on climate

But, I had to write my old friend a note, just to keep it real:

Tom – thanks for that, you’re the first to break this ice:

Why Is It So Hard For NJ Media to Call Out Gov. Christie on Climate Change?

But, you obviously must know that putting Pringle in that piece was obscene – Pringle and NJEF not only endorsed Christie, but provided cover for 2 years – the key period when this policy framework was put in place with no media or legislative pushback !

Rewarding that by writing him into your editorial is an insult to the truth.

Wolfe  – end updates]

Assembly Committee Focused on Subsidies To Gas Stations, Not Drinking Water

At the height of the storm, 94 wastewater treatment systems suffered failures or disruptions, …

The vast majority of New Jersey’s community water supply systems were impacted: 427 of 604 community water systems experienced power loss during the event. As a direct result of the service interruptions, 362,334 New Jersey residents were placed under a boil water advisory. ~~~ Gov. Christie’s Sandy Recovery Action Plan 3/12/13

The Assembly Homeland Security and State Preparedness Committee met today.

Getting ahead of myself for a moment, normally, very few bills released from Committee’s get any attention from the media – but amazingly, today this Committee got not one, but two news stories, both of which miss the most important issue: see:

• N.J. Assembly committee approves bill to help gas stations install generators and
• Bill allowing towns to use surplus snow removal funds for debris removal clears committee (a bill Dems should have used to illustrate the folly of Gov. Christie 2% cap, but didn’t)

[and the wrongheaded, cosmetic, and ineffective bill (A3928) about reservoir lowering to prevent flooding got no press coverage, but did have the Chair waiting and searching the halls for Jeff Tittel. Jeff forgot to mention the Christie/Martin stunt on this, to create a false appearance of preventive steps prior to Sandy landfall.]

But, lets get back to my story.

Frankly, I never heard of this Committee despite the fact that they have oversight and jurisdiction over State Hazard planning and preparation, an issue I’ve been working on for some time.

This morning I noted that the Committee’s agenda included bills related to Sandy, so I thought I’d show up and try to brief the Committee on issues I’ve been trying to get some focus on.

One would think that the Democratic Legislature would be looking for issues to engage the Governor on, particularly in the wake of last week’s AshBritt oversight hearing and a day after the release of the Governor’s $1.8 billion Sandy Recovery Plan, for which the Committee has oversight.

During his opening remarks at last week’s AshBritt hearing, Senate Chairman Gordon stated that he was interested in reforming state hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness planning.

Picking up on Senator Gordon’s lead, I signed up testify on a bill, A3625. That bill would require  emergency operations plans in certain senior occupied buildings:

to prepare for any possible loss of essential services, such as adequate heat, water, hot water, electricity, gas, or telephone service, and any other substantial disruption to daily living that could result during an emergency.

Sandy knocked out power, and seniors were trapped in high rise buildings that lost elevators.

I figured I’d explain to the Committee that the bill was very similar to the problems experienced by water and sewer plants that lost power and lacked emergency plans and adequate back up power systems.

I was wrong –

Although the Committee had time for testimony and questions about Gov. Christie’s Proclamation of March as “Red Cross Month”, Chairwoman Quiajano wanted to hear nothing about all that and took the unusual move to exercise the power of the chair to shut me down immediately as testifying “off the bill”.

I have no patience for such narrow minded petulant exercises of raw political power, which prompted me firing off this letter, something an access driven lobbyist would never do:

Chairwoman Quijano:

Respectfully, despite begging the Committee’s indulgence and explaining the nature of unique and exigent circumstances, it was unfortunate that I was not allowed to bring the following issues to your attention that warrant the Committee’s oversight.

I’ve been testifying on legislation for over 25 years, and that was the first time I can recall being asked to stand down while attempting to deliver important testimony.

Below is what I was trying to bring to your attention in the context of A3625, regarding very similar problems that the bill seeks to address regarding critical failures due to lack of emergency preparedness and back up power systems:

1. The Assembly Homeland Security and State PreparednessCommittee is the Committee of jurisdiction over state emergency preparedness planning.

