WolfeNotes.com

Another Flawed and Politicized Grant Program

Vague grant award criteria and murky review process invite political manipulation

Allocation of Federal Sandy Energy Funds Totally Under The Control of Gov. Christie

Source: NJ Spotlight (3/5/14)

“The Governor’s scoring spreadsheet looks more like a game of bureaucratic bingo than a rational, need-based selection process,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, noting the abrupt termination of the state’s main contractor and the growing uncertainty over distribution of Sandy money. “Many of these requests were virtually identical, yet a few were accepted while many others rejected. No wonder our mayors are confused and suspicious.”  ~~~ PEER Press Release, Feb. 3, 2014

A little over a month since we broke the story and released the data and scoring methodology, see:  JERSEY SANDY ENERGY GRANT AWARDS RAISE MORE QUESTIONS – Hazard Mitigation Funding Criteria Ignores Municipal Need and Hazard Severity,  NJ Spotlight’s Scott Gurian today writes on how the Christie Administration chose to distribute $25 million in Hazard Mitigation Grant funds, see:

• INVESTIGATION REVEALS SANDY ENERGY GRANT PROGRAM RIDDLED WITH ERRORS – Hoboken, state’s largest cities appear to have been shortchanged aid money

Listen to the WNYC version:

Does Christie Owe Hoboken $700,000?

In a lengthy piece that Gurian obviously did a lot of work on –  thankfully he gave us credit as the source of the documents [but really doesn’t quite admit that we broke and gave him the complete story]  – to his credit, Gurian got down into the weeds and confirmed our general and specific findings.

Gurian wrote:

The process used to allocate funds, however, provides a window on the Christie administration’s handling of Sandy recovery money. Questions about the integrity of the scoring data appear to extend beyond a few errant numbers to structural issues concerning the methodologies used in the ranking process.

The problems run much deeper than just Hoboken. Many errors were discovered after only a cursory review of the data, and their occurrence is too varied and numerous to easily overlook.

A review of the initial scoring highlights many municipalities receiving unequal treatment, and anomalies such as Nutley — which had comparatively little damage from Sandy or past storms — getting a significant mitigation grant of $556,240, while places like Atlantic City and Belmar weren’t awarded any funding at all.

To be clear, the $25 million Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Energy Allocation Initiative — the focus of this investigation — is only a small fraction of the overall Sandy aid money, but it’s one of the few grants given directly to local municipalities. And it’s also one of the few over which the Christie administration has complete control.

Just as we noted, the methodology and allocation of money did not reflect need and risk (or vulnerability).

Highly vulnerable cities and towns that suffered great damage got screwed, while others with little risk or damage were granted hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So, one of the Sandy programs the Christie Administration actually fully controls, they totally fucked up.

No wonder the Governor is trying to blame the federal government for the chaos and corruption now being exposed by media.

Saving the best for last, Gurian presents a critically important part of the story at the very end. Makes sure you get there!

This part of the story also is based upon documents and sources we provided.

In addition to the spreadsheets and scoring methodology, we gave WNYC reporters internal memos and emails between Gov. Christie’s Sandy Cazar Mark Furzan and BPU, DEP, and the private group Sustainable NJ.

Those documents provided detailed evidence that the Gov.’s Office of Inter-Governmental Affairs (that’s the outfit run by Bridget Kelly, who was fired by Christie for her role in the Bridgegate scandal) was involved in the grant program.

Kelly’s Office was coordinating a political effort – beginning on October 8, less than a month before the election – to notify towns that received grants (press releases followed, so we assume that they were part of the Kelly campaign).

Additional evidence we provided to WNYC suggested that Christie loyalist,  Senator O’Toole, must have gotten a confidential heads up from the Governor’s Office because he was in the know and issued a press release on October 9.

Assembly Republicans didn’t issue their press release until weeks later.

And it appears that Democrats were carved out – suggesting not only that the Gov. was using federal grant money for his own political electoral interests, but that there were larger partisan advantages too.

As we wrote:

Documents show that:

• the Gov.’s Office called towns that received grants early in October 2013, less than a month before the election
• efforts were made to restrict “bad news”, i.e. information from towns that did not receive grants and the public until after the election
• a private non-profit corporate funded group was used for “outreach” to the towns regarding the grants program
• the allocation of funds was not based on need and did not follow any rational plan or transparent planning process

Gurian implies some of this in a round about and diplomatic quote from former DEP Commissioner Mark Mauriello:

“Whenever you see these things, you don’t know the subjectivity of who’s populating these columns and these boxes,” he said, “And obviously, the more of these columns you have, the more opportunities you have to check off a box and add weight or points to a certain proposal. It just seems to me that this thing by nature creates a lot of opportunity to really make funding decisions that might not be in the best interest of the state.”

