NJ Spent $330 Million To Buy Toxic Sites “Patently Unsuitable” For Schools
Poor and Minority Kids Ripped Off and Exposed To Toxic Risks
The scandal ridden former Schools Construction Corp (SCC) – allegedly reformed and renamed the Schools Development Authority (SDA) – is back in the news, see today’s NJ Spotlight story.
Once again, patronage and political scandal drive out any focus on policy.
Specifically, once again, news coverage ignores the SCC/SDA’s corrupt practice of purchasing toxic waste sites – including a radioactive former Manhattan Project site and a Superfund site – for new schools in low income and minority “Abbott” school districts.
This is the grandmother of racist “environmental injustice“, whereby scare public funds ordered by the NJ Supreme Court and designed by the Legislature to equalize educational resources and opportunities in what Rutgers/UCLA Report described as “NJ’s Apartheid and Intensely Segregated Urban Schools” were instead wasted on the purchase and “cleanup” of toxic waste sites.
This corrupt practice not only diverted scarce public educational resources intended to benefit poor and minority kids to corporate landowners and a panoply of politically connected lawyers and cleanup consultants, it put vulnerable childrens’ health at risk.
In the height of cynicism – and often at the request of local officials seeking to preserve “clean” lands for development that produced tax ratables – these toxic sites knowingly were purchased and cleaned up with public funds, thereby reducing the corporate polluters’ legal and economic responsibility to spend millions of dollars to clean them up and freeing up other lands for development.
We spent a lot of time calling out that corruption, over a decade ago, e.g. for one of several, see:
We also exposed a secret deal between the Schools Construction Corp (SCC) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to expedite the DEP’s review and approval of toxic waste sites for school construction, with no public disclosure or public process so that communities could participate in SCC and DEP decisions that impact the health of their children.
Today’s NJ Spotlight story is based on and focuses on a September 30, 2020 report by the State Commission of Investigation. That SCI Report was not linked to the Spotlight story, so readers can find it here.
In scanning the SCI Report, I noticed that it once again also ignores the contaminated land issues.
Worse, the SCI report essentially normalizes these corrupt practices by making “site remediation” appear to be a legitimate component of the schools construction program. SCR Report stated (@ page 7):
This landmark series of rulings eventually led to the adoption of the Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act in 2001, which authorized up to $12.5 billion in taxpayer-funded bonds to fund remediation and construction projects across the state. 7
The SCI equated remediation with school construction.
But in reviewing the 2000 legislation that created the school construction program, it appears that “site remediation” costs are only authorized for “demonstration projects” (see Section 6, the only section of the law that mentions “site remediation”).
How could something this huge be not only glossed over, but actually factually misrepresented by SCI?
So, I fired off this quick note to SCI – I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer from SCI, but perhaps the current focus on “environmental justice” might prompt media or advocacy interest in this set of long ignored issues:
The SCI 9/30/20 Report states:
“This landmark series of rulings eventually led to the adoption of the Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act in 2001, which authorized up to $12.5 billion in taxpayer-funded bonds to fund remediation and construction projects across the state. 7 ”
However, P.L. 2000, c.72 authorizes costs for “site remediation” only for “demonstration projects” (see Section 6).
This raises questions, particularly as a former SCC official publicly stated in the press (Star Ledger, I believe) that millions of dollars were on acquisition of contaminated sites that were “patently unsuitable” for schools:
1. How was the SCC/SDA allowed to bond for, contract for, and expend over $330 million for acquisition of contaminated sites and “site remediation” costs?
2. Why was there no SCI investigation and legislative reform of the SCCC/SDA land acquisition practices regarding siting criteria, due diligence, and restrictions on purchase of known contaminated sites?
3. Why was DEP allowed to enter into an agreement (MOU) with SCC to expedite the DEP review and approval of contaminated sites (with no public process), given the narrow scope of authorization of “site remediation” costs to a “demonstration project”?
I’d appreciate your response to these questions at your earliest.
I am a retired DEP planner.
Bill Wolfe