2. The Governor’s Sandy Recovery “Action Plan” was released yesterday directly relates to State Preparedness subject matter and important policy considerations under the jurisdiction of the Committee.

There is a limited 7 day public review and comment period on the Governor’s Action Plan which ends on March 19 . There have been no legislative oversight or public hearings on that plan.

3.  For the first time in a public document, the Governor’s Action plan documents that there was massive failures at wastewater treatment and water supply infrastructure across the state due to lack of preparedness planning:

“At the height of the storm, 94 wastewater treatment systems suffered failures or disruptions, including inadequate treatment, broken sewer mains, and other operational issues. The loss of electrical power rendered many water systems unable to maintain service. Even at plants where backup generation was available, the disruption of the petroleum production and delivery system caused generator fuel supplies to be limited.

The vast majority of New Jersey’s community water supply systems were impacted: 427 of 604 community water systems experienced power loss during the event. As a direct result of the service interruptions, 362,334 New Jersey residents were placed under a boil water advisory. One month after Superstorm Sandy made landfall, eight drinking water systems in Ocean County, serving approximately 10,000 households, were still subject to a boil water advisory. “

Those were largely preventable and are completely unacceptable conditions that must never be allowed to occur again.

However, the Governor’s Action plan does not propose any funding or outline and reforms to address these critical failures.

4.  NJ DEP NJPDES regulations (@ NJAC 7:14A-6.12) specify limited emergency planning provisions for certain wastewater treatment facilities, including back up power provision. These are not mandatory enforceable permit conditions and DEP has lax oversight of these important functions.

5. NJ DEP Water Supply Planning regulations (@ NJAC 7:10-2.3 Plan for provision of potable water in emergencies)

task NJ DEP with the responsibility to develop emergency plans for public water supply systems across the state.

On January 24, 2013, DEP denied my OPRA request for these emergency plans that are mandated by DEP’s own regulations.

Christie Plan Lacks Funding for Buyouts and Restrictions in High Hazard Locations 

No Recognition of Vulnerability Due to Climate Change and Risks of Sea Level Rise

Weasel Words, Loopholes, and Unfunded Aspirational Rhetoric

 Plan fails to leverage federal money to secure policy “beyond regulatory compliance”

The program is expected to help 6,000 homeowners, but it’s first come, first served.

The program came as a surprise to some residents Tuesday night, many of whom have been confused and overwhelmed by the maze of programs and agencies offering help and the daunting task of rebuilding quickly. Record, 3/13/13

[Important update below]

Governor Christie released NJ’s Sandy Recovery Plan yesterday, proposing uses of the first $1.828 billion of the $60 billion in federal disaster relief funds appropriated by Congress (to read the plan, hit this link).

As we expected and due to limitations in the federal HUD block grant programming requirements, the Governor’s Plan is driven by “Rebuild Madness” – rebuilding and economic development are its exclusive focus, with literally no consideration of climate change, sea level rise, extreme weather events, natural resources, land use planning, or coastal vulnerability.

There are no public hearings on the Governor’s Plan and the public has just 7 days to review and comment on the plan under federal HUD regulations. Comments may be submitted until 5pm on March 19, 2013 via email to Sandy.Recovery@dca.state.nj.us

We will be doing a more in depth review, but for now, let me just make a few brief points, mostly about what the Governor’s plan does not include.

1. There is virtually no public involvement or legislative oversight

The Governor claims that he developed the plan with “stakeholder” involvement:

The proposed Action Plan incorporates input from Sandy-impacted communities and stakeholder groups whose engagement will continue throughout the State’s recovery, rebuilding and restoration process.

Will all those stakeholders out there please raise your hands?

Senator Beck (R-Monmouth) publicly stated several times that she was meeting with the Governor and his Rebuild Czar on developing the plan, but I must have missed the legislative hearings on the Governor’s plan.

2. There is no planning in the “Plan”

Although HUD regulations target the most impacted counties and eligible uses of funds, States have broad discretion in how they propose to spend the money.