In other words, political decisions.

The kind Governor Christie is now notorious for.

This about sums things up:

A spokesman for the city of Hoboken released a statement in response to NJ Spotlight’s findings. “This investigation adds to the growing body of evidence that the Christie Administration’s process of distributing Sandy funds has been flawed, politicized, and subject to abuse,” it said.

Ironies and Echoes of Nixon Go Way Beyond Corruption

With corruption and scandal breaking out all over the place, I must say I’m amazed at how little grasp the media has in the underlying historical, ideological, policy, and administrative causes of the problems and how little good analysis is being presented to the public.

Don’t get me wrong, the multiple scandal investigations and coverage are terrific – but the governing and policy issues have been ignored.

Perpetuation of that cycle will assure that we learn exactly nothing from the many mistakes now being made and that no real reforms will even be considered.

In the latest episode, today, the NY Times – building on the work of WNYC and the Bergen Record – lays out another scathing indictment of David Samson and Governor Christie, see:  

• In Job, Appointee Profits and Christie Gains Power

At the same time, the Star Ledger editorializes about the latest Port Authority scandal, see:

• Chris Christie and the latest Port Authority scam.

So, in this context, it is rather shocking that NJ Spotlight’s Scott Gurian weighs in with an ahistorical and uncritical “Explainer” of the Sandy funding programs, see:  EXPLAINER: WHERE SANDY AID MONEY COMES FROM AND HOW IT WORKS

The HUD CDBG program is like the crack cocaine of scandal and abuse.

The Gov.’s plan for use of that CDGB money creates several “slush finds”, with poorly defined objectives, no regulatory safeguards, lack of transparency , no public involvement, and no specific projects identified (e.g. take a peek at the $220 million “Energy Resilience” program – which Gurian should be all over because he wrote about a similarly screwed up $25 million program).

So, I fired this comment off, which I assume will be deleted:

A Wolfenotes “explainer”:

1. The media is just beginning to understand what “discretion” means with respect to allocation of public funds –

(lots of money) + (lots of discretion) + (little public oversight) = lots of political abuse and corruption.

That’s the story coming out of the Port Authority and related scandals.

The Star Ledger openly calls the result a “political slush fund”.

2. The HUD CDBG program was designed to maximize the discretion of the State Gov., while minimizing federal oversight and abandoning the radical 1960’s concept of “maximum feasible public participation”.

That is a simple historical fact of the CDBG program, established in 1974, at the direction of the Nixon Administration (but signed by Ford after Nixon resigned).

The CDBG program was a Republican driven reaction to the Johnson Administration’s multiple individual entitlement programs of the Great Society.

Those programs operated under federal formula, were subject to federal oversight, and were distributed directly to cities, typically under the control of Democratic urban machines. Citizens were provided “maximum feasible participation” in the administration of these programs.

Conservative Republicans hated ALL of that.

They viewed Johnson’s Great Society just as they do today’s remainder of the New Deal and welfare state – as undeserved entitlement for dependent freeloaders.

They hated a strong federal role and wanted state control.

They hated “bureaucratic regulations” and demanded discretion.

They hated democratic grassroots participation and wanted authoritarian control.

They hated urban america and they wanted more money allocated to suburban and rural areas.

Lots of racism operated in motivations.

So here we are.

And that’s the kind of explanation that can lead to real change.

The Tyranny of Low Expectations Shrinks Any Real Sandy Rebuild Debate

“Don’t Make Waves” Attitude A Grossly Irresponsible Abdication

Spending a quarter a billion dollars on a barrier island highway – “fortified” by sea walls – is the epitome of folly

“The reality is that, in a couple of decades, I don’t think we’re going to be talking about the issues regarding Highway 12 because it’s not going to be there anymore,” said Robert Young, director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University. “The idea that we are going to keep that highway there – it’s just not going to happen.” […]

Barrier islands can be as ephemeral as dreams. Early residents knew that. They lived on the back side of the islands, away from waves and erosion, and were prepared to move their houses as necessary. ~~~  NATURE’S TOLL ROAD – Rebuilding N.C. 12 threatens the Outer Banks’ existence (read the whole thing – a 4 part series).

Instead of Highway 12, just insert Rt. 35. [Yes, I realize that erosion is far more severe on the Outer Banks than in NJ.]

This is the debate from North Carolina about development on barrier islands that is simply being ignored in NJ.

Instead of a science based effort to plan for the future of NJ’s barrier islands, we get surrender from the so called “environmental critics” of the Christie Administration’s plan to spend $265 million to rebuild a highly vulnerable barrier island roadway that was wiped out by Superstorm Sandy:

“If you do it right, it could be self-sustaining,” said Bennett, who works with private developers to design projects using hardy trees and shrubs that require little water and maintenance. The model for landscaping a coastal highway lies just beyond the south end of Route 35, Bennett says — in the northern natural area of Island Beach State Park, where red cedar trees, hollies and bayberry line the roadway. […]

DeCamp admits that politically the promise to put everything back in place after Sandy is powerful:“The mood of the public is, don’t make waves.” ~~~   Critics: DOT ignoring environmental concerns

What?

First of all it’s our job as professionals and advocates to “make waves”.

But much more importantly: You can’t build a highway on a barrier island and “do it right” and it can never be “self sustaining”.

Numerous other inlets opened and closed along the islands, but nobody much cared because the residents traveled by boat.

Then came the 1900s and the rise of the automobile. The islands had no paved roads – in fact, all of Dare County had no paved roads – but boats brought vehicles to the islands, and soon the Midgett family had started a bus service, driving up and down the sand to carry islanders to the ferry that crossed Oregon Inlet. Four-car ferries started running between Hatteras, Ocracoke and the mainland.

Ironically, this “Don’t make waves” attitude comes at a time when the federal government is beginning to consider coastal processes and understand the nature of coastal risks and is beginning to shift national policy to adapt to vulnerabilities and design more “resilient” communities.

Federal policy now includes incentives to abandon development, to discouraging  rebuilding on, and to purchase high hazard and environmentally sensitive coastal lands.

How lame is it that President Obama’s Executive Order and HUD CDBG regulations have more vision and backbone than NJ’s coastal advocates seem to be able to muster? [calls to landscape a roadway with native vegetation is setting a remarkably low bar].

As I’ve written here for a long time, NJ’s failure to plan for transportation, land use, and overall coastal management in the wake of Sandy originates in Governor Christie’s emotional reaction and pledge to rebuild everything virtually in place as it was before the storm.

The Christie policy of more pumping more sand on the beach, construction of artificial dunes (currently mostly just piles of sand), and partial elevation of rebuilt homes is a costly short term approach that provides a false sense of “safety” and invites even larger future tragedies.

Spending a quarter of a billion dollars on reconstruction of a barrier island highway – “fortified” by sea walls – is the epitome of folly.

The Gov. has made “strategic retreat” a taboo topic of public discussion.

Even relatively minor transportation and land use changes like a smaller footprint for Rt. 35, more investment in bicycles and pedestrian modes of travel, and redesign of communities are not on the agenda.

Major reforms like a ferry and public transit system and no more cars on the barrier islands are viewed as hopelessly utopian.

As I’ve noted, from a regulatory perspective, the “right to rebuild” storm damaged private property provision of CAFRA – greatly magnified by DEP Commissioner Martin’s Order to deregulate rebuilding of public infrastructure – have blocked any public planning process for NJ’s coast (as has opposition to a bill to create a new Coastal Commission to do this planning).

The Christie Administration’s coastal policy has been driven exclusively by the huge economic development interests  – real estate, not science and planning.

The economic interests have seized on that policy – including the press – in a way that makes any real public discussion of planning impossible.

And nothing will begin to change until the coastal advocates can grow a spine and say this publicly.

Of course, when the next Sandy hits, I guarantee Congress will not open the federal treasury to bail NJ out again.

Then, maybe if the private sector real estate interests have to assume all the risks with no public subsidy, they will think a little harder about “rebuild madness”.

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight wrote a story today on the “prescribed burn” bill that moved out of an Assembly Committee last week, see:  LAWMAKERS LOOKING TO KEEP WILDFIRES FROM SETTING NJ WOODLANDS ABLAZE

I testified in oppostion to that bill and wrote about it as well, see: NJ Forests and Air Quality At Risk From Pending Legislation (scroll down for prescribed burn bill portion)

I sense that Tom is feeling a little burned by the GWB air monitoring story I worked with him on, and therefore felt somewhat reluctant to include my criticisms of the bill.

So, to clarify some of the issues that were muddled in that Spotlight story and to keep his readers informed about the serious flaws in the bill, I fired off this comment (which isn’t going to make me any more friends over at Spotlight!):

The NJ Forest Fire Service already has requirements in place for prescribed burns, which require a plan prior to execution:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/fire/prescribed_burning.htm

The big changes made by the Dancer bill (A1275) are: 1) to reduce liability standards for those conducting burns; 2) to narrow common law nuisance and trespass to exempt smoke from burns; 3) to allow Fire Marshall to conduct burns on private property without the private landowner’s consent; and 4) to exempt prescribed burns from the the State Air Pollution Control Act [and eliminate DEP’s ability to enforce air pollution violations, no matter how much smoke results from a burn and what the impacts are on air quality and public health].