The Governor’s Action Plan is critical, because it lays out NJ’s framework, goals, objectives and recommendations for “long term recovery “.

The Governor is proposing to retain unilateral executive branch control of this planning process, with no legal or policy framework, legislative oversight, or structured planning process:

The State, through DCA and in coordination with the Governor’s Office of Recovery and Rebuilding and relevant State departments, will coordinate planning activities with communities statewide to ensure that the long-term planning process benefits New Jersey citizens and meets HUD CDBG-DR objectives.

The Governor’s long term recovery plan does not even mention the natural resources of the coastal zone – there are two content free sentences that mention the huge set of issues involving coastal hazards, natural resources, and adaptation planning:

… the State will undertake and promote hazard mitigation techniques and programs and seek to utilize green technologies and practices where doing so is feasible and cost effective.

.. efforts will be made to balance the need to preserve open space and promote sustainable communities.

Aside from allocating no money to support these objectives and the fact that they conflict with the rest of the plan, just what the hell does that mean?

The Governor’s unilateral “plan” is foreclosing options and determining the future of the shore.

That is one of the best reasons for the Legislature to create a Coastal Commission to replace this federal funds fueled Rebuild Madness.

3. There are no priorities in the “Plan”

The money is allocated under the NJ plan on a “first come, first served” basis, within the 9 most impacted counties targeted by HUD. That is the antithesis of planning.

Planning requires establishment of goals, objectives, and priorities and a geographic expression of policy.

The Governor has set no priorities, or risk based methods, or geographic targeting, or a planning process to assure the most effective use of funds for recovery and rebuilding and long term economic and ecological health of the shore region.

Section 3 outlines disaster relief and long-term recovery activities, focusing on the reconstruction and rehabilitation of primary residences and rental properties, assisting small businesses and promoting economic revitalization, and restoring critical infrastructure. Within each area, the State will focus on meeting the needs of low and moderate income populations and the most impacted counties as identified by HUD.

The geographic targeting implicit in the plan is based solely on the severity of damage to a structure, not whether the structure is highly vulnerable, located in a hazardous zone, or has suffered repeat flooding events.

All we see are vague assertions, like this:

Per HUD guidance (FR-5696-N-01), New Jersey’s Action Plan must account for and address sea level rise. New Jersey will incorporate, where applicable, appropriate mitigation measures and floodplain management throughout proposed programs. 

Or huge loopholes, like this:

No funds will be used for activities in areas delineated as a Special Flood Hazard Area in FEMA’s most current flood advisory maps unless it also ensures that the action is designed or modified to minimize harm to, or within, the floodplain. 

Or absolute bullshit like this:

Citizen participation is an essential component of the State’s planning effort. The State strongly encourages public participation to identify community needs. Citizens and other stakeholders are given an opportunity for reasonable and timely access to information and comment period relating to the Action Plan, any ensuing substantial amendments

The State has been in constant communication with its residents, local leaders, and other stakeholders since prior to Superstorm Sandy’s landfall. This continuous outreach has helped identify the needs and priorities of the many communities affect

4. There are no performance metrics in the Plan

HUD regulations require that States include metrics to evaluate the performance of expenditure of federal funds. The Christie plan fails to do that – despite, Mr. Metrics over at NJ DEP:

• Recreate NY Smart Home Buyout Program – $171 million:

•  Certain areas are at high risk for repeated flooding, causing damage to homes and risking the lives of residents and emergency responders. To reduce those risks and provide residents with an opportunity to leave their properties, New York State will offer voluntary Buyouts for homes that were:
• substantially damaged inside the 500-year flood plain, or
• located within designated buyout areas where damage occurred and where property may be susceptible to future damage due to sea level rise and other factors. These enhanced buyout areas will be selected in consultation with county and local government officials.
• In very high risk areas, there will be a prohibition on rebuilding and these areas will be used as buffer zones. Under the States proposal, and subject to approval by HUD, re-development of property outside of the100-year floodplain that is acquired through a buyout would be permitted, so long as the new structure is built to mitigate future flood impact. Homeowners will be notified if they are eligible for a buyout after HUD has approved this plan.