Private conservation groups testified that they would like to conduct prescribed burns on their property, but can not do so because they can not get insurance. They can not get insurance because burns are dangerous and risky business.

The bill would alleviate that “problem” by reducing liability standards and harming victims’ ability to be compensated for any damages caused by a prescribed burn that got out of control. THAT REDUCES SAFETY INCENTIVES AND IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

[The death of a fireman during a prescribed burn last year at round Valley Reservoir sheds new light on these risks, see: Prosecutor: Thick smoke blinds driver who hit, killed N.J. fireman at Round Valley].

I am no private property rights advocate, but the notion that the State Fire Marshall can trespass on private property and conduct a burn on that property without the consent of and even over the objection of the private landowner is absurd.

Last, the bill would expand burns to north jersey forests, where the ecological rationale is far weaker than in the Pinelands and where air pollution, public health, safety, and nuisance impacts are greatly magnified due to high population density nearby.

Do the residents of north jersey know that the State – or even private landowners – could conduct burns that smoke you out of your home or send your children to the hospital with an asthma attack and you would have no recourse to stop that burn or to sue to recover damages you suffer?

This bill needs to be limited to the Pinelands and the liability, common law, and air pollution provisions eliminated.

BTW< Tittel OPPOSED the bill in testimony before the Committee.

BTW #2 – The Farm Bureau is dead wrong on how DEP is supposed to manage risk.

 Port Authority Manipulation Echoes the Pinelands and Sandy Recovery Funding debates

Before I finish the Bergen Record devastating story on the Christie/Cuomo Machiavellian political manipulations at the Port Authority and my head explodes completely, I need to get this posted.

[Note: Just reading that Record was not an exclusive: Star Ledger weighs in with a killer too.]

Exactlty the same “War Room” tactics were used in the recent Pinelands Pipeline Battle.

Pinelands Executive Director Nancy Wittenberg and John Valeri, lawyer from Wolff & Samson (who represented BL England power plant owner Rockland Capital) ran exactly the same goon style political campaign and used virtually identical tactics as Maggie Moran did here: (Record story):

Maggie Moran, then an employee of a large regional labor union led by a Port Authority commissioner, helped mobilize hundreds of union workers who flooded public hearings that were scheduled at times and places that made it difficult for the general public to attend. Drawing from scripted messages, laborers wearing orange T-shirts spoke favorably of the toll hikes at the hearings, providing Christie with a talking point.” 

[…]

But all of the people interviewed, some of whom were familiar with multiple toll increases going back decades, said they had never seen such a secretive campaign by the Port Authority, one that excluded many of the agency’s professional staff and manipulated the public hearing process. 

I wrote about some of these tactics in this post:

You Get Three Minutes – Then Sit Down and Shut Up

Similar arrogant and manipulative tactics were used in the Gov. recent $1.4 billion Sandy Recovery funding public hearing process, see:

The Public Reduced To Spectators At Christie “Mobile Cabinet” Performance on Sandy Recovery

.

Sandy Victims Blast Gov. Christie at Monmouth Public Hearing on $1.4 Billion Funding Plan

I will write a more in depth post after I read the entire Bergen Record article – the paragraph I excerpted above on Maggie Moran’s union public hearing scheme just stopped me dead in my tracks and the echoes of the Pinelands and Sandy debates are still wringing in my ears.

[End Note: and for a point of comparison of this gross political manipulation of the public hearing process, does anyone recall Gov. Corzine’s toll hike plan and the public hearing process for that? I do – take a look at that: The Many Faces of Jon Corzine 

Yesterday, I attended the Mercer County public hearing on the Governor’s toll plan. In my view, press accounts have not portrayed the complexity of the issues, the process, or the people involved. Bowing to the yahoo “pigs fly” faction of NJ 101.5 talk radio, media accounts have failed to honor or convey the dignity of the democratic deliberations (at least the hearing in Mercer). As they say, a picture is worth a thousands words – photo’s convey more subtle meanings lost in the dominant media narrative.

Corzine showed humility and the public was treated with dignity and respect – take a look – and I wonder if Assemblyman O’Scanlon and Senator Beck – who were in this photo and attacked the Corzine plan – would defend their Governor Christie now.

public comment during Corzine toll hearing (Feb. 9, 2008)