Homeowners eligible for a buyout will receive the full pre-storm fair market value for their home up to the FHA loan limit. An incentive of up to 5% will also be offered to families that relocate within their home county or borough.

INFRASTRUCTURE BANK

New York State will create a dedicated infrastructure bank to help coordinate infrastructure development and investment across the disaster region. An initial capitalization of $20 million from the first allocation of CDBG-DR funds will be combined with State funds and committed to financing eligible infrastructure projects that apply for assistance through the Bank. The Bank will benefit New York by introducing a centralized approach to infrastructure related decision making rather than a project-by-project, agency specific process. The focus of the Bank’s investments will be on projects that increase the resiliency of the area’s infrastructure to withstand future threats or provide redundancy of critical systems. It is expected that the Bank will be funded with up to $200 million dollars through subsequent allocation rounds or such other amount to be jointly determined with HUD.

The Bank will take several steps to carry out these goals, including developing a system for prioritizing infrastructure projects and initiatives, providing a centralized approach to the State’s infrastructure planning process, managing State recovery funds for infrastructure and other sources of capital, negotiating opportunities for private sector investment in infrastructure and financing approved projects. The planning processes and expertise of the New York Works Task Force will be embedded into the Bank’s functions.

The Bank may make use of funds from several sources, including federally allocated recovery funds, diverted or created revenue, proceeds from the sale of long-term debt and credit enhancements with other state entities. In addition, the Bank will work with both public and private investors to raise funds to finance infrastructure developments. An advantage that the Bank will have is the ability to combine several sources of funds (e.g., Federal funds with private funds) to finance projects as effectively as possible. The Bank will showcase potential projects to engage the private sector in opportunities for investment in infrastructure.

COMMUNITY RECONSTRUCTION ZONES PROGRAM

New York State will establish the Community Reconstruction Zone (CRZ) program to facilitate community-driven planning to rebuild and revitalize severely damaged communities. The State anticipates allocating approximately $25 million from this first allocation to provide planning grants to communities that suffered community-wide impacts. Later allocations will be used to implement final CRZ plans. The planning grants will facilitate the retention of outside experts as consultants to a participating community’s planning committee, as well as the completion of critical studies to determine the key vulnerabilities and needs of the community. The State will provide information and guidance to the committees to assist them in identifying and using such outside resources effectively and efficiently. It is anticipated that the CRZ program will be funded up to $500 million or such amount to be jointly determined with HUD.

RESILIENCE RETROFIT FUND FOR CRITICAL FACILITIES

Energy-related mitigation is critical for essential services facilities including, in particular, hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities for vulnerable populations. Many essential services facilities did not have backup power systems or had ineffective backup systems that failed during the storm. As a result of this, numerous facilities had to evacuate patients which posed a greater risk to those patients than allowing them to remain in place during the storm.

To address this critical need, New York State will establish the Resilience and Retrofit Fund. The State anticipates allocating approximately $30 million from this first allocation of CDBG-DR funding to provide credit enhancement or leverage for private-sector financing of energy-related mitigation projects.

[Update #1- A friend just sent me a note with an excerpt of the following provisions of the Plan. They are a perfect illustration of how well meaning people can be duped by unfunded aspirational rhetoric, weasel words and loopholes. The plan is full of them: (emphases mine)

Reconstruction Standard: When applicable, replacement and new construction

will meet the 2009 Residential International Code and the green building standards

by requiring compliance with ENERGY STAR™.

Rehabilitation Standard: When applicable, the programs will adhere to the

following housing rehabilitation standards:

 The State of New Jersey’s Uniform Construction Code

 The Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Standard provided by the program

 The HUD CPD Green Building Retrofit checklist

All reconstruction, new construction and rehabilitation must be designed to

incorporate principles of sustainability, including water and energy efficiency,

resilience, and mitigating the impact of future disasters.

Obviously, the “when applicable” is determinative, because the standards in question are voluntary, e.g. “not applicable”. This is meaningless and manipulative bullshit.

Equally, the “principles” of sustainability, including water and energy efficiency, resilience, and mitigating the impact of future disasters are so vague as to be impossible to operationalize and implement. Again, weasel words.

Had I drafted this Plan, here’s how it would have read:

“In implementing the energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals of the NJ Global Warming Response Act, the State shall subject all federally funded projects to the following building standards: 

And backed those standards and program up with real money.

This plan fails to leverage the federal money to expand the scope of and secure “beyond regulatory compliance”.

[Update #2 – I am under no illusions on NY’s Plan, which is based on education and also is cost-effective voluntary initiatives:

As part of this effort, the Statewillcreate the Smart Rebuild NYS public awareness and educational campaign to provide homeowners, businesses, municipalities, organizations and building professionals with quality up-to-date information and instruction to facilitate the rebuilding of homes and properties and protect them from future extreme weather events and climate change. This multi-faceted outreach campaign will inform the public on how best to rebuild to protect homes and properties. The campaign will provide guidance onmandatory code requirements as well as cost-effective voluntary initiatives that go beyond the minimum code requirements to save homeowners money and better protect them from future natural disasters.

[Update: 3/29/13 – this Star Ledger story confims my analysis of the reimbursement risk issue – but why didn’t the Star Ledger report that they had to file an OPRA to get the Lauternberg letter to Christie? As written, it makes it seem like Lautenberg or FEMA leaked it for political reasons, but the truth is that the Gov. is stonewalling legislators and media:

FEMA warned Christie administration that AshBritt contract could jeopardize federal funding

TRENTON — The Federal Emergency Management Agency warned the Christie administration just days after Hurricane Sandy that its decision to award a no-bid contract to a politically connected firm to haul away debris could jeopardize maximum federal reimbursement for towns, The Star-Ledger has learned.

end update]

Charlie Stile’s column today on the AshBritt hearing surprised me and because I listened to that hearing, it prompts me to respond, see:  AshBritt’s CEO didn’t need to back down from Democrats.

This column was a surprise, especially coming from a newspaper with a rich tradition and stellar record on investigating, exposing, and slamming political corruption (from the Whitman “Open for Business” series to Encap to Xanadu).

Charlie missed a few things, so I thought I’d weigh in.

1. The headline and premise of the piece may be Trenton State House conventional wisdom, but it is just flat out wrong.

As Charlie notes, Ashbritt CEO Perkins was offensive in his disrespectful and arrogant attack on Senator Buono.

But, Charlie doesn’t mention the fact that Senator Weinberg took him to task for it and that Perkins apologized. Profusely.

This apology flat out contradicts the headline, but is a critically important point for at least two reasons:

First, with respect to the AshBritt contract, all that arrogance and attack cuts no ice with FEMA or the Obama Administration, who will make the reimbursement decisions.

FEMA is on record denying Perkins’ claim that FEMA “blessed” the contract. The FEMA regulations provide a basis to deny full reimbursement. There are facts out there right now that suggest that prices were not reasonable. Politically, the Obama people could play hardball.

Perkins knows all this and was whistling past the graveyard.

His assertion that there was “zero chance” that FEMA would not fully reimburse municipalities was flat out contradicted by his later rejection of a question about whether AshBritt would have been willing to negotiate and indemnify towns for this risk. If the risk were truly zero, why would AshBritt refuse to assume it?  Again, something Charlie does not report.

Second, in a larger political sense, the Christie macho attack dog style is not going to play well in the campaign with Buono, an attractive and articulate woman (think of the dynamic in the Massachusetts US Senate race: Scott Brown and the winner, Elizabeth Warren. NJ is a lot more like Massachusetts culturally and politically than the Christie/Perkins faux macho world).

The old boy sexism reeks and the public – not just women – will see right through it.

So, Mr. Perkins’ attacks foreshadow a losing campaign style, should Christie continue down the Christie Demagogue path.

2. I have been writing that the AshBritt scandal is just the tip of the iceburg of the real Sandy story.

Had Charlie been listening carefully to the opening statement by his paper’s hometown Senator, Senator Gordon, he would have seen the contours of this larger scandal – i.e. the LACK OF PREPARATION.

Of course, that’s a complex policy oriented story that’s difficult to fit in a State House political column, but there are many more shoes to drop on incompetence in high places. The NJ Transit story is just one of many that could be written. There are skeletons in lots of closets. 

3. Charlie’s failure to condemn AshBritt and Christie evasions and obfuscations is effectively rewarding Gov. Christie’s veil of secrecy and refusal to surrender documents and comply with Public Records laws.

At a time when the Legislative Brach is contemplating subpoena power, it is unusual, to say the least, for a newspaper to reward that kind of behavior by the Executive Branch.

4. Charlie missed several important issues that were brought out in the hearing.

Gov. Christie is trying desperately to divert attention from all that, with this remark:

“Nothing we found out was new,” Christie said. “Nobody brought out anything about any concerns about the quality of the work that was done.

But important new things WERE found.

Governor Christie has basically two arguments to support the high cost no bid AshBritt contact:

a) There was no time for bidding – the AshBritt no bid contract was necessary to get the job done quickly; (Perkins even falsely suggested that negotiation of contract terms was flat out prohibited by federal regulations); and

b) AshBritt experience with FEMA would guarantee that municipalities that signed on would be fully reimbursed.  In fact, Christie sold Ashbritt to towns on this reimbursement risk basis:

“The risk is, as I said at the time, if you don’t use one of these companies who are experienced in dealing with FEMA paperwork and the FEMA bureaucracy, that if you don’t make your request right, you’re not going to get reimbursed” Christie said.  ~~~ Asbury Park Press, 2/28/13 quoting Christie’s remarks of 2/5/13 at Union Beach

But the hearing testimony destroyed both those arguments:

a) The Gov. could have negotiated better contract terms. He is authorized to negotiate without bidding under NJ law. The Gov. could have gotten lower prices in the same amount of time it took to execute the AshBritt contract. Perkins was forced to concede this point by Assemblyman Burzichelli’s questioning, an important fact that again Charlie ignores; and

b) Because the “piggyback” on Connecticut contract is discouraged by FEMA rules and because the actual Connecticut contract costs have been shown to be significantly above actual market rates in NJ, towns now bear the risks of making up unreasonable AshBritt costs by not receiving full FEMA reimbursement.

5. Charlie drank Senator Kyrillos’ Kool-Aid on Christie’s lack of preparation.

Several Gulf and coastal states, with high storm vulnerability, have contracts and procedures in place BEFORE any storm hits. They are prepared.

Not NJ.

To cover up this lack of preparation, Kyrillos spun that there were 43 other states that do not have these contracts in place. Charlie repeats that feeble spin:

Yes, New Jersey might have saved money if it had competitively bid its own contract months, maybe even years ago, instead of “piggybacking” on the terms of Connecticut’s contract. But if New Jersey failed to take that precautionary step, it was not alone — 43 other states also do not have a statewide, storm-debris contract.

Does North Dakota need a coastal storm debris removal contract?

NJ has 120+ miles of highly vulnerable coast line. We’ve experienced devastating storms – most recently Irene – and experts have warned for years about our high vulnerability –  we are not like the land locked states, so Kyrillos is a fool.

If Charlie were listening closely to the testimony or had an ear for public policy, he would have heard AshBritt explain why NJ did not have a State contract in place.

Senator Weinberg asked AshBritt why their marketing strategy in NJ focused on local government contracts and why there was no Statewide contract in place.

AshBritt responded that some states (i.e. NJ) view this as a local responsibility, not a State responsibility.

Christie has outsourced or delegated these State responsibilities – that is a huge policy issue.

So, neither Christie nor AshBritt can be confident that this is anywhere near over. And they know it.

(especially if Senator Gordon and media follow up on the far more important issue of lack of preparation and flaws in response – issues Gordon outlined in is opening remarks.) 

PS – the allusion to Tom Petty’s classic was a hugely unfortunate way to fail to call out corruption:

Well I know what’s right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin’ me around
But I’ll stand my ground and I won’t